I'm talking about the multiplayer only, I have no use for single player campaigns in shooters (just my preference). But Crysis 2 has to be the worst multiplayer experience I've ever had. Here are hte reasons why it is so terrible.

1. Poor framerate. I've played games where the framerate might dip when a lot of stuff is going on, but it wasn't terrible. In Crysis 2, the framerate is game breaking. Running around, the screen updates slightly faster than a power point slideshow. Close encounters tend to just be random, because neither player gets enough visual information on the screen to be able to react quickly enough.

2. Controls are sloppy and unresponsive. I turned up the sensitivity, but it doesn't help much. Pulling up sight and aiming at someone is clunky. It reminds me of the controls in Killzone 2 (though that was a solid game otherwise).

3. Lag/hit detection are embarrassingly bad. It can take a whole clip to kill someone, or it may just take a couple bullets, you never know. Gun battles are clumsy and awkward, and has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with luck and lag. Aiming right at somebody and firing more shots doesn't mean you will win. Every gun fight I've been in seem to be both players struggling to stay on target. Close encoutners will have both players spraying and meleeing wildly. Midrange has people aiming and strafing, hoping enough shots will be detected. Long range gun fights seem to be nonexistant, and would be utterly pointless anyway.

4. Graphics are just terrible. Low resolution and muddy textures. This is one of the worst looking games I've played on the PS3. Even Black Ops has better graphics, and that's saying something. I can accept bad graphics if it means higher framerate and more responsive gameplay (Black Ops), but I get none of these benefits in Crysis 2.

5. People's playstyle have to accommodate the terrible framerate and lag. This means a lot of people just sit cloaked until you run by, then they switch on armor and shoot you. You can't turn around and shoot back accurately because of the lag and terrible controls. It's just not a fun game when 90% of the players are just sitting somewhere cloaked and waiting. But I can't blame them, it's almost the only way to guarantee you'll get a kill.

Overall I am hugely disappointed with this game. I paid 60 dollars for it, and it is so bad I never want to play it again. I will probably force myself to try it a few more times, to try to get my money's worth, but it's just a hideously bad game. I am really upset, because I was expecting this game to be amazing. I can't understand where all the positive critical reviews came from, but now that people are playing it, some of the negative reviews are starting to appear. Apparently this game is actually good on PC. But on PS3 (and Xbox from what I hear), it's just trash. There are no redeeming qualities to this game right now. Maybe they can fix some stuff via patches, but I don't think they can completely overhaul it enough to make it a good, playable game.

Well if your that unhappy trade it in and stop trolling our forums with this garbage, I adore what Crytek have done and commend them for giving us a truly unique and masterpeice of technical achievement, yes the frame rate svcks but that hopefully will be patched, the hit detection seems fine to me but I actually do aim and not rely on auto aim to do my work for me, the melee system is fun much better than the garabge 1 hit kill other popular FPS has it gives you a chance to reply by BOOM headshotting them, most people who complain about this game are COD and Battlefield fanboys who can't adapt to this game's pace my attitude is adapt or die or in your case trade the game in you obviously don't get what makes Crysis 2 better than ANY FPS today..

Well if your that unhappy trade it in and stop trolling our forums with this garbage, I adore what Crytek have done and commend them for giving us a truly unique and masterpeice of technical achievement, yes the frame rate svcks but that hopefully will be patched, the hit detection seems fine to me but I actually do aim and not rely on auto aim to do my work for me, the melee system is fun much better than the garabge 1 hit kill other popular FPS has it gives you a chance to reply by BOOM headshotting them, most people who complain about this game are COD and Battlefield fanboys who can't adapt to this game's pace my attitude is adapt or die or in your case trade the game in you obviously don't get what makes Crysis 2 better than ANY FPS today..


I play a variety of games, including COD, Killzone, Homefront and more. I know what a smooth, functioning game is supposed to look like. Crysis 2 is not a technical masterpiece, it is garbage. It may be good on the PC, but on PS3 it is just trash. I can even get over the sloppy controls if the gameplay makes up for it, like I did with Killzone 2. But the gameplay is just terrible in Crysis 2. I get the concept behind Crysis 2, and if it had been done well it *would* be a masterpiece. But the game has a cheap tacky feel to it, it is very obvious that Crytek have never developed for consoles before and don't really know what they are doing here. There are stuningly beautiful games that run at solid 30 frames per second (Uncahrted, Killzone, etc). But Crysis 2 not only has a low framerate, but the graphics are poor on top of it! It is simply unbelievably bad. I enjoyed Crysis 1 on PC, I thought it was a smooth, polished experience. Crysis 2 just svcks. Raggedly laggy graphics and gameplay are just not fun. I was hoping COD would finally have some real competition, but unfortunately Crysis 2 is not anywhere near the smooth enjoyable experience of COD. Which is sad, because it is obvious they are trying REALLY hard to make a COD type shooter. I can understand when a Battlefield or Killzone fan says "You're just a COD fanboy, you can't appreciate this game". They have a point, because those games are completely different from COD. But Crysis 2 is very clearly trying to emulate the COD experience as closely as possible, aside from the futuristic setting. The thing about COD is, it runs at a smooth 60 fps, with acceptable to good graphics. Crysis has bad framerate, which can't even stay at 30. It seems to dip down to 15-20 for the majority of the gameplay. And the textures are just muddy and horrible. Even aiming down sight, the graphics of the sight are blurry. This is not a good thing. My criticisms are substantial, I'm not just angry that I can't do well, or whatever other nonsense you can come up with. I've played good games and bad games, and Crysis 2 is a bad game.

I don't think they can patch fix the framerate, so you may be waiting a long time for that. Low framerate is due to bad coding, plain and simple. They can do bad coding on the PC, because lots of people will have super fact PCs that can still give a high quality experience, even if the coding is sloppy. Consoles are a completely different endeavor. You have to work hard to optimize your code to work with the limited hardware capabilities of consoles. Sloppy code results in poor performance. It is obvious they reduced the graphical quality to get the framerate better. If they wanted to patch fix the framerate, they'd have to reduce to graphical quality even more, and it would look downright hideous. This is just failure of a game. I know a turd when I see it, and that's exactly what we have with Crysis 2.

bump great info!

Homefront's a smooth running game? You got to be kidding me, the amount of complaints that game has received is unbelievable.

I didn't like Homefront, to many issues with it so traded it in and I think that's the best you can do with this game.

Homefront's a smooth running game? You got to be kidding me, the amount of complaints that game has received is unbelievable.

I didn't like Homefront, to many issues with it so traded it in and I think that's the best you can do with this game.


LOL! I was about to post the same thing. Homefront is pure trash.I think is you are use to playing Battlefield,then Homefront is for you.If you are use to playing Killzone 3,then Crysis 2 might suit your play style.

I wasn't too keen on the MP,but as I level up,I'm finding it more and more enjoyable.

Homefront's a smooth running game? You got to be kidding me, the amount of complaints that game has received is unbelievable.

I didn't like Homefront, to many issues with it so traded it in and I think that's the best you can do with this game.


Homefront runs beautifully. The only problem with it right now is matchmaking. It takes too long to find a game. But once you're ina game, it runs absolutely perfectly. Dedicated servers, no lag, perfect hit detection. Graphics are a little subpar, but the framerate is solid. Homefront gameplay is well polished.

Homefront's a smooth running game? You got to be kidding me, the amount of complaints that game has received is unbelievable.

I didn't like Homefront, to many issues with it so traded it in and I think that's the best you can do with this game.


Homefront runs beautifully. The only problem with it right now is matchmaking. It takes too long to find a game. But once you're ina game, it runs absolutely perfectly. Dedicated servers, no lag, perfect hit detection. Graphics are a little subpar, but the framerate is solid. Homefront gameplay is well polished.


Sorry,but I got plenty of lag while playing it,and it's a very slow paced game with less than sub par graphics.Squad formations are pretty bad too,and there's no leadership structure.

Sorry,but I got plenty of lag while playing it,and it's a very slow paced game with less than sub par graphics.Squad formations are pretty bad too,and there's no leadership structure.


I've never had a laggy game in it, not even once. I'll agree that it is a slower paced game than COD. But this isn't really a Homefront thread, it's a Crysis 2 thread. I've seen occasional lag in p2p games, it is to be expected, but Crysis 2 runs absolutely horribly. It just looks like sloppy coding, plain and simple. A game with graphics as bad as Crysis 2 shouldn't have trouble maintainign 30 frames per second. It is inexcusable that it has such a poor framerate on top of bad graphics.

FAMAUG learn how to play the game and you will have fun, yes, frame rate issues we have but will be patched soon, if not, please leave the forums and sell/trade the game...see you!!!!

FAMAUG learn how to play the game and you will have fun, yes, frame rate issues we have but will be patched soon, if not, please leave the forums and sell/trade the game...see you!!!!


Framerate will not be patched. No game has ever had the framerate patched. It's not a simple fix. It means the code itself is sloppy and inefficent. Patches will address balancing issues or bugs. Fixing the framerate would require a complete overhaul of the code, which will absolutely not happen. Poor framerate is not a bug, it is a result of how well the game code is written. Even Black Ops has framerate issues, but is still very playable. The framerate in Crysis 2 is consistantly bad, to the point that it makes the game unplayable. The lag and hit detection issues certainly don't help, and I suspect they are the result of poor coding as well. I have been looking forward to this game for months, and I loved Crysis 1. But this is just a bad game. It is nowhere near a "technical masterpiece" as some are saying, it is actually a bad, poorly written game.

Sorry,but I got plenty of lag while playing it,and it's a very slow paced game with less than sub par graphics.Squad formations are pretty bad too,and there's no leadership structure.


I've never had a laggy game in it, not even once. I'll agree that it is a slower paced game than COD. But this isn't really a Homefront thread, it's a Crysis 2 thread. I've seen occasional lag in p2p games, it is to be expected, but Crysis 2 runs absolutely horribly. It just looks like sloppy coding, plain and simple. A game with graphics as bad as Crysis 2 shouldn't have trouble maintainign 30 frames per second. It is inexcusable that it has such a poor framerate on top of bad graphics.


Well,I guess different people are going to have different gameplay experiences.I'm really loving it now.svcks at lower levels though,but what game doesn't.Like others have said,or might want to say,if you are that disappointed with it,trade it in.

Well,I guess different people are going to have different gameplay experiences.I'm really loving it now.svcks at lower levels though,but what game doesn't.Like others have said,or might want to say,if you are that disappointed with it,trade it in.

I intend to play it several more times over the next few weeks, to see if the experience improves at all. I'm kind of stubborn about video games, I never return them. Even the ones that svck, I'll just keep for a few weeks, then throw them away if they're really bad. Maybe this game will grow on me, but it's not looking pretty at this point. However, I am thrilled that a lot of people seem to think it's God's gift to gaming, because that at least means people are abandoning COD. COD needs some real competition, because they are getting lazy and their quality is slipping.

This game just needs dedicated servers. That would fix so many issues.

i hope gets a little bit better soon. it's getting a little bit boring. i can't kill anybody in the room at all! hahahahaha

This game just needs dedicated servers. That would fix so many issues.

I think that would help a lot. Though the chances of that happening are about zero. If it weren't for the horrible framerate and lag, this could be easily one of the best shooters ever. But it feels like a broken, cheap game right now.

Completely agree with OP, I have absolutely no idea how the console versions of this game got 8 or 9 out of 10. I was horrified at the shambolic ps3 demo that was released last week. People convinced me it would look much better at retail but of course it looks just as bad. I wonder how much Crytek had to pay off the big reviewers to get these scores.

Crytek need to understand that 15fps during action is not only borderline unplayable but incredibly frustrating and ultimately NOT FUN. Like the OP said, good graphics - bad framerate OR bad graphics - good framerate. The ps3 version is bad/bad with no redeeming qualitys, sorry that's wrong - Hans Zimmers score is excellent (as usual) maybe I should have bought the soundtrack instead, huh?

I can't even force myself to complete the game because it looks so low res and grainy. I'll be taking this shoddy console port back to the shop on Monday, good luck selling copies Crytek as i'm sure most ps3 users will be doing the same. (havent seen xbox version)

P.S - I know the game seriously rocks on PC, I had Crysis 1 on a monster PC and loved it.
Console gamers deserve ALOT more than this! but hey, MAXIMUM PROFIT right? you make me sick

I agree with what you said except for the graphics part. Come on and be realistic -- there is NO WAY BLOPS has better graphics.

But everything else, the framerate and the lag -- horrible on the PS3. The game chooses the worst host constantly.

I was hoping COD would finally have some real competition, but unfortunately Crysis 2 is not anywhere near the smooth enjoyable experience of COD. Which is sad, because it is obvious they are trying REALLY hard to make a COD type shooter. I can understand when a Battlefield or Killzone fan says "You're just a COD fanboy, you can't appreciate this game". They have a point, because those games are completely different from COD. But Crysis 2 is very clearly trying to emulate the COD experience as closely as possible, aside from the futuristic setting. The thing about COD is, it runs at a smooth 60 fps, with acceptable to good graphics. Crysis has bad framerate, which can't even stay at 30. It seems to dip down to 15-20 for the majority of the gameplay. And the textures are just muddy and horrible. Even aiming down sight, the graphics of the sight are blurry. This is not a good thing. My criticisms are substantial, I'm not just angry that I can't do well, or whatever other nonsense you can come up with. I've played good games and bad games, and Crysis 2 is a bad game.


I am a massive COD fan, and I am in agreement with everything you have said, except for the last line. I don't think Crysis 2 is "a bad game".
It's going to take some time to fix the bugs, but I am really enjoying playing it.

I posted my beefs with the game here:
http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15023&p=185059#p185059

Just sell the game!

I love the game, single and multiplayer are both great, just some connection issues need to be solve, anyway, the game usually join me into a lobby whit people from my region, country, so the connection has been good so far. But yes, sometimes i don't have that luck and the connection svcks, hope thay fiz that soon.

Your bad for paying that much for multiplayer only lol

... Which is sad, because it is obvious they are trying REALLY hard to make a COD type shooter...
... But Crysis 2 is very clearly trying to emulate the COD experience as closely as possible, aside from the futuristic setting...
Even if you had some valid points, these part just makes you look kind of silly...
After getting Homefront, my tolerance for 'less then perfect' games has increased a lot. I'm not saying Crysis 2 is perfect, since it's not. I do however think it's good enough and, most importantly, really really fun for me to consider it as a really good game

The hit detection is pretty shocking at times. To shoot someone in the back six times and then turn around a nail me is something else after a bottle of red wine believe

I have NEVER had a problem with frame rate. I think its your tv and/or your hdmi. As far as the graphics go i cant believe you think black ops is better. Crysis has the best graphics i have seen on a console and black ops graphics were no better than cod 4 which is 4 years old.

I'm talking about the multiplayer only, I have no use for single player campaigns in shooters (just my preference). But Crysis 2 has to be the worst multiplayer experience I've ever had. Here are hte reasons why it is so terrible.

1. Poor framerate. I've played games where the framerate might dip when a lot of stuff is going on, but it wasn't terrible. In Crysis 2, the framerate is game breaking. Running around, the screen updates slightly faster than a power point slideshow. Close encounters tend to just be random, because neither player gets enough visual information on the screen to be able to react quickly enough.

2. Controls are sloppy and unresponsive. I turned up the sensitivity, but it doesn't help much. Pulling up sight and aiming at someone is clunky. It reminds me of the controls in Killzone 2 (though that was a solid game otherwise).

3. Lag/hit detection are embarrassingly bad. It can take a whole clip to kill someone, or it may just take a couple bullets, you never know. Gun battles are clumsy and awkward, and has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with luck and lag. Aiming right at somebody and firing more shots doesn't mean you will win. Every gun fight I've been in seem to be both players struggling to stay on target. Close encoutners will have both players spraying and meleeing wildly. Midrange has people aiming and strafing, hoping enough shots will be detected. Long range gun fights seem to be nonexistant, and would be utterly pointless anyway.

4. Graphics are just terrible. Low resolution and muddy textures. This is one of the worst looking games I've played on the PS3. Even Black Ops has better graphics, and that's saying something. I can accept bad graphics if it means higher framerate and more responsive gameplay (Black Ops), but I get none of these benefits in Crysis 2.

5. People's playstyle have to accommodate the terrible framerate and lag. This means a lot of people just sit cloaked until you run by, then they switch on armor and shoot you. You can't turn around and shoot back accurately because of the lag and terrible controls. It's just not a fun game when 90% of the players are just sitting somewhere cloaked and waiting. But I can't blame them, it's almost the only way to guarantee you'll get a kill.

Overall I am hugely disappointed with this game. I paid 60 dollars for it, and it is so bad I never want to play it again. I will probably force myself to try it a few more times, to try to get my money's worth, but it's just a hideously bad game. I am really upset, because I was expecting this game to be amazing. I can't understand where all the positive critical reviews came from, but now that people are playing it, some of the negative reviews are starting to appear. Apparently this game is actually good on PC. But on PS3 (and Xbox from what I hear), it's just trash. There are no redeeming qualities to this game right now. Maybe they can fix some stuff via patches, but I don't think they can completely overhaul it enough to make it a good, playable game.

ok, now get lost and go back to COD.