If I might retort, I do think it's not nearly as easy to play a hero than it is to, say, play a kritzed soldier in TF2. In both cases, everyone who sees you immediately starts shooting all they can at you, but in BFII it's not an easy task to take on even 3 people who know what they're doing, god forbid any of them are aerials or enforcers.

Point being, I think they both have their balance. And I think that BFII handles balancing something that's supposed to be unbalanced by design really well. Like, the counter-play for an enemy hero showing up is usually much more in depth than the counter-play to kritzed soldier 80% of the time.

They're both very different animals, but I think BFII is still worth playing. That being said I am definitely on the "TF2 is better than any modern shooter" train lol (COD can suck it)

TF2 also doesn't have the "Oops a jedi, everyone dies to the meat grinder until another hero can save you" problem

To be fair BFII is fun and I'm glad it's finally getting a resurgence so it's not only bot matches, but it's still just a standard battlefront game

I'd argue Star Wars Battlefront (II) is similar in that it solves problems a lot of people have with modern FPS games, but it's by no means a perfect masterpiece. Neither is TF2, but it certainly feels like it sometimes x3