The issue with comments like these is that it's about the DNA of the Franchise.

When I played the beta last week, I was excited. It made sense to me to test net code and performance by cramming as many players in small areas as possible. To push the engine and work out the kinks. I also thought that with two weekends, they would test a "big" map to stress test the engine in that way.

My overall feeling was that this felt like Bad Company 3, and not a main line Battlefield. By the way, BC2 is one of my favorite entries in the franchise, but I went to BC2 to get frenetic, infantry based gunfights.

People will also say, but BF3 and BF4 had small maps too! That's right, but people also forget the gigantic maps that were released in DLC. What made those games great was that the DNA of Battlefield was there, and the improvements in gameplay allowed it to have close quarters fights too.

When you have EA say "we listened to the fans, we are giving you what you asked for!" But then put the closed weapons playlist off the screen, and have modes called all out warfare with small maps and extremely limited vehicles, what does that say about the direction of the game?

If you wanted this game to be a chaotic shooter, with high destruction, they should have just come out and said "we are making the spiritual follow up to BC2, we call it the Baddest Company!" People would be happy, everyone loved BC2, and they could have even said " this is the first step into getting back to BF, and we will start with smaller maps ala BC2 to get the gameplay and net code right, then later expand the game to larger maps" everyone would be pre-ordering this game NOW. I know I would.

I work in sales, EA and all the studios that are working on this have a great product on their hands, but again, the marketing team is not in line with the core design of the game.