Crysis 2's 3D is ''the Same as Avatar''

[schmich]

At least 3D for games makes more sense than movies. It's just that you probably won't have the 3D effect on all the time, just from time to time when you feel like having the added depth.

 

[eddieroolz]

No 3D please.

 

[aaron88_7]

[citation][nom]howiejcee[/nom]Anyone else considering spending around $2k to upgrade/build a new PC just for Crysis 2?[/citation]
Yes 😀

But I'm much more interested in virtual glasses as a 3D monitor than anything else. We've had this tech around for years but now we can finally get the resolution to the point that the experience would be completely insane.

In a perfect world one of the next gen consoles would be a backpack you would wear connected to glasses over your eyes with head tracking movement. Can you imagine playing Crysis on that? now that would be friggin sweet!

 

[randomizer]

Just because Cameron "loved" Crysis 2 doesn't mean it was anywhere near Avatar. It just means he didn't hate it...

[citation][nom]Weaselsmasher[/nom]3D in movies is also primitive....

*snip*[/citation]
This irritated me throughout avatar. It's a major complain I have about current 3D implementations. Many times in the scenes with minimal camera movement I looked at another out-of-focus region and it was a very peculiar feeling. Not being able to focus when you're trying to is quite odd.

 

[sparky2010]

you know, 3D in movies is not bad. it can make a rather crappy movie seem interesting as long as the 3D effects are kept up.
3D in games is completely different. Take a good game, like crysis 2 (i know it'll be good) add 3D to it, and it WILL be great!
the only problem is that it's a bitch to get the hardware needed to run that.. i.e., GPU(S), screen, glasses.. meh...

 

[Travis Beane]

I dislike 3D movies, and I have absolutely no intention of wearing glasses before I have to.
Affordable high quality glasses-free 3D, sure.

One thing that pisses me off however, 3D is just two different FoV's. Many flight sims can setup multiple FoV's.
Why won't they give us the option for multiple FoV's for multimonitor gaming? The nature of the FoV calculation is video games forces warping the further you see out (even in 16/9 it's noticeable, but at 48/9, it's unbearable).

I do wonder however, one of my eyes is degrading while the other isn't. What kind of long term effects can I expect from fake 3D then?

 

[iam2thecrowe]

i dont see the point of 3d unless the screen is huge, its just no good, doesnt have the same impact. Sure its a great idea, but it will be for a very limited audience. give it another 10 years. It will be interesting to see how well the consoles deal with 3d crysis, since they basically have to process twice the info with 3d on.

 

[jerreece]

[citation][nom]blibba[/nom]The truck in that picture looks worse than Source engine.[/citation]

It could be more detailed. But when was the last time you played a Source game? It's not horridly low res, just not epic.

 

[sparky2010]

Man, source was the bomb when it first came out.
And it still looks good till now. Can't wait for the latest generation of Valve games to come out ------------> Half-Life 3 *drool*

 

[mattmock]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]It's a major complain I have about current 3D implementations. Many times in the scenes with minimal camera movement I looked at another out-of-focus region and it was a very peculiar feeling. Not being able to focus when you're trying to is quite odd.[/citation]

I also have this problem in games with depth of field effects. When I try to look at something in the distance, it annoyingly remains a blur. Fortunately most games let you turn DOF off and I always do.

 

[psiboy]

Lets hope Crysis 2 is better coded than the first one.... wait it couldn't possibly be that bad a resource hog could it? lol

 

[razzb3d]

I'm usually all for new cutting-edge tech, but I say bleah to 3D. Saw several movies in 3D - not impressed. Avatar 3D looks like a 2D side-scroll game with animated backgrounds - and the characters look like cartboard cutouts. 3D? No thanks! Now some sort of holographic tech would be interesting...

 

[HappyBB]

It's just too bad that no matter how much I upgraded my PC, I am still unable to play this game at its fullest glory!

 

[urlsen]

[citation][nom]alienzander76[/nom]And it will need to all be liquid cooled, cuz they'll need to be overclocked. Go Crytek sarcasm[/citation]
It runs on a ps3...in 3D....(doubt x-box in 3D) wadaya think???? runnable on mediocre system?

 

[Guest]

I actually walked out of 3D Avatar in 15 minutes, just annoyed at not being able to focus where I want, and I could see it giving me a headache after 2 hours. However I have watched it on HBO about 15x now, and it never gets old. Why? Because I can look where I want. I'm constantly admiring all the background detail, the forest, the special fx, the interiors of the human confines, etc etc. How anyone could even watch this movie in 3d is beyond me. "HEY HERE IS HELICOPTER, YOU LOOK AT THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IT OUT OF FOCUS!!!" Uhhhhgg...

 

[zak_mckraken]

I won't play this game in 3D. My eyes will never be as trained for 3D as Mr. Cameron's, so why bother?

 

[tburns1]

Like ooooooooooooo ...he's a name dropper ...runnin' with the big-wigs! Champagne for everybody!

 

[techtre2003]

[citation][nom]wintelforever[/nom]if we must wear glasses why not incorporate the screen inside the glasses? i would love to sit on a plane with a 720P stereoscopic oled headset.[/citation]

They had this exact thing at CES this year. It was more like 3D goggles rather than glasses, but they worked really well. They were just presenting them as a tech demo so hopefully the final product will be a lot less bulky!

 

[Dirtman73]

[citation][nom]sparky2010[/nom]Take a good game, like crysis 2 (i know it'll be good)...[/citation]

You know it'll be good because all the professional reviewers will tell you it is.

Face it, 2 is gonna suck as much as the first one.

 

[deathbydoubleG]

eyefinity or surround is better than 3D, IMO...

i hope 3 HD 6970s in tri-fire can take this game in eyefinty with good settings and AA

 

[mikem_90]

[citation][nom]D_Kuhn[/nom]I'm sure the "3d" version will cost 50% more too... just like Cameron's mediocre movie did.[/citation]


Or worse, be super expensive like the 3D version of the movie Avatar, which was only available at first when you bought a Panasonic 3D TV. Later you had to buy just a pair of goggles at $400...

Lock in sucks.

 

[g00fysmiley]

my gts 450's in SLI are SO not going to cut it for this >_<

 

[Guest]

What a bunch of whiners. You all sound like my grandfather probably did when they started making color TVs. "Bah, who needs it", "Focus on making better B&W TVs", "The colors confuse me", "it costs more", "wah, wah, wah". I'm not a huge fan of 3D movies, but 3D gaming is incredible. Can't wait for Killzone 3 in 3D.

 

[deathbydoubleG]

What a bunch of whiners. You all sound like my grandfather probably did when they started making color TVs. "Bah, who needs it", "Focus on making better B&W TVs", "The colors confuse me", "it costs more", "wah, wah, wah". I'm not a huge fan of 3D movies, but 3D gaming is incredible. Can't wait for Killzone 3 in 3D.

you vs. the rest of the world (JK)

u using a ps3... IMO eyefinity and surround are better than 3D

imagine eyefinity or surround in 3D; that would get very confusing

 

[dazzabazza]

lots of interesting comments here on 3D.....I have a 50in samsung 3D Tv and in my opinion the 3D is very good, it even turns 2D into 3D although not as proper 3D as you would a bespoke made 3D movie or game but you certainly get a depth perspective that you don't get in 2D. I have to agree with one of the comments on here, sick of hearing about 3D this and 3D that....it does get on your nerves a bit to say the least. To say it's gimmicky, hmmm, possibly, it's not totally new tech but still needs to be much improved before it takes off, if it takes off at all,for example, why can't the actual tv screen be the equivalent of the glasses you wear so you don't have to wear the glasses ? I did read somewhere that one of the Japanese electronic giants has created a 3D tv that does not require glasses. I agree also with some of the comments about fixed focusing, it kinda screws your eyes up, the trouble is 3D HD cameras are not able to zoom in or out at the moment, a fixed lens is used so only the subject that is being filmed will be 3 dimensional, I watched the making of David Attenborough's 3D HD Sky only documentary on prehistoric flight, very very time consuming and heavy camera equipment causing lots of issues with every shot, also, because of the amount of detail picked up by the HD lens the light had to be just right, not a spec of dust on the lens etc....very intricate and expensive to produce. Well,my experience of 3D has so far been good, I have a selection of 3D movies and a few pc and 360 games that are stereoscopic compatible, black ops on the 360 on the samsung 50in is superb, infact, I can't play it in 2D now, it just looks so flat despite it's great graphical capabilities. My nvidia kit and 120hz monitor should arrive today so as I can play 3D pc games.....can't comment on those at the mo but from the reviews I've read gaming should become a whole new experience. Cheers everyone and happy gaming !