I still find the map selection interesting with Second Assault. I mean, for 3 of them, they really probably didn't have to change a thing, since they were already Frostbyte engine. It is just lazy, IMO. Give us maps from BF2, from BFBC2, etc.
Yeah, it was unbelievably lazy. This strategy made total sense with the Back to Karkand pack for Bf3. The bf2 maps were 7 years old at that point and on a totally different engine. Plus, they actually picked really good maps (despite my legendary, game quitting hatred of Bf2 wake island, its a good map on Bf3) and made major improvements to how they played. Spending a couple of weeks (at most) adding some extra effects to bf3 maps we've been playing for the past 2 years and trying to pass it off as content worth buying was a disgrace.
The fact that Metro was the most played bf3 map is sad on so many levels. I'm as much of a stat whore as just about anyone, but there's really no reason to spend all you time on that map racking up silly amounts of points.
I disagree that it was lazy. From the footage I've seen, it looks like there were pretty significant improvements. Particularly when you figure that we were probably supposed to get these last December and another DLC by now, if it wasn't for the problems in the game engine.
As far as Titanfall, I watch some footage and I was not impressed.
Maybe it plays better than it looked (beta guys, chime in here?) But 6x6 (+grunts, I guess) just doesn't seem fun, maybe the mech innovation makes a difference.
I'm also a bit biased having almost no experience playing COD as the few times I've loaded it up I've just not had as much fun as when I play BF. (I know it is different than COD, but it is by the same people, right?) I'll wait to see what others have to say, definitely not in on this one at launch.