The same user who got his Xbox One early has posted a picture of what Ghosts looks like on Xbox One. You put this side by side to the 360 version, and can see some differences. The biggest thing you’ll notice is the lighting and detail on the cargos around the area.

[nggallery id=609]

And, the user has also said that the campaign plays well on Xbox One, with little to no frame rate issues.

SOURCE: @moonlightswami via @LiamFTWinter



      • None of the screenshots look “just like a PC” because all of the images in the article are scaled down to miniscule sizes.

        Here’s Crysis 3 compared between PC and 360:

        Obviously, PC looks better, but they don’t look too different. Not too bad, eh? Seems the 360 can keep up a bit?

        Well, let’s look at the renders in almost full resolution:

        PC —

        360 —

        Yeah, the tiny images in this article are obviously, completely inconclusive, unsubstantiated, and just garbage to use for comparison.

    • I think the top looks better also, But if you look at the shadows the bottom has more. Either way, It doesn’t look that much different.

    • I’m actually preferring the 360 version, it looks more colourful. There’s less of a noticeable difference than there was with the PS3 and PS4, though these are only screenshots. We’ll see a far bigger difference when we get gameplay – there’ll be better lighting, it’ll be sharper…it’ll just be better overall. I’m waiting for side-by-side gameplay šŸ˜‰

      • You can’t accurately determine from images that have been scaled down so much. I guarantee the 360 version is blurrier, jaggier, and anything rendering at a distance looks like shit.

        • …which is why I said I’m waiting for gameplay and I said that we’ll see a far bigger difference when we get gameplay…

    • The lighting is very different between them which makes the 360 one seem like it has better colors (and he’s standing in a shadow in the XB1 picture on Octane), but I’m pretty sure when it’s on your TV you’d see a significant improvement from 360 to One.

    • The xbox one version has much more intense lighting effects and they have the brightness set too high on the screen they took this screencap from. Its so bright its actually making the colors look dull and uninteresting compared to the the 360 version. look up a different comparison, this one is very poor, maybe even biased intentionally.

      • Yeah not a good comparison. It could also be how it is captured, poor gamma set up etc.

        What you can see though is the telegraph wires – they look more jagged on the One than the 360!

          • Then maybe you should just be sitting in a dark corner, rather than wasting your own time (and more importantly other people’s time) hating on a CoD website? I think your time would be spent far better in a dark corner to be honest.

          • CoD has never been about graphics, because primarily, the players aren’t the die-hard BF fans who value graphics and tech over what the game is actually supposed to be about. CoD puts the story first. If CoD players cared about graphics, they’d be asking for awesome graphics. But we’re happy, so we don’t.

          • You’re just stating the obvious, We all know graphics aren’t a huge part of Call Of Duty, Hence the reason he said “What do you expect it’s COD”

          • is horrible compared to what? BF4? cause i dont see anyother game except BF4 and Crysis 3 being better than Ghosts in graphics. at least not on the PC, i can assure you of that.

        • people see somebody talking badly about CoD and they immediateli assume hes a BF player, what you should realize is that alot of people who bad mouth CoD are actually very avid CoD players themselves, yes some of them are BF players but not all of them

  1. Lmao, no wonder consumers are barely game creators. They don’t know shit. Alot of BF’s graphics and shading are caked in, meaning they’re just there cause it looks good. Like the horrible black shadow surrounding every figure to show contrast, just like in FarCry 3. It doesn’t exist in real life, but it looks OK, so they do it. Also, to add more, CoD looks better than MOST games anyway. It just competes with big time PC graphics whores and there are multiple buzzwords ingrained in the feeble brain of gamers like “new engine”. The XBO version shits on 360 with better lighting, if you can’t tell just by looking. As well as better PoV, higher plolycount, artistic license, better geometry etc. Look at AC4 compared to ghosts. Look at FC3 compared to ghosts. Look at bf4 compared to ghosts, bf4 being the “winner” to the average pea brained aesthetic swallowing gamer. And it’s somewhat true, they know how to wow you with simple tricks. But it’s an even bigger copy/paste than Mw3 lol.

    • Battlefield logic “Lets throw a bunch of random and unnecessary Lens flares everywhere” and so the $60 Lens flare simulator was born. jj abrams was so proud

        • BF has the better engine, but as far as details and on screen content goes, CoD owns that department. Ex: Objects in building, stuff on the ground, derby floating around, gun details, wall textures and damage. The little things

          • How?Cod is still using a decade old Unreal engine, how it can it possibly compete against a much newer engine? The examples you posted are also completely untrue, mind you.

          • You are wrong. It does NOT use the unreal engine, it uses a hugely updated Quake engine. Realistically its not even the same engine anymore, very little remains of that engine. And the next gen ghosts engine is again is overhauled, making it even less like the original quake engine. The CoD engine is its own engine at this point and can compete with other engines if utilized properly.

          • its not Unreal engine you moron! fucking illiterate. its ID Tech 3 heavily modified. and yes the examples he posted are completely TRUE. the only thing that Frostbite has is good lighting and destruction. have you seen Frostbite’s colors? or maybe their gun details? no, because they arent present. thats why every gun has the same color and texture. Frostbite has a lot of things but details isnt one of them.

          • did i ever say that the “new” COD engine is actually new? its just a step forward in the franchise. but still better than most engines out there. its of course not CryEngine or Frostbite but i dont believe there are other engines that can compete with those 2 anyway. (except Unreal if utilized properly) you just stated a fact that everyone knows and made yourself look like an idiot and for what? just to tell of me cause i like COD? go back to your cave to play BF.

          • I play both games on pc and i must say that details are better in CoD than BF4 but bf4 has alrger Maps and more dynamic textures , but CoD acctually wins the graphics apartment if you compare ghosts and bf4… Gameplay… 2 VERY different games of the same genre!!

          • It’s easy to cram environment detail into maps that are between half an acre, and 2 acres in size. Even then, I’d consider the environments to look much better in BF. Everything within the engine that CoD continues to lease and utilize, is extremely underwhelming.

          • BF is a bunch of empty building skeletons. Mostly made of concrete or metal. Also BF3 only had like 7 maps on disc, while MW3 which launched at the same time, had 16. CoD maps have much more detail in the environment, and the gun’s are much more detailed and interesting. Thats fact

          • All of those “details” are antiquated, poorly rendered objects, with little to no dynamic shading or ambient occlusion, most of the shit in the environment is completely static, meaning it has no physical properties and is unaffected by physics, there are no particles, just more sprites… I mean, you can call a lot of mediocre games more “detailed,” but when all those details are poorly implemented, it’s not going to mean shit.

            So, not only does CoD lose in the “detail,” map terrain and terrain detail department, they’re also vastly inferior to almost every other game out there in terms of gameplay. Some people don’t mind paying $420 for to play the same game every year though.

            Btw, look at the details to the right of where you’re typing (if you’re in a full screen browser on a 1080p monitor or larger). Look at all those details: a cinder block without absolutely no shading or cast shadow, a player model with no self shading etc., the tiled texture used for the ground, the high res foliage on the left, the lack of any kind of tessellation or terrain deformation on ground on the right…

            You literally don’t know a single thing about “detail”.

          • Im a graphic designer and know more about detail then 99% of the people on this planet, and CoD has more detail then any FPS in history. Find me a gun with more eye candy then this ARX from Ghosts. Now thats a gun.

          • Hmm, I see. You’re probably one of those young twenty-something, self-proclaimed “graphic designers,” making shitty videos with a pirated edition of After Effects, and having a couple years of Photoshop time under your belt, possibly with enough foresight to have started using illustrator for your more commercial ambitions.

            Anyone can put a fictitious, garbled, busy amount of crap into a model like that. 19-year olds all over DeviantArt with Blender and Maya do that kind of shit all the time. If that’s what “attention to detail” is to you, then, well I’ll put it frankly; you’re either an idiot, or you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

            This is detail, right?
   – lighting in the engine is.. just old, and faked god rays everywhere throughout the game.

   – Let’s just look at the gun since you think that makes a “detailed” game. No self-shading, no ambient occlusion, not even baked into the textures…

            ..whereas, in the following examples, we have all of that, including specular reflective lighting, which looks like it itself is occluded a bit, among quite a few other things, all carried into the multiplayer component –

            They’ve really put a lot of work into getting things like AO to work very subtly, and certain aspects of lighting look very, very believable with well thought occlusion. But, in this image –


            – almost none of that is apparent. Again, anyone can model up a gun with more knife edges and trinkets than a Christmas tree.

            Also, just to delve head-first into the realm of pedantry here, one wouldn’t place the physical switch for both the pvs-ish laser and torch along the picatinny rail, especially not with an installed 40mm launcher. That’s not attention to detail; anyone can make a convoluted mess of model like that.

            Hell, even IW admitted that they were going to milk this shitty, stagnant franchise into the next generation –

          • The only thing those screenshots showed was that BF has less detail on screen and boring guns. The lighting is great, but thats not the point, the point is hand crafted detail on a less powerful engine. CoD isnt restricted by realism, they can make eye candy like no other. On top of that they add realism by adding objects inside buildings, and ive been talking about the small details since the start. Engine is irrelevant, im strictly talking small detail in guns and environment.

          • You’re an idiot. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and as far as I’m concerned, Battlefield 4 is just a better game all around. Plus, it has a lot better graphics than Ghosts on the PC version, I’m not sure about the console versions. I can’t play anything those jackasses at Infinity Ward release because without Vsync, MW2/MW3/Ghosts stutters like Michael J. Fox trying to write a poem. If you turn Vsync on, then the input lag is fucking horrendous. Never had this problem with Treyarch Call of Duty games, since they actually optimize each version for each console, instead of Infinity Ward, that just puts it on PC and Xbox/PS consoles without optimizing the game for each system. Battlefield 3 and 4 have no screen tearing whatsoever, and at max graphics can be run by mid-range computers because the game is optimized so well, and even if you wanted to put Vsync on, there’s barely any difference in input lag. Why do you think they don’t make larger maps in a Call of Duty game, or even vehicles? They engine can’t handle shit. Textures and details mean fuck all if the game runs like shit and the developers make no attempt whatsoever to try and make the game hackers-free. You know how many hackers I’ve seen in Ghosts? in 95% of the matches I’ve played. You know how many hackers I’ve seen in Battlefield? Maybe three? Four? Usually the it bans them right before they spawn. Battlefield has dedicated servers, something everybody has asked for from the Call of Duty franchise, and they never got it. Activision and Infinity Ward just want to release the game, get their money, and give fuck all about anything afterwards. Every time a new Battlefield game comes out, there’s a huge engine upgrade, textures, atmosphere, physics, and more than just 6-8 weapons in a class. With each expansion pack, Battlefield releases four new maps, new vehicles, four new weapons, a bunch of new attachments, camos, metals, and assignments. What has Call of Duty done for this new expansion pack? Added four levels and one gun with two versions. Fantastic. I can see a lot of hard work is going into that into that.

            Oh, and for the record, if you really knew more about graphic design than 99% of the people on the planet, (around 707,157,000 people), you wouldn’t be sitting in front of your computer on some website pontificating like a fucking retard about how much you know about graphic design and details.

          • Can you not read “3 months ago” you dumbass. This article is dead, stop commenting because your butthurt and you want to stick up for your mother (Bf), because it’s your ENTIRE life. So sad… I don’t feel like reading your pathetic excuse of a essay. Bye

    • “meaning they’re just there cause it looks good.”

      Realism aside, you don’t like your game looking good?

      “CoD looks better than MOST games anyway” A mere opinion, but while it does look better than certain games, its graphic is still falling behind against other competitors

      And the “competitions with big time PC series” is not true, CoD is competing against other shooters

      Can you explain why artistic license has to do with graphic of the game?

      BF4 being the winner to some people may not just be the graphical comparison, but perhaps the contents they offered ? (large scale battles, vehicles gameplay, destructible environment, etc.)

      “But it’s an even bigger copy/paste than Mw3 lol” oh dear lord…

        • This is the problem, here. People comment things like this, not from their personal experience, but purely from bias. This guy obviously isn’t drawing this Stonehaven map to a BF map comparison from personal experience. Well, I mean, he COULD be, but then he’d be an complete, and utter idiot. I may be insensitive suggesting such, as he might actually have some sort of learning challenge, or difficulty actually perceiving the scale of things, but my point stands.

          If this kid ACTUALLY compared Ghost’s single largest map to almost any map in BF4, he would not say, “the maps of ghosts are as big as bf4”. He would only say that if he had some sort of denial-fueled bias between the two games, or was, in fact, mentally retarded.

          I leave to you, jgg, to decide which one better describes you: lie-fabricating fanboy, or developmentally challenged?

          Stonehaven is the size of a PORTION of a BF map when it is cut down for Team Deathmatch and Squad Deathmatch game modes.

      • I’ve always wondered why people chose BF over ARMA if it was realistic large battles with vehicles and destruction they were in it for… BF is really arcade-y in comparison.

        I love BF don’t get me wrong… but ARMA3 shits on it in all those departments… There is something to say for a brand name… whether it is a good brand or not.

    • Battlefield 4 is like the high classed man that thinks throwing money to be shiny and shit makes him the better person, when realistically he & all of his friends are boring douchebags

      Call of Duty is like the trailer park man that doesn’t really spend too much time worrying about money, rather, they enjoy the smaller things in life

    • I play Battlefield but used to play CoD. I play on PS3, but yeah. I don’t care really about graphics. It’s the gameplay. If every CoD player played a month BF4 with an attitude “i want to learn how to play this game” I’m sure they would swich games. I just like now Battlefield graphics (shit on current-gen) and the most important part: ANIMATIONS. Sprinting is way easier on BF4 as there can be 1km between two flags so you basically have unlimited sprint. And vehicles. I can’t fly very well, but those tanks mmmh man.
      Both games has their own communities, but the younger people tend to play CoD. Both games has their hardcore community and so on. I had preordered Ghosts but it was bullshit. Don’t say to me it’s a little tactical game, if I play Battlefield I know how to play tactically. With those big maps and very short sprinting time in Ghosts, it’s absolutely pain in the ass to play that game.
      I just gotta say that playing Conquest on BF4 is way more relaxing and fun than running on CoD now. It can take 5 minutes to capture a flag because enemies come to the flag.
      And why I’m on charlieintel? I still follow CoD news as I am interested in them.
      Too bad I’ve wasted $110 + $123 on two games and sold my Ghosts hardened edition for $65.

    • Those effects, that you describe, are very beneficial when done well and somewhat subtly. It’s funny that you describe the “black shadow” and “caked-in shading,” because the largest, noticeable difference that the latest installment of CoD did, was eye-gougingly exaggerated ambient occlusion.

      You make mention of “copy-paste” in comparison with the two latest Battlefield installments. In BF4, there was obviously a lot of reworking of models, creation of new models and objects and specifically with destructible structures, and the scripting and animations involved therein. Granted, I’d agree, somewhat, that there isn’t a huge difference between BF3 and BF4, in terms of visuals, but you’re comparing to Ghosts……. They’re literally recycling objects and models, mostly in regard to environment/terrain and terrain decoration from several CoD’s back.

      Firstly, it’s one thing to say that BF4 is just a copy/paste of BF3. It’s a whole other thing to compare that copy/pastedness with fucking CoD which has been doing it every single year since MW2. On the one hand, a game that is much like it’s predecessor. On the other hand, a game that is almost exactly like it’s 4 or 5 predecessors.

  2. there is no difference, since both games are 720p upscaled.

    the xbone is supposed to be a next gen console, yet both version look practically the same.

    that doesn’t not even look close to the multiplayer reveal.

    did they miss label one of the slide show pics, because the pic with the guns the 360 version looks 10x better.

  3. i believe that the franchise needs a new engine and there are so many options to choose from.
    1) Activision could lick ID’s balls to get the ID Tech 5 license. so we get the COD graphics in a new level.
    2) they could simply buy the license to Unreal Engine 4. (that would be awesome. Unreal is one of the best, if not the best engine out there)
    3) or lick Valve’s balls to get a license for the Source Engine.

    whichever they choose to do, even if it isnt one of these three, they need to get a license for a new engine and fast. i love COD but i’m fed up by its graphics. it could look way better and still they dont want to risk just in case they lose the recipe of COD in the process. this needs to be a petition.

  4. 360 is good enough for me to game on for another year.

    Sometimes next year I’ll have my mind made up for which next gen to get…

  5. hey guys Tmartn here, today im going to pleasure myself by bringing you footage of mark rubin getting a footjob from my girlfriend, i will also gag on Rorks big smelly, sweaty balls

    • I’ll thumbs this up for your profile pic, but the graphics will be more or less the same since this is one of the first few games on nextgen. We’ll begin to see differences later on in the consoles lifespan.

      • Alot of people and press who got the game on the PS4 said that it is having ALOT of frame rate issues, good luck with your better resolution while I enjoy my better gameplay on the xbox one

        • framerate can be patched, 720p can’t.

          and have you actually seen the slideshow. the 360 version of the gun looks 10x better than the xbone.

  6. The same engine, same resolution, almost the same anti-aliasing …
    The only difference itĀ“s the framerate and the contrast higer on X1

  7. The same engine, same resolution, almost the same anti-aliasing …
    The only difference itĀ“s the framerate (that we canĀ“t see here) and lights

  8. The same engine, same resolution, almost the same anti-aliasing …
    The only difference itĀ“s the framerate (that we canĀ“t see here) and brightness

  9. Anyone who honestly believes CoD has better graphics and more detail than BF either hasn’t played BF or only played it on 360 without HiDef content installed.

  10. if it was so easy to make it for both generations it seems like it wouldn’t have been hard to play them against each other, i just wish my friends weren’t stupid enough to go straight into next gen when bf4 and ghosts were literally all they were going to play.. and they don’t really care about anything like the kinect or graphics its just lets get the latest cod, even though its the same as all the others..