after playing the horrendous crysis 2 MP, I have come to appreciate killzone 3

how these two games could possibly have scored the same is beyond my realm of comprehension. Crysis 2 is an absolute clunk-fest of a game with recycled gameplay from other top-tier shooters, but not executed anywhere near as well. the animations are often a joke and the maps look like they are from 3 year old console launch title.

I was a crysis wars player, I enjoyed it, the large scale power struggle battles, the excellent balance of the suit abilities, and the gunplay felt fluid, solid, and most of all smooth. all that changed with Crysis 2,

if ever I could give an award for worse sequel ever, it would be this game. the multiplayer is balanced around incomprehensible design flaws and very laggy p2p, the guns feel like plastic and the progression of the suite modules are really no fun at all to acquire, and no where near useful or fun to use.

the network is often terrible, getting into a match with 5 other buddies is an ordeal within itself.

Then I come to killzone 3, a game that has EXCELLENT gameplay, INCREDIBLY smooth online sessions and exceptional game balance. Graphics and maps in a whole different league, seriously, I dare someone to try and compare Corinth Highway with any crysis 2 map, it's not even a competition. and such a wide variety of guns that each feel unique and identified in their own way.

I may have talked bad about GG before and their questionable design choices for killzone 3, but now, after playing Crysis 2 and then going back to killzone 3 , I have come to appreciate them as a top tier FPS developer. Should have been more like 8.5>6.0.

I still prefer KZ2-MP to KZ3-MP and I didn't buy Crysis 2 solely due to the MP demo on XBL. It was awful then and didn't see it holding any sort of advantage to what was offered by other shooters.

KZ3 would have been so much better if it didn't have matchmaking.

KZ3 would have been so much better if it didn't have matchmaking.

spookykid143

I don't see much difference between the two. They play alot alike.i5750at4Ghz

[QUOTE="spookykid143"]

KZ3 would have been so much better if it didn't have matchmaking.

Dead-Memories

Crysis 2 multiplayer was decent. Not the best but a mixed bag. I wouldn't call it horrendous but it definitely isn't for everyone.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]I don't see much difference between the two. They play alot alike.Dead-Memories

I even enjoyed Homefront a lot more than Crysis 2. Killzone 3 was a great game. Easily a 9.0 and IMO, better than the second. The multiplayer is addicting and the SP was actually pretty decent but was bogged down by too many controlled sequences.

I'm not one too hate on Killzone 3, but Killzone 2's multiplayer seemed a lot better over all. I'm not the biggest fan of multiplayer shooters to beging with, but Killzone 3 was a bit of letdown. I think it deserved its 8.5. I do agree that Killzone 3 has much better multiplayer than Crysis 2.

Horrendous is a bit strong don't you think? I mean it is at least functional and generally lag free. I'd say it was average, nothing more nothing less.

I was in a match that ended in a tie yesterday, it was a ridiculously fun match and for once people were working as a team, thats one of my gripes with Kz3 medics dont heal.

I still dont understand how kz2 is superior except for the server list thing. other than that kz3 is heads and shoulders above both crysis 2 and kz2. So far this years best shooter

Nah, Crysis 2 is way better. Killzone 3 was pretty much the second one with less maps and somewhat improved controls.

I pretty much agree, but on the campaign front I'm stuck.

Killzone 3 has something new to do every 20 minutes, from a new vehicle segment to a totally new area as well as fantastic AI which I think makes up for the linearity. On the other hand, Crysis 2 offers lots of freedom and choice in how you handle things, plus much more immersion.

Overall though, the multiplayer seals it for me. Crysis 2 is still a good game though.

I love Killzone 3, but it feels a bit rushed. They should have put more time into it

I'd rather not play either, but that's just me.

I played the KZ3 beta and it gave me no desire to purchase the full version. What a terribly bland experience that was. Crysis 2 on the other hand is one of the best FPS to come in quite a while, and the multiplayer is hella intense.

The only good thing in Crysis 2 is the main theme from the menu !!!:D

Well I thought Crysis 2's singleplayer was far superior to Killzone 3's, Maybe that's why?

Wow TC , it's just like you read my mind , I said those exact things in a couple of threads about fps , kz3 , gfx and overrated garbage like C2.Thank you for those wise words.

Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

Actually, Crysis 2 is a pretty darn good multi player. The problem is.....no run and gun. Crysis 2 is far more of a tactical and stealth oriented game. I have been playing for almost a month now and am just getting in a groove with the game. Being able to monitor your energy level in relation to your stealth use+nano vision.....watch for cloaked players, hide when your energy runs out. The multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 brings a new dimension to the FPS that, in my opinion, takes the COD et al. FPS to a whole new level.

I absolutely hated the multi-player at first as well, but its because I SUCKED!!! The issue is not the GAME, but rather its design in comparison to other more simple FPS (COD series, all of em, particularly). When I say design, I mean, its not a run and gun multiplayer. You can run and gun but, on the PC with no aim assist, you will get your tail handed to you. You have got to play smart, be quick to react, and anticipate other players weaknesses based on what yours were before you decided to stop with the run and gun BS. I love the run and gunners now....they are easy targets, even when cloked because they run right by you.

When the crysis 2 patch with DX-11, better cheat support, console improvements, and bug work outs (ping, updating stats etc) FINALLY touches down the game will be, in my opinion, the most complicated and best looking FPS multiplayer game on the PC (Until BF3 drops.....maybe). I dont care about consoles....any of them. I have turned into a PC snob and sold my xbox 360, PS3, and Wii. PC games, although it has a smaller selection of them, are far superior to console. They are so much superior in almost every aspect, that the few 8-10 that I do have beat all other console games I have played to date....and I've played A LOT.

Please....all of you keep buying consoles. Most gamers on PC are adults...some are kids, but consoles are for the kids and they should stay that way. I am absolutely amazed at the in game chat quiet I have experienced on the PC for all games. I haven't had to mute anyone yet.

I really liked Crysis 2's multiplayer. I don't really understand the hate for it, but I've come to the conclusion that people must just be bad at it. There's a lot of unusual tactics involved in its play. Its not at all a typical FPS, camping will get you killed. I think thats why I like it so much actually.

I love the Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 multiplayer, and i'm personally partial to the Crysis 2 MP.

It is not the standard time, and run n gun rules do not apply. There are more variables involved.

I'm still playing it, slowly edging towards rank 50.

Aside from a couple of things, i think it ws dumb of them to stagger the modes, having Extraction mode being one of the last ones, it's rare for people to even bother play that mode.