Call of Duty: Ghosts Visual Difference Is "An Individual Call"

Call of Duty: Ghosts Visual Difference Is "An Individual Call"

call of duty ghosts screenshot

Infinity Ward Executive Producer Mark Rubin says some gamers may notice the lower resolution of Call of Duty: Ghosts on the Xbox One, and some may not.

Infinity Ward confirmed last week that the PlayStation 4 version of Call of Duty: Ghosts runs natively at 1080p, while the Xbox One edition is 720p, upscaled to 1080p. The response was actually rather more muted than I expected (which is to say, nobody got knifed, and bravo to everyone for that) but there's no getting around the fact that in terms of raw pixels it's a fairly substantial difference, and in terms of "which one is better" it doesn't look good on Microsoft.

According to Rubin, however, the difference isn't all that great, if you even notice it at all. "If they're running side by side, some people will [see a difference], some people won't. The 720 on Xbox One is upscaled to 1080p as far as resolution is concerned - some people have noticed and some people haven't. I think it's an individual call. Maybe it's a close call and maybe it's not for some people. It really depends on how hyper-aware you are of things like that," he told Edge.

Rubin said the game will look great regardless of what system it's on and claimed that Infinity Ward has "never done, specifically, a comparison of any sorts." And although the lower resolution on the Xbox One was forced by the need to keep the game at 60 FPS, he refused to say that means that the PlayStation 4 is a more powerful console.

"This is the first game on the console and there's a lot for us to learn with the new hardware so it's a long-running process - you compare COD 2 to COD 4 it's a massive leap forward in graphical fidelity. So I think we expect the same thing on both platforms," he said. "And it's not just hardware physically, the amount of resources that each system is allowing the game developers to use isn't the same. So from our standpoint that's something that could change, y'know? We might get more resources back at one point. And that could make things change dramatically for the Xbox One, for instance. It's a long complicated road that will take years to develop, and I think at the end we'll have games looking very similar, usually, on both systems."

So there you have it. Maybe it looks better and maybe it doesn't, and even if it does look better that doesn't necessarily make it better, and it might not be better later. Got it?

Call of Duty: Ghosts comes out on November 5 - holy crap, that's tomorrow!

Source: Edge

Permalink

About the lack of uproar thing. To be fair, the Xbox one has a really small number of people lining up for it in comparison to the ps4. Sales wise there probably won't be that big a difference, but Sony took out the majority of vocal gamers, so there isn't anyone left to yell in favor of Microsoft

Andy Chalk:
The response was actually rather more muted than I expected (which is to say, nobody got knifed, and bravo to everyone for that)

I feel with situations like this, we have to focus on the positives, and Mr. Chalk has hit the nail on the head with this one.

On topic, is it a question of how the hardware on either console works that forces the lower resolution on the Xbone? By and large, the two consoles specs are pretty similar, so is it just a case of the devs having to deal with a new architecture? (which I can only imagine must be a nightmare, so well done to them all for dealing with that)

sid:
About the lack of uproar thing. To be fair, the Xbox one has a really small number of people lining up for it in comparison to the ps4. Sales wise there probably won't be that big a difference, but Sony took out the majority of vocal gamers, so there isn't anyone left to yell in favor of Microsoft

Actually, as of right now, Ghosts has more pre-orders on the Xbone than it does on the PS4, so it appears that they are angering more gamers than not with this news, and we all know that the Call of Duty fan base is hardly the most quiet in gaming. It only becomes worse when you throw the usual Microsoft/Sony console war in.

OT: It might not make much of a difference, but it still sounds like Rubin is just covering his tracks. I can't imagine Microsoft is too pleased about this news getting out as it reflects badly on the Xbox One, and their anger could be directed Infinity Ward's way if IW doesn't say something to balance things out.

Don't you remember,
The Fifth of November,
Twas Gunpowder Treason Day,
I let off my gun,
And made them all run.
And stole all their bonfire away.

I wonder if they really thought things through here, releasing COD on a Guy Fawkes night...

All that bullshit and doublespeak in the article made me think of England, which made me think of EFG, funny how brain works sometimes

MysticSlayer:

sid:
About the lack of uproar thing. To be fair, the Xbox one has a really small number of people lining up for it in comparison to the ps4. Sales wise there probably won't be that big a difference, but Sony took out the majority of vocal gamers, so there isn't anyone left to yell in favor of Microsoft

Actually, as of right now, Ghosts has more pre-orders on the Xbone than it does on the PS4, so it appears that they are angering more gamers than not with this news, and we all know that the Call of Duty fan base is hardly the most quiet in gaming. It only becomes worse when you throw the usual Microsoft/Sony console war in.

OT: It might not make much of a difference, but it still sounds like Rubin is just covering his tracks. I can't imagine Microsoft is too pleased about this news getting out as it reflects badly on the Xbox One, and their anger could be directed Infinity Ward's way if IW doesn't say something to balance things out.

That may be because the PS4 has a better launch roster. There's more games competing for pre orders.

Seriously though the resolution is a bum issue any way. It was used as a marketing ploy. You know the saying in marketing is you focus on the things that are different even if they're meaningless. The simple truth is, if you can notice the graphical quality after an hour of game play.. the game has failed from the design perspective. People will look past graphical issues if the game is still engaging, fun or interesting. Just like how movie goers will look past bad cgi if the movie is actually good.

Who cares? 720p vs 1080p is not something many will tell from a distance, and when going around shooting children in the head with guns and stabbing them in the back, you won't really care once playing.

People are getting all pissy for no reason -_- You didn't see me crying when they said that New Super Mario Bros U was lowered to 720p from 1080p.

LavaLampBamboo:
On topic, is it a question of how the hardware on either console works that forces the lower resolution on the Xbone?

Short answer, we don't truly know yet, but.

Long answer.

The Xbone uses cheaper RAM and a cheaper (read slower) memory controller than the PS4, which uses the same RAM as an aftermarket graphics card. The Xbone also has a slower APU, but by how much isn't known yet. The result is that the PS4 can handle larger textures faster and has a resolution advantage in both Battlefield 4 (900p vs 720p) and CoD:Ghosts (1080p vs 720p), both beeing locked at 60fps on both console. It also has an advantage in CPU heavy games, which Battlefield 4 is (although not enough for it to manage 1080p).
This could be the shape of the next five years, but it could also be a side effect of hitting those launch day release dates. The PS4 is the closer to a PC of the two and has the faster hardware, so by extension it should be easier to optimise and hit target frame rates.

Things like Titanfall and next year's Call of Duty will be the real acid test, if they are native 1080p then this is just teething problems right now. If they aren't, the Xbone is officially underpowered and by the time the next Far Cry/Battlefield/Elder Scrolls roll around it might be back to the state of the current consoles with capped 30fps and/or letter boxing to make the games run.

BigTuk:

That may be because the PS4 has a better launch roster. There's more games competing for pre orders.

But it is still an indication that Ghosts is currently more anticipated on the 360 than it is on the PS4. Not to mention, CoD has traditionally been more successful on Microsoft systems to begin with. Even with Black Ops 2, the 360 version sold over 12 million copies, but the PS3 version couldn't even make it to 11 million. This comes regardless of the fact that the PS3 recently surpassed the 360 in units sold, albeit the 360 still tends to have better overall games sales. In the end, it just appears that CoD players, and those willing to spend more on actual games, tend to go to Microsoft's consoles, and since CoD is a franchise that would hardly be affected by Microsoft's previous Xbox One restrictions, I doubt the CoD community's interest waned as a result.

While it is possible changes may come in the next generation, that's only mere speculation. Given the current trends, though, it appears that CoD will continue to be more popular on the Xbox One than on the PS4, at least in the next year or so.

I'm confused, is he trying to pass off a game looking worse as some sort of subjective judgement?

Because that's just the most adorable thing I ever heard.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't really care, and seeing how I don't play on consoles anyway it doesn't affect me anyway.

But come the fuck on.

fix-the-spade:
Things like Titanfall and next year's Call of Duty will be the real acid test, if they are native 1080p then this is just teething problems right now. If they aren't, the Xbone is officially underpowered

Actually it won't be a good acid test because Titanfall is running off the old Source engine. Just so you and everyone else knows.

Arnoxthe1:
Actually it won't be a good acid test because Titanfall is running off the old Source engine. Just so you and everyone else knows.

"The old Source Engine," that's a good one.

Call of Duty (including Ghosts) runs on a modification of Id Tech 3, as in the software that powered Quake 3: Arena, in 1999. Yes they have progressively added to it in that decade and a bit, they have also started renaming it with every game that gets released, but it is still underpinned by thirteen year old software.

Source was all new in 2004 and has undergone a similar amount of feature adding, but has not been renamed every two years. Similarly Unreal Engine 3 is from 2004, but is the basis of possibly half of all the triple A games released this year. The newest game engines in reasonably wide use are probably Frostbite (2008) and CryEngine 3 (2009).

In terms of game software old is an extremely relative term, the Source engine is more than capable of running native 1080p and equally capable of making graphical demands beyond the Xbone's abilities, the question is will Respawn be able to get that much vaunted 60fps at 1080p or will they need to use scaling. It will make a good test of the Xbox One's hardware, probably the definitive one seeing as Microsoft are pushing it as the Xbone's flagship title (and there will be a PC version to measure it against).

1080p subjective? LOLWUT. If you got a 1080p tv, you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. No ifs, no buts.

Ponyholder:
Who cares? 720p vs 1080p is not something many will tell from a distance, and when going around shooting children in the head with guns and stabbing them in the back, you won't really care once playing.

People are getting all pissy for no reason -_- You didn't see me crying when they said that New Super Mario Bros U was lowered to 720p from 1080p.

Really? because last i heard people had eyes. they could see. and they saw how the 720p was pretty damn low and felt more like 10 year old console than anything. i mean, if your releasing a console now 1080p is the bare minimum you should go for, PC players have been above that for years now.

fix-the-spade:

Arnoxthe1:
Actually it won't be a good acid test because Titanfall is running off the old Source engine. Just so you and everyone else knows.

"The old Source Engine," that's a good one.

Call of Duty (including Ghosts) runs on a modification of Id Tech 3, as in the software that powered Quake 3: Arena, in 1999. Yes they have progressively added to it in that decade and a bit, they have also started renaming it with every game that gets released, but it is still underpinned by thirteen year old software.

correct me if im wrong, but didnt Infinity said they sort of built a new engine for Ghost, something they havent done for other CODs? It would also explain the low quality, unrealistic requirements problem, seeing as new engine hasnt been optimized yet. (and really, a game will refuse to launch if you have less than 6 GB of ram but will actually use at most 1.1 gb during the play, what the...)

This issue has never really been a PS4 vs XBox One question for me. It's great that the PS4 is handling 1080p, but the idea that one of the two consoles can't is pretty disheartening. We haven't officially seen the games yet, but based on trailers and stuff, I don't see a revolutionary change here. The games don't even look as good heavily modded PC titles. They hardly look much better than Crysis.

I primarily play on PC, but I was excited for the new consoles because I hoped they would really raise the bar in terms of power available for AAA games. But it looks like a moderate PC build now will match the consoles easily, and in as little as a year or two the PC will be way, way ahead. We'll quickly be back to the consoles holding game development behind. Not just terms of siny graphics either. In terms of physics, AI, number of on-screen objects/actors, etc - things that affect actual gameplay.

Think about something like a 1080p Occulus Rift. How are the consoles going to handle two 1080p screens when they can barely handle a single screen at 1080p or even fail at that right out of the gate? The Rift could possibly be the biggest change in gaming since the NES. It's going to be stifled if it or similar products can't produce crisp visuals over the next decade on the consoles.

Obviously games on consoles can be optimized, but when you're starting at 720p, I can't really see moving towards revolutionary new features/graphics running at 1080p through the miracle of optimization.

Strazdas:

Ponyholder:
Who cares? 720p vs 1080p is not something many will tell from a distance, and when going around shooting children in the head with guns and stabbing them in the back, you won't really care once playing.

People are getting all pissy for no reason -_- You didn't see me crying when they said that New Super Mario Bros U was lowered to 720p from 1080p.

Really? because last i heard people had eyes. they could see. and they saw how the 720p was pretty damn low and felt more like 10 year old console than anything. i mean, if your releasing a console now 1080p is the bare minimum you should go for, PC players have been above that for years now.

The difference between 720p and 1080p is so minute it doesn't make a difference. The only people I have seen complain about it are graphic snobs and elitists.

Also, we aren't talking about PC gaming here. These are console games.

Ponyholder:

Strazdas:

Ponyholder:
Who cares? 720p vs 1080p is not something many will tell from a distance, and when going around shooting children in the head with guns and stabbing them in the back, you won't really care once playing.

People are getting all pissy for no reason -_- You didn't see me crying when they said that New Super Mario Bros U was lowered to 720p from 1080p.

Really? because last i heard people had eyes. they could see. and they saw how the 720p was pretty damn low and felt more like 10 year old console than anything. i mean, if your releasing a console now 1080p is the bare minimum you should go for, PC players have been above that for years now.

The difference between 720p and 1080p is so minute it doesn't make a difference. The only people I have seen complain about it are graphic snobs and elitists.

Also, we aren't talking about PC gaming here. These are console games.

If you are using a screen that is incapable of proper 1080p then yes. every other situation no.

I dont mind playing games in 640x360, im nerver the guy that goes after graphics, but to state that there is no visible difference is simply a lie.

Im sorry, but COD:G came out on PC (today none the less), and PC is primary market for FPS, which COD:G is. SO its obviously easy to involve the PC. however the platform does not matter. because 1080p will be 1080p and 720p will be 720p. Current consoles dont even provide proper 720p though, best they can do is fake upscaling. new consoles seems to be... still incapable as per this article. yeah.

If you got a TV or monitor, it really does not matter, what matters if it can do a proper 1080p (and not the compressed upscaling that still uses 720 pixels but pretends to be 1080pixels, some TVs do that, my dad got one of those), you will see a difference. heck, just go as far as youtube videos and youll see difference, and those are compressed as it is!

Strazdas:

Ponyholder:

Strazdas:

Really? because last i heard people had eyes. they could see. and they saw how the 720p was pretty damn low and felt more like 10 year old console than anything. i mean, if your releasing a console now 1080p is the bare minimum you should go for, PC players have been above that for years now.

The difference between 720p and 1080p is so minute it doesn't make a difference. The only people I have seen complain about it are graphic snobs and elitists.

Also, we aren't talking about PC gaming here. These are console games.

If you are using a screen that is incapable of proper 1080p then yes. every other situation no.

I dont mind playing games in 640x360, im nerver the guy that goes after graphics, but to state that there is no visible difference is simply a lie.

Im sorry, but COD:G came out on PC (today none the less), and PC is primary market for FPS, which COD:G is. SO its obviously easy to involve the PC. however the platform does not matter. because 1080p will be 1080p and 720p will be 720p. Current consoles dont even provide proper 720p though, best they can do is fake upscaling. new consoles seems to be... still incapable as per this article. yeah.

If you got a TV or monitor, it really does not matter, what matters if it can do a proper 1080p (and not the compressed upscaling that still uses 720 pixels but pretends to be 1080pixels, some TVs do that, my dad got one of those), you will see a difference. heck, just go as far as youtube videos and youll see difference, and those are compressed as it is!

I have a 4k PC Monitor and I have seen a few videos and games that allow 4k resolution. I still don't see that huge of a difference of what is supposedly twice as powerful as 1080p. I see even less of a difference between 720p and 1080p. It doesn't make that big of difference. It never has. The details are so minute, as I have said multiple times now that whining and complaining about it is just a sad, sad act.

Strazdas:

If you got a TV or monitor, it really does not matter, what matters if it can do a proper 1080p (and not the compressed upscaling that still uses 720 pixels but pretends to be 1080pixels, some TVs do that, my dad got one of those), you will see a difference. heck, just go as far as youtube videos and youll see difference, and those are compressed as it is!

So both the XboxOne and your father's TV are both using Compressed upscaling?

I wonder if that's going to be a continual theme with the xbox one and all the system resource intensive titles.

Strazdas:
correct me if im wrong, but didnt Infinity said they sort of built a new engine for Ghost, something they havent done for other CODs?

You're not wrong, but Infinity Ward were talking out of their collective arse, as developers are want to do when it comes to hyping their new product.

IW6 (Ghosts) is a modification of the engine that Modern Warfare 3 ran on, which in turn is a modification of what ran Black Ops, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 (although they renamed it IW4.0 for MW2), which in turn is based on IW2.0, which is itself an in-house upgrade of Id Tech 3.

Licensing game engine software is hugely lucrative, yet despite having this 'Roll Royce' software available Activision licenses it out to precisely nobody, they don't even use it on in house projects beyond Call of Duty (and one Bond game), because when it comes down to it, they don't own the keys to that particular license and likely never will.

Ponyholder:

I have a 4k PC Monitor and I have seen a few videos and games that allow 4k resolution. I still don't see that huge of a difference of what is supposedly twice as powerful as 1080p. I see even less of a difference between 720p and 1080p. It doesn't make that big of difference. It never has. The details are so minute, as I have said multiple times now that whining and complaining about it is just a sad, sad act.

The difference between 720p and 1080p and between 1080p and 4k is more noticable because 720p is significantly worse than 1080p comparin the two comparisons. the effect is higher because the more detailed things goes the less human eye actually cares. while it does surely see the difference, it is not 2x as effective. Also you have to realized that there are really no video games that run with 4k resolution graphics. yes they can do the 4k resolution in pixels, but their textures are still usually not even 1080p, so you end up seeing same tecture pixel over 4 or mroe pixels on your screen and thus dont see a difference. im not familiar with 4k video material to argue the non-games part though.
You say you see "less" difference, and that would mean that you do actually see a difference - the point i was making - people actually SEE a difference.
The details are minute, of course. we can watch VHS, who needs DVDs, the difference isnt that big right?

aelreth:

So both the XboxOne and your father's TV are both using Compressed upscaling?

I wonder if that's going to be a continual theme with the xbox one and all the system resource intensive titles.

My fathers TV do. As far as XboxOne, we dont really know yet. It claims it does not do upscaling, isntead it runs this particular game in 720p instead of 1080p. whether these launch game problems are just game developers not doig well enough with new system or inherent problem of XboxOne being underpwoered remains to see, but so far it does nto look good for Xbox.
What we KNOW uses upscaling is Xbox360 and PS3, because neither of the two runs on native 720p (PS3 is closer, but not 720p).

fix-the-spade:

Strazdas:
correct me if im wrong, but didnt Infinity said they sort of built a new engine for Ghost, something they havent done for other CODs?

You're not wrong, but Infinity Ward were talking out of their collective arse, as developers are want to do when it comes to hyping their new product.

IW6 (Ghosts) is a modification of the engine that Modern Warfare 3 ran on, which in turn is a modification of what ran Black Ops, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 (although they renamed it IW4.0 for MW2), which in turn is based on IW2.0, which is itself an in-house upgrade of Id Tech 3.

Licensing game engine software is hugely lucrative, yet despite having this 'Roll Royce' software available Activision licenses it out to precisely nobody, they don't even use it on in house projects beyond Call of Duty (and one Bond game), because when it comes down to it, they don't own the keys to that particular license and likely never will.

I see, so it isnt the taunted new engine and just rebranded old one. Sigh, i do hope they do make new engines because current ones as streamlined as they are do are outdated by now. yes its expensive investment but who else than somoen that sells so many million games. besides as you say its very lucrative business. I mean look at Unreal Engine, the thing is ancient, and yet still reeks in masive profit and keeps a company of fools afloat.

Strazdas:
I see, so it isnt the taunted new engine and just rebranded old one. Sigh, i do hope they do make new engines because current ones as streamlined as they are do are outdated by now.

I don't think it's really a problem to be honest, yes it's old technology but it's also well understood and much cheaper relatively than building from scratch, I don't think it particularly holds games back. Also, building your own game engine is so hugely expensive that you can have dumb situations like Tomb Raider selling 5 million copies, but still being a commercial failure. I think it's preferable to to be paying $2 per sale (or something) to Id/Bethesda or Epic/Valve etc than to lose half a game's budget before you can even start building models.

I don't like companies making out that their tech is all new all the time when it's not, but that's just marketing for you. We've still a long way to go to match aviation though, they've got Airbuses and Boeings trucking around on variants of engines first run in 1969!

Ponyholder:

The difference between 720p and 1080p is so minute it doesn't make a difference.

Given that 1080p has more than double the number of pixels as 720p I think it's a little bit more than a minute difference, it certainly is to me anyway, I can tell the difference between the two almost right away and 720p makes games draining to play.

fix-the-spade:

Strazdas:
I see, so it isnt the taunted new engine and just rebranded old one. Sigh, i do hope they do make new engines because current ones as streamlined as they are do are outdated by now.

I don't think it's really a problem to be honest, yes it's old technology but it's also well understood and much cheaper relatively than building from scratch, I don't think it particularly holds games back. Also, building your own game engine is so hugely expensive that you can have dumb situations like Tomb Raider selling 5 million copies, but still being a commercial failure. I think it's preferable to to be paying $2 per sale (or something) to Id/Bethesda or Epic/Valve etc than to lose half a game's budget before you can even start building models.

I don't like companies making out that their tech is all new all the time when it's not, but that's just marketing for you. We've still a long way to go to match aviation though, they've got Airbuses and Boeings trucking around on variants of engines first run in 1969!

Right so i dg up though my memory this night while laying in bed and i think i did start this wouthout a reason. this is because i think i mixed COD with BF, as BF4 supposedly has new engine. or i could be mixing it up again. who knows.

I think its a problem when you start sering comments like "we would ahve done this but we couldnt due to engine limitation". Yes well understood and cheap, but being made so long ago it has some limitations, that while can be modified out, cosndering how much modifying has been done you may jsut as well make a new engine.
Tomb Raider kind of failed because while it had good engine it has bad everything else. To kickstart an expesive engine you need a really good game. However i do think that they will sell license of Tomb Riders engine (i got no idea what its name is) and that could still bring in profit in the long term. but hey, what company thing of long term, all we care are short term maximizing profits right?

The engines in airplanes are certainly not what they were in 1969. That would b like saying all combustion engines are just ariants of same combustion engine, which in a way could make sense, but that means that its not possible to ever make new combustion engine, and would in this alegory mean that all game engines are really same engine back from pacman times, just modified. so suck statements is kind of pointless.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here