Great weapon, character and arm details, but the environment, eh.

Yeeeeeeeah, after the BF4 footage yesterday, I think it's fair to say DICE has this by the bollocks on a technical level, and that's being lenient. Stick a fork in it, Activision. Yer done!

I disagree. If you read into what the Call of Duty engine actually tries to do, you'd understand that there's more to this than frames. Battlefield 4 looks real fancy with all of it's PP and stuff, but the assets aren't mind blowing on consoles, and I don't know that we've actually seen it running at 1080p on consoles.
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.

Looks pretty good to me. I dont really get people saying bf4 looks way better than this, considering that base geometry has to run on 60 fps on 4-player split-screen on current gen consoles.

Because BF4 has much larger scale maps, actual environment destruction that isnt "as" scripted as this, and has 64 players online and has ground and air players controls not ground + AI airstrikes...etc.

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.

Do you actually believe the horseshit you just wrote? FB 3 isn't a technically superior engine capable of 60fps at 1080 on a console? Not only do you just require a pair of eyes to know this, but DICE confirmed that it is indeed 60fps at 1080.

Looks about on par with titan fall on a technical level. Ie, still obvious it's an old engine buffed up a bit. The tessellation is nice at smoothing out the guns, but aside from that. Meh.

Wait, DICE confirmed that BF4 will be 60fps at 1080p on next gen consoles? I know they confirmed 60fps but no word on the resolution.

I'm no hardcore Call of Duty fan, but that's pretty impressive for a COD game.

*full disclosure* I pre ordered Ghosts.

Remind me of Titanfall as well. Both are current gen games built on current gen. tech with certain visual improvements and solid gameplay mechanics which can crawl through due to a scarcity of lauch titles and overal confusion surrounding whole next gen thing.
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.

One gripe I've always had with CoD games is the total lack of rich contrast. There is dark and light but no black unless you really fuck around with your tv settings. The colors and light just seem so dull. Gameplay will be the same fun formula I'm sure but bf4 still looks much better and more fun as well.
All that being said this doesn't look nearly as bad as all the haters claim.

I don't know why people are saying this looks bad, It looks great to. Maybe I haven't been spoilt as much in terms of gfx?

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.

Titanfall looks like it could be fun, depends on the balance between mech's etc and soldiers etc.

It's a source engine game and it looks decent, but graphically it's nothing special. Would need to see alot more of it.

What the CoD engine tries to do is something that has been used for years now. They just try to present this new features as revolutionary, when they're not.
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.

Ummmm......did you completely miss the Xbox one battlefield 4 E3 demo? It was totally running at 60fps.
*facepalm*

Where dem girls at?

Damn, I thought the nextgen consoles would shorten the graphical gap between BF & COD