Crysis 2 to include stereoscopic 3D
Crysis 2 will feature stereoscopic 3D, which Crytek believes represents a "quantum leap" for games.
Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli has said that stereoscopic 3D represents a "quantum leap" in technology for games.
"At Crytek, we always strive to raise the technology bar," said Cevat.
"As the 3D revolution sweeps movies and television, we are excited to bring Crysis 2 to 3D, making it the first big action game to be available in true stereoscopic 3D."
"The 3D experience represents a quantum leap in interactive entertainment. With all of the same story and action seen in the 2D version of the game, the 3D version adds another dimension of intensity and immersion to the action."
Crysis 2 will be released this Autumn for consoles and PC. You can read our Crysis 2 preview for more information on it.
Let us know what you think about 3D games in the forums.
Previous Article
59 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyAs for Crysis in 3D - you can't polish a turd. Unless the sequel is going to be a radical departure from the original, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of hardware requirements I'm not even batting an eyelid.
I'm planning to build a system in the £500-600 bracket, based around a Core i3, using the integrated graphics. If a game cannot run reasonably well on it, it fails in my books. Especially when you consider that you can get a console with all the trimmings for half the price.
ill be happy only with 60 constant fps
Nope. 3D definitely almost works in cinema, but even there the edge of the screen breaks the immersion for me.
3D is a bandwagon and unfortunately Hollywood have gotten everyone to jump onboard - publishers and hardware developers - in the simple hope that here is the next big thing to make money out of and it might also help reduce piracy due to the technical limitations.
But I just don't see it taking off in the home. The hardware outlay is a big issue, plus having to wear the 3D glasses, if you can find them down the back of the sofa. Then you have the fact that the relative screen size is factors smaller than even the cinema experience and immersion will be almost zero.
Even if you do want to see 3D TV or 3D gaming in action you can't just walk into a shop and ponder it like you could with HD - in my city at least you have to wait for one of the brand retailers (Pioneer, Sony etc) to have a special 'open day' to showcase it. I guess they're too worried about people stealing the glasses or trying to watch it without glasses not realising what it is and being disappointed to have it on all the time.
Crytek have managed to get that level of graphical fidelity running on consoles, together with the 3D rendering overhead and at a steady framerate?
Are they coding gods?
it was actually a shame crysis wasnt all that good in 3d
I haven't heard of a single consumer excited for 3d, seriously doubt there's much money in it. Don't really appreciate it being forced on us just because manufacturers can't think of anything more exciting.
By using Stereoscopic 3D?
They do realise that stereoscopy has been around for a shade over 150 years, right?
Seriously though, will this be Nvidia only?
Will it support eyefinity too?
There are very few games that require good cpu's (Supreme Commander being one).
For most games a AMD cpu and a high end GPU is much better for gaming then a faster Intel CPU and bargin graphics cards or dare I say Inte integrated graphics failures.
Also all current Consoles use some form of graphics card or (in the case of the PS3) extra graphics cores.
Just buy this and you will be much more happy with your PC and it's in your budget. Add to that you can upgrade later with more screens and try eye-finity.
http://3xs.scan.co.uk/ShowSystem.asp?SystemID=1054
or for 40 pounds more get this pre-over-clocked version
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-237-OK
Both those systems are over £700 (if you add an OS to the OCers one). That's not really in budget.
I agree thought that you're better off buying a machine with a half-decent graphics card like the 5770, which you should be able to do with £600. Using onboard/on-CPU graphics is never going to run recent games reasonably well
D
The original did already.
Educate yourself :p
It can be done with turds as well :p
While I understand your point, this system is not a 'gaming rig'. It's just a budget-conscious family computer.
It's going to be sat in the living room and used as a media centre and for general computing. My priorities in building it are longevity and an upgrade path without spending a bomb. It will be always on, so it must be quiet and energy efficient, and it will live in a cabinet with little air flow so a hot system is out of the question. My budget is £500-600 including OS. I'm looking at getting:
Antec Mini P180
OCZ ModXstream pro 500w
Core i3 530
Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3
4GB DDR3 1600Mhz
This works out at about £400 atm, which is ideal for me. I've got spare bits to make that into a whole system and I will try linux for a while and see how I get on. If not I can get Win7 Home Premium for £80-100. I figure that by getting a decent case and psu I can swap out the i3 and replace it with an i5-750+GPU in years to come.
Anyway, my original point was that if I need a £700-800 'gaming rig' to appreciate a game then I'll pass.
I Stand corrected :D
With that said, I might simply wait until auto-stereoscopic 3D is readily available, as the thoughts of wearing 3D glasses just to enjoy 3D isn't something appealing to me, especially when the polarized 3D glasses substantially reduce the overall brightness of the image.
Other wise you will have to use the console.....
Which just takes a little time to get used to.
TV manufacturers have an excuse to sell new TV's (even if your current TV is perfectly fine). Movie studios get to sell tickets at higher prices. Console manufacturers have another gimmick to sell consoles with.
Basically, it's the perfect excuse to fleece the customer. But there is a problem, nobody has stopped to ask if consumers actually want 3D in their home.
Basically, I'm not ever going to be interested in stereoscopic 3D.
I imagine if you do not want to run it in 3dS you do not have to, Crysis 2 will be another watershed game, play it or not, that is up to you.
As far as console vs PC and making a 600 pound Gaming PC, I doubt you can make one for that cheap that will last more than a year. Lets see 600 B.Pounds is 888 Banana Republic dollars. Since a decent GPU runs 400$ (and you guys have to pay more for the same kit) I do not think a decent "I can use this for 2 years with regular upgrades" PC gaming computer can be made for that much.
Gaming is a hobby and you need to put at least 700 pounds a year into it, more if you want to play the best games at the best settings. It sounds like some people should just buy consoles and play on that inferior platform, it sounds like they would be happy there.
As to any new innovation, the market will be the judge, if this 3d is crap it will die, if not people will adopt it. All the negative posters here, I wonder how many of them have TRIED the damned tech. Forgive me, but I will have to test it before making a decision, I am strangely scientific that way.
Yours in Experimental 3-D Plasma,
Star*Dagger
What PC gaming needs is not gimmicky 3D. It's decent games, at a decent price and a lower barrier to entry. I have a family to support - I'm not going to spend £700 a year on a gaming rig + the cost of games. That's more than a my entire yearly tech budget, and I can find more useful things to do with it.
So here's the bottom line. I will buy a £600 PC this year and I will keep it for at least 3 years. Between now and then, any game that will not run on it might as well not exist to me.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, but £700+ is more than gaming is worth to me. Especially when I have yet to finish Age of Empires :)
And for those who don't want to spend too much, just put a good graphics card in your current PC. You don't budget for your high-def telly for your console, do you? (This point not aimed at eddtox).
Styar*Dagger, with console-drag affecting games development, a PC that can handle today's games will probably last several years. :( (My 4890 is still unbested by any game that isn't Crysis or Metro 2033).
me - I have 3d vision and bought a 2nd hand pc... for me thats a better (and cheaper) option than a new 930 pc.
As for 3D? It has a wow factor but like most new tech it's too expensive for most to adopt early and who's to say that current implementations don't turn out to be the Betamax of the 20teens? Quite frankly with needing special glasses, special screens and a special gpu... I'll pass.
So you think a console can do everything a PC can?
hmmmmm
Clearly you do, seeing your like-for-like comparison based on price, and therefore clearly you should have a console instead, as a PC might be wasted on you if you can't see the world of difference between them and consoles.
Also, your adamant stance to insist on using on-board gfx for gaming is just... ignorant; you know perfectly well you won't get a single game running on it, apart from Sims, or 3D titles from nearly 7 years ago!
Anyone who looks at Crysis and can't appreciate the depth and sophistication of the game engine, and the game itself shouldn't be playing it.
Stick to shiny, but shallow titles you cry-babies!
I agree that Crysis is over the top in terms of hardware requirements, and Crytek shouldn't go on about losing money to piracy and all that nonsense, as they effectively tried to force the entire PC Gaming scene to go and ditch their current PC's and spend over a grand on new kit.
I also understand that Crysis is incomparable to any other titles, and may be so for some time, in terms of game-engine sophistication. The AI, and Physics, both of which are the real new areas for gaming innovation, are in a different league to anything else around. Sure the plot's appeal varies from person to person, but a large part of this is purely subjective.
Maybe now the general hardware specs required for the game are more common, and can expect most people with a GAMING GRAPHICS CARD to be able to play reasonably.
As far as my personal limit to minimal gfx reqs, you have to say at least £100 for a card to expect any real gaming performance without major compromises.
To stamp your feet and insist on onboard gfx to be modern-gaming capable is just naive, and pointless.
Just budget for £600 for the PC, year 1, include at least a £100 gfx card in that, and put aside another £100 every 12-18 months, and yes you will most likely be able to play any titles you want, at above medium settings, for around 3-4 years.
Now, enough bitching, and more gaming!
;)
BRING IT ON!!
Makes perfect sense; logical progression.
3D = more realistic, and immersive, therefore better gaming.
Now, 3D wearable, wrap-around glasses, for that proper full vision view, including head movement tracking to replace mouse-look... THAT would truly be awesome.
I know you can already get this, at least without the 3D, with those Vuzix glasses and a Track-IR unit, I hear it's pretty shabby, and only works in some titles.
This 3D movement might spell the end of these proprietary options and offer these features as standard!
I mean, it would make sense that if you had to wear glasses/headset for 3D, then why not just extend that a little, add a couple of screens to the glasses instead, stereo-scope them, bolt on head-movement tracking, somehow implemented with universal standards, and happy days!
3D gaming has just become home-based VR!!!
Which almost certainly, THEY will.
Not just that, but it seems that 3D on plasma TVs is more immersive and is implemented better than on LCD TVs. As I mentioned previously, I'd rather play the waiting game than waste money on technology that could be obsolete sooner than I'd expect.
A console cannot do all the things a PC can, therefore I don't own, and don't intend to buy one anytime soon.
A like-for-like comparison would be expecting to run the latest games on a £200 PC. I'm spending nearly three times as much.
I am using on-board graphics because it is cheaper, cooler, more energy efficient and it is sufficient for most tasks. It means that the £100+ spent for a graphics card can go on a better case, PSU, Mobo and CPU, all of which is more beneficial to general computing and less likely to be antiquated in 6 months. I expect the case+psu to last 5+ years and mobo+ram 3+ years.
I do know that I'm unlikely to run recent games decently on on-board graphics and that is why I raise the issue. PC gaming would benefit a lot more from lowering the entry barrier in terms of cost, than it ever will by adding gimmicky stereoscopic 3d.
I appreciate that Crysis is technically advanced but the cost of getting the best out of it is still ~£1000. Compare that with a plethora of older games which are less technologically advanced but arguably more fun which will run on a 5-year-old pc worth about £100 now.
Anyway the heart of the matter, for me at least, is that PC gaming is too expensive atm. Even by your reckoning I would be looking at spending ~£1000 over three years just on hardware (not including peripherals). plus £30-50 a pop for games. Without gaming I'm looking at spending £600 over 3 years, maybe longer.
for your requirements - all ways on, air restricted, silent, 400 quid, not bothered about the high end gaming - then you're quite right 3d is probably not for you..
My umpc cant play cryis, my laptops have to have the detail turned down with the latest games and my workstations don't have nvidia 3d.
I am however pleased that my gaming system manages to fix all the gaming issues of my non gaming systems.
regarding the cost of 3d, if you want a new/2nd monitor then the cost of 3d is around 200 quid over the cost of a std monitor.... which isn't all that much.
Obviously the human eye doesn't work on frames, so how do we determin when humans perceieve smooth motion? If we say that a screen is flicking between pure black and white frames, the point we're looking for is when we stop seeing the flicker and start seeing it as a pure gray tone. This, co-incidently, is around 30fps (60hz), how ever! This can also be dependant on the media in use.
When you film on a camera you get a default kind of motion smoothing applied, it's subtle but it's enough to allow the perception of smooth motion at lower frame rates. Due to a computer games "pure frame" nature and the fact motion occurs much faster than in TV/Film means that some games may need higher frame rates to produce "smooth motion".
E.G. When I played Crysis, it ran at 40fps but it felt "smooth" with motion blur on.
When I play Quake 3, I *have* to run the game at atleast 60fps and even then there is a noticable difference in how the game feels between 60fps and 125fps.
There's no one factor to determin what makes smooth motion. In TV it's pretty easy because the Camera/Film help *a lot* in achieving the effect, In games it's not quite the same and creation of that smooth motion applied by cameras/film in games offers quite a substantial performance hit.
The 120Hz as stipulated from Nvidia relates only to the requirement of the display device to be able to generate 120 distinct progressive frames per second - allowing 60 alternating frames to be delivered to each eye.
This doesn't mean your system (ie GPU, CPU etc) has to be able to actually render the game at 120 fps.
Your system might only manage to perform at say 40fps, but this will still be DISPLAYED at 120 frames per second to the glasses.
This is similar to how displays work in 2D. Most LCD panels are locked at 60hz (therefore 60 progressive frames per second) but your graphics card might render less than 60 or more than 60 frames per second:in other words in this situation as with 3D and 120hz, the number of distinct frames your GPU can generate per second is independent of the number of progressive frames your display can output per second.
Whether your system renders a game at 6 or 160 fps, your 60hz LCD monitor will always translate the output from your GPU into 60 distinct frames each second.
I for one miss 3D more then the image quality I lost when abandoning CRT for a larger LCD TV. I am not crazy about 3D for movies but for games where you are supposed to be immersed in the game world it has a much bigger impact for me.
I am curious what this all mean. If the game is being tested and made sure it works great in 3D mode or the fact you don´t need particular software to run it. Just some shutter glasses?
Having an ATI card would I be able to run true page flipping stereoscopic 3D. Anaglyph modes is nothing I want to deal with. Mess up the colours to much and I doubt there is a perfect workaround for that.
Remember what it is like after a few hours 3D gaming on the old CRTs and then take off the glasses and switch the 3D off and back to 2D? God! How flat and dull is the image? lol
I'm waiting for GFX cards that will deliver Crysis 1 & 2 @ 120 FPS on a 120hz 3D 30" monitor!
You think like me. The vuzix glasses are **** though as are all current consumer 3d head displays. I guess the best we can setup at home right now is:
3d shutter glasses/3d monitor/tv.
Fresnel lens for pulling you into the game world.
Body vibration.
I used to use 3d shutter glasses when I had my CRT. Played Doom 3 in 3d using glasses and fresnel. Always use body vibration to add that extra realism (games are lifeless without it).