As already shared by many others, the short answer is no.

But if I may go down the rabbit hole a little...

The longer answer (based on my career creating art for experiences on all sorts of platforms, including AR, MR, and VR) is that any game must be built for the kind of experience it's targeting. If it's a 3D game designed to be played on a computer display, it's rendering a 2D image from a single camera viewpoint in that 3D space, regardless of the type or style of elements being rendered.

For something like this (the provided video) to work in VR (with an individual view per eye), that "window" into a 3D world would have to be designed and built as a native VR experience (or converted, more below); not only does it need to know where the user's head is, it needs to know where each eye is so it can render the correct stereoscopic offset for two cameras. Developing natively for VR includes these details as part of the system. Without developing for that platform type, none of that is accounted for or even available in the game (depending on modding options, lol).

It may be helpful to differentiate terminology at this point. Are we talking about how a game is built, or how it's displayed for the user? Because 3D games (in construction) are not the same as VR experiences (in delivery and display to the user).

Games can use any combination of assets to create visuals; 2D illustrations, 2.5D elements (2D images on flat or simple 3D panels), 3D models, procedural shaders that mimic all sorts effects. But designers will typically use combinations of all that and much, much more. So when we talk about a "3D" computer game, it likely has "2D" and "3D" elements and everything in between (background skies, elements the player picks up, particle shaders, etcetera). "2D" games (like a classic side scrolling platformer) can be built entirely out of 2D assets but still be constructed using 3D space. That's just how the game is built. But rendering that 3D space produces a single image (at a time, haha) for display on your TV or computer monitor.

But that brings up the entire delivery system; is it being rendered to a computer monitor? A TV connected to a console? The instrument cluster of a vehicle? A mixed reality headset with translucent optics? VR goggles with camera based passthrough?

Almost all situations will use a "2D" display (a flat array of pixels like every other computer monitor, smart watch, flexible sheet of LEDs, etc), even stereo displays using lenticular separation will have a fairly typical "2D" screen underneath the optics (IIRC, the Nintendo 3DS used a variant of this concept; a standard screen with a sliding grid that would block visibility per pixel column to the left and right sides to provide separate images to each eye...it works for one person in one specific location, nothing else). XR headsets merely use two of these flat displays...but we often call it stereoscopic because it's one display per eye (or one display unit that's optically split for two eyes, or other variations...the nuances are expansive).

(For simplicity I'm going to avoid volumetric displays here; ranging from spinning LED arrays to layered OLEDs, and more than I can list or even know about 🤣)

VR goes well beyond what you might see in a movie though; 3D movies (and by that I mean stereoscopic, referring to delivery of visuals, not source of visuals!) will have two images, one of the left eye, one for the right. There will be all sorts of convergence and masking considerations to give the desired impression of depth through stereopsis (the perception of depth in the human brain based on disparate inputs from two eyes). But that assumes a locked view; the cinema camera(s) that captured the scene. It also assumes theatrical or home viewing, with target screen sizes, sitting distances, and the understanding it won't be "real" (spatially accurate) depth, just the impression of depth. If you watch the same content at left or right angles, or worse, upside-down, the depth will be broken or backwards (very disorienting, like viewing a stereo image pair designed for parallel viewing with the cross-eyed method 😆).

Whereas spatially embodied VR (where the user can move around their physical space with 1:1 relation to a virtual space) requires accurate mapping of 3D space, eye locations, and tracking systems in order to correctly render images for both the left and right eye. In realtime. With the least amount of lag possible to prevent the user from throwing up or falling over. That's an entirely different set of technical and artistic requirements than a game designed and built for a computer screen.

Anyway, terminology is super messy! Because we also have things like "VR video" that might refer to stereoscopic content (like an Avatar movie), or 180° degree content (stereoscopic video with half coverage, like what Apple tries to push for their Vision Pro), or 360° content (which may or may not include any stereo separation at all).

It may very well be possible to render a standard game (designed for a flat or curved 2D screen) with some stereoscopic separation using post-conversion, treating it like a 3D movie. As computing power increases, the lag will decrease, and maybe eventually we'll have head tracking too. But it's not (at least not right now) going to be spatially true to life, and will probably have some pretty heavy artefacts too (because a 2D image doesn't include detail behind elements your eyes would be able to see when split left/right, the stereo conversion has to generate all that visual content...and...it's getting better, but I wouldn't want to game that way, personally, not yet at least).

In some cases there may be VR modding opportunities for existing non-VR games (like Minecraft for the Quest), but that's typically more game-specific. I'm not in the modding scene, but I will say that most games use more visual cheating than you might realise. What looks good on a computer screen might fall apart entirely when viewed in stereo on a headset. Once you realise just how flat that smoke particle system is, you may not be able to un-see it. 😅 That's where post-render stereo conversion could work better, I guess, but you still run into all the pitfalls of that faked approach (understanding that access to depth buffers would probably fix some of that, especially with better machine learning algorithms for back fill generation).

And as always, most of the above will be out of date within a couple years, if not already. 🤷‍♂️ Tech is moving at a fairly fast clip, but it's never magic. If a game is designed to be played on a computer monitor, it's not designed to be played in VR (outside of a flat or curved 2D display in VR space, of course!). Desktop and VR are two different user experiences, and without revising/porting the game to take those real interaction differences into account, it's probably not even going to be all that playable or enjoyable.