>>99045
Haven't played but since I got quoted — from the sounds of it it's mediocre but better than 2042 (which is a very low bar). Still a questionable purchase even at a discount (and the fact it's so heavily discounted already is also telling) as the publishers are scummy people, the maps are tiny and undercooked and apparently some important unlocks are hidden behind grind.
Are any existing issues getting fixed soon? I'd look at 2042's post-launch support and extrapolate from there. The outlook is probably not good.
When asked which BF game was peak, fans of the series will most likely name 3 or 4, but there are also die-hard BC2 enjoyers, BF2 appreciators etc. Even BF1 and Hardline were alright. Nu-DICE have lost it however.
Hell, they're selling BF4 (premium!) for 2 whooping bucks, That's 20 times less for a game that has 10 times the content and is already well-polished, with graphics still on par with most modern shooters. Online numbers don't look too promising though: https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/servers/
Browsing individual matches shows there's plenty of low ranks there, with mediocre scores. A newbie would still be fodder for 6666-hours-heliGOD but at least there's other newbies to take it out on, it seems.
All of the above is relevant to the multiplayer experience. Anything remotely popular without a solid matchmaker inevitably means that sometimes you'll be matched vs a level 100 colonel who will *do things* to your entire team. Depending on how you take that, this may be a deal breaker.
For actual soldier LARP, there are (or at least used to be, idk if they're still active?) Squad and Arma. Both are more chill (sometimes you spend the evening waiting for the order to advance while listening to others on the radio, then shooting in the general direction where the enemies might be, then win, just like irl) but rely on actual human communication to get the most out of them.
Some of these games have singleplayer. Singleplayer may be a healthier option for laid-back larping.
