GamesRadar

Somehow, through technical sorcery by the hands of Crytek’s super-nerds, Crysis 2 is not only possibly the most amazing-looking console game ever, but it even does so without creating a reality-sucking singularity inside your PS3 or 360. It looks even better on PC, but whether it will stutter like Colin Firth depends on your machine’s muscle. We’ve played all three versions of the game, but it’s hard to say how the average PC will handle it since we played on a mysteriously-specced mega-machine, but wow was it crisp and luscious. So Cryisis 2, any way you play it, looks stunning in 2D. But hold your nanosuit-clad horses, because Crytek’s “how the heck did they do that” CryEngine 3 also pulls off 3D so near-flawlessly we still can’t believe it works the way it does.

How do we know this for sure? We have played through roughly 90% of the game in 3D on the 360. Our review won’t be up until Tuesday, but for now we just wanted to share how this may just be the best 3D tech we’ve seen on any game. Yes, the 3D requires a compatible TV, but surprisingly it doesn’t require those expensive active-shutter glasses. We wore crummy-old plastic polarized glasses, and after a comparison assessment, we think Crysis 2’s 3D is miles ahead of Killzone 3’s – even with Killzone using those fancy-pants active-shutter glasses. With Killzone we noticed some significant jaggies that don’t seem to synch well with the 3D, as well as some not-insignificant ghostly double images around much of the environment. It also hurt our eyes something fierce after only a couple of minutes.

With Crysis 2, while the 3D isn’t utterly free of flicker or a slightly darkened screen, the effect is much, much cleaner. We were able to play the game continuously for hours with only slight eye discomfort (of course this will vary from person to person). The shocking thing is that the game seems to suffer next to zero image or framerate degradation. If it’s there, we couldn’t detect it. So you can see why we’re in disbelief: Crysis 2, running on a 360, with a smooth framerate, in 3D, with the same (as far as we could see) graphical fidelity as 2D. It’s astonishing. During the brief parts of the campaign that we played in 2D, we found ourselves jonesing to put it back in 3D like some heroin addict that needs to inject Horse straight into his eyeballs.

So there you have it: the game looks unbelievable – whether in 2D, 3D, or any platform of your choice. Is the game good? You’ll have to wait until Tuesday for our review.

http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox360/crysis-2/news/crysis-2s-3d-tech-is-unbelievable/a-20110318172040751056/g-20090601103043632061

crysis 2 (on consoles) isnt even using real stereoscopy.

also, the active shutter vs polarized glassed has nothing to do with the game, it has to do with the tv.

if the tv you using, has passive shutter/ polarized 3d, then you dont need to/cant use active shutter glasses, and you can still play killzone 3 in 3d.

you dont need active shutter glasses, its just that 99% of 3d tvs so far, are active shutter 3d, and according to cnet, currrently active shutter tvs> passive 3d tv

Two problems with the article:

1. Why the need to bash Killzone 3 here? That was out of place and completely unnecessary.

2. They say it looks stunning on all platforms, yet they always mention the 360 version. Why? Is the PS3 version really that inferior?

I'm gonna make the first post in this thread that doesn't mention Killzone 3!!

Seems like gamsradar has no idea that it's up to the TV whether polarized or shutterglasses are used and "ghosting" is a TV issue and has nothing to do with the game.

Furthermore they didn't detect that on TVs that use polarized ones the screen resolution is halved (per eye) ..

apart from that Crysis 2 itself doesn't take much of a performance hit (only few %) in 3D mode, because it uses 2D plus Z instead of double rendering the scene to achive the 3D effect and it's good to hear that the effect doesn't seem to suffer from that approach

im proud of you not mentioning that game, i too will make a post without talking about killzone 3

As mentioned, this is more of a comparison between shuttered and polarized 3d methods.

1.Where in the hell can you buy a polarized 3d set? i've only seen some pc monitors, and they are expensive.

2. polarized 3d HALVES the horizontal resolution, so a 1280x720 frame will be 1280x360 for each eye. Of course to compinsate they could be using a custom resolution to lower the vertical res and increase the horizontal res, like 960x540. But again, where's the 3d polarized  tv's?

3. I played killzone3 in 3d the first playthru, and it does take a hit, the jungle sceen had lots of visable texture loading, other parts of the game i didn't notice. Still, playing it in 3d is the bees knees. It's possible that crytec's 3d tech handles textures better, we'll see. And i'll be thrilled if it does. I have a 50" Panasonic vt plasma.

there is a pretty cheap polarized TV out by LG, over here it's called the LG 47 LD950 (I have been eyeing it for a while, but the reviews for it's 3D mode were less than stellar) and costs ~870€ (one of the cheapest 3DTVs )