That's my question, what the heck happened between the crysis 2 multiplayer demo and the retail release? They had it perfect in the demo, everything felt fair, and if i died I actually felt like I died because the other person got the upper hand on me or was better than me. Now it all just feels like the lag's fault, or a glitch or something. I don't ever recall running into something like this in the multiplayer demo. So, again, what happened? did someone spill soda all over the computer that housed the perfect demo that they were going to use as the retail release making them fall back onto a crappy unfinished, buggy version of their beta build?

Or did we all get a copy of the game with the unfinished beta by accident? I don't know, but it's getting so rediculous now, so why not speculate rediculously? Right? I just wish I knew what happened between that time and now. I really do want to like this game, but it's all the problems that came with it that I didn't expect that are making it so bad and frustraiting, coupled with the lack of communication from the development team is making me want to abandon all hope of there ever being a patch or seeing a less laggy and more playable multiplayer.

If it can even be playable for that matter though. I feel betrayed though, decieved, conned, anyone of those kinds of bad things a company could possibly do to it's consumers. Perhaps Im overracting, it's just a game, but it's a game that I spent 60 dollars on and irriplacable time on now too. Should we have to settle for mediocre titles in this day and age?

with all the advancements in video entertainment should we have to settle for the less than we pay good money for? That answer should be more than an obvious NO. But that's what we've gotten here today in front of us. Some may tollerate it better than others, but that won't do any good for us since that'll never show our true displeasure for the quality of the product.

We should not have to pay for something that doesn't meet that standard, that one im talking about is the one that was previously set, that most of us spent good money for expecting to get what we saw before, only to be met with dissapointment and frustraition. I really want to like this game, I really want to play this game without any problems, I really want either of the Crytek teams to, at the very least, acknowledge the console problems instead of leave us in the dark with no hope in sight to be relinquished of these persistant pleagues of glitches and bad connections due to no region filter. We shouldn't have to settle for ALMOST good. We want GREAT.

Im sure I can speak for alot of people who have the same feelings of frustraition as I do. Im trying to be as constructive with any critisism I give as possible as I can be, and perhaps I'm being a bit of a diehard about this, but I would really like to play my game now.

That's my question, what the heck happened between the crysis 2 multiplayer demo and the retail release? They had it perfect in the demo, everything felt fair, and if i died I actually felt like I died because the other person got the upper hand on me or was better than me. Now it all just feels like the lag's fault, or a glitch or something. I don't ever recall running into something like this in the multiplayer demo. So, again, what happened? did someone spill soda all over the computer that housed the perfect demo that they were going to use as the retail release making them fall back onto a crappy unfinished, buggy version of their beta build?

Or did we all get a copy of the game with the unfinished beta by accident? I don't know, but it's getting so rediculous now, so why not speculate rediculously? Right? I just wish I knew what happened between that time and now. I really do want to like this game, but it's all the problems that came with it that I didn't expect that are making it so bad and frustraiting, coupled with the lack of communication from the development team is making me want to abandon all hope of there ever being a patch or seeing a less laggy and more playable multiplayer.

If it can even be playable for that matter though. I feel betrayed though, decieved, conned, anyone of those kinds of bad things a company could possibly do to it's consumers. Perhaps Im overracting, it's just a game, but it's a game that I spent 60 dollars on and irriplacable time on now too. Should we have to settle for mediocre titles in this day and age?

with all the advancements in video entertainment should we have to settle for the less than we pay good money for? That answer should be more than an obvious NO. But that's what we've gotten here today in front of us. Some may tollerate it better than others, but that won't do any good for us since that'll never show our true displeasure for the quality of the product.

We should not have to pay for something that doesn't meet that standard, that one im talking about is the one that was previously set, that most of us spent good money for expecting to get what we saw before, only to be met with dissapointment and frustraition. I really want to like this game, I really want to play this game without any problems, I really want either of the Crytek teams to, at the very least, acknowledge the console problems instead of leave us in the dark with no hope in sight to be relinquished of these persistant pleagues of glitches and bad connections due to no region filter. We shouldn't have to settle for ALMOST good. We want GREAT.

Im sure I can speak for alot of people who have the same feelings of frustraition as I do. Im trying to be as constructive with any critisism I give as possible as I can be, and perhaps I'm being a bit of a diehard about this, but I would really like to play my game now.


I felt the demo was terrible and a lot worse than the Beta. I played the Beta a lot and really liked it.. obviously I could overlook some of the problems as it was a beta. I put the demo in and I was instantly dismayed. The lag problems were outrageous and all the problems were still there. The final release unfortunately offered very little improvement.

Either way, it's a sorry state of affairs and I share your disappointment.

Ignoreing the community is the worst thing they could possibly have done, even if they do get a patch out, the people they've already lost may not come back still because of that.

I prefered the demo's quirks too. I don't know what they've done but the aiming is off or lagged in the retail.

That's my question, what the heck happened between the crysis 2 multiplayer demo and the retail release? They had it perfect in the demo, everything felt fair, and if i died I actually felt like I died because the other person got the upper hand on me or was better than me. Now it all just feels like the lag's fault, or a glitch or something. I don't ever recall running into something like this in the multiplayer demo. So, again, what happened? did someone spill soda all over the computer that housed the perfect demo that they were going to use as the retail release making them fall back onto a crappy unfinished, buggy version of their beta build?

Or did we all get a copy of the game with the unfinished beta by accident? I don't know, but it's getting so rediculous now, so why not speculate rediculously? Right? I just wish I knew what happened between that time and now. I really do want to like this game, but it's all the problems that came with it that I didn't expect that are making it so bad and frustraiting, coupled with the lack of communication from the development team is making me want to abandon all hope of there ever being a patch or seeing a less laggy and more playable multiplayer.

If it can even be playable for that matter though. I feel betrayed though, decieved, conned, anyone of those kinds of bad things a company could possibly do to it's consumers. Perhaps Im overracting, it's just a game, but it's a game that I spent 60 dollars on and irriplacable time on now too. Should we have to settle for mediocre titles in this day and age?

with all the advancements in video entertainment should we have to settle for the less than we pay good money for? That answer should be more than an obvious NO. But that's what we've gotten here today in front of us. Some may tollerate it better than others, but that won't do any good for us since that'll never show our true displeasure for the quality of the product.

We should not have to pay for something that doesn't meet that standard, that one im talking about is the one that was previously set, that most of us spent good money for expecting to get what we saw before, only to be met with dissapointment and frustraition. I really want to like this game, I really want to play this game without any problems, I really want either of the Crytek teams to, at the very least, acknowledge the console problems instead of leave us in the dark with no hope in sight to be relinquished of these persistant pleagues of glitches and bad connections due to no region filter. We shouldn't have to settle for ALMOST good. We want GREAT.

Im sure I can speak for alot of people who have the same feelings of frustraition as I do. Im trying to be as constructive with any critisism I give as possible as I can be, and perhaps I'm being a bit of a diehard about this, but I would really like to play my game now.


I felt the demo was terrible and a lot worse than the Beta. I played the Beta a lot and really liked it.. obviously I could overlook some of the problems as it was a beta. I put the demo in and I was instantly dismayed. The lag problems were outrageous and all the problems were still there. The final release unfortunately offered very little improvement.

Either way, it's a sorry state of affairs and I share your disappointment.

The 1st demo? the one with one hit melee's? Cloak + Sprint + melee = domination.

Plus it hat detection problems too.

That's my question, what the heck happened between the crysis 2 multiplayer demo and the retail release? They had it perfect in the demo, everything felt fair, and if i died I actually felt like I died because the other person got the upper hand on me or was better than me. Now it all just feels like the lag's fault, or a glitch or something. I don't ever recall running into something like this in the multiplayer demo. So, again, what happened? did someone spill soda all over the computer that housed the perfect demo that they were going to use as the retail release making them fall back onto a crappy unfinished, buggy version of their beta build?

Or did we all get a copy of the game with the unfinished beta by accident? I don't know, but it's getting so rediculous now, so why not speculate rediculously? Right? I just wish I knew what happened between that time and now. I really do want to like this game, but it's all the problems that came with it that I didn't expect that are making it so bad and frustraiting, coupled with the lack of communication from the development team is making me want to abandon all hope of there ever being a patch or seeing a less laggy and more playable multiplayer.

If it can even be playable for that matter though. I feel betrayed though, decieved, conned, anyone of those kinds of bad things a company could possibly do to it's consumers. Perhaps Im overracting, it's just a game, but it's a game that I spent 60 dollars on and irriplacable time on now too. Should we have to settle for mediocre titles in this day and age?

with all the advancements in video entertainment should we have to settle for the less than we pay good money for? That answer should be more than an obvious NO. But that's what we've gotten here today in front of us. Some may tollerate it better than others, but that won't do any good for us since that'll never show our true displeasure for the quality of the product.

We should not have to pay for something that doesn't meet that standard, that one im talking about is the one that was previously set, that most of us spent good money for expecting to get what we saw before, only to be met with dissapointment and frustraition. I really want to like this game, I really want to play this game without any problems, I really want either of the Crytek teams to, at the very least, acknowledge the console problems instead of leave us in the dark with no hope in sight to be relinquished of these persistant pleagues of glitches and bad connections due to no region filter. We shouldn't have to settle for ALMOST good. We want GREAT.

Im sure I can speak for alot of people who have the same feelings of frustraition as I do. Im trying to be as constructive with any critisism I give as possible as I can be, and perhaps I'm being a bit of a diehard about this, but I would really like to play my game now.


I felt the demo was terrible and a lot worse than the Beta. I played the Beta a lot and really liked it.. obviously I could overlook some of the problems as it was a beta. I put the demo in and I was instantly dismayed. The lag problems were outrageous and all the problems were still there. The final release unfortunately offered very little improvement.

Either way, it's a sorry state of affairs and I share your disappointment.

The 1st demo? the one with one hit melee's? Cloak + Sprint + melee = domination.

Plus it hat detection problems too.

There was a Beta and then later on there was the Demo.

That's my question, what the heck happened between the crysis 2 multiplayer demo and the retail release? They had it perfect in the demo, everything felt fair, and if i died I actually felt like I died because the other person got the upper hand on me or was better than me. Now it all just feels like the lag's fault, or a glitch or something. I don't ever recall running into something like this in the multiplayer demo. So, again, what happened? did someone spill soda all over the computer that housed the perfect demo that they were going to use as the retail release making them fall back onto a crappy unfinished, buggy version of their beta build?


I know exactly what your going through HAZARDous, I've been preaching the samething for the past month. I have plenty of quotes to explain what is currently making the mulitplayer so frustrating.

It's the game's hit detection. It's the number #1 problem with the multiplayer because it's takes the control of the aiming input out of the player's hand and let's the game do majority of the work. Mostly all gun fights are basically decided in the span of when you first ADS(Aim Down Sites) instead of letting the user control his reticule allowing them to lead/anticipate where the target is going to be. Instead of letting the player's input do the aiming the game, it basically turns this game into I see you first so you die gameplay. The hit registration takes so much player input out of the equation, it basically turns into who has the better connection and who can fire the most bullets from their gun in the other player general direction wins. IF THIS GAME ALLOWED PLAYER INPUT TO BE THE MAJOR DECIDING FACTOR FOR AIMING, A MAJORITY OF THE BALANCE PROBLEMS WOULD BE CROSSED OF THE LIST. The 2nd demo had it right concerning the hit detection but they threw it out because I believe either 1) To appease the people who couldn't figure out the shooting dynamics 2) Didn't meet the deadline to finish the multiplayer experience 3)Thought it was best for gameplay(Which I hope Crytek doesn't believe) Here's a quote explaining it in one of my threads about hit detection

This game has serious auto lock on when you ADS and I believe that's where players are getting it confused with. It's almost in a sense like of GTA3(not as bad), when you ads in proximity of the target in the retail version. However when you ads, it locks your sights in the position where you last hit LT (on the players position) without any magnetism for accurate shots. This is where random spraying is starting to come into play because decisive shots take a backseat to how many bullets I can shoot from the last known position that I ADS. The magnetism is relativity weak because if the magnetism was stronger, player could make more decisive shots. I believe they tried to put more emphasis on ADS for being the centerpiece for accurate shots but with copous amounts of static autolock and little magnetism, it turned the game into a spray my bullets into a general area outlet.

I believe the demo also had autolock ADS, but it required leading target leading and anticipating where your target was going to be positioned when the bullets were shot. In order to lead the target and/or anticipate where what position your bullets were going to register, requires reticule magnetism for that to occur. That is why the demo worked because it allowed for more player input instead of letting the game do majority of the work. Since it demanded the player to be more aware of his input, it made accurate shooting a more decisive factor. That's why Maximum armor worked in the demo because a lot of players didn't master accurate & precise shots. You had to put a steady stream of bullets in one position accurately to drop an opponent. The retail version doesn't allow that because a sidewipe from aiming down sites, send more than enough bullets to you current position and drops you too quickly. It also makes strafing far less effective because they can send a stream of bullets your direction with a simple swipe.

I prefered the demo's quirks too. I don't know what they've done but the aiming is off or lagged in the retail.

Bumping again to tell the reason why the hit detection is so inconsistent online. What was the 1 thing that the demo didn't have that the full game had access to? More weapons? No. Different modules? No. More weapon attachments. No. It was the campaign. The campaign is the reason for the current downfall of the multiplayer. Not in the sense that it took the forefront in Crytek's goals but it did leave something else. THE CAMPAIGN LEFT IT'S HIT REGISTRATION IN THE MULTIPLAYER. That's the problem with the multiplayer because it's the same exact registration as the campaign.

There is nothing wrong with the campaign hit registration when you playing offline against a computer because your playing to reveal the story and your against multiple AI opponents. However if your playing online in a multiplayer enviroment, it's a different story. Campaign hit registration has way too much Autoaim to the point where the player doesn't have to be aware of their input. Using the same hit registration online is a disaster waiting to happen because it takes too much player input out of the players hands.

Think about it. Were the campaign A.I's designed the run at the same speed as the other human opponents online? Nope. They basically were shooting ducks because of slow movement and stationary firing. Did they jump superhuman heights at random? Nope. They could barely clear over any cover. Did the campaign's A.I. ever try to strafe your fire? Nope. They stood still and absorbed your bullets like a sponge.

Multiplayer is not about finishing a story. Multiplayer is not about letting everybody have a kill. Multiplayer is about letting the better player win. The campaign hit registration doesn't allow that in online gameplay. The 2nd demo hit registration allowed way better player input and it balanced all the weapons in the process. Shotguns ruled close quarters. Assault rifles dominated mid-range combat and snipers conqured long range. Give players the 2nd demos hit registration and a majority of the balancing issues will be crossed of the list.

I prefered the demo's quirks too. I don't know what they've done but the aiming is off or lagged in the retail.

Bumping again to tell the reason why the hit detection is so inconsistent online. What was the 1 thing that the demo didn't have that the full game had access to? More weapons? No. Different modules? No. More weapon attachments. No. It was the campaign. The campaign is the reason for the current downfall of the multiplayer. Not in the sense that it took the forefront in Crytek's goals but it did leave something else. THE CAMPAIGN LEFT IT'S HIT REGISTRATION IN THE MULTIPLAYER. That's the problem with the multiplayer because it's the same exact registration as the campaign.

There is nothing wrong with the campaign hit registration when you playing offline against a computer because your playing to reveal the story and your against multiple AI opponents. However if your playing online in a multiplayer enviroment, it's a different story. Campaign hit registration has way too much Autoaim to the point where the player doesn't have to be aware of their input. Using the same hit registration online is a disaster waiting to happen because it takes too much player input out of the players hands.

Think about it. Were the campaign A.I's designed the run at the same speed as the other human opponents online? Nope. They basically were shooting ducks because of slow movement and stationary firing. Did they jump superhuman heights at random? Nope. They could barely clear over any cover. Did the campaign's A.I. ever try to strafe your fire? Nope. They stood still and absorbed your bullets like a sponge.

Multiplayer is not about finishing a story. Multiplayer is not about letting everybody have a kill. Multiplayer is about letting the better player win. The campaign hit registration doesn't allow that in online gameplay. The 2nd demo hit registration allowed way better player input and it balanced all the weapons in the process. Shotguns ruled close quarters. Assault rifles dominated mid-range combat and snipers conqured long range. Give players the 2nd demos hit registration and a majority of the balancing issues will be crossed of the list.
interesting theory. where's the proof?

interesting theory. where's the proof?

Alright I have a lot of stuff to copy, paste or typeout but before I get started on all of that. I was wondering, did you ever play any of the demos? Just trying to see if we can find a common ground or understanding first. Also, if you did, what did you interpret from it?

There was a Beta and then later on there was the Demo.

The second demo was a patched beta.

It makes me cry when I remember how perfect the second demo was... and just how inexusably broken the final game is. Crytek has balanced, functioning, lag-free code in their possession as evidenced in the demos. They just refuse to give it to us. The worst part is that Crytek shows no intention of fixing any of the issues in the game or even responding to the community. Sad.

I'd love to know what happened too. I played the MP demo on the 360, if there were multiple demos, i played the last one. It was amazing. It sold me on the game and I even pre-ordered this crap. I played probably... 300 matches on the demo even tho there were only two maps and I only played crash site. The **** hooked me. I rarely had bad connections and the auto aim was definitely different and way the **** better. The demo actually replaced all other full retail games I had been playing. The final version of this game however, after a bunch of unplayable games in a row I end up playing something else and wishing I could just load up the **** demo.

I'd seriously take the demo over the final game any day.

Bump

I had connection issues in the demo on the 360 (the final demo), but I assumed it was all just due to it being a demo and perhaps there wasn't a decent size player population to give decent hosts. However, I still loved the game.

Now I find myself with WORSE connection issues, and the host selection is twice as bad (just an opinion).

By the time they patch this (if), there won't be a player base to give decent hosting anyway... Brink here I come.

Well from what I'm gathering it seems that this has been the case with most other people as well, the multiplayer demo had it right, but the retail version has it wrong. More than likely because they changed the aiming system by throwing out the perfect multiplayer one they had and using the campaign one in place of it. Now there are only a handfull of possibilities I can come up with to explain their reasoning for this. One is that they wanted to keep the continuiety of the game and didn't forsee this being as sizeable of a problem as it's become.

Or maybe they were told by the other crytek team to keep it the same as the campaign, OR, and this is going to be a bit of a stretch but it's not 100% unlikely, although I hope it is, they did it on purpose to intice people to buy the game by giving them a perfect multiplayer only to boost their retail sales numbers by using a bait and switch on us. Which would be the ultimate betrayal to the consumer. That could also be a logical explaination to their being so silent on the matter too. But like I said it's all speculation and crytek being so quiet over the past month about this issue isn't helping the matter either, leaving all of us to speculate the worst case scenario.

However I'm still not going to give up hope yet that they will eventually get around to fixing things....*crosses fingers*. The two main problems are just the lag and the aiming system, if they fix those most of the other problems will be more than bearable, at least in my opinion they would be. That's what I hope to see in the next 2 to 4 weeks. If nothing happens then I'm probably just going to stop playing this game and never by a product that's made by crytek again, and I really mean that. Im sure other people could say the same at this point or very soon if nothing is done about this mess of a multiplayer we have on our hands that we spent our HARD EARNED MONEY ON, only to get dissapointment and frustraition in return. Not to mention the irriplaceable time we've spent on playing this game.

BUMP!

Dude, the shotgun was mega imbalanced in the demo.

I think the Feline is more of a problem than the Jackal, By the way the jackal takes alot more aim than the feline no matter what you say.

lol in the demo the jackal was the buggiest messiest worst thing in the game, seriously it was on par with the killcams.

At least armor mode actually worked in the second demo.

At least armor mode actually worked in the second demo.
a little too well for my liking, a middle ground woulda been good. but remain at the point where a marshal shot+melee would kill them.

At least armor mode actually worked in the second demo.
a little too well for my liking, a middle ground woulda been good. but remain at the point where a marshal shot+melee would kill them.

It was still barely reaching usefull ness in the second demo as it is.

I still don't understand whats so overpowered about using the campaign Armor mode.

It's just tools being dumbed down by people complaining that if they don't use them then they will get destroyed.

a little too well for my liking, a middle ground woulda been good. but remain at the point where a marshal shot+melee would kill them.

Armor mode in the demo has the same exact strength in the retail. The only difference is that you have to rely on your own player input to drop them. Players in the demo died just as fast as in the retail IF the player's aim was precise and on point. That's the problem with retail version, it doesn't award precision shooting and makes spamming too effective.

im so happy everyone else is having these same issues! the aim in multiplayer pisses me off to no end! and i agree about the armor mode, doesnt even seem to make a difference. i think ive taken more hits unarmored and survived.

this game is so badass tho, i hope crytek fixes this **** quick.