Ok from your list lets get on with what's different:

1. There are 12 maps not 8, with 2 more coming as free DLC a couple of weeks after launch.
2. Battlefront 2 was not 32 vs. 32 on all modes
3. The new game doesn't have space battles, but it still has ship combat.
4. One of those DLC packs is free
5. The only difference between playable infantry types and loadouts is the physical appearance of the character, and the new game lets you customize your character.
6. There are 10 playable vechiles that we know about so far, plus 2 turret types.
7. We already know that bots are in at least 4 games modes.
8. It's technically Classic, and the new series.

1. BF 2 has 33 in total and 16 planets like the chart says, BF will have a total of 14, that's still small no matter how you try to spin it.

2. Instant action has 32 vs 32, CTF was afaik, the campaign wasn't and neither was their Heroes mode but at the end of the day 32v32 is better than a total count of 40 for th new BF.

3.Space battles>ship combat

4.Jakku isn't full blown meat and bones worth DLC that's brimming with content that basically makes it a standalone game, that is hardly a pro that defeats BF2's DLC let alone the game.

5.The classes added strategy and variety to the game, loadouts have you looking more or less the same while the older games at elast had varying numbers of people sporting different classes that added to different appearances. Rebels in the beta for example had a male and female model and that was it, Snow troopers had the same models and different voices. Also the loadouts are a done deal once you are in the battle with the only other option of being able to copy your partners loadout.

6.27 and 15 turrets still beats out the 10 and 2, even by the time the base game comes out I don't see EA giving you the same number if not more than BF2, this again isn't something positive, sure you have a little more than what he chart originally said but BF2 still beats out the current in numbers.

7. BF2 has bots in every mode while BF has them in limited small sized map modes instead of on every map, again it's nice to have them on 4 maps but BF2 still does it better, why couldn't EA do better?.

8. BF2 did classic, clone wars and some early clone wars to boot while BF is doing classic and some new saga and even then they haven't even shown or told us zip about the new Saga, if it;s added in as DLC then that debunks the fact that the base game of BF only does classic while the base game of BF2 does all 3.

At the end of the day the chart has some inconsistancies, that much is given but BF2 still overshadows and outputs BF by a lot, BF definitely does graphics better but honestly that's a moot point because one game is from 2004/5 and the other is from 2015, of course visuals are going to be upgraded and look better.

It's fine and all to be hyped for BF, I liked the Beta even though most battles were one sided, the beta felt very barebones and people abusing glitches and the like, but BF2 is going to be steps ahead of BF until EA make a new BF that has and does it all in the base game or they release all DLC with maps, weapons and vehicles all for free in the future since paying £40 per DLC pack isn't going to beat out BF2 in the price ratio either.

Your laptop totally should manage it, my frankenstein rig from 2013 ran it perfectly fine and with my 360 gamepad too.

I should also give it a few goes and do the story mode again sometime with a few mods since I've not really modded it before.

Have you not been actually reading what I'm writting? I honestly couldn't give a rats ass about how they compare. What I do care about, is that the chart you posted keeps getting post by people who don't know what they're talking about. Make the comparison, that's fine, but make sure the information you're using to make the comparison isn't bullshit first.

Will I get the new Battlefront? Probably. Will I enjoy it as much as I enjoyed Battlefront 2? Probably not. Does that mean it won't be a good game? Not really.

P.S. You must have missed what I said about #5. You can customize the way your character looks in the new game. We don't know much about it yet, but we do know that there are 7 stormtrooper outfits and 14 rebel outfits so far. So...yeah, variety.

People are always going to compare one thing to another though, correcting the small sections of the chart on the right still aren't going to change what the left overshadows, that's why the chart was used. I knew of the additions that had been made but I knew I didn't need to edit that chart because in the end the enw BF isn't going to be better than 2 in terms of content and what 2 offered that the new one simply forgets. That's something important that we love from other video games, aspects, mechanics and the like that are rememebred and added into games further on down the line rather than "rebooting" it over and over and over while losing some pieces with each iteration and falling on the "well it's new, ain't gotta explain it" excuse.

At the end of the day I share your sentiments, I'm likely to get Battlefront myself at some point and I'll probably like it a bit but 2 will always be what the new BF should have been, the only hope I have now is EA figures this out and has it sorted for the second game and actually adds what was lost but throws some new content in.

Actually, its poorly optimized. The desktop computer I was trying it on has a good processor but a basic onboard GPU. Runs surprisingly bad for PS2 graphics, so I had to lower settings.

It seems like an okay game for the time if you REALLY wanted a large scale shooter. But it doesn't appear to do anything great.

it came out 10 years ago, what do you expect. 

There are much better playing and looking 10 year old games out there.

Half Life 2 is from 2004. OG Xbox Halo games are also older than Battlefront II. Those games are much more polished visually and offer more complex gameplay. Part of the problem is Battlefront II was designed for PS2's crappy specs.

BFII works fine for me on my new rig and worked fine on my frankenstein of a rig back in 2013, I;m pretty sure it's a hw issue if the laptop cannot run it, Laptops aren't firsthand gaming machines anyway compared to desktops.

Eh 3rd person shooters were still pretty average at the time. Halo and Half life 2 did a lot for the FPS genre. The same thing for 3rd person shooters happened with Uncharted and Gears.

I don't think 1st person versus 3rd person camera is a valid argument. Battlefront II looks and feels terrible compared to notable games of that same period.

There was some good 3rd person shooters before Battlefront II. Such as Freedom Fighters, MDK2, 007: Everything or Nothing, Headhunter, Punisher, and most notably Resident Evil 4.

Also, I forgot about Unreal Tournament 2004. That game looked amazing for the time and offered large scale battle.