Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis 2 or battlefield 3 ?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 9, 2011 12:56:41 PM

hey everybody, can any help me what i should buy, crysis 2 or battlefield 3.
thnx

More about : crysis battlefield

October 9, 2011 1:00:52 PM

It depends; Crysis 2 has a background story, which kind of continues from Crysis, so if you're into storylines, Cysis is the way to go (which would mean you'd have to find about Crysis, or play it). There is no continuation of any storyline in Battlefield 3, but it's got a good single player campaign and awesome multiplayer, as it is already being reported.

Also make sure you have a PC good enough to allow you to play either of the two games, they need good resources.
m
0
l
October 9, 2011 1:40:20 PM

You'll be wasting your money playing Battlefield 3. The beta (Battlelog) sucks. Now EA is going browser base gaming on this one which I think what makes this game so bad besides the huge battlefield maps (you end up running most of the time & won't see real action). I don't recommend Crysis 2 either though I never really played the game.

If you wan't a good FPS, go with Medal of Honor 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaz7r2r_Fik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWhvO7FeHFU&feature=relm...
m
0
l
Related resources
October 9, 2011 3:24:21 PM

thnx for reply, i want to know witch game is better for multiplayer
m
0
l
October 9, 2011 3:56:44 PM

Medal of Honor 2010 got the best multiplayer game for me.
m
0
l
October 9, 2011 5:20:03 PM

Crysis 2 multiplayer just isn't much fun. Very disappointed, since I love(d) Crysis Wars so much.

I am, however, having a ball in Battlefield 3 multiplayer in the Caspian Border beta map.

It's an open Beta, so go download it and give it a try.....it isn't a finished product, but at least you'll know if you like the vibe.
m
0
l
October 9, 2011 5:27:41 PM

Cheaptrick said:
You'll be wasting your money playing Battlefield 3. The beta (Battlelog) sucks. Now EA is going browser base gaming on this one which I think what makes this game so bad besides the huge battlefield maps (you end up running most of the time & won't see real action). I don't recommend Crysis 2 either though I never really played the game.

If you wan't a good FPS, go with Medal of Honor 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaz7r2r_Fik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWhvO7FeHFU&feature=relm...

medal of honor2010 was horrible. you cant judge BF3 by a beta only released to test out the servers for DICE. BF3 will be a fine purchase as well as crysis2. if you want a story as eldd said, the crysis series has a driven storyline, instead of just battle situations as an excuse to put you in a firefight
m
0
l
October 9, 2011 6:19:56 PM

for map size alone bf3... for 64 players bf3 for a long lasting multiplayer experiance, bf3... no ORIGIN CRYSIS2 for the win...

its bad enough they put drm on the games but now they want to collect info 2...
its only the paying customers who are gonna have a hard time of it. the pirates will bypass origin and have the game out on there scene b4 its even released in europe...
its the legit guy thats getting hurt.. he should be treat with a little more respect.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 12:04:04 AM

In choosing a game really depends on what kind of gameplay you like. If you like run & gun type of game then go with COD games. If you like tactical games then go with ARMA or Battlefield games. If you like instant action with a tactical blend then go with Black Hawk Down or Medal of Honor.

I happened to play both the alpha & the beta version of Battlefield 3 & I'm for sure can say that it sucks. I can also say with absolute certainty that about 75% of those gamers that pre-ordered the game cancelled their pre-order after playing the beta version. There's no way hardcore PC gamers will embrace the Battlelog. The browser based game may be OK in EA's Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2012 but if you talk of FPS, there's no way PC gamers will accept it. It would be like playing Arcade V3. The game looks so cheap.

What you saw in some of the game trailers of Battlefield 3 posted by EA is no way the same as the game they're going to release next month. There's no way for them to fix the game in a month's time so expect a total failure of the Battlefield 3 release next month. You'll be wasting your money if you buy Battlefield 3.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 1:01:12 AM

Cheaptrick said:
In choosing a game really depends on what kind of gameplay you like. If you like run & gun type of game then go with COD games. If you like tactical games then go with ARMA or Battlefield games. If you like instant action with a tactical blend then go with Black Hawk Down or Medal of Honor.

I happened to play both the alpha & the beta version of Battlefield 3 & I'm for sure can say that it sucks. I can also say with absolute certainty that about 75% of those gamers that pre-ordered the game cancelled their pre-order after playing the beta version. There's no way hardcore PC gamers will embrace the Battlelog. The browser based game may be OK in EA's Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2012 but if you talk of FPS, there's no way PC gamers will accept it. It would be like playing Arcade V3. The game looks so cheap.

What you saw in some of the game trailers of Battlefield 3 posted by EA is no way the same as the game they're going to release next month. There's no way for them to fix the game in a month's time so expect a total failure of the Battlefield 3 release next month. You'll be wasting your money if you buy Battlefield 3.

Are you forgetting the fact that DICE has said that the beta is a very early build and the final product will be as advertised.... Don't judge something by a beta. They have already "fixed" all the issues with the beta you speak of as we have a version that is said to be upwards of 5 months old. The only reason they are having this open beta is to test their server system before going full online. Go do some research to back that opinion.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 2:51:23 AM

It's now impossible to change what's set. And that is... the Battlelog. You have to deal with it & the non-game.exe (browser base game). They can tweak the game to run it smoothly maybe but what's laid now is what we're going to see in the finish product. October 25 is the release date.

No real PC gamer will play this game.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 3:27:03 AM

Cheaptrick said:
It's now impossible to change what's set. And that is... the Battlelog. You have to deal with it & the non-game.exe (browser base game). They can tweak the game to run it smoothly maybe but what's laid now is what we're going to see in the finish product. October 25 is the release date.

No real PC gamer will play this game.

What? So now you are speculating about battlelog? Yeah it sucks but before you were talking about graphics too. What about the people that want the game for single player? I happen to love a good campaign and will most likely go through it multiple times... Does that make me not a true PC gamer? I guess not then. I just like gaming on my PC but since I want to get bf3 I guess im a non real PC gamer..... Sigh I wished I was as hardcore as you
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:36:48 AM

Who ever says dont get battlefield 3 just based on the bugs in beta ,no need to listen to them. They should know that it is just a beta it means in testing stage and not a demo. So they should understand the real difference between demo and beta.

Crysis 2 has good story line but seems to broken in pieces. The really gets started in the middle and from there on it was really fun. The multiplayer is not as good as it should have been. The graphics are good but not as good as the previous two crysis games were.

On the other hand from the videos and previews of battlefield 3 i am really impressed with the game. They have very good co-op, singleplayer and not to forget the very impressive multiplayer. So getting battlefield 3 will be the ideal choice to get. the unlocks in battlefield 3 will keep you busy for 100 of hours and the battlefield 3 community have really good players to player with. So if you have a choice to get the best multiplayer game of this year so getting back to medal of honor just for multiplayer which wont be as good as BF3 is not so good choice. medal of honor dont have good single player campaign and it was really boring to play it.

Just few more days for BF3 to release so wait and enjoy you christmas in a blast this year.

And to add this is the real PC game to dont to listen to others that dislike the game just because of the battlelog and not on the basis of the games features.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 5:22:53 AM

You will promote MOH that i came to knew from your profile pic itself and do not forget the same team has developed battlefield 3 so it is their full effort and by the way MOH can be run even on low graphics setting where as battlefield 3 is only going to be released on DirectX 10 and 11. It is going to a monster game and please don't recommend a old game to OP as he can get a better game then MOH.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 12:08:44 PM

its not a browser based game period.

It has a browser front end for choosing servers and tracking stats.

The exe it runs is bf3.exe, thats a not a browser.

the retail version will allow setting changes etc. prior to log in, the only difference is that bf3.exe is not running whilst you don't need it to run, in fact with every game a new instance of bf3.exe is started, that actually sounds better to my mind.

I enjoyed the Beta, and BFBC2 and BF2, its a shame its not on steam, but its not a deal breaker for me.

m
0
l
October 10, 2011 3:44:45 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Medal of Honor Multiplayer video:
]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaG4hx8Uwb4]

Battlefield Multiplayer video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8YSI5XKBvk&feature=related

With MOH, you have to have a better video card though. If you lagged then you'll get killed instantly due. I know some gamers from my days playing Delta Force: Black Hawk Down not playing MOH coz their video cards can't handle it (it's not really because the game sucks).

you need a better video card with MoH? how so? it is a console port? if peoples video cards dont work on MoH then they need to update their 10 yr old computer. and what is with this video comparison? one guy is wanting to kill guys, the other is just showcasing an rpg on a building and running around. is this supposed to make me want to play MoH?
fanboy beware
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:06:59 PM

First of all, MoH multiplayer gameplay looks more like a polished Counter Strike 1.6, minus the rush, minus... oh well. You get my drift. Battlefield looks a little more anchored into immediate reality. At the end of the day I am so happy I am not into multiplayer, so I can actually enjoy single player campaigns on all sides (Call of Duty and Battlefield series).
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:07:07 PM

The browser based BF3 truly sucks. There's lots of gamer already petitioning EA on this. I'm sure it will be heard on deaf ears.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7484854.page

Anyway, I don't really like to argue of what's best for the gamer who started this thread. All I can say is, if you like to play a game where you spawn in a wide area far from the action & spend most of your time running shooting on walls only to get shot as you're about to see an enemy (as in the video below) then go & get BF3. That's all I can say. Have a good day folks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8YSI5XKBvk&feature=related

Goodluck with your browser based BF3 game...
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:11:56 PM

i love it when fanboys have arguments that change with every post
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:12:24 PM

how is it a browser game again?
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:12:41 PM

Eldd said:
First of all, MoH multiplayer gameplay looks more like a polished Counter Strike 1.6, minus the rush, minus... oh well. You get my drift. Battlefield looks a little more anchored into immediate reality. At the end of the day I am so happy I am not into multiplayer, so I can actually enjoy single player campaigns on all sides (Call of Duty and Battlefield series).

+1 here. to totally negate a games value by the server system and not the actual gameplay mechanics itself is totally ludicrous
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:14:10 PM

Cheaptrick said:
The browser based BF3 truly sucks. There's lots of gamer already petitioning EA on this. I'm sure it will be heard on deaf ears.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/7484854.page

Anyway, I don't really like to argue of what's best for the gamer who started this thread. All I can say is, if you like to play a game where you spawn in a wide area far from the action & spend most of your time running shooting on walls only to get shot as you're about to see an enemy (as the video below) then go & get BF3. That's all I can say. Have a good day folks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8YSI5XKBvk&feature=related


To be honest now, in the Battlefield video, the player posting the video brings up the "who's online" window and we can see only 3 players on that huge map, so obviously he runs like a headless chicken with nothing to shoot at but walls (which collapse beautifully). The real problem is if there aren't enough players that will play such huge maps when the game is finally released, cause they will RUN like mad around, with nothing to shoot at indeed. That is something EA, DICE and the rest of the brass should take into account at one point (or not).

I am still going to get that game, but no multiplayer for me, thank you very much, I am not THAT impressed with it anyways.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:20:32 PM

Eldd said:
I am still going to get that game, but no multiplayer for me, thank you very much, I am not THAT impressed with it anyways.


Hey, that's interesting. The guy said he's looking for a good multiplayer game. So this BF3 game is not for him then?

Also, I only play on multiplayer game only by the way so this game is also not for me. :D 
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:39:13 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Hey, that's interesting. The guy said he's looking for a good multiplayer game. So this BF3 game is not for him then?

Also, I only play on multiplayer game only by the way so this game is also not for me. :D 


Love how this guy says BF3 sucks, which I also played alpha and beta, both of which were fine for me. I am buying the game on multiple platforms. Battlelog is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. And as Flint stated, the build on release is mature, they are testing back end server strength due to 2143 having such a HUGE boom at the beginning servers were down the first 3 days and they are trying to avoid that to capitalize on people coming over from CoD.

Also take this moron's arguments with a grain of salt they all change and he is comparing everything to his "GEM" Medal of Honor which happens to be the BIGGEST flop in recent years when it comes to multiplayer games. That game is garbage and thats why it has been sold for 10-19.99 for the past 11 months. . . . a month after release.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 4:47:38 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Hey, that's interesting. The guy said he's looking for a good multiplayer game. So this BF3 game is not for him then?

Also, I only play on multiplayer game only by the way so this game is also not for me. :D 


Of course it's interesting, it's just simply so to watch how you want to twist every possible answer to reflect you in your best position every time. But if you took a second or two to scroll up at the FIRST post in this thread, the OP has asked which game is better, and only in his next post (after he thanked for replies) he asks about the multiplayer. And after that question, the whole neighborhood went south so to speak and everyone started taking into account ONLY multiplayer aspect, not many who considered for a second if the OP maybe wanted both taken into account.

So, the guy wasn't asking about multiplayer, he also asked about multiplayer too. Don't get too much out of context here, it's simply not fair.

Yes, if you don't like this game's multiplayer, you obviously have no reason to pay for it, but don't bash others for liking that aspect of the game, everyone has their own taste, which might be different than yours mate :) 
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 5:00:56 PM

Well, we'll see the final review of the game once it's released. I'm sure (100%) the review will be very bad to mediocre. :D 
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 5:16:14 PM

you are judging this game based on a beta. just wait, and see what everyone has to say. MoH 2010 was garbage, i barely finished the game, and couldnt play the CoD clone on multi for very long before i got bored.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 5:55:39 PM

Medal of Honor 2011 multiplayer : here is a map with 2 ways to leave your spawn that can be choked way to easily, Enjoy!
that game was garbage.

Battlelog is browser based so if you are switching servers all the time, you would have to alt-tab to do that,
but the way I game is to find a server I like and play multiple matches in that server. so how is Battlelog so horrible for me again?
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 6:22:26 PM

easymark26 said:
Medal of Honor 2011 multiplayer : here is a map with 2 ways to leave your spawn that can be choked way to easily, Enjoy!
that game was garbage.

Battlelog is browser based so if you are switching servers all the time, you would have to alt-tab to do that,
but the way I game is to find a server I like and play multiple matches in that server. so how is Battlelog so horrible for me again?


He's not been able to answer that question so far, he ignores its existence in fact.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 6:32:12 PM

13thmonkey said:
He's not been able to answer that question so far, he ignores its existence in fact.


One thinks that if they ignore it long enough, it'll cease to exist.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 6:39:54 PM

indeed, some of the chat on BF3 has been funny with the rampant hating of it, can't see why they don't like it they've spent their time typing not playing.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 6:46:09 PM

Guys take a chill! Let's just wait for the final review...
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 6:50:35 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Guys take a chill! Let's just wait for the final review...


That's right... at the end of the day, games are supposed to be fun (at least some of them), and we're all here to have fun playing them, and not start WW III. Speaking of which, I hate Angry Birds!
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 8:09:17 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Guys take a chill! Let's just wait for the final review...

what happened to all the blind hate towards BF3? Now you want to wait to see how it is?
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 11:27:18 PM

I like Crysis 2 better. If I wanted to run slow and get killed in one shot I would join the real life army.
m
0
l
October 10, 2011 11:41:39 PM

benski said:
I like Crysis 2 better. If I wanted to run slow and get killed in one shot I would join the real life army.


Running slow and getting killed out of nowhere pretty much describes how I felt about Crysis 2. ;)  At least the strafe speed was a little faster in Crysis 2 than BF3, but not much. I came from Crysis Wars though, where you can move fast enough to dodge bullets - so everything feels kind of slow now. :) 
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 8:08:17 PM

medal of honor 2010 is a great game no doubt! but the game is just so damn short! It drives me nuts! Go with both Crysis 2 and Bf3 Both real great games!
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 8:26:39 PM

Cheaptrick said:
Guys take a chill! Let's just wait for the final review...


You just HAVE to be trolling...

Nearly every post you have made on this thread is complete garbage!

The Crysis games are amazing, and its fair to say bf3 is shaping up nicely.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 10:02:03 PM

If you're spending all your time running around in BF3 it is simply because you either don't know how to spawn off of squad members, or don't know how to spawn off of controlled objectives.

I spent a whole lot of time playing the huge Caspian Border map while it was up, and was always able to spawn close to the action.

That BF3 video that was posted was ridiculous. There are plenty of good videos on YouTube to check out with competent players demonstrating gameplay. It's going to be a very good game.
m
0
l
October 12, 2011 10:05:26 PM

relax.... he was obviously just a fanboy that got his feelings hurt.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 4:16:59 PM

Cheaptrick said:
In choosing a game really depends on what kind of gameplay you like. If you like run & gun type of game then go with COD games. If you like tactical games then go with ARMA or Battlefield games. If you like instant action with a tactical blend then go with Black Hawk Down or Medal of Honor.

I happened to play both the alpha & the beta version of Battlefield 3 & I'm for sure can say that it sucks. I can also say with absolute certainty that about 75% of those gamers that pre-ordered the game cancelled their pre-order after playing the beta version. There's no way hardcore PC gamers will embrace the Battlelog. The browser based game may be OK in EA's Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2012 but if you talk of FPS, there's no way PC gamers will accept it. It would be like playing Arcade V3. The game looks so cheap.

What you saw in some of the game trailers of Battlefield 3 posted by EA is no way the same as the game they're going to release next month. There's no way for them to fix the game in a month's time so expect a total failure of the Battlefield 3 release next month. You'll be wasting your money if you buy Battlefield 3.


I don't mean to contradict you but the Beta is a 3 month old beta with most bugs already fixed. It's unfortunate that you (and maybe some people you know) would cancel the pre-order because of irrational reasons. If you don't like the general feel of the game, that's fine...but don't take the BETA too seriously. They were meant to stress the servers so that it'd be a lot smoother when the game released (remember BFBC2 servers on release???, horrible). I think MOH servers were already a little smoother on launch.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 6:15:09 PM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
I don't mean to contradict you but the Beta is a 3 month old beta with most bugs already fixed. It's unfortunate that you (and maybe some people you know) would cancel the pre-order because of irrational reasons. If you don't like the general feel of the game, that's fine...but don't take the BETA too seriously. They were meant to stress the servers so that it'd be a lot smoother when the game released (remember BFBC2 servers on release???, horrible). I think MOH servers were already a little smoother on launch.

whats funny is MoH's multi was developed and ran by DICE
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:41:31 PM

Crysis 2 is a crap game with crap single player and crap multiplayer maps. Its a crap game. Just total crap.

BF3 is suposed to be good, but who knows, hard to say because no one has played it yet except maybe a few reviewers who may have gotten the final game already.

I would suggest waiting for BF3 and see what the reaction is.

IDK why these devs keep releasing terrible beta's then saying the finished game will look and play better. Seems like a fail strategy.

Imagine test driving a car, and then they tell you it won't suck if you buy it, trust us...retarded.
m
0
l
October 13, 2011 11:44:41 PM

It is incredibly disingenuous to make claims about BF3's web-based front-end at this time. No one even knows if that wasn't simply a quickly created solution so that they could get the beta live to test the backend (which was the stated purpose for the beta).

As far as which game has/will have the better and more populated multiplayer? BF3 will be the most populated PC FPS in the near future with MW3 being the most played overall more than likely. For your questions regarding BF3 vs. Crysis 2, BF3 will be the multiplayer FPS to own.

Even though I say that and even though I'll certainly be playing BF3, I just want to mention that I really enjoy Crysis 2's multiplayer. I think that the very creative movement that you can perform with the nanosuit A. creates fun gameplay and B. felt pretty immersive even in arena-style FPS multiplayer modes. It's unfortunate that Crysis 2 wasn't more widely played because I think in terms of individual player-skill, it highlights a good player better than Bad Company 2 currently does, or BF3 will (from what I've seen of the beta and the last 10 years of playing battlefield games).

This is just my 2 cents, buy Battlefield 3, but if you ever have some extra money sitting around, I thought Crysis 2 was actually a great game as well.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 2:59:07 AM

nocturnal7x said:
Crysis 2 is a crap game with crap single player and crap multiplayer maps. Its a crap game. Just total crap.

BF3 is suposed to be good, but who knows, hard to say because no one has played it yet except maybe a few reviewers who may have gotten the final game already.

I would suggest waiting for BF3 and see what the reaction is.

IDK why these devs keep releasing terrible beta's then saying the finished game will look and play better. Seems like a fail strategy.

Imagine test driving a car, and then they tell you it won't suck if you buy it, trust us...retarded.


The car is a finished product. The beta is an unfinished product which was released to help them test the servers so that they can be prepared for the games release.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 3:05:19 AM

I don't know why anyone would say Crysis 2's multiplayer maps were bad. The maps had a lot of vertical growth which complimented the power jumping and ledge grabbing very nicely =/.
m
0
l
October 14, 2011 7:32:41 PM

I didn't like them at first because they didn't have any vehicles and are small, but there is plenty of cover and the smaller size keeps the action going. It would be cool if there was at least one giant 64 player map like Mesa though.

m
0
l
!