OK, I had to go with the title, despite not completely hating the game... 
Oddly, I'm going to be focusing on the multiplayer portion of a game this time around! Indeed, this will not be a critical analysis of a singleplayer mode (though that may come in the future), as has seemingly always been a custom of mine. Let's begin:
Apparently, DICE, in an attempt to tweak the nuances of their franchise either listened to the wrong people, or simply got lazy. One of the silliest omissions from the newest Battlefield in my view is the lack of a prone stance. Some defend this omission, insisting that if it were included, snipers (the recon class) would be impossibly hard to see amongst foliage and thus would become overpowered. However, it's not as if prone is exclusively benefitial to snipers. On some multiplayer maps, in open terrain, hitting the dirt would be a great way to avoid fire from those deadly, unseen assailants. Hell, even when scanning the horizon with counter-sniping in mind, crouched ghillie suited opponents are still incredibly hard to spot in heavily forested areas. Others have claimed that the lack of this function is due to what is called "dolphin diving," a technique widely exploited in earlier games in the Battlefield franchise to the chagrin of others. If that's the case, this makes DICE's decision even more laughable. Let's not add a simple line of code to limit a player's ability to look ridiculous; let's remove a major control function! Who exactly did the developers listen to when making such a drastic call? It's obvious to me that the lack of prone is completely detrimental to the online experience for all parties involved.
Perhaps you've overheard a friend or colleague complain about the infamous "bunny hopping," but have you ever heard them follow-up their complaint with, "You know what? They should just remove jumping! That'll fix the problem!" Then again, maybe some don't consider a prone button to be as important as a jump button, but why remove something that has always been a staple of the Battlefield franchise? You might also say that other games, like the newest Rainbow Six titles don't have prone either, or jumping for that matter but are still mighty fun to play. Thing is though, the maps are probably small and the gameplay most likely hinges on in-door, closequarters combat; those controls aren't necessary... you're not jumping up mountain ranges or hiding out in the wilderness. In a Battlefield game, the massive outdoor maps and dynamic combat call for these control functions.
Other critics seem to be upset over the lack of parachutes. This is pretty silly, considering the only air vehicles in the game are helicopters, which are incredibly powerful in the right hands. Allowing pilots and gunners the ability to bail out and glide to safety would simply make the things even more infuriating. However, the logic I've heard defending their removal is also pretty ridiculous, with references to the days when players could simply hitch rides on aircraft and parachute directly into an enemy base abound. Yes, because defenseless infantry slowly gliding toward the ground must have been an unstoppable threat!
Gold Rush (Attack & Defend), the only game mode currently available (the familiar Conquest mode will eventually be added with future DLC) is new to the Battlefield series. After a substantial amount of experience with it (current rank: 19/25), I can't say I'm too pleased. I'll start by stating quite bluntly that it's one of the most unbalanced gametypes I've ever encountered... for the most part. There are maps where I see pretty even victories between attackers and defenders (namely Oasis, Over and Out and Ascension), but they are a small group. The problem lies more with a common lack of communication than with poor map design (though this issue is somewhat present).
Successful attacks are completely dependent on teamwork and DICE's ill-conceived "squad system" makes this an extremely aggravating and difficult process. Two teams of twelve are split into three groups of four, called squads. This means that during a game, you can only communicate with up to three other players, who appear as light blue blips on your radar and who can spawn with you in the field after dying. So basically, if someone on your team, not a part of your squad decides to enter a vehicle with you and man the turrent, you have absolutely no way to communicate with this person... sounds annoying, doesn't it? I figure DICE didn't want to force players to constantly trek through the open terrain from their spawn to the enemy base and wanted a system that wouldn't also be completely unfair to the other team. The system definitely has potential to work, it just needs refinement. For example, that whole vehicle situation could have been easily fixed by allowing the ability to "lock" vehicles for yourself and other specific players, as seen in Planetside. Limiting the voice-chat is foolish though. Would twelve voices in the lobby be utter chaos, an unmanageable cacophony? It's funny, then, how we've always managed just fine with seven others in every other online console FPS; those extra four dudes must be a bunch of annoying dicks!
Attackers, as a team are primarily unorganized and since they have limited reinforcements, they go down pretty fast. Defense has squads too, but in their situation (unlimited resources and all), this barely becomes an issue. Little to no communication is required to do well, as their job mostly entails responding to on-screen text ("Crate 1 Under Attack!") and killing as much of the opposition as possible. I'm sure anyone can view their stats online, compare the numbers in front of "Defends Ending in Loss" and "Attacks Ending in Win," see that they are nearly identical and ultimately prove my point.
This state of affairs is especially unfortunate considering the game is otherwise pretty damn fun (ensured aggravation aside) and subtle tweaks to the multiplayer and maps will most likely not be able to repair the faulty balance, if implemented at all. Conquest (tired, maybe, but tried and true as well) seems to be the only light on the horizon, and I'm anticipating that DICE's attempt at bringing something new to the franchise will mostly be left abandoned for the lackluster mess that it is. There are other hurdles too, with connection issues, poor hit detection and imbalances between classes present as well. The more cynical might say, given DICE's track record, this will simply be another example of "what could have been." I'm dropping the game for now, but am crossing my fingers in the hopes I can pop it in a month or two from now and have a much more enjoyable experience (allusions to Ubisoft's new DLC for Vegas 2 springs to mind.)
UPDATE (2008-11-10): After ignoring the initial release of Conquest mode a few months back, I've just now downloaded the recently uploaded map pack (which brings the total number of maps for this game-mode to eight) and I have to say the game has improved drastically. Conquest is already a step in the right direction since it is fundamentally balanced, being that warfare is now symmetrical. Match-making has also improved substantially, with ranked servers constantly reloading new maps. My only complaint is that maps have to be played twice, with you switching sides. It makes sense in Attack and Defend because of the opposing play-styles, but not for this game-type, where there is barely any difference between teams. Despite that quirk, however, it's safe to say that DICE has finally succeeded in making the game what it should have been upon release, and it is now definitively one of the best multiplayer games for the 360, only topped by Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4/World at War.
