Where did 32 go? I know its only an extra 4 people on each team, but it feels like a lot less these days. Esspically since some of the maps are bigger than ever, Like Caspian Border for instance, I feel like I am running around for 3 minutes, not seeng anyone, and then get sniped. I still love the game, but I am starting to regret buying it for the console instead of the Computer, where you can get up too 64 players in a game.

Question to the PC gamers, Is it that awesome or is it too hectic? The main reason I got it for console was to play with my friends, and battlefield is squad based, so I am wondering if it was worth it or not.

Even on PC 64 players has moments of quiet. Except on Metro.

They never said it would be 32 player on consoles. 24 has been confirmed for almost a year. 64 on PC is fun as long as it's not a tiny map like Metro.

@senorfuzzeh: 32? The PS3 could probably handle that, and there were talks about it might be 32, but MS didn't raise the bandwith cap.

You can play different modes and map sizes and player counts on PC. There are like 32/48 player servers for 64 people maps etc. Even with 64 it does not feel too crowded.

Except Metro. That kinda sucks. Maybe 8 on 8 is alright, but that's not why I play BF. The map feels like a playable tech demo.

The player count is just to damn low for maps like Caspian border. It can still be exciting as long as all the players are bunched up around the same flags but if the battle is not condensed into a small area and players are spread out, it gets real quiet.

Hard to picture a 24 player match with maps like caspian or firestorm.

I mostly play only 64 player matches because there's so much stuff going on with the vehicles. Even if i don't use them myself it sure is fun blowing them up.

And no it's not too hectic at all and I'm one of those players who doesn't play ground war in cod games.

@Bucketdeth said:

The player count is just to damn low for maps like Caspian border. It can still be exciting as long as all the players are bunched up around the same flags but if the battle is not condensed into a small area and players are spread out, it gets real quiet.

ya, there are 2 maps that feel kinda big for the amount but i usually am in jets now for those which there are always something in the air.

I bought it on PC because it is the better version, but my computer can only play it decently on low, and I'm not a PC shooter player at all so I was having no fun.

So, I've ordered the PS3 version where I was doing atleast alright (I played PS3 during the beta) and I was having WAY more fun. Until I can build a bitchin' gaming rig that can run this thing at 60 frames on atleast High, I'm just going to stick to PS3. I just don't want to buy another computer so soon, because I've only had this one for two months or so. (iMac, bought it for audio production).

Caspian Border and Firestorm sure as hell could have gotton 120 and it would still not be overcrowded.

This has made me regret buying this game. I felt it the next day. It was just weird to run around on the big maps and not see anyone or just see one other team mate. I mean, yeah, even 64 is not gonna guarantee anything but compared to 24, it makes a big difference. Hell at 64 you have more people on your team than all 24 in a console game. I am probably gonna trade this back in for Skyrim.

Starting to wish I got it for PC.

PC version isn't too hectic because there are bigger versions of some conquest maps.