Originally Posted by cohagen
I'll admit that Crysis technically looks more realistic. The shadows and level of detail which the bushes are modelled is very nice. But to me it just feels sort of artificial and not very "earthy".
BFVietnam was a jungle that I'd rather be in than the jungle in Crysis. Physics, sound, character models, textures, etc all contribute to that feeling. I just feel like the Crysis environment isn't the whole package considering the era we are in.
Not knocking the game but I had the same feeling with Far Cry too.
I guess I just disagree with you on this. The BF:V jungle, to me, seemed woefully lax, considering the jungle in VietCong which game out a year or more earlier than BF:V looked far more realistic to my eyes, plus I thought the animation in BF:V was terrible on the troops, etc, textures were all terrible, just like Battlefield 1942, everything seemed sacrificed for the sake of getting 32 or 64 people in the battle in multiplayer.
FarCry looked a little cartoony, but it had the most realistic islands I've ever fought on, expecially when vegitation would block your view of enemies and monsters. The water, the vehicles you could pilot, the weapon selection and the graphics were all amazing. The enemy troops looked a little on the cartoony side to me, but that was my only gripe.
I would say that the jungles of BF:V can't hold a candle to Farcry, let alone Crysis. I would even go so far as to say that BF:V can't hold a candle to VietCong. But thats just IMHO, some people swore by BF:1942, but I found the game simplistic and dull.