BF4 was a carbon copy of BF3, except of course for it not working for up to a year after release.
They're quite far removed from what the franchise used to be. Now, they're just Call of Duty set on bigger maps and with vehicles. No team work required, and interesting settings. I'll admit BF1 (stupid name...) appears to try and change things up, but given how incompetent Dice has become, I'm not holding my breath. Besides, I have little interest in paying double full price for the full game...
Battlefield is the same as Call of Duty with bigger maps and vehicles? Ok then, just ask to any COD fan how one feels compared to the other...
People this days get mad two easily, I know the game was far from perfect from release, netcode problems, bugs, etc, but I still enjoyed it, first on my PS3 (the map took some time to load, I remember that), less than a year later got it for PS4. I had my rage moments, that netcode was a pain, but gave me as much pain as campers did, and the overused OP weapons. BF3 was fairly better optimized for the last gen consoles, unlike BF4. I can notice the differences between them if I go back to BF3, just like I do between 4 and Hardline. All in all, the game was improved, shame it took too long for some people, but today, apart from some minor issues like the balance, it's a good and enjoyable game, with those classic "Battlefield moments" and those satisfying sniper mechanics. Most of the time there is no real teamwork, but you can't win a round without it, if you happen to play against a team who does and takes advantage of that same teamwork. It's a choice that you have, either play for the team, or play for yourself... you might win by yourself, but there will be situations where those few minutes of teamwork will make the difference between a win or a loss.
Just stop complaining about the name, it is what it is. It's a rather strange approach for a name, but could be worse.