You might have already seen these screenshots but they're new here. Call of Duty: Ghosts is coming on November 5.
Loakum @Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood @Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (2 Weeks ago)
Loakum *takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood @reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (5 Weeks ago)
CraCra Y a un souci sur les forums ? (8 Weeks ago)
nostradamus very few with religious beliefs are naive or zealots, but for sure don't find amusing their beliefs being thrown in for clout. maybe STFU with that discourse? (11 Weeks ago)
Driftwood Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
All comments (26)
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
I am talking about next gen Ghosts and BF4, not current gen.
PS. BF4 is now gonna run 60fps on next gen consoles, so COD has no excuse to look like this and say we do it because we got 60fps to think of.
*full disclosure* I pre ordered Ghosts.
I'm still wondering why Infinty Ward can't simply rename it to "CoD: 2013" and begin from there. Would make any argument on series stagnation irrelevant.
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
BF4 will run at 60fps on consoles. Even if it doesn't hit 1080p there's no comparison here worth making.
Now.. if you want to talk about gameplay. Here's an area where IW jumped the shark a long, long time ago :D
All that being said this doesn't look nearly as bad as all the haters claim.
TitanFall looks poor on a technical level too but looks much more fun.
But what ever, I can't say I care for COD as game anymore.
Even Battlefield to extend. BF4 looks very in the same vein as BF3, even it obviously looks alot better.
It's a source engine game and it looks decent, but graphically it's nothing special. Would need to see alot more of it.
Call of Duty looks very different from Battlefield, and it's not supposed to be motion blur filled, super post processed, etc. Battlefield is trying to be pretty, Call of Duty is trying to be smooth and just as importantly, responsive. That means very low latency while probably still using vsync. That means they have to avoid a lot of fancy effects and focus on making the game run flawlessly in the way they want it to run.
The game looks fine. Pretty sharp if you ask me. The textures look great even in the environment, which is actually pretty dense and full of stuff going on. The weapons and characters look really damn sharp. That shadows are pretty nice looking as well, nice and sharp and smooth.
Call of Duty never tried to be especially excellent in terms of fidelity. But they still manage to look pretty good for what they are going for, which is rock solid performance and very low latency.
I'm a little tired of everyone comparing BF4 which we don't even know will actually run at 1080p and 60fps on consoles. All we know is they WANT that to happen. They've jumped around so much on that point that until it comes out and it never drops a frame, the comparison doesn't stand for me.
Obviously on a PC, the comparison will be different, as latency will be a lot less of an issue on a bad ass rig, and BF4 is a PC game, where as Ghosts is more of a console game.
For example reverbering audio is something that a ton of games have had for a long time.
BF4 looks way better than CoD, whether is PC CoD or console CoD. CoD's geometry looks plain, buildings and stuff just look like 2D objects sometimes, they don't have enough depth.
You're implying looks can't be paired with smoothness, which it isn't right. BF4 will run great on next-gen consoles, 60FPS, and I'm sure they'll find ways of lowering the latency for input. The only thing that I think is not confirmed for consoles is the framebuffer size, even if they downscale it a bit it'll look better than CoD. From a certain distance from your TV you won't notice 1920x1080 vs 1792x1008 (just an example).
CoD's Textures look okay, not impressive. And shadows look horrible, way too static and flat, it seems as if they need more volume, I don't know how to explain it, they're just too square.
The game (CoD) doesn't look good for what it tries to do. You could have said that years ago, not now. People need to stop being fanboys.
The engine looks horribly outdated, you can tell is just an antique engine with a new coat of paint.
This is why I will never support this game. They have the money (really they do have a lot, all know this) to create a new engine, even if it takes them too long, just assign a small team to work on it, but they don't want to make it or they can't.
They're afraid that if they change it the gameplay will never be the same, they're afraid of change and progress (unlike DICE). Or they're just too lazy to invest in a new engine because they know they'll sell millions.
Just accept it, the game is old. Even gameplay is lame, hitboxes are huge, it's one of the reasons it's so popular on console, huge hitboxes + autoaim = fit for consoles.
Honestly every FPS game is better on PC, because of KB+M primarily.
*facepalm*
Seriously. BLOPS2 and Battlefield 3 both have horrible net code. High latency is practically rewarded in BF3.
The best part about all of that: all of the idiots that cry about lag with their half second of lag they brought into the server.
Ridiculous!
It's partly the communities fault for playing on foreign servers and allowing high pings on servers.. but the net code encourages it by fooling people into thinking their high ping is okay. And yes, in some cases rewarding them for it. These games are designed for high ping players. Which is sorta shitty. It would be more understandable if these were all peer-to-peer scenarios, but they are not.