Sections

Call of Duty: Ghosts gets PS3 & PS4 comparison video

Tuesday, 5th November 2013 11:26 GMT By Dave Cook

Call of Duty: Ghosts has – inevitably – been given the cross gen video comparison treatment. Both the PS3 and PS4 editions have been shown running in tandem, and there is indeed a notable difference. SPOILERS INSIDE.

IGN has the clip here. It’s watermarked up the exhaust pipe so I won’t embed it on this page.

If you’re hungry for more Call of Duty: Ghosts banter, why not check out our review score round-up, as well as our full campaign walkthrough guide?

The game’s out today on current-gen formats and PC. It’ll also release on PS4 and Xbox One on the console’s respective launch dates.

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

Latest

40 Comments

  1. Hcw87

    So in other words, hardly a difference.

    Embarassing really, since the Sony fanboys have been all over the 1080p vs 720p next gen CoD news.

    #1 11 months ago
  2. Dave Cook

    @1 There’s a notable difference.

    #2 11 months ago
  3. Hcw87

    @2
    It’s nowhere near the differences in BF4.

    #3 11 months ago
  4. TrickyAudio

    There is a difference. Its quite obvious.

    Also on the other end, the PS3 version looks pretty shocking.

    #4 11 months ago
  5. Eregol

    Lot’s of extra effects. More incidental detail. More rubble in collapsing elements.
    More shininess.

    #5 11 months ago
  6. Rockstar Vienna

    Well, it’s COD… But nonetheless the difference isn’t very big imo. Same for AC Black Flag if you ask me. I think games like Watch Dogs next year will really show us a noteworthy difference.

    #6 11 months ago
  7. Hcw87

    My point is, if i only saw the PS4 footage i wouldn’t guess it’s next gen footage at all, until they compare it to the current gen footage.

    I guess that says more about how shitty it looks on current gen.

    #7 11 months ago
  8. DSB

    Dave, is the game any good? Is it worse than BLOPS 2?

    #8 11 months ago
  9. Hcw87

    @8
    Yup.

    http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-ghosts

    According to the people who have played it, it’s actually worse than the previous itterations. The Extinction mode being the only selling point really. And if you want to pay 60$ for that, well.

    #9 11 months ago
  10. tenthousandgothsonacid

    I think you’re gonna be pretty disappointed if you’ve bought cod to show off your next-gen console – especially on xbone. Same with Ass Creed 4.

    Battlefield 4 on ps4 is a proper technical marvel though.

    #10 11 months ago
  11. Hcw87

    @10
    Not really, Killzone is the technical marvel for the PS4. XB1 got Ryse.

    #11 11 months ago
  12. Dave Cook

    @8 I’ll let you know once my copy arrives.

    From what I’ve played so far, I still felt Black Ops 2 was better. But I’ve only played about 6 rounds of MP on Xbox One. Too early to call.

    #12 11 months ago
  13. Dave Cook

    @3 so what? Why are you comparing it to BF4?

    Also, take away BF4′s visuals and you have a buggy mess of a multiplayer game with few differences over BF3. It’s still fun, but hardly a leap – visuals aside.

    You can make the best looking game in the world and still have it play like arse. That’s the current-gen builds of BF4, basically.

    #13 11 months ago
  14. DSB

    @9 If you really think that Metacritic is a 1:1 reflection of actual quality, that’s kinda dumb.

    It’s really just as likely to be telling you that something is hyped or just uncool. Maybe CoD just isn’t flavor of the week anymore. That’s why I’m asking. I’m pretty confident that Dave would recognize the difference between good CoD and bad CoD, as opposed to random jokers on Metacritic.

    #14 11 months ago
  15. Hcw87

    @13
    To me you’re just describing CoD. I’m loving BF4, and it’s a technical marvel compared to Ghosts on the same console.

    #15 11 months ago
  16. DSB

    But Dave, is it good? Is it bad?

    I gotta wait 5 hours for the damn thing to download ’cause I just got home :(

    #16 11 months ago
  17. Dave Cook

    @15 technical marvel in terms of visuals, but a mess in terms of mechanics and performance on current gen.

    Again, visuals aren’t the be all and end all.

    #17 11 months ago
  18. DSB

    Screw the technical stuff, but the design though. Is it fun? Do you feel like you wanna play it?

    #18 11 months ago
  19. Dave Cook

    @18 It’s fast paced, it’s CoD. I thought it was harder. It didn’t seem to do much beyond the original core template and the dynamic stuff I saw isn’t really dynamic.

    You can read all about it here – http://www.vg247.com/2013/09/05/can-call-of-duty-ghosts-multiplayer-keep-up-with-the-dynamic-age/

    #19 11 months ago
  20. VibraniumSpork

    @17 Eh, I haven’t found BF4 too bad on PS3. I’ve not had any server/MP problems *at all* since launch, and the game’s hugely enjoyable as long as you’re not playing Rush or Conquest (because player count). Obliteration and Conquest Domination though? Can’t get enough of ‘em.

    Still, I admit that means it’s only a half a game on current-gen. I’m using the GAME offer to upgrade to PS4 come launch day though, so the PS3 version’s feeling more like a nice preview build.

    #20 11 months ago
  21. DSB

    @19 Thanks! You guys put up so many articles it’s kinda hard to find “the one” :P

    #21 11 months ago
  22. Dave Cook

    @20 “the game’s hugely enjoyable as long as you’re not playing Rush or Conquest”.

    That’s called a compromise. Why should someone paying £40+ for Battlefield 4 have to refrain from playing the game’s two key modes just because DICE slaughtered the player cap?

    Ridiculous.

    #22 11 months ago
  23. KineticCalvaria

    @22, EA’s fault for forcing a current-gen version which should never have been made. :) I did warn you Dave, BF4 is not current-gen material. :P

    #23 11 months ago
  24. VibraniumSpork

    @22 Can’t argue with that re: the limited value proposition…but it does put the games other MP modes in the spotlight and I find that they shine pretty bright. Jus’ sayin’ ;)

    #24 11 months ago
  25. DrDamn

    @1
    Apart from the lighting, particles, effects and resolution. Yeah, no difference aside from those. In isolation on PS4 the game itself looks very much like a cross generation game, stuff that also has to run on PS3/360 so is essentially higher resolution and upped effects/lighting. The difference between old and new generations is still very obvious though – and will be even more so full screen on a 40″+ TV.

    #25 11 months ago
  26. povu

    You’ll never see the full difference in quality between 720p and 1080p in a compressed videoclip.

    #26 11 months ago
  27. mistermogul

    “It’s watermarked up the exhaust pipe”

    Quote of the day goes to Dave. Good effort!

    #27 11 months ago
  28. Dragon

    @25,
    Well there is a “woe” type guy on this page. You know who it is.

    You are wasting your time.

    #28 11 months ago
  29. Doppleganger

    @26
    No one will see the difference between 720p and 1080p unless you play on your computer.
    PS3 version looks like PS2. Xbox 360 for the win.

    #29 11 months ago
  30. Hcw87

    @28
    Says the obvious Sony fanboy.

    See my post at @11 before you make assumptions. I’m getting both consoles at launch, and you’re getting none of them (though i’m positive you’re NOT going to buy an XB1 over the PS4).

    Call of Duty looks absolute shit whether it’s running at 1080p or 720p.

    @29
    Both PS3 and X360 versions look like dogshit.

    #30 11 months ago
  31. G1GAHURTZ

    Nah, sorry.

    There’s hardly a difference there. Certainly not a £350 difference.

    £350 for a few flashes of lightning and some wet leaves in the wind?

    Keep it.

    Respawn/EA must be ecstatic about this.

    First CoD I’m actually in 2 minds whether to buy or not since CoD4. Have to watch some YouTube vids to make up my mind…

    #31 11 months ago
  32. KineticCalvaria

    @31, never thought I’d see the day that you weren’t buying a CoD game… what the hell is going on around here?!

    #32 11 months ago
  33. Dragon

    ^Its called “TitanFall effect” :D
    To be fair though, TitanFall is definitely looks more interesting to me than CoD.
    @30,
    I have to say, I love your vocabulary, seriously. :D
    Reminds me of dear Erthazus.

    #33 11 months ago
  34. VibraniumSpork

    @31 Weirdly I’m kinda tempted by this COD, and I’ve not played one in years (been Battlefield for me since BC2). There just seems to be a fairly huge amount of content in this one: a healthy campaign (moreso than BF4′s anyway) and an abundance of MP maps and new modes.

    Also a bit more of an emphasis on co-op MP rather than just competitive with the Survival and Squad modes in particular being right up my street. I much prefer that the balance tip towards helping out my fellow gamer than always just shooting them in the face :D

    #34 11 months ago
  35. DSB

    @34 I’m right there with you. I skipped BLOPS 2, and I’m confused because the trailers actually looked pretty good.

    But if you read the reviews, none of them seem very excited (and the ones that are, seem like they’re on drugs, or possibly written under threat of physical violence) but where it gets really complicated is that none of the reviews can agree as to why it’s not good.

    I’m hoping against hope that it’s “just” fatigue, and a crestfallen CoD junkie like myself might appreciate it for what it is… But I dunno man.

    We’ve been discussing it over yonder.

    #35 11 months ago
  36. bitsnark

    @35 You raise an interesting point there actually.

    I would quite like to see a CoD: Ghosts review from someone who, like yourself, has skipped the last or even last two games in the series.

    Would lend a different (and by proxy, valuable) perspective I think.

    #36 11 months ago
  37. VibraniumSpork

    @35 Yep, fatigue – I think – surely counts for a lot in that respect. I think even stepping away from a title for a few months helps. I was pretty burned out on Battlefield having played it pretty extensively from launch all the way up to just after the final bit of DLC. Then I picked up BF4 the other day and ‘Bam!’, I’m right back in the please zone :D

    After years away from COD it could be that Ghosts hits me as a breath of fresh air, with all those incremental upgrades striking me as one impressive, massive improvement.

    Having said that, I always wonder what people are looking for in terms of improvement from COD. It’s the Great White Shark of FPS MP games in some respects, streamlined to the point of evolutionary perfection (as far as ‘twitch shooters’ are concerned). Same thing with iOS/Apple products…though both are highly subjective I suppose. Thanks for link btw, will take a gander ;)

    #37 11 months ago
  38. gswat85

    just wait till they really know how to use what all the next gen systems can do….compare cod 2 to ghosts on the 360 for example

    #38 11 months ago
  39. Gekidami

    @33
    Might look more interesting, but if you dont see enough different here to warrant a next gen purchase, why would you in TitanFall? Lets not forget that it too is a current gen port thats going to be 720p on XB1. Quite frankly, in terms of visuals it doesnt look much better than Ghosts, in fact i’m temped to say that what we’ve seen for now actively looks worst.

    I doubt the differences between it and its 360 version will have any massive differences, just like the current & next gen versions of Ghosts. As far as visual difference goes, i cant imagine Respawn & EA being “ecstatic” about anything.

    #39 11 months ago
  40. powerbuoy

    It definitely looks better on PS4, but not nearly as good as BF4 looks on Ultra. But I was pretty disappointed with how that looked too tbh. Thought it’d be a bigger update from BF3 than it was. SP was gorgeous though!

    Also, CoD:Ghosts is still the exact same game on both. I want to see new types of games that can’t be done on current gen. Rendering is fine now, bring on the real physics!

    #40 11 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.