Call of Duty Ghost next gen engine (!!!) Pictures

[QUOTE="XenoNinja"][QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

:lol:

most ludicrous claim of this thread. Congratulations !

Ben-Buja

0/10 terribly obvious trolling attempt

Exactly, if this is overrated, then real life's graphics must be letting him down :P

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

It's like a PC game from 2005

BPoole96

WRONG.... 2007 dipshit

and that was only 1 game... it was years even before any other PC game came close to it as well.

Not even close

For comparison, some Black Ops 2 PC screens:

CODG:

BattleField 4 Graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COD Ghost Graphics

Mrmedia01

[QUOTE="Mrmedia01"]

BattleField 4 Graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COD Ghost Graphics

mitu123

Well no f*cking shit. In fact who even said otherwise?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Mrmedia01"]

BattleField 4 Graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COD Ghost Graphics

Goyoshi12

Well no f*cking shit. In fact who even said otherwise?

Dogs vs. Dinosaurs

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Mrmedia01"]

BattleField 4 Graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COD Ghost Graphics

Goyoshi12

Well no f*cking shit. In fact who even said otherwise?

for the lulz

Looks about on par to Black Ops II on PC. Which, as a PC gamer, I suppose I should be happy about considering this is the Modern Warfare side of the series and they rarely offer any PC-specific graphical enhancements like Treyarch does.

I'd say Crysis 1 even looks better than it, but COD isn't really about graphics (even though they seem to think it is)

Looks bad. But it is running at 60FPS I suppose.

Obviously_Right

That's prob still the same quake engine but with even more modifications.

Honestly quite a pathetic display by Activision and IW, even the current gen version of Frostbite looks much better than this crap.

What they got tired of the Quake 3 engine?

for the lulz

NoodleFighter

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]This as well by a landslide.

mitu123

Well no f*cking shit. In fact who even said otherwise?

[QUOTE="Obviously_Right"]

Looks bad. But it is running at 60FPS I suppose.

Nengo_Flow

[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"][QUOTE="Obviously_Right"]

Looks bad. But it is running at 60FPS I suppose.

BPoole96

At 720p. CoD might just go for 1080p. Hell, with those graphics, they better.

You also have to consider that it was developed for the lowest denominator the X1, which has an apprxoimate 7770 which can't even run 30 fps BF3 max at 1080p. Hell the 7770 can't run BO2 at max settings 1080p at solid 60fps.

for the lulz

NoodleFighter

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

[QUOTE="GulliversTravel"]Ive always wondered, just how well optimised is Crysis 1 because even today running the game on Max is struggle on high-end systems. 

blues35301

Not sure if serious....

Here's my system running Crysis...

This is with 8xMSAA+8xTrSAA+MLAA

The first game can only use 2 CPU cores and as result is very CPU intensive and requires a very fast CPU to run it smoothly... You NEED an overclock Intel CPU to play it at it's best.... For those wondering my GPU is a 7950 with a mile overclock with a 4.6Ghz 2500k.

You have a slow GPU and a mega crap CPU... that's why you're having problems... if you want to play Crysis as smooth as possible you need a CPU with a high clock and a high instructions per clock....

That Phenom 2 of yours is no faster then a Core 2 Quad.

I can run the Harbor benchmark ( The benchmark of GAMEPLAY ) and still get an average 60fps with a minimum of 45fps with 8xMSAA+8xTrSAA+MLAA enabled

[QUOTE="BPoole96"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"] thats the point of the COD games, they sacrifice graphic for the 60 frame rate. hexashadow13

At 720p. CoD might just go for 1080p. Hell, with those graphics, they better.

You also have to consider that it was developed for the lowest denominator the X1, which has an apprxoimate 7770 which can't even run 30 fps BF3 max at 1080p. Hell the 7770 can't run BO2 at max settings 1080p at solid 60fps.

Nice pics imo.

Nice pics imo.

sukraj

It's not a bad looking game. I think it's hard to have a bad looking AAA game next gen. Not with all those powerful engines out there.

It's just that this game doesn't look spectacular when comparing it with other next gen titles, even some current gen ones. IW promised a new next gen engine on their website of COD:Ghosts.

Now they have claimed it's not a new engine but an updated one. There is only so much you can expect from that old engine they have been upgrading over and over again. I've never played Black Ops II on PC but seeing those screenshots I think it's a nice looking game too. Doesn't look much worse than Ghosts.

.campzor

Ghost dog ?

.campzor

:lol: So awesome! 

COD ghost is going to have a hard time going against BF4 that now runs at 60fps and looks better than this game..also if rumors are true BF4 is 720p on consoles too.Tessellation

Personally I would have it at 60fps at 720p. On larger displays and better TVs, rendered 1080p won't look much better than upscaled 720p with good upscaling and AA methods. The difference isn't enough to justify the potential framerate hit.

Keep it 720p, keep it 60fps.

Also...

Ouch.

Also...

Ouch.

Wasdie

:P

Battlefield 3 already looks better and BF4 will be no contest.

Also this will provide an interesting read for you: new engine turns out to be a not so new engine

:P

Battlefield 3 already looks better and BF4 will be no contest.

Also this will provide an interesting read for you: new engine turns out to be a not so new engine

R4gn4r0k

That's not saying much. No "new engine" is actually new. It's extremely rare an engine today, especially a big one, is built from the ground up. CryEngine 3 is based upon work they did with Far Cry, Frostbite 3 engine is built off of work they did with Battlefield Bad Company on the PS3/360, Unreal 4 engine is built upon Unreal 3 engine tech, so on and so forth. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

You can upgrade major parts of the engine without actually rewriting the whole thing. A well designed, modern game engine is very modular. 

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

:P

Battlefield 3 already looks better and BF4 will be no contest.

Also this will provide an interesting read for you: new engine turns out to be a not so new engine

Wasdie

That's not saying much. No "new engine" is actually new. It's extremely rare an engine today, especially a big one, is built from the ground up. CryEngine 3 is based upon work they did with Far Cry, Frostbite 3 engine is built off of work they did with Battlefield Bad Company on the PS3/360, Unreal 4 engine is built upon Unreal 3 engine tech, so on and so forth. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

You can upgrade major parts of the engine without actually rewriting the whole thing. A well designed, modern game engine is very modular. 

Yeah but there is only so much you can do with an old engine before you have to rewrite entire parts. You can't just fit DX11 and physics in an engine like Quake 3s I imagine without major work.

From what I can tell they keep upgrading it and it shows in the screenshots how it tries to look like modern games but just doesn't have the latest effects. Things Cryengine, Frostbite, UE do have. I can't imagine the Unreal engine being upgraded anything but majorly for it to be able to come from its very first version up to the latest.

Engines do get upgraded time after time. But there is a big difference between a new engine and a new engine. Frostbites new engine was a big step, this not so much.

Also the COD: Ghosts site claims it's an entirely new next gen engine. Haha :P

Personally I would have it at 60fps at 720p. On larger displays and better TVs, rendered 1080p won't look much better than upscaled 720p with good upscaling and AA methods. The difference isn't enough to justify the potential framerate hit.

Keep it 720p, keep it 60fps.

Wasdie

Yeah but there is only so much you can do with an old engine before you have to rewrite entire parts. You can't just fit DX11 and physics in an engine like Quake 3s I imagine without major work.

R4gn4r0k

Yes you can and it is quite a bit of work. That's the point of a major revision. You put a lot of work into upgrading old systems. Overhauling chunks, rewriting, deleteing old parts. You don't have to start from scratch at all. Some of these major engines are probably running 15+ year old code. Again, you don't fix what ain't broken. C++ hasn't changed in 15 years. If you got a chunk of code extremely optimized and working flawlessly, you don't change it.

Also with an interview with their engineers they clearly say it's just a major revision. That's how all new engines are as I stated. 

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

Yeah but there is only so much you can do with an old engine before you have to rewrite entire parts. You can't just fit DX11 and physics in an engine like Quake 3s I imagine without major work.

Wasdie

Yes you can and it is quite a bit of work. That's the point of a major revision. You put a lot of work into upgrading old systems. Overhauling chunks, rewriting, deleteing old parts. You don't have to start from scratch at all. Some of these major engines are probably running 15+ year old code. Again, you don't fix what ain't broken. C++ hasn't changed in 15 years. If you got a chunk of code extremely optimized and working flawlessly, you don't change it.

Also with an interview with their engineers they clearly say it's just a major revision. That's how all new engines are as I stated. 

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

Yeah but there is only so much you can do with an old engine before you have to rewrite entire parts. You can't just fit DX11 and physics in an engine like Quake 3s I imagine without major work.

Wasdie

Yes you can and it is quite a bit of work. That's the point of a major revision. You put a lot of work into upgrading old systems. Overhauling chunks, rewriting, deleteing old parts. You don't have to start from scratch at all. Some of these major engines are probably running 15+ year old code. Again, you don't fix what ain't broken. C++ hasn't changed in 15 years. If you got a chunk of code extremely optimized and working flawlessly, you don't change it.

Also with an interview with their engineers they clearly say it's just a major revision. That's how all new engines are as I stated. 

I'm not denying what you stated. I'm just saying that compared to other next gen engines, this 'major revision' falls short.

Also...

Ouch.

Wasdie