By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - [CONFIRMED by IW] COD: GHOSTS run at 720p 60fps and 1080p 60fps on PS4

NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?


I do, but what I do care about is more than just graphics. 

 

I think I can be classified as slightly above casual gamer. I don't play all that much mostly just cod online but I keep informed about the game world jst because.......

 

* how does it play online, I have had mixed experiences playing cod online. my brother got a ps3 so I'm pretty current on how multi plat games play online, to today the money I had to throw at Xbl has been worth it because the service has been better than psn and nintendo's free servers. I see and over haul coming for both online services for the better. It's impossible to say which will be better this time around.

*how does the game feel, well technically we will be looking at the same game not matter were you're playing it. At the reveal, new graphics were not appealing but the focus on improved sound was intriguing. Thia I believe has nothing to do with res and will most likely be the same on the next gen, with noticable diference in the file size for next and current gen games, I assume the file types for sound is another part of why it is so much more so the ew games will probably sound better. Between ps4 and x1 this is another thing that is impossible to say which is better if any.

*the community, this one is big, my entire xbl friends list consist of two people, my actual friends and my call of duty buddies. I'm still playing MW3 so it helps which system sells the most copies, it makes the game more playable for longer periods of time. I just can't get into the treyarch games, lord knows I try. Another reason I'm glad the titan fall people were a big part of the cod titles I liked. I have faith I will like titan fall more than the treyarch cod's at the very least.

*This isn't a part of cod but THE CONTROLLER. I have sang this song 100 times but 360 had the best controller I have laid my hands on...ps3 was among the worst, I would sooner play with a game cube controller than a dual shock 3. there has been improvments were I might even like the controller but I doubt I'll like it more than the xbox controller.

*And now the grapphics, we know the reselution is in the ps4's favor but is the graphics? I didn't see the native vs upscaled to be much of a difference in the battle filed game. if the trend keeps up were you can't tell the game apart I don't care if x1 never makes 10bo native a standard. 



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Around the Network
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?

It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.

Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.

But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

JoeTheBro said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?


Another victim

Now I get why the 1000 posts



FATALITY said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?


im pretty sure its not about call of duty

Yeah I get that I was joking around lol. 



NobleTeam360 said:
FATALITY said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?


im pretty sure its not about call of duty

Yeah I get that I was joking around lol. 

:P



”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)

Around the Network
NobleTeam360 said:
FATALITY said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?


im pretty sure its not about call of duty

Yeah I get that I was joking around lol. 

Not cool man!



CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?

It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.

Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.

But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?

In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was horrific on the PlayStation 3.

In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.


I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.

look at the floor in this:



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?

It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.

Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.

But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?

In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was horrific on the PlayStation 3.

In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.


I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.

look at the floor in this:


are u serious?

maybe thats why people who actually played  both versions said mp ps4 is superior sp xbone

and we all know what happened to this leadbetter comparisons

but u can keep the fight



”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)

CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:

In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was horrific on the PlayStation 3.

In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.


I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.

look at the floor in this:

-gif

I thought you didn't care to look at Digital Foundry's articles? That pic's from their site. You can't see what they see. What changed now?

Anyway, yes, that was an area where the X1 had an advantage (something said in the DF analysis, in fact, and it wasn't ignored here), but that doesn't change the other aspects of the game that put the PS4 version ahead, overall. 

I never went there, apparently I only have to stay here to get all the scoops. I pulled that image from the battle feild is superior on ps4 topic on this website. So guys from here will bring all the stuff I need to know in front of me.

In a short time being here I realised that people have been very reliant on negaf for interesting information. Negaf however has an ugly old looking forum layout so I'm cool staying here were I can see what the neogaf is talking about on a prettier website :)

FATALITY said:
Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?

It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.

Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.

But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?

In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which washorrific on the PlayStation 3.

In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.


I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.

look at the floor in this:


are u serious?

maybe thats why people who actually played  both versions said mp ps4 is superior sp xbone

and we all know what happened to this leadbetter comparisons

but u can keep the fight

What, please rephrase that, your overall comment didn't make sense.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Too_Talls said:
CGI-Quality said:
Too_Talls said:
michael_stutzer said:
NobleTeam360 said:
I didn't think people on this website cared about CoD so much?

It is not about COD, it is what it indicates that is truly alarming. You do realize that having the significantly superior version in every multiplatform game means one of the consoles is significantly stronger than the other, right? Or you think this is an isolated case, though I vaguely remember you were around in Battlefield threads as well.

Or maybe, I don't think that is true but maybe, you are a bit biased.

But 360 had the better verisons of multi plats, was it significantly superior? Is there a double standard?

In some cases, yes, the differences were pretty significant, especially 7th gen launch games. Call of Duty 3 ran @ 30fps on the PS3, while running at much higher 60 on the 360, for example, and don't even get me started on Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was horrific on the PlayStation 3.

In the case of In the case of these launch titles, beyond missing textures, AO, shadows, and lighting, a resolution difference of double the rate is not a minor one. Will it remain that way? Who knows. For right now, the differences aren't slight and there isn't a double standard when this stuff was picked apart on the PS3 as well.


I don't see the ps4 supporters bringing this up though. and for missing textures, looking at the B4 screens the PS4 was more consistently missing them than than what I saw from x'1 screens.

look at the floor in this:

"Otherwise, differences between the two fall into nit-pick territory. Ground textures appear different during the campaign mode, with variations of the same texture being planted in the same spot. Neither one is especially greater in detail, suggesting these tiles are partially randomised, much like the soldier camo designs on our character's arms. "