Topic: Call Of Duty: Ghosts -> Update: Reviews rolling in.

[MysterD]

NEW -> 11-05-2013:
OWNet -> COD: Ghosts REVIEWS - Compiled.
GeForce.com -> 4K images from COD: Ghosts PC.

OLD:
Polygon -> COD:G on XB360 requires 3GB install on HDD; and on PS3 & X360 only support 12 players on MP (the series usually supports up to 18 players on MP).
IGN -> Infinity Ward says COD:G is natively at 1080p on PS4; upscaled from 720p to 1080p on XBOne.

EGMNow -> Call Of Duty: Ghosts - PC Version (very stiff) system requirements revealed.

[MysterD]

Man, looks like next-gen consoles are going to cause MAJOR change in PC requirements...
Let more stiff PC requirements trend continue....

Call Of Duty: Ghosts - PC Version system requirements revealed:
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/call-of-duty-ghosts-system-requirements-revealed/

Nvidia has revealed the minimum and recommended system requirements for Call of Duty: Ghosts on PC.

Similar to the Watch Dogs specs released by Ubisoft, Call of Duty: Ghosts will require a 64-bit operating system, a DirectX 11 graphics card, and a minimum of 6GB of RAM.

It appears that developers are finally pushing the PC now that they aren’t being held back by current-gen console specs. These specs shouldn’t be an issue for most PC gamers, but casual gamers may need to upgrade their systems.

Minimum System Requirements
OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better
RAM: 6 GB RAM
HDD: 50 GB HD space
Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti / ATI Radeon HD 5870 or better
Sound: DirectX Compatible Sound Card
DirectX: 11
Internet: Broadband connection and service required for Multiplayer Connectivity. Internet connection required for activation.

Recommended System Requirements
Video: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

[idolminds]

So has everyone forgotten what optimizations are?

[Xessive]

I love how their only recommended requirement is basically "just get the best video card out there. Yeah, that's what we recommend."

[scottws]

Wow, I'm pretty surprised by the RAM requirement.

[sirean_syan]

Kinda funny considering the game is still launching on Xbox 360 and the PS3. This isn't a next gen only type deal. Same goes for Watch Dogs. So, how much do you want to bet those will either A) run like crap or B) look like relative crap on current systems then?

[MysterD]

So has everyone forgotten what optimizations are?

Nope.

I think the upcoming 4k revolution coming built for bigger monitors and for newer-hardware has a lot to do w/ this:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/geforce-gtx-is-powering-the-4k-revolution-the-next-big-thing-for-pc-gamers

COD: Ghosts, Watch Dogs, AC4, and Batman: AO PC are all mentioned in this article.
And we know COD: Ghosts and Watch Dogs got high PC specs.

They're totally trying to at least triple the resolution standard to 3840x2160 - which I guess is more akin to what the artists normally produce for art assets. A lot of assets have been compressed downwards (for 1920x1080 monitors) and probably to often fit on discs at retail (or not cause crazy heavy download file-sizes and times). I don't think we might see much more compressing down, if 4K succeeds.

Still waiting to see that 100GB+ worth textures Carmack mentioned about having for RAGE PC get released...

[idolminds]

Yeah well probably not a great idea to target your minimum spec at some high res that like 3 people want to run games in, let alone afford.

[Cobra951]

4K is not going to be the norm anytime soon, if ever.  That's the bleeding edge.  I still find DVD resolution upscaled to 720p plenty good enough for most video material.  4K is like 3D--niche, and will stay that way for a good while.  If PC versions of games use that as a baseline, they will be niche as well.  Maybe that's what they're after?  Target the PC gamers rich enough to forgo piracy entirely, with the bulk of sales going to the masses on the consoles?

[scottws]

4K on TV or computer monitors is like 1080p on phones.  You cannot really see the difference.  Now on a huge IMAX screen, that's another story.

[MysterD]

4K is not going to be the norm anytime soon, if ever.  That's the bleeding edge.  I still find DVD resolution upscaled to 720p plenty good enough for most video material.  4K is like 3D--niche, and will stay that way for a good while.  If PC versions of games use that as a baseline, they will be niche as well.  Maybe that's what they're after?  Target the PC gamers rich enough to forgo piracy entirely, with the bulk of sales going to the masses on the consoles?

Hmmmm, I think you might be onto something - yeah, maybe they're aiming at consoles for masses, higher-end gamers for PC - i.e. those who have money and/or are willing to fork out the good money for both PC games and hardware. Thing is - if they're trying to get the masses on the PC, this ain't gonna work. Not everybody here has a PC built like a rocket-ship or is going to be willing to drop at least $1K to build a PC; or spend way more to get it done by some mom & pop store; or spend even MORE $ if they try to go w/ Dell, Alienware, or some company mainstream.

Worse yet - this 4K revolution is coming at a time when we have a good deal of the PC gaming industry, more or less, declaring at war w/ Microsoft and Win 8. - we've heard Valve, Blizzard, and other juggernauts and their outcry w/ Win 8. M$ abandoining G4WL next year. Sony going head-on w/ M$ w/ the PS3. AMD w/ Mantle API - and EA and especially DICE being behind this w/ BF4. Valve trying to move PC boxes more or less into the living room w/ SteamMachines (that comes equipped w/ SteamOS) and wanting to push PC gamers towards SteamOS (Linux).  I'mma let this dust settle before I do anything very drastic - i.e. upgrade video card or change any other hardware; or maybe even build a new PC. I really have no clue as to where this PC gaming industry is going and who'll actually win!

In the GeForce article, it says they're aiming for 31.5'' monitors w/ that crazy 4K resolution.
I have a 23'' monitor and run most new games at 1920x1080 myself.

Obviously, Batman: AO certainly does look better in 4K up-close - looks A LOT less pixelated:

[Cobra951]

Yeah, sure it looks better, if you have a TV the size of a hangar door, or if you get up close to it with a magnifying glass as in those pictures.  On a 23" PC monitor, I don't even want resolution like that.  It's wasted, and eats up resources I'd rather see going to something else.  I'm looking at 1360x768 right now, and that's plenty for me.  1080p (1920x1080) is as much as I ever want to see on a screen this size, and it's not nearly necessary.

You've convinced me.  I knew about the Valve/Mantle/Win8-fiasco situation, but I did not know it was compounded with this push on the PC hardware.  I'm staying away from new PCs as long as my old system keeps chugging along.  They can keep their revolution.  I'll check back after the dust settles.

[Xessive]

For me, shit hit the fan ever since the switch to flat-panel monitors. I've been able to see the mesh (screen-door grid effect) ever since. It kills it for me because I frequently work at the pixel level especially when I'm designing. I have to kinda tell myself to ignore it and I learned to look at the image rather than the screen.

I really, really miss CRTs.

[MysterD]

Yeah, sure it looks better, if you have a TV the size of a hangar door, or if you get up close to it with a magnifying glass as in those pictures.  On a 23" PC monitor, I don't even want resolution like that.  It's wasted, and eats up resources I'd rather see going to something else.  I'm looking at 1360x768 right now, and that's plenty for me.  1080p (1920x1080) is as much as I ever want to see on a screen this size, and it's not nearly necessary.

Yep, I think 1920x1080 is currently absolutely fine for my 23'' monitor.
If I did go for a bigger monitor, yeah - I'd probably want bigger resolutions and 4K support. I don't think I'm ready for that just yet, as I only got my new Windows 7 64-bit PC back around when Witcher 2 PC dropped (May 2011).

You've convinced me.  I knew about the Valve/Mantle/Win8-fiasco situation, but I did not know it was compounded with this push on the PC hardware.  I'm staying away from new PCs as long as my old system keeps chugging along.  They can keep their revolution.  I'll check back after the dust settles.

Yeah, there's a lot of dust that needs to settle, first.

TechReport has an article in which they ask "Are Valve and AMD about to ruin PC gaming?"
http://techreport.com/blog/25491/are-valve-and-amd-about-to-ruin-pc-gaming

Personally, I don't think they'll ruin it - but, I think they both could cause Windows PC gaming to be a thing of the past.
I'd bet some of might dual-boot Win 7/8 and SteamOS, if it all comes down to - since many of us invested A LOT already HEAVILY invested into Windows PC gaming.

Only thing they're ruining right now is any gamer thinking about to buy or build a PC gaming rig - ummm, now might not be that time.
Too many "what if" scenarios here that ain't played out yet.

[gpw11]

You've convinced me.  I knew about the Valve/Mantle/Win8-fiasco situation, but I did not know it was compounded with this push on the PC hardware.  I'm staying away from new PCs as long as my old system keeps chugging along.  They can keep their revolution.  I'll check back after the dust settles.

This.  I was sort of wrestling with the idea of blowing $400 on upgrading my PC (mainly cpu, ram, mobo - video card possibly at a later date) to keep up, just because my Core2duo is kind of old.  Now that I think about it though, I'd probably only use it for emulation and would be at risk of upgrading to technology that is going to be frustratingly just below the curve in a couple of years.

I have like 6 years of PS3 gaming to catch up on anyways.

Edit: Reddit has been making a huge deal out of 4k.  I thought I was missing something but it looks like you guys are on the same page.

[MysterD]

This.  I was sort of wrestling with the idea of blowing $400 on upgrading my PC (mainly cpu, ram, mobo - video card possibly at a later date) to keep up, just because my Core2duo is kind of old.  Now that I think about it though, I'd probably only use it for emulation and would be at risk of upgrading to technology that is going to be frustratingly just below the curve in a couple of years.

I have like 6 years of PS3 gaming to catch up on anyways.

Edit: Reddit has been making a huge deal out of 4k.  I thought I was missing something but it looks like you guys are on the same page.

All the big-titles w/ high-specs are planned for XB1 & PS4; and are also on that list of NVidia games w/ the 4K support -- that's AC4, COD: Ghosts, and Watch Dogs.
Coincidence? I think not!

Batman: AO is also on Nvidia's 4K list, as well.

Also, back when RAGE PC dropped (2011), there was big to-do back then about 4K and 8K textures:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/how-to-unlock-rages-high-resolution-textures-with-a-few-simple-tweaks

It's a shame RAGE PC ain't optimized that well and its textures are often quite muddy.
I guess what it was really trying to do w/ its mega-textures and engine was probably way ahead of its time, technically.

EDIT:
GameSpot article about 4K -> http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-future-is-4k-and-its-the-PC-not-next-gen-leading-the-charge/1100-6415052/

[sirean_syan]

Here's the reality though. Rumor is that even the next gen of consoles are occasionally struggling with 1080p stuff. That will get better as people get better with the hardware but that just means that 1080p will become more standard. Even an ultra high end PC struggles at 4k with modern games and that's a moving target as games try to get nicer looking with more effects, overlays, ect.

More than likely 1080p will become the real standard for another 5-6 years (more if we have a repeat of this console cycle). Sure 4k might be the future but I wouldn't expect it to really matter until we start talking about the PS5 or XBoxInfinity.

[Xessive]

Considering current-gen devices are technically capable of 1080p, most games ran at 720p anyway as a standard, most probably to ensure high performance. Next-gen will likely ramp up the standard to 1080p but give the main interface and certain low-resouce games 4K capability.

[MysterD]

IGN -> Infinity Ward says COD:G is natively at 1080p on PS4; upscaled from 720p to 1080p on XBOne.

[W7RE]

That makes no sense. If Battlefield 4 can look as good as it does on next gen consoles, how can Call of Duty not run well at 1080p? It looks worse, has less players, smaller maps, no vehicles, and no environmental destruction. After seeing that BF4 is 900p and 720p on next gen, I assumed Ghosts would hit 1080p on both easily.

[MysterD]

That makes no sense. If Battlefield 4 can look as good as it does on next gen consoles, how can Call of Duty not run well at 1080p? It looks worse, has less players, smaller maps, no vehicles, and no environmental destruction. After seeing that BF4 is 900p and 720p on next gen, I assumed Ghosts would hit 1080p on both easily.

That engine's old - probably needs to be completely re-done, revamped and/or anything of that sort.

I read this the other day, when rumor's began flipping around about why COD:G might be rumored to be at 720p on XB1:
http://www.ibtimes.com/xbox-one-trouble-reports-call-duty-ghosts-running-720p-compared-1080p-ps4-1442726

The issue may be due to RAM, as pointed out by Conrad and others. The PS4 features 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, whereas the Xbox One features 8GB of DDR3 RAM, which is slower than DDR5, but Microsoft compensated for that with an additional 32 MB of eSRAM. This attempt to improve the Xbox One may have actually hindered it, says C-Ron, as the console may be more difficult to develop for, a problem that developers faced with the PlayStation 3.

[W7RE]

That engine's old - probably needs to be completely re-done, revamped and/or anything of that sort.

What's funny is I remember them saying they had a new engine for Ghosts. Then when asked specifically about it, they admitted it was the same old engine, but with new features added (like the environmental sounds such as rattling fences when a grenade goes off).

But yea, it's not a huge deal, but considering how Ghosts looks graphically, it makes me wonder. do they just have wizards working at DICE?

[MysterD]

What's funny is I remember them saying they had a new engine for Ghosts. Then when asked specifically about it, they admitted it was the same old engine, but with new features added (like the environmental sounds such as rattling fences when a grenade goes off).

But yea, it's not a huge deal, but considering how Ghosts looks graphically, it makes me wonder. do they just have wizards working at DICE?

About DICE, yep.
And I think that's also why for years they been wanting something low-level like that AMD Mantle that is coming, too.

IMHO - DICE, Crytek, and Id Software are the three best at developing cutting-edge technical powerhouse graphical engines.
Every time those 3 companies drop a new game and I see all the technical bells & whistles, these guys just keep blowing my mind.

Ah, shit - I forget Epic Games. Make it 4. Throw them also on the list.

[MysterD]

Polygon -> COD:G on XB360 requires 3GB install on HDD; and on PS3 & X360 only support 12 players on MP (the series usually supports up to 18 players on MP).

[MysterD]

Call of Duty: Ghosts - REVIEWS:

METACRITIC:
PlayStation 4.; PlayStation 3.
XBox 360; XBox One.
PC.

Scored out of 10:
IGN -> 8.8
ActionTrip -> 8.6
Machinima - Inside Gaming Daily -> 8.5
GameSpot -> 8
OXM Online -> 8.0
OXM UK -> 8.0
EGM Now -> 7.5
PlayStation Universe -> 7.5
GameTrailers -> 7.0.
Eurogamer -> 7
The Digital Fix -> 7.0
Polygon -> 6.5
Shacknews -> 6
Destructoid -> 5.0

Scored out of 5:
HardCore Gamer -> 4.5
Rev3 Games -> 4 stars.
GiantBomb -> 3 stars
USGamer -> 3 stars
Quarter To Three -> 2 stars

Scored out of 100:
Gamers' Temple -> 84%
Venture Beat - Games Beat -> 80

No score:
Kotaku

[scottws]

Wow, much lower than I predicted. I guess the magic really is gone from Infinity Ward after all.

[Xessive]

Wow, much lower than I predicted. I guess the magic really is gone from Infinity Ward after all.

Yeah, they're not innovating any more, they're just regurgitating the same formula that made Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. At least Treyarch tried to get creative with Black Ops 2. IW just seem to be bound within the constraints of their limited imagination.

[Pugnate]

I haven't been keeping up for a while. I thought IW left CoD??

[sirean_syan]

A good chunk of them left and are now working on Titanfall. This is more or less Infinity Ward only in name.

[gpw11]

A good chunk of them left and are now working on Titanfall. This is more or less Infinity Ward only in name.

I think that's the thing.  It's now completely switched with people saying that the Treyarch CoD games are the good ones.  I still kind of think IW has been overrated for a while now. 
The first CoD game was great, but I personally thought the second was really boring.  It basically just took the first and added some more intense set peices...which was great, but WW2 games were so stale by the time that I just didn't care. Combine that with constantly re spawning enemies and something just being off about the gunplay and it got old fast.

CoD:MW really was amazing.  The gunplay FELT better, although I still thought it was kind of weak (I think this is really more an effect of the enemy AI and style of the game, but the whole thing felt really fresh and amazing.  The scenarios and set pieces really got you invested and it was an extremely entertaining game for me. Since then, however, they didn't really do much to improve on the formula (in my mind at least). The  IW iterations were the ones to buy because they were the best at setting up the emotional investment and executing the set pieces, but that's all they did.  I couldn't get into MW2 when I felt like I should have been able to.  It's just that instead of trying new things or improving on the fundamentals, they were just trying to pull on your heartstrings more...but obviously that effect wears over time and shouldn't be relied upon.  I never tried MW3, but heard it was kinda like "Oh, they blew up the Eiffel Tower now.  Wait..why?". 

Treyarch has since been praised with bringing new things to the table with the Black Ops series (I have no idea what, mind you) and keeping it interesting while IW just kept on trying to up the stakes with coming up with more ridiculous and ridiculous situations.

I don't doubt that Titanfall will be fresh, but I also don't doubt that IW will eventually run it into the ground.

[Xessive]

This is what CoD games look like to me right now:



The image was used to portray the average CoD player. It's becoming more true with each iteration of the games.

[W7RE]

For SP I've played:
Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare 2

MW1 was good. MW2 was a bit over the top, and had a few annoying parts (the favelas...), but it was nice to revisit the characters again.

For MP I've played:
Modern Warfare
Modern Warfare 2
Black Ops
Black Ops 2

MW1 started the whole leveling up and unlocksing stuff craze (it wasn't in the previous CoD games, was it?), and was great because of that, though I didn't play it that much. MW2 was good, but was plagued with glitches people could exploit, and the maps were a mixed bag Grenade spam, grenade launcher spam, and rocket launcher spam was a huge issue, and made some matches just unbearable. Black Ops was great, it did some new things with unlocks and customization, had overall memorable and fun maps, and had very few glitches/exploits, and limited/balanced grenade use without making them useless. Black Ops 2 was like a revisiting of BO1, with good maps, some new ideas that kept things fresh, and good balance and low number of glitches. It did have some pretty annoying lag compensation though.

I heard MW3 was an unbalanced mess with poor map design, and I'm hearing similar things about Ghosts. Apparently most of the maps are very drab in color scheme (even compared to the usual CoD design), have way too many intersecting pathway (leading to maps that don't flow well), and there's 1 or 2 weapons people are sticking to because of how powerful they are. The drastic change to the prestige system gives you 5 characters to build up simultaneously, and you have to level them up and unlock their weapons/equipment separately, which just sounds annoying. Then there's the tech issues, like unreasonable performance on PC, rumors of framerate hiccups on PS4, and just the overall poor visuals of the game. I'm really hoping this is just a result of Infinity Ward's downfall, and Treyarch takes up the slack next year. As much shit as Call of Duty gets (and mostly deserves), the games are still fun (in MP at least). I sort of see them as Quake with real gun skins; fast paced, frenetic deathmatch where you can just jump in and kill some people. Though with a bit less skill required (aiming and weapon choice don't matter as much in CoD, but map navigation does).

[iPPi]

I liked MW1 and MW2 for their single player campaigns.  Didn't actually really play them online much.  I want to get MW3 to get a conclusion to the MW storyline but that's about it.  I think I saw MW3 for $14.99 the other day but I don't want to pay more than $10 for it at the moment.

[scottws]

I liked MW1 and MW2 for their single player campaigns.  Didn't actually really play them online much.  I want to get MW3 to get a conclusion to the MW storyline but that's about it.  I think I saw MW3 for $14.99 the other day but I don't want to pay more than $10 for it at the moment.

You will be disappointed.  It is not very good.

[MysterD]

You will be disappointed.  It is not very good.

I actually liked MW3 SP.
Though, I do think it's nowhere as the SP campaigns of MW1 and 2.
I still think MW1 had the best SP campaign of those I've played (ain't played COD: Ghosts, World at War, and BO1).

And I was surprised how BO2's SP turned-out - I liked it.

I think for me, since MW1 mainly, COD games go like this - play entire SP campaign; then spend another 10 hours w/ MP.
Then, I've had my COD fill.

[W7RE]

I think for me, since MW1 mainly, COD games go like this - play entire SP campaign; then spend another 10 hours w/ MP.
Then, I've had my COD fill.

I bought MW1 and it sat in my backlog until MW2 released. Then I played through both back to back, and moved on to played probably 100+ hours of MP. Since then I haven't touched SP at all in any of them. Each one is 100+ hours of MP before I get bored. I seem to make it to max level, prestige, get back to level 10-15 and get bored. I should just stop prestiging.