C&VG - No diffrence between Ghosts on Xbone to 360.

  • 58 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/436917/the-highs-and-lows-of-the-xbox-one-launch-games/

Chris's Launch Concern: Call of Duty Ghosts

I haven't played an Xbox One launch game that didn't impress in some way, however if I had to highlight a concern it would be Call Of Duty: Ghosts. It was clear a while ago that it wasn't going to look quite as impressive as Battlefield 4 does on next-gen systems, but I struggled to see a noticeable difference between the Xbox One version of Ghosts and the Xbox 360 version.

Did he just accidentally break the embargo on a description of COD on the 720.

#2 Edited by AtariKidX (6192 posts) -

The XBone 720 is doomed........PS4 better and cheaper.

#3 Edited by Heil68 (42557 posts) -

The game looks like ass on max settings on PC too...

#4 Edited by Netret0120 (1886 posts) -

Lol

360 is the same as X1

Xbox 720p

#5 Edited by Kaze_no_Mirai (10888 posts) -

And didn't the guy from IW say that some people couldn't tell the difference between the X1 and PS4 version?

#6 Edited by bobbetybob (19086 posts) -

Doesn't surprise me, the game doesn't really have any fancy effects or anything, even stuff like tessellation is completely unnoticeable on PC, I can turn the settings to low and the game looks pretty much exactly the same. The only difference that will be noticeable is some slightly sharper textures and hopefully better anti aliasing. Based on the PC port I'm surprised they even managed to get the PS4 version to 1080p because they seem completely incompetent.

#7 Posted by Gatman32 (427 posts) -

PS4 version looks like the PS3. Blame the shitty devs that likes to copy and paste, not the hardware on both systems.

#8 Posted by RyuHayabusa84 (15 posts) -

Wow lol, this is just embarrassing. XBone 720o strikes again it seems. Then again the game looks like crap even on PC but still, the fact they couldn't get this turd to run at 1080p is cause for great concern about the power of the XBone.

#9 Posted by BigBoss255 (3538 posts) -

Joke game on a joke system.

PS4 + Battlefield 4 is the way to go.

#10 Edited by kingtito (4728 posts) -

Joke game on a joke system.

PS4 + Battlefield 4 is the way to go.

Wrong cow...BF4 + PC is the way to go. Why go with such a weak system when you could game with the best visuals available.

#11 Posted by RyuHayabusa84 (15 posts) -

@kingtito said:

@BigBoss255 said:

Joke game on a joke system.

PS4 + Battlefield 4 is the way to go.

Wrong cow...BF4 + PC is the way to go. Why go with such a weak system when you could game with the best visuals available.

BF4 on PS4 is the equivalent of BF4 on High settings PC. Hardly what I would consider a weak system considering most PC fanboys don't have the system to run this game on max at 60fps. It's very respectable power for a console all fanboyism aside.

#12 Posted by PSP107 (11560 posts) -

BC should of been on PS4/XOne

#13 Edited by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Wow. That is some fucking bad press. I'd love to see the game myself, on 9 tvs, with all platforms running simultaneously!

I have heard from my Belgian commissary (@freedomfreak) that the Xbox 360 version performs really well, solid 60fps. We can trust this guy.

#14 Edited by Nengo_Flow (9258 posts) -

Question: Are the 360 and X1 versions cross multiplayer? If not, why not? Such an opportunity.

Same should be for the PS3-PS4 versions.

#15 Edited by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

One opinion? If it were something objective (which it already is), i'd be on board. A thread for Cows to jerk-off to, is highly unnecessary. It's based on what he can discern, using his eyes. Who gives a shit?

#16 Posted by kingtito (4728 posts) -

@kingtito said:

@BigBoss255 said:

Joke game on a joke system.

PS4 + Battlefield 4 is the way to go.

Wrong cow...BF4 + PC is the way to go. Why go with such a weak system when you could game with the best visuals available.

BF4 on PS4 is the equivalent of BF4 on High settings PC. Hardly what I would consider a weak system considering most PC fanboys don't have the system to run this game on max at 60fps. It's very respectable power for a console all fanboyism aside.

On high at what resolution? It doesn't even come close to matching what te PC is capable of. The PS4 IS weak when comparing to the PC. 7850 and a weak CPU make that a fact and no amount of spin will change that fact.

#17 Edited by StormyJoe (4557 posts) -

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/436917/the-highs-and-lows-of-the-xbox-one-launch-games/

Chris's Launch Concern: Call of Duty Ghosts

I haven't played an Xbox One launch game that didn't impress in some way, however if I had to highlight a concern it would be Call Of Duty: Ghosts. It was clear a while ago that it wasn't going to look quite as impressive as Battlefield 4 does on next-gen systems, but I struggled to see a noticeable difference between the Xbox One version of Ghosts and the Xbox 360 version.

Did he just accidentally break the embargo on a description of COD on the 720.

I agree. But, the PS4 version looks like the PS3/360 version, too.

#18 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

So either the xbone isnt anymore powerful than the xbox 360.

Or the more obvious and logical answer, its just a godawful port and not indicative of the hardware capabilities.

#19 Posted by SinjinSmythe (789 posts) -

Why didn't he point out that the 360 version is very close to the PS4 version. Oh that's right, he's a troll.

#20 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@kingtito:

Yet the only way to get the most out of your PC's resolution advantages, you must be sitting at a desk in front of your monitor. Console gamers want the living room experience. Using a PC for this is pretty much wasting your money.

#21 Posted by silversix_ (13541 posts) -

LOL dat $500 tho.

#22 Posted by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

LOL dat $500 tho.

In all honesty, it's better than the $600 ($700 with tax) with little to nothing to show, for 2 years. Until we see a cost breakdown, people really need to sit on what they enjoy (their thumbs).

#23 Posted by silversix_ (13541 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

LOL dat $500 tho.

In all honesty, it's better than the $600 ($700 with tax) with little to nothing to show, for 2 years. Until we see a cost breakdown, people really need to sit on what they enjoy (their thumbs).

the 600-700 dollars was ridiculous and absolutely not worth spending but at least when price was lowered you got a powerful system. Even if they lower X1 price to 399 why are you getting it for? i already have a 360/ps3 and spending that much more money to play games with current gen graphics is a no go in my book. There's zero reasons to buy an Xbone unless you're one of those who are ready to spend $500 to play one game, Halo 5

#24 Posted by freedomfreak (38143 posts) -

You raaaaaaaaaaaaaaang?

#25 Posted by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@silversix_ said:

LOL dat $500 tho.

In all honesty, it's better than the $600 ($700 with tax) with little to nothing to show, for 2 years. Until we see a cost breakdown, people really need to sit on what they enjoy (their thumbs).

the 600-700 dollars was ridiculous and absolutely not worth spending but at least when price was lowered you got a powerful system. Even if they lower X1 price to 399 why are you getting it for? i already have a 360/ps3 and spending that much more money to play games with current gen graphics is a no go in my book. There's zero reasons to buy an Xbone unless you're one of those who are ready to spend $500 to play one game, Halo 5

You are playing with current get resolution, not graphics. Graphics quality suffers, but it isn't entirely mitigated by the same resolution.

Like I said, when we see a cost breakdown, we can begin to seriously criticize. The Kinect took up a portion of that cost, which is insulting to many.

#26 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3218 posts) -

When's the last time CoD was about the graphics anyway?

#27 Edited by Sweenix (5395 posts) -

When's the last time CoD was about the graphics anyway?

Modern warfare 2

That game looked amazing for it's time.

#28 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

only difference in current gen to ps4 is lighting.... SO ya Pretty sure xbone can handle lighting

#29 Posted by TruthArisen (385 posts) -

Wonder Woman is alarmed.

"I..I just.... wow."

#30 Edited by silversix_ (13541 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@silversix_ said:

LOL dat $500 tho.

In all honesty, it's better than the $600 ($700 with tax) with little to nothing to show, for 2 years. Until we see a cost breakdown, people really need to sit on what they enjoy (their thumbs).

the 600-700 dollars was ridiculous and absolutely not worth spending but at least when price was lowered you got a powerful system. Even if they lower X1 price to 399 why are you getting it for? i already have a 360/ps3 and spending that much more money to play games with current gen graphics is a no go in my book. There's zero reasons to buy an Xbone unless you're one of those who are ready to spend $500 to play one game, Halo 5

You are playing with current get resolution, not graphics. Graphics quality suffers, but it isn't entirely mitigated by the same resolution.

Like I said, when we see a cost breakdown, we can begin to seriously criticize. The Kinect took up a portion of that cost, which is insulting to many.

of course but with weak hardware it has, im not expecting future multiplats like TW3 or DA3 to look like it would on pc/Ultra or even High. You remove Kinect cost (probably $150) and Xbone would curbstomp PS4 if those $150 were added into hardware.

#31 Edited by PrincessGomez92 (3218 posts) -

@Sweenix said:

@princessgomez92 said:

When's the last time CoD was about the graphics anyway?

Modern warfare 2

That game looked amazing for it's time.

Yeah, I suppose. Can't say I'm all that concerned about the graphics though.

#32 Posted by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

of course but with weak hardware it has, im not expecting future multiplats like TW3 or DA3 to look like it would on pc/Ultra or even High. You remove Kinect cost (probably $150) and Xbone would curbstomp PS4 if those $150 were added into hardware.

The same would be said of any console. Consoles never address the high-end PC market, at least for longer than a week. The 360 came the closest... Kind of.

MS made a ton of headway with Kinect. Their sales indicate as much. It was a dumb move for us, but a great move for them. I suspect they should have focussed at least a little more on the power, and swallowed more of the loss.

#33 Posted by KayJayMaster (60 posts) -

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/436917/the-highs-and-lows-of-the-xbox-one-launch-games/

Chris's Launch Concern: Call of Duty Ghosts

I haven't played an Xbox One launch game that didn't impress in some way, however if I had to highlight a concern it would be Call Of Duty: Ghosts. It was clear a while ago that it wasn't going to look quite as impressive as Battlefield 4 does on next-gen systems, but I struggled to see a noticeable difference between the Xbox One version of Ghosts and the Xbox 360 version.

Did he just accidentally break the embargo on a description of COD on the 720.

This is really sad. $500 for a system with little difference over the 360

#34 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@lundy86_4:

There was a $500 PS3 as well which all the Lems conveniently ignore which still had HDMI, Wifi, Card Readers, Full Backwards Compatability and the exact same 20GB as the $400 Xbox 360 which had none of this. 360 launch owners who didnt RRoD still had to upgrade later if they ever wanted to break away from component cables for High Definition. Upgrading your hard drive was also a fortune as well because you had to buy M$'s drive for three to five times the cost of a laptop drive.

#35 Edited by KayJayMaster (60 posts) -

@Sweenix said:

@princessgomez92 said:

When's the last time CoD was about the graphics anyway?

Modern warfare 2

That game looked amazing for it's time.

Yeah, I suppose. Can't say I'm all that concerned about the graphics though.

I would be concerned. If you're spending $500 on a next gen console, you want it to perform alot better than its predecessor

#36 Edited by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

@Murderstyle75 said:

@lundy86_4:

There was a $500 PS3 as well which all the Lems conveniently ignore which still had HDMI, Wifi, Card Readers, Full Backwards Compatability and the exact same 20GB as the $400 Xbox 360 which had none of this. 360 launch owners who didnt RRoD still had to upgrade later if they ever wanted to break away from component cables for High Definition. Upgrading your hard drive was also a fortune as well because you had to buy M$'s drive for three to five times the cost of a laptop drive.

The 20GB version did not offer added storage media slots (card readers) or internal WiFi. So... Cool?

Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinky!!!

#37 Edited by navyguy21 (12685 posts) -

It sounds like more of a hit on Ghosts than it is XB1, as he said he hasnt played a XB1 game yet that didnt impress him. He was criticizing the game, not the console.

#38 Edited by MajesticShea (695 posts) -

ITT: lems trying to bring in PS4 in this mess.

#39 Edited by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@Murderstyle75 said:

@lundy86_4:

There was a $500 PS3 as well which all the Lems conveniently ignore which still had HDMI, Wifi, Card Readers, Full Backwards Compatability and the exact same 20GB as the $400 Xbox 360 which had none of this. 360 launch owners who didnt RRoD still had to upgrade later if they ever wanted to break away from component cables for High Definition. Upgrading your hard drive was also a fortune as well because you had to buy M$'s drive for three to five times the cost of a laptop drive.

The 20GB version did not offer added storage media slots (card readers) or internal WiFi. So... Cool?

Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinky!!!

Now, I feel the need to address the rest of your post. The original Component 360 could run 720p/1080i. It just couldn't upscale and display 1080p, due to the input/output.

Proprietary HDD's were dumb. No argument.

----

If you don't want to reply, then lol.

#40 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@lundy86_4:

My mistake. Didn't buy at launch. I was too busy worshipping microsuck because of my impression of their first console while spreading the same kind of propaganda you are now.

It however it did have everything else including the HDMI. Not to mention it didn't require AA batteries or a Play & Charge. After the Gold sub and Play & Charge, the PS3 was only $30 more expensive than the Xbox 360 Pro. Either way. It still throws your $600 fanboy claim right out the window.

#41 Posted by freedomfreak (38143 posts) -

Jeff Gerstmann said that there was quite some difference. Mostly stuff being rendered in the background. He was talking about the Ps4 version though. Not allowed to talk about the Xbox One.

#42 Edited by Jankarcop (8827 posts) -

Lmao Giovela is crying @ THIS NEWS

#43 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (12759 posts) -

This can't be legit. lol.

#44 Edited by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

@lundy86_4:

My mistake. Didn't buy at launch. I was too busy worshipping microsuck because of my impression of their first console while spreading the same kind of propaganda you are now.

It however it did have everything else including the HDMI. Not to mention it didn't require AA batteries or a Play & Charge. After the Gold sub and Play & Charge, the PS3 was only $30 more expensive than the Xbox 360 Pro. Either way. It still throws your $600 fanboy claim right out the window.

Damage control? At the end of the day, you put forth an argument that was wholly inaccurate. Shoo.

#45 Posted by Murderstyle75 (4163 posts) -

@lundy86_4:

What am I damage controlling? Facts are facts even if a couple features were off. While I didn't particularly like Sony back then, it was true. But all people like you kept hearing was was $600 from the likes of a Peter Moore and his Wii60 gimmick and it was gospel. How does it feel, worshipping a company that makes consumer electronics like its some kind of sports hero?

#46 Edited by blackace (19697 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/436917/the-highs-and-lows-of-the-xbox-one-launch-games/

Chris's Launch Concern: Call of Duty Ghosts

I haven't played an Xbox One launch game that didn't impress in some way, however if I had to highlight a concern it would be Call Of Duty: Ghosts. It was clear a while ago that it wasn't going to look quite as impressive as Battlefield 4 does on next-gen systems, but I struggled to see a noticeable difference between the Xbox One version of Ghosts and the Xbox 360 version.

Did he just accidentally break the embargo on a description of COD on the 720.

I don't see any pictures or video to prove this, so we can't see the differences. lol!! Someone is blind. The PS3 must look like the PS4 version as well. lol!! Stupid thread. The final version of the XBox 360 won't be out until later. Plus it will be patched. This idiot is probably playing the 360 version on two different HDTV's.

#47 Posted by lundy86_4 (42618 posts) -

@lundy86_4:

What am I damage controlling? Facts are facts even if a couple features were off. While I didn't particularly like Sony back then, it was true. But all people like you kept hearing was was $600 from the likes of a Peter Moore and his Wii60 gimmick and it was gospel. How does it feel, worshipping a company that makes consumer electronics like its some kind of sports hero?

I'm not disputing that your prices were correct. Given where I am, $500 is close to $600. Without taxes, your prices were spot on. That being said, your entire post attempted to damage control, whilst being largely inaccurate. I can't do anything about that.

Who do I worship? Look into my post history... Go ahead. Dumbass.

#48 Posted by NFJSupreme (5020 posts) -

the game like all call of duty games just looks like ass in general. I wouldn't judge the xbone or any console or pc for that matter based on COD.

#49 Posted by JamDev (970 posts) -

By the sound of it the game runs like an absolute dog (relative to platform strength) on everything but the 360. I guess it makes sense give that will be their largest audience, but it doesn't look good for the devs.

#50 Posted by Kingpin0114 (2519 posts) -

So basically this game runs like crap on everything except the 360.