Call of Duty: Ghosts PC apparently uses 2GB RAM at maximum settings, users create MP FOV unlocker

Monday, 4th November 2013 22:37 GMT By Ewan Miller

Call of Duty: Ghosts is one of the first big budget PC games to demand its users have more than 4GB of system RAM, so much so that the game simply refuses to launch if it detects there’s less available. However, users on Guru3D and other forums are reporting the game only occupies between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM on the game’s highest settings. Additionally, unlike Treyarch’s Black Ops 2, Ghosts is locked to a 65 degree field of view, which can lead to motion sickness among some users. Luckily, some modders have created a utility that will unlock the FOV in the game’s Multiplayer to help you avoid some headaches.

Of course, I’m no technical knowledge man, so observing what the Task Manager reports might not in fact be a useful metric. Some users have raised the argument that the RAM might be used by a file buffer that isn’t reported by the Task Manager.

Additionally, these reports don’t necessarily cover the game’s entirety, there might very well be a particular section that requires vastly more RAM.

Thanks, Guru3D, NeoGAF.

We’ve got a full Call of Duty: Ghost campaign walkthrough guide here, with extra multiplayer tips.



  1. Edo


    #1 1 year ago
  2. Erthazus

    Yeah. It is already confirmed.

    they have 2007 level visuals with the shitty engine running a game that uses specs more then any PC game’s specs. Crysis 1 required less and it was at that time power hungry and required beasty PC.

    Infinity Ward developers are the worst in the industry.

    #2 1 year ago
  3. Xbone

    What a joke. But again, its CoD.

    #3 1 year ago
  4. monkeygourmet

    I can confirm this, I just tried it on my new PC, got the message:

    “Your system does not have enough fish food to power the AI in this game…”

    I’ll try again tomorrow after I’ve come back from the pet store and upgraded my fish tank.

    #4 1 year ago
  5. Erthazus

    Infinity Ward devs have Fish AI instead of brains.

    #5 1 year ago
  6. Xbone

    65 FoV locked… jesus christ. I missed this…

    #6 1 year ago
  7. monkeygourmet


    Infinity Ward are not pleased with your comments…

    #7 1 year ago
  8. TheBlackHole

    I’m glad I don’t make games for you ungrateful bunch.

    #8 1 year ago
  9. SplatteredHouse

    I couldn’t stand to watch the gameplay stream for long. There’s no way could I play this game (and I don’t remember things ever being this bad – although I haven’t played CoD since MW3, just didn’t take to it, really, and I didn’t play multi much of that as I was more about Battlefield) though today was a big chance of this game to make its case, and impress me.

    I assure you it did anything but that. In its present state, it’s rotten!

    #9 1 year ago
  10. DSB

    Oh dear… I kinda worry about the rest of the code if they can’t even check for RAM properly.

    @9 MW3 was really pretty terrible. The visuals and FOV are par for the course with a lot of console ports, but what’s worse is that the game just wasn’t stable. Crashes and glitches all over the place.

    I also grew to loathe the design decisions, but that might be horses for courses.

    I’ve never really had technical issues with any other CoD I’ve played. They’ve always run fine, although the MW2 matchmaker was a bit moody at first.

    Really hoping Ghosts isn’t a repeat of MW3.

    #10 1 year ago
  11. SplatteredHouse

    @10 I received it as a gift, and didn’t even get as far as buying expansion sets before uninstalling. I installed it to play because I hoped that IW in the driving seat meant another MW high point, but not so much. Cluttered and unfocused. I enjoyed the campaign though, especially the early advancing firefight in the streets, and finale on the hotel (I think it was) roof. Battlefield 3 was plenty more fun.

    #11 1 year ago
  12. Hcw87

    I really don’t know why people buy this on release day. It looks exactly like every CoD since MW2 and the guns still have zero recoil. That, and you don’t need more than 2 bullets to kill someone. It’s so fucking casualized it’s not even funny.

    To think there’s actual tournaments going on in this game is so damn sad too. I really hope those players don’t actually think they’re any good, because the skill roof is so low it’s pathetic. Just mindless run and gun.

    #12 1 year ago
  13. Erthazus

    @12, I watched these two gameplay trailers and I could not believe what I saw.
    Good Lord.

    Killzone:Shadow fall in comparison to this looks like a Masterpiece from another universe.

    #13 1 year ago
  14. DSB

    @12 So you feel that someone taking you down within less than a second of you making a mistake makes something casualized? I’d say that’s instant punishment for anyone who moves without consideration.

    If anything, it’s a pretty serious incentive to not just run and gun, at least unless you’re very good at it, and maybe that’s really why these games are featured in competition, as opposed to a lot of others.

    I also don’t see how “bullets going where you shoot them” serves to make a game easier either. You still have to hit the target. Adding dispersion just adds a factor of chance to the equation, which would reasonably only favor a guy who doesn’t aim very well, and might need a bit of luck.

    Recoil is a fair point though. A big part of a game like Counter-Strike is controlling the recoil, and I guess that makes it a “purer” skillbased shooter.

    Does it serve to make it a lot more fun though? Eh, I dunno.

    #14 1 year ago
  15. CPC_RedDawn


    The tournaments in the later COD games such as this one have literally lost ALL traction. Only 12 year old kids enter those now, but back in the day of COD2 and COD4 the tournament scene was seriously awash with some extremely skilled players. COD4 ProMod was and still is one of the best fps games/modes out there. Even Black Ops 1 was good and was extremely over looked as it did have bugs at launch and some very questionable performance on even high end PC rigs but at its core it was still a superb game and its version of ProMod could of been even better than COD4′s. Just a shame that ProMod is dead now, and basically only a handful of teams play it and the pub servers are littered with Roccat/Silent Aim Assist hackers.

    #15 1 year ago
  16. Hcw87

    No matter how you look at it, CoD and its maps promote run and gunning.

    If you stay in one place long enough, someone’s bound to spawn behind you and shoot you in the back.

    Also, when guns do this much damage you have really no chance to turn around and kill the guy behind you if he sees you first. He could be a 5 year old with a controller and he’d still get the kill because all it takes is a few hits from a gun with laser precision.

    This is why i’m saying this is casualized beyond recognition. There is no sense of accomplishment when you do well in a game. Because everyone is equally skilled because of all the advantages they get.

    #16 1 year ago
  17. DSB

    @16 Actually I’d say the opposite is true. You’re far more likely to be shot by a freshly spawned enemy (or immediately after spawning, yourself) in Battlefield than you are in CoD.

    I’ve seen guys pop out of thin air in BF3, while I’ve never had that happen to me in CoD, and I only got instakilled four or five times upon spawning over 160 hours of MW2. It was so rare I actually kept count. In Battlefield it was so common I gave up.

    The way the maps used to be designed in CoD is that you’d have very clear corridors going down and across the map. That way the battle would center around the intersections, and you’d usually have one faction on the either side, with new players spawning behind their own faction, and as far away from the enemy as possible.

    And because of the number of corridors, there would always be “undefended” areas of the map, with everybody gravitating towards the bulk of the combat.

    That’s something I’ve always loved about CoD.

    Why would you need a chance to turn around and shoot a guy? To me that would be the epitome of casualization. You don’t get training wheels or mulligans, man. If you allow a guy to flank you, you deserve to die.

    I think maybe you should play the game a lot more and try to take it seriously, you’re missing the finer points of the game. Be the flanker, not the flankee.

    With the vast majority of CoD players achieving a roughly 15/7-15/15 K/D ratio every game, I took a lot of pride in eventually coming in around 30/5. That’s not easy to do when anyone can kill you with a lucky shot. You have to know what you’re doing. To me that’s always been rewarding.

    #17 1 year ago
  18. Erthazus

    @Hcw87, +1000 points for you.

    @DSB, “I’ve seen guys pop out of thin air in BF3″

    Only if you are in the middle of the capturing the flag and if you are that stupid to be in the middle of the capturing the flag.

    #18 1 year ago
  19. DSB

    @18 Right. Blame the player, not the game ;)

    That’s one indication of bad design.

    #19 1 year ago
  20. Erthazus

    @19, That’s not bad design. It’s that system can’t predict your movements and spawn other players somewhere at long distance when enemy player need a chance to get bak their flag.
    It is impossible to predict when/where you move + you need to understand that system calculates something that is flying and moving around you aswell.

    The rules are there. When you are capturing the flag you are still at the enemy base.
    That system worked since BF 1942 and It won’t go away because it is perfectly balanced.

    Spawning is the last thing that should be worried by the community with BF games.

    #20 1 year ago
  21. DSB

    @20 Fair enough, I’ll give you that one. It’s less of a bad design, and more of a fundamentally flawed concept.

    But that still doesn’t make it great though. We accept that flaw because we like to have the flags in the game.

    You’d be hard pressed to call anything perfect if it has unintended results. Like the instakilling of spawning players, or allowing people to camp out static spawn zones.

    #21 1 year ago
  22. Erthazus

    How it is bad concept? For example you have a good team that is looking after you. You are… uhm.. engineer and is trying to take the flag. Medic behind you (and behind spawn point) controls you and controls your spawn place.

    So the enemy player has two choices:

    1) Retard – Spawn at that place behind you while medic kills him
    2) Not spawning at that place and spawn somewhere else. (enemies also have enough intel to see if you are there alone or with someone else)

    you on the other hand can carry explosives or mines and no one will get you. you see what is in front of you.

    It’s team game.

    #22 1 year ago
  23. DSB

    @22 Adding variables and scenarios don’t change the fundamental design. Battlefield allows snipers and campers to prey on spawn zones, because everyone knows where they are.

    If you’re spawning on a contested flag, which is far from unreasonable, and the enemy, or really just one happy camper, happens to be sitting in the spawn zone waiting for you, that’s an instant death.

    That may be DICEs idea of fun, although I doubt that, but I don’t think it’s anyone elses.

    #23 1 year ago
  24. Reddpayn

    Cod is a game that you should not take seriously. It is just some little fps competition online where your additude matters if you like it (or skill:)) . Besides its the only fothcoming fps wchich has splitscreen online and that is actually the reason i buy it. Haters gonna hate.

    #24 1 year ago

    #25 1 year ago
  26. shadowwolf88

    I have personally given up on pc requirments and building my pc for a game, and spending nice amounts of money to upgrade my pc video card or RAM! just to be dissapointed by future crashes and bugs, popups, etc… I have went to PS3, and later down the road will probably buy a Playstation 4 . Peace…

    #26 1 year ago
  27. shadowwolf88

    BTW I bought Ghost for PS3, and the graphics are awesome and gameplay is better than pc as well..

    #27 1 year ago

Comments are now closed on this article.