![[../_site-assets/What is my Battlefield - A Battlefield Retrospect 1-4/head_sourcesBF5_4-2 1.jpg]] I’d be lying if I said I wrote this four-part retro for any reason other than to talk about Battlefield V and briefly touch on the Battlefield 6 beta class system. But to properly explore those topics, we need to take a few steps back and look at the franchise’s evolution during its modern era. I was only two years old when Battlefield 1942 released, so I wasn’t exactly in the mood back then. My own journey began later, with a dusty physical copy of Battlefield 2 I found at a car boot sale. I still remember long solo sessions with bots, ignoring vehicles entirely, just roaming around as Recon. It was the most stress-free and relaxing Battlefield experience I’ve ever had. Somewhere around the same time, I started to play the Battlefield: Bad Company 2 campaign without ever touching multiplayer. But the real turning point came with Battlefield 3, the game that justified my first newly custom-built PC. From then on, I played every major release with its DLC, skipping only 2042. ## **2002 - Battlefield 1942, 2 & 2142**  Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 & Battlefield 2142 set the tone: massive 64-player battles with ground & air vehicles, infantry classes with distinct roles that created a comprehensive and accessible cooperative sandbox. With its brand-new modern setting, Battlefield 2 came out two years before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and clearly represents the archetypal Battlefield experience that continues to this day. BF2142 experimented with a more dynamic game mode: Titan. The focus was clearly placed on scale and variety of situations within the sandbox. During these early days, classes evolved rapidly. BF1942 started with five, BF2 inflated the number to seven, and BF2142 streamlined the system to create the basic four classes that would become the staple of the series going forward. ## **2008 - Battlefield: Bad Company 1 & 2**  The Bad Company / Frostbite / Console era —name it as you see fit— which includes BF1943 (the BF1942 remake), focused on adapting the franchise to consoles with smaller scale yet more bombastic gameplay. The first Bad Company being a console exclusive feels wild the longer you think about it. This shift came with two major changes: - Narratively-driven solo campaigns - An emphasis on smaller, more intense combat with the arrival of Rush mode as the main game mode. Fewer players but a clear front line that focused combat with a more linear map design that accommodated this shift. There's a case to be made that these evolutions didn't feel like a logical continuation of Battlefield 2. The one element from this era that will be remembered as a staple of the series going forward is the environmental destruction provided by the Frostbite engine. ## **2011 - Battlefield 3**  I've always felt that arguing against Battlefield 3 by using Bad Company 2 as a standard for what a Battlefield SHOULD be is somewhat fallacious. As mentioned before, Bad Company is its own thing, an excellent console spin-off. Battlefield 3 marked a return to a more PC-centric experience that played like a modernized (and faster-paced) version of Battlefield 2. It was a massive leap in gameplay feel compared to what came before. The game tried to reunite the series under one title, with one notable caveat: the console experience. Battlefield 3 occupies a unique position that no other entry in the series shares. It serves as a reference point for defining modern Battlefield… primarily for PC players. It's Battlefield 4 that would become the more popular reference and the major one that resonated most with console players. Unlike its predecessor, the Battlefield 4 experience on PS4 and Xbox One didn't feel like a compromised version of the PC version. Instead, it offered a unified experience across all platforms. Looking at the PC versions from Battlefield 3 to V, the franchise doesn't undergo drastic philosophical changes. Instead, evolution feels much more incremental or thematic. In my opinion, at the time, Battlefield 3 successfully accommodated many player types, striking a balance between Battlefield 2, Bad Company 2, and the ongoing success of Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare series. An approach that Battlefield 6 will likely try to match and modernize. The Metro map encapsulates many of the core elements that define the game's philosophy. It focuses on infantry gameplay and tries to accommodate both Rush and Conquest modes—a role many based maps fulfilled better, in my opinion. Even in its DLC offerings, from the insane intensity of Close Quarters to the very large-scale maps of Armored Kill, you can clearly see the intention of offering something to every demographic. As a middle-ground player, I was content with this approach in Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 also introduced the idea that the series should push technological boundaries, cementing Frostbite's legend. It wasn't only about destruction anymore, but also raw visual fidelity. The game flexed some absurd muscle in its otherwise uninteresting campaign. A multiplayer mode with bots would have been much appreciated in my case. To conclude the Battlefield 3 section, I'll share my thoughts on its flawed iteration of the class system. As mentioned before, I don't mind abandoning the seven classes of Battlefield 2. Since a squad is a four-player unit, I think four classes is a better fit, giving each class more room to exercise its playstyle with utilities less spread thin across archetypes. My problem lies with balance. The Medic was by far the superior class, offering abundant utility, sustainability, and the most versatile set of weapons in the game. The Support class lacked any major utility, with ammunition being plentifully accessible, you could legitimately call it the "Suppression class" at this point. 50% of matches ended up being against M4A1 Medics. Much of the criticism about the "Call of Duty-fication" of the third entry likely stems from this unbalanced class system combined with the more infantry-focused maps in rotation. ## **2013 - Battlefield 4**  Battlefield 4 effectively closed the Bad Company era by relegating Rush mode to a secondary role, with Conquest reclaiming its place as the main attraction. Looking at the base game, Paracel Storm is the closest thing to a signature map: its island setting highlights the new boat combat and expanded swimming mechanics, all backed by vastly improved water rendering. The dynamic weather gives the map a strong identity, adding intensity and a sense of progression. The sinking destroyer wraps up the match with the kind of "wow" moment that *Levolution* was marketed for. It's not a drastic change to the map's layout, but I'd argue that's for the better. Paracel Storm, when everything works as intended, represents peak Battlefield 4 and is one of the few standouts in the base map pool. With the DLC expansions, the overall map quality crept closer to Battlefield 3's level, though in my opinion it never quite hit the highs of something like the *Aftermath* expansion. Outside its more dynamic maps, BF4's biggest legacy lies in its expanded personalization systems: field specializations, weapon variety and attachments, and vehicle customization. The absence of these features would become a major sticking point for certain players in later games. On the class side, weapon restrictions were loosened, with cross-class archetypes available to everyone. This diluted class identity a bit, but it balanced firepower without stripping classes of their signature weapons. At first, I wasn't sold on this approach, but over time I've come to prefer Battlefield 4's extended class system over 3's, it's simply the better version. Each class's dedicated weapon archetype is still generally the best option, and the inclusion of carbines or shotguns opened up new playstyles without breaking the sandbox. The most impactful change was the reduced ammo capacity across all weapons, which indirectly boosted the Support class's value. It didn't suddenly make Support top-tier, but it did help close the gap with the others. ## **2016 - Battlefield 1**  I'll come back to Battlefield 1 & V's announcements and tone in [[Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4|Part 2 of this retrospective]]. For now, let's stick to gameplay evolution. BF1 pushed Frostbite further, going for a more atmospheric and bombastic style. Operations (later Breakthrough) marked the big return of a linear main mode, standing alongside Conquest as a core experience. Despite being a Great War shooter, it's surprisingly accessible. DICE successfully handled the absence of core Battlefield elements that are directly tied to a modern war setting. While the Battlefield sandbox certainly exists, the focus shifted to delivering a more brutal combat experience. The shift in setting opened the door for meaningful class changes. Assault and Medic, merged since Bad Company 2, were finally split again: Engineer’s role was folded into Assault, while its repair tool moved to Support. I liked all of these tweaks, especially the extra utility for Support. With its strong weapon lineup and the ongoing pressure on ammo, Support felt far more relevant here. Medic, freed from the assault rifle meta, landed in a better balance spot. Assault itself became more engaging outside of pure anti-vehicle duty thanks to a stronger primary weapon pool. Weapon restrictions were back, giving each class a clear identity and defined engagement range, something you could really feel compared to Battlefield 3. Swapping classes meant truly swapping playstyles, not just loadouts. Some fans see this era differently, but I liked the direction. Behemoths worked better than most Levolution set pieces, and the consistent use of dynamic weather elevated every map. For me, it's a relatively successful attempt to refresh the gameplay. ## 2018 **- Battlefield V**  Battlefield V is not the most played entry in the franchise, but it’s the one I’m most eager to dissect from a design perspective. I’ve always been drawn to certain choices, like the near-total removal of 3D spoting. BFV is a patchwork of small but deliberate changes that, together, radically alter the pace and feel of a match. BFV made bold calls that alienated much of the casual audience drawn in by its predecessor. Like Battlefield **4 compared to *3*, it refined the core formula, but unlike 4, it launched with a strong map pool and far better polish, even if it was incomplete in content and features. I’ll dig into these decisions in detail in Parts 2 and 3 of this retrospective. For a detailed communication retrospect check [[Beyond Historical Accuracy - A Battlefield Retrospect 2-4|**Beyond Historical Accuracy** - A Battlefield Retrospect **2/4**]] For the specifics about design check [[The Design Elegance of Battlefield V - A Battlefield Retrospect 3-4|**The Design Elegance of Battlefield V** - A Battlefield Retrospect **3/4**]].