Polygon: COD Ghost On Xbox One Best Next Gen Version (Better Framerate)
- Thread starter Loose
- Start date
ChrisDorner
Banned
preordered the Xbone version a while back so that's fine
So @Fatboi1 @ChrisDorner @Rekkapryde. Which version is the "best" again?
And that's without even taking about the fact that XBL>>>>PSN
ChrisDorner
Banned
Kiss my ass meachSo @Fatboi1 @ChrisDorner @Rekkapryde. Which version is the "best" again?
And that's without even taking about the fact that XBL>>>>PSN
saw this on gaf, immediatley chuckled.
let the games begin
-DMP-
let the games begin
-DMP-
backbreaker65
All Star
You guys do know that polygon is funded by MS, they gave these dude 750thousand dollars to start that website. Go check the IGN review and see the difference in reporting.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-review
It’s difficult to appreciate the variation between current-gen and next-gen in TV commercials or a browser window, but up close and personal, the difference is drastic. Whereas the current-gen versions look muddy with blotchy textures, characters, weapon models, and environments are presented in vivid detail on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. The Call of Duty engine fares surprisingly well on next-gen, but even then Ghosts lacks a lot of the added atmospheric effects and visual panache that makes competing games look so realistic. I’m eager to see what a future Call of Duty looks like when maintaining 60 frames-per-second on current-gen is no longer a concern.
When comparing the PS4 and Xbox One versions side-by-side, there’s little to no variation in textures and effects, but there is a discernible difference in resolution. While both are displayed at 1080p, the Xbox One version upscales the game from 720p resolution. In contrast, the PS4 version runs natively at 1080p, which makes character models, weapons, and environments look noticeably sharper and more detailed. The difference is especially apparent on larger-sized TVs, where pixel density weighs more heavily in picture quality.
It’s certainly going to be a sticking point for those who demand the highest fidelity experience, but the difference is harder to identify in absence of a side-by-side comparison.
Oddly, the Xbox One version makes no use of the haptic feedback motors built into the controller’s triggers, and the DualShock 4’s trackpad is used solely as a button to toggle the in-game scoreboard during multiplayer.
There is, however, one notable exclusion from current-gen. Historically, Call of Duty has limited a majority of its modes to 12 players, but offered an additional playlist that supports 18-player matches known as Ground War. While the larger-scale matches live on with the PS4, Xbox One, and PC, owners of the Xbox 360, Wii U, and PS3 versions are capped at 12 players. It’s a surprising step back for the series, and the larger maps could have benefited from the higher player count.
It should also be noted that my smooth multiplayer experience was hosted on a dedicated server hosted by Activision – and most of yours will be, too. Activision says that all platforms will use a hybrid of dedicated servers and peer-to-peer matchmaking, which should eliminate many of the lag issues we've seen in the past. If all goes well, the days of being tossed into a game hosted by someone 2,000 miles away on a dial-up connection will be behind us.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/05/call-of-duty-ghosts-review
It’s difficult to appreciate the variation between current-gen and next-gen in TV commercials or a browser window, but up close and personal, the difference is drastic. Whereas the current-gen versions look muddy with blotchy textures, characters, weapon models, and environments are presented in vivid detail on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. The Call of Duty engine fares surprisingly well on next-gen, but even then Ghosts lacks a lot of the added atmospheric effects and visual panache that makes competing games look so realistic. I’m eager to see what a future Call of Duty looks like when maintaining 60 frames-per-second on current-gen is no longer a concern.
When comparing the PS4 and Xbox One versions side-by-side, there’s little to no variation in textures and effects, but there is a discernible difference in resolution. While both are displayed at 1080p, the Xbox One version upscales the game from 720p resolution. In contrast, the PS4 version runs natively at 1080p, which makes character models, weapons, and environments look noticeably sharper and more detailed. The difference is especially apparent on larger-sized TVs, where pixel density weighs more heavily in picture quality.
It’s certainly going to be a sticking point for those who demand the highest fidelity experience, but the difference is harder to identify in absence of a side-by-side comparison.
Oddly, the Xbox One version makes no use of the haptic feedback motors built into the controller’s triggers, and the DualShock 4’s trackpad is used solely as a button to toggle the in-game scoreboard during multiplayer.
There is, however, one notable exclusion from current-gen. Historically, Call of Duty has limited a majority of its modes to 12 players, but offered an additional playlist that supports 18-player matches known as Ground War. While the larger-scale matches live on with the PS4, Xbox One, and PC, owners of the Xbox 360, Wii U, and PS3 versions are capped at 12 players. It’s a surprising step back for the series, and the larger maps could have benefited from the higher player count.
It should also be noted that my smooth multiplayer experience was hosted on a dedicated server hosted by Activision – and most of yours will be, too. Activision says that all platforms will use a hybrid of dedicated servers and peer-to-peer matchmaking, which should eliminate many of the lag issues we've seen in the past. If all goes well, the days of being tossed into a game hosted by someone 2,000 miles away on a dial-up connection will be behind us.
as expected there isn't going to be some vast difference between the systems anytime soon and its up to developers to figure out how to utilize each platform efficiently...this exaggerating of power seems to have been a moot point on the sony side
way too early to start claiming victories in my opinion...as someone said let the games begin
way too early to start claiming victories in my opinion...as someone said let the games begin
CoD: Dogs is still.......
.
Everybody who asks me which FPS to get at launch, I'm telling them to get BF4 or KZ: SF.
. Everybody who asks me which FPS to get at launch, I'm telling them to get BF4 or KZ: SF.
backbreaker65
All Star
iceberg_is_on_fire
Wearing Lions gear when it wasn't cool
If Killzone MP sucks, I'm getting this.
These same guys gave TLOU a 7.5.
Either way this game is still trash so this doesn't matter. We gonna ignore the BF4 difference? 720P, worse graphics and worse performance compared to it's PS4 counterpart. This right here is just terrible developers, I mean they recycled content in the game for crying out loud. Non issue right there, move on.
backbreaker65
All Star
http://www.videogamer.com/xboxone/c...ew_call_of_duty_ghosts_and_battlefield_4.html
Much has already been made of the shortcomings of the Xbox One version of Ghosts, and so it will probably come as no surprise to hear that the Xbone version is lacking in the visual department. It's not just resolution that has suffered, however, although that in itself is fairly disappointing.
In the single-player game, at least, texture quality can range from average to very poor, and geometry itself can look clipped and badly aliased, giving the game a jaggy, muddy look that does nothing to tell you that your £429 investment was a good one. In some cases, elements of the world look barely textured at all, as is the case when the battle cruiser is seen at the end of the 'Fort Santa Monica Beachhead' mission. It was so bad that I navigated to the dashboard to ensure that the machine had been set up correctly. It had...
Multiplayer also looks demonstrably worse than in the PS4 version, with similar problems afflicting the look of the game. Mechanically it is identical, and at least the game ran stable enough to keep me blaming myself and not the frame rate for any kills I may have suffered. (Although I had no problems with the PS4 build, some users are reporting frame rate issues on Sony's machine.)
Still, whether through rushed/overstretched development or hardware problems (or a combination of both), Ghosts has ended up looking (far, in some cases) worse on Microsoft's machine than on its direct rival.
Much has already been made of the shortcomings of the Xbox One version of Ghosts, and so it will probably come as no surprise to hear that the Xbone version is lacking in the visual department. It's not just resolution that has suffered, however, although that in itself is fairly disappointing.
In the single-player game, at least, texture quality can range from average to very poor, and geometry itself can look clipped and badly aliased, giving the game a jaggy, muddy look that does nothing to tell you that your £429 investment was a good one. In some cases, elements of the world look barely textured at all, as is the case when the battle cruiser is seen at the end of the 'Fort Santa Monica Beachhead' mission. It was so bad that I navigated to the dashboard to ensure that the machine had been set up correctly. It had...
Multiplayer also looks demonstrably worse than in the PS4 version, with similar problems afflicting the look of the game. Mechanically it is identical, and at least the game ran stable enough to keep me blaming myself and not the frame rate for any kills I may have suffered. (Although I had no problems with the PS4 build, some users are reporting frame rate issues on Sony's machine.)
Still, whether through rushed/overstretched development or hardware problems (or a combination of both), Ghosts has ended up looking (far, in some cases) worse on Microsoft's machine than on its direct rival.