I hate this logic. It just gives BF fans a stupid excuse to discount the shitty part of the series.
"BF is the greatest series ever! Every one of them is great! blah blah"
"Well I didn't really care for BC"
"BC doesn't count! Nevermind it has the word "BATTLEFIELD" in the title and it's put out by the same people... it doesn't count!"
Just quit and admit it... the Battlefield series stagnated and had to copy somebody elses winning formula to get sales, and now they're trying to differentiate themselves. I hope they make it too because when BF2 wasn't crashing on me it was great. BC2 is incredibly overrated though and just doesn't even come close to the BF name. It still counts, but it wasn't that good.
Indeed someone making those kinds of statements above would really be an example of blind fanboyism.
I'd rate the BF games as follows (ratings for the time they were released obviously, as ancient FPS games don't really hold up all that well over the years).
BF1942 8/10. It really brought large-scale action like never before, was easy to pick up, and the big maps gave lots of strategic options. Maps like Wake Island are legendary for a reason.
BF Vietnam 5/5/10. It suffered from the boredom of flying / slogging through terrain that all looked the same, and from a lack of real advancement in graphics or sound.
BF2 9.5/10. One of the all-time greats, if you wanted a big game with lots of ways to play it, this was it. Graphics were excellent for the time, support was very good over the years with new maps and making previous add-ons freebies, about the only complaint is that it became a difficult thing to introduce new players to after a while due to the existing player base becoming extremely sophisticated.
BF2142 6/10. Seemed to muddle the ideas somewhat. It wasn't really any leap forward in graphics or scale, it just didn't feel like a BF game for some reason. Unsatisfying at best, a mess at worst.
BC2 7/10. I skipped BC1 on here because it was never released on PC. This marked the first serious attempt to make a single player campaign, and because of the focus on making the console and PC versions out of the same material, the scale was dramatically dialed back. It was nice to see a new graphics engine and some new ideas, but the thing felt claustrophobic to me, and a bit rough around certain edges.
So that leaves BF3, which for the most part looks like an absolutely massive graphical update on the last real core BF release, BF2. 2142 was kind of a weird spinoff (like I wouldn't call ET : Quake Wars a real Quake title), and the BC games were console-focused, one released solely for console. The new engine looks to impress, and it'll be nice to have enough room to play around with jets and vehicles and 64 players without everyone being in a tiny area. Should make for some amazing team play, as well as interesting solo runs for specific objectives or sabotage.
At the same time I think it's fair to seperate the CoD games somewhat between the WW2 themed stuff and the MW series. It's also important to note that on the console, apparently ALL of the BF games released there blew ass in many ways. So you end up with people with extreme mentalities on both sides.
PC FPS guys have largely had their fill of small-scale twitch shooters, and the MW series on PC has gone downhill since MW1, while the legend of BF2 still towers (many still play it to this day).
Console FPS guys have really started with the online version of Halo (Goldeneye kinda/sorta counts, but meh), which after a few sequels kind of dwindled to be replaced by Call of Duty. And that series didn't really take off until MW1. So it's not like most Xbox guys have already bought 25 CoD games, they've mostly played MW1, MW2, and Black Ops to some extent. That's not that many games, and it's still incredibly popular. The few console guys that played BF on console probably dismissed it as crap because those ports WERE crap.
So you get this weird divide, and a lot of stupid fanboy hostility because people don't want anyone else to have any other opinions.
Qualification of statements is important in offering viewpoints. I can say something like "I don't care for Call of Duty that much" and that is really all I need to say other than perhaps some of the reasons I've come to that viewpoint. I could also say something like "Call of Duty is a turd", and be rightly dismissed as a fanboy/troll.
ymmv