Crysis 2 will be more fun in 3D

By Fred Dutton Published 24 September, 2010

Crytek: “3D entertainment is inevitable."

EA's forthcoming shooter Crysis will be great in 2D, but to get the most out of the game you'll need a 3D TV, according to its developer Crytek.

In an interview with Gamasutra, Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli said, "If you play Crysis 2 in 2D on a normal TV, you will have a lot of fun, but if you buy a 3D TV, you will have even more. I want our games to be one of the first games out there to show how 3D could be and what it means for first-person gaming."

"I'm quite sure over the years it will become standard. 3D entertainment is inevitable. It will come, and the key solution will be if it's easy for the eyes. If it's a challenge for the eyes, people won't like it. But we are trying to make a game that is hours of 3D, and you can judge it yourself."

Indeed you can. Crysis 2 arrives on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in March 2011. Eurogamer's Christian Donlan was certainly very impressed when he went hands-on in April.

Last month SCEE European president Andrew House told Eurogamer that 3D gaming was merely "an option."

"It's not a mandate," he explained. "It's not something we're trying to force people to have. It's something we're making available and at the right time for the right game the consumer will embrace."

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (31) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Scrumhalf #1 2 years ago

    Is this going to be 3D on all platforms?

  • darleysam #2 2 years ago

    Well that's good. If you're putting in 3D, it should contribute rather than just sit there doing nothing.

  • karooo #3 2 years ago

    Agree, although glasses are a big negative and the prices of 3Dtv.

  • MrFlump #4 2 years ago

    The more they prattle on about 3D the less likely i'm going to take any developer seriously. My concern is that they will start releasing games in 3D and focus on that at the cost of those who don't want or can't use 3D and thats just insane.

    "Hey, in these times of tight finances, lets release games that many people can't afford to experience fully. We'll be left with a game that sells next to nothing due to its shitty 2D experience that we can be still be proud of as we have to sell our own 3DTVs to feed our families".

  • Chufty #5 2 years ago

    I predict a comments thread full of the ill-informed hatred of glasses and the price of 3DTVs.

  • SteveHolt #6 2 years ago

    ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE, PUNY CONSUMERS.

  • MrFlump #7 2 years ago

    I predict a comments thread full of the ill-informed hatred of glasses and the price of 3DTVs.
    Its not an ill informed hatred of glasses from my point of view. I can't wear them as I get seriously bad motion sickness when trying to watch 3DTV and 3D films irrespective of viewing angle, lighting and distance from screen - the guys at the Sony Centre here said that they have had quite a few people experience the same during 3DTV demos, they didnt quantify that but its obviously happened enough for them to be aware of it.

    This is why i'm opposed to developer focusing on 3D. If they start expecting users to have 3D equipment for games, they've effectively cut me off from experiencing the content.

    Edit: I realise Crysis 2 can still be played in 2D, but there is a worrying shift towards 3D gaming all of a sudden and I'm more concerned that we'll see more "this won't work without a 3DTV" disclaimers on games.
    Edited by MrFlump at 24/09/10 @ 18:16

  • Chufty #8 2 years ago

    People who get motion sickness with active shutter glasses also get it with non-glasses solutions. It's the stereoscopic effect that is giving you the headaches, not the glasses. Remember, these solutions are 'fooling' your brain into seeing 3D that isn't there.

    As long as you're directing your hatred at the 3D itself, not the glasses, you're ok. Continue.

  • menage #9 2 years ago

    Well, the I'm going to have less fun, but my wallet will have a bloody good time because of it.

  • Seehuusen #10 2 years ago

    i guess microsoft was wrong, it WILL be big.

  • Dizzy #11 2 years ago

    FFS Crytek.

  • Kaminari #12 2 years ago

    The only interest I have in stereoscopic hype is that it forces developers to drastically optimize their 2D code. I'm all for it.

  • witchdrash #13 2 years ago

    3D = added value not the be all and end all.

    Not everyone can see the effect, not everyone can stomach it. I do have a 3D tv and the content I have I find particularly impressive. Also if developers can add 3D easily and there is some support for it, why not? It's not like they're screwing over 2D players by allowing the game to be rendered for, what is currently, a minority of tv sets slightly differently. Also if the content is there it will trickle down to people who don't want to punt £1k on a tv set but wouldn't mind the option and the quality of the releases will improve.

    3D is here to stay, it's inevitable, although it will change over the coming years to be cheaper and more effective, and hopefully glasses free at somepoint, but still keep the max resolution and lots of viewing angles of the glasses option

    @MrFlump doubt it, as the 3D standard allows the display of a single frame, which then makes it 2D, would be a bit crap if they did somehow force it though.
    Edited by witchdrash at 24/09/10 @ 19:36

  • LOLLERS #14 2 years ago

    It won't be more fun. It just won't.

  • witchdrash #15 2 years ago

    @LOLLERS GTA 4 in 3D was a lot more fun, much easier to judge distances, which when weaving through traffic makes life a lot easier, meant I could concentrate on drive bys than dodging cars :D

    Will 3d make a 6/10 game an 8/10 no, it will still be 6/10, 3d games are more immersive though
    Edited by witchdrash at 24/09/10 @ 19:34

  • orangpelupa #16 2 years ago

    current 3D display is too expensive. also the glases is very expensive.
    btw hoping the 3D method they use is lightweight and not need 120hz display.....

    My very old 120Hz CRT already died :(
    and my LCD only 60Hz (75 max)

  • dllord #17 2 years ago

    Looking forward to playing this in 3d along with killzone 3!
    I think 3d really is pretty impressive for gaming, Avitar the game in 3d on the ps3 looks very cool in 3d shame its average gameplay wise!

  • Sabreman64 #18 2 years ago

    3D would be a good advance if it introduced gameplay and game mechanics that would be impossible with a 2D display. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a gimmick.

  • captainrentboy #19 2 years ago

    I spent lots of moolah on a 60" TV not one year ago, so 3DTV and Crytek-Man can go and fuck themselves.
    In 4 or 5 years there will be another new and exciting technology in the world of home entertainment, I'll just wait for that one :)

  • Chufty #20 2 years ago

    [link url=http://besthdelectronics.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=270
    ]http://besthdelectronics.com/index.php?d...[/link]

    Seriously they're getting cheaper and cheaper by the month.

  • bloodflowers #21 2 years ago

    3d products are inevitable.

    3d sales, less so.

    I keep asking around my gaming friends (who are many and varied) and not one of them sees it as anything more than a fun gimmick you might want to play with from time to time. Those poor little marketroids are going to be so disappointed.

  • Nephirion #22 2 years ago

    If you got a free 3D tv with crysis 2 that would be instabuy for me

  • dllord #23 2 years ago

    @captainrentboy "I spent lots of moolah on a 60" TV not one year ago, so 3DTV and Crytek-Man can go and fuck themselves.
    In 4 or 5 years there will be another new and exciting technology in the world of home entertainment, I'll just wait for that one :)"

    Thats what you call hard luck mate, i bought a 720p hdtv 5 years ago for quite a bit of money, didnt bother upgrading to 1080p when it came out a year or so later, just bought a 3dtv last month as i feel its worth the upgrade from a 5 year old 720p hdtv. So for me 3d its quite a big deal!
    Edited by dllord at 24/09/10 @ 23:28

  • DAN.E.B #24 2 years ago

    @witchdrash

    finally someone talking sense about 3D
    Im sick of everyone bitching about it, because they dont have A 3D TV games shouldnt support it.
    It was the same BS when HDTV first come out !

  • Skurmedel #25 2 years ago

    3D... bah, they should be doing 4D. Those quaternions aren't going to visualize themselves.

  • lockload #26 2 years ago

    @Chufty all 3d ready means is it has the refresh rate for it, you still need to buy the add hardware to control the glasses etc

  • captainrentboy #27 2 years ago

    ''Thats what you call hard luck mate''
    Not really, the TV I bought went about £600 cheaper than it was originally, due to the fact that 3DTV and the newer models were due a few months down the line.
    I've got no problems with folk loving 3D, it must be great for them if they truely get something from the tech, but it honestly does bugger all for me. It's ok as a bit of fun when watching cheesy shit like Piranha and Res Evil at the cinema, but as for all this ''It adds a whole new level of immersion'' stuff. Naaaa, personally, if anything, it's just hugely distracting.
    Edit- Oh and I'm one of those saps that occasionally gets headaches from it too, after 2 hrs of Avater in Imax I thought my entire face was going to explode :/
    Edited by captainrentboy at 25/09/10 @ 12:59

  • DrDamn #28 2 years ago

    @lockload
    For that TV you just need the glasses, not sure if Samsung are still doing free ones. £60 tops for a set.

    @MrFlump
    There really isn't anything which a 3D tv can do which would prohibit a 2D version of the same thing. It's not like you can peek round corners or anything. It just nicely enhances the experience for some genres/games. A developer putting some time into 3D can also benefit the 2D version too.

  • cen4pgb #29 2 years ago

    Most 3D TVs have the option to just display 1 eye of the picture to produce a 2D image.

    Most games are rendered mostly in 3D these days anyway (some effects are 2D, which is why you have to diable them in the PC 3D solutions, and most GUIs are 2D). The extra load tends to equate to about a 25% drop in frame rates, in my experience. This is a good thing for 2D is it means a game aiming for 30FPS in 3D will be hiiting about 45 in 2D and 60FPS leads to a very good 90FPS.

    3D can only really improve the 2D version of a game graphically.

  • Buran #30 2 years ago

    The bad thing is that Crysis 2 maybe will be less fun than Crysis 1, due the game will not have prone, strafe jumps or vehicles, and the multiplayer will be downscaled from 32 to 12 players and will not support on fly weapon customizations.

    Not interested in the 3D, also. I have a 1680 x 1050 MVA monitor display that cost me 620 € four years ago and I'm aiming for a 2560 x 1440 27" SIPS display; current 3D displays are all TN displays, that performs horrible (only 6 bits per channel of color, narrow angles of view, poor contras ant bright quality). I'm not interested in 3D gaming even free. I would not use a 3D display even if someone gives me one for free.

  • bumgut #31 2 years ago

    3D at 30fps for PS3/360 = 60fps for the 'normal' version = win for us