Call of Duty: Ghosts Next-Gen Demo Shows Off New Engine

Call of Duty: Ghosts had its gameplay premiered last night to kick off E3 and a lot of people didn’t think that the new engine looked like that much of a step up from previous titles. So they’ve released a video showing the difference between current generation visuals and those of the new wave of consoles.

It’s not quite as good as what we’ve seen with Killzone Shadow Fall, but there are noticeable differences, with tesselation bringing rocks out from flat textures and the anti-aliasing Sub-D tool which divides polygons as you get closer in order to create smoother textures.

With better lighting and close-up effects in the mix, it definitely looks better than current Call of Duty games. But is it enough of a step up? That’s for you to decide – take a look at the video for yourself.

Source: YouTube, via GAF



  1. I’m impressed, and I will be again when there’s 12 plays going at it.

  2. “It’s not quite as good as what we’ve seen with Killzone Shadow Fall”

    Killzone Shadow Fall was running at half the framerate, there’s a lot you can do to the image in that extra rendering time, also not being cross platform like CoD Ghosts has advantages too as it means it’s perfectly tuned with PS4, not having to worry about Xbox 360, PS3, PC & the Xbox One TV settop box etc.

    Personally think it’s good that CoD focuses on pinsharp gameplay and then tries to make the best graphics it can around that, rather than making the best graphics and then trying to get the framerate up to something reasonable around 25-30fps.

    It provides choice for us gamers as to what experience we prefer.

    • To be honest, COD’s engine has been creaking along for far too many iterations, a bit of an emphasis on tweaking the visuals has been long overdue… now if they can address their weak-ass net code then that’ll be even better.

    • Battlefield 4 is 1080p and 60fps on PS4 though. COD doesn’t even have that advantage anymore.

      Still though, this game is indeed a step up graphically for the COD series – though it isn’t a step up for gaming graphics in general. The next COD after this one should be utilising the next generation hardware more, surely.

  3. When it’s spelt out with before and after shots, yes, it all looks very impressive. But is that gonna be enough to entice the average gamer? New generations have never had to be demonstrated/explained like this before, to my knowledge. I mean, you always knew for sure when you were watching PS3 footage, or PS2 footage. I dunno. Unless the PS4 price is way too good to miss, I think PS3 will still have a good few years of life left before the general public upgrade.

  4. Last time i watched a video detailing visual improvements made on new engine/only possible by ‘Next Gen’ hardware, it was gearbox, showing comparison shots of Xbox and 360 Brothers In Arms.Not only did Hell’s Highway end up not looking all that, the game design and A.I were far worse than the previous gen games!.

    Plus, honestly do not know why they bother with showcases like this, my friends who seem to play nowt but COD are going to buy it, no matter what visual improvements are made, are they honestly going to be looking for half the techno babble that’s talked about in that video? i think not….

    • No, but even the most casual of gamer notices a visual upgrade. Yeah, that won’t know about tesselation, smoothing etc but when they load up COD Ghosts they will still go ‘The graphics have got better’ or ‘this looks nice’.

  5. Looks decent enough, but I’m more looking forward to Battlefield 4 – with it supposedly being 1080p, 60fps as well as having 64 player battles (akin to BF3 on PC).

    I might get this for the more fast paced arcade gameplay though. Just waiting on multiplayer footage to decide.

  6. A nice bit of PR to say “Hey! We’re able to make big leaps forward (for CoD)”, but it’s odd to see them focussing on techniques which have existed for several years in games and almost try to make them sound like they’re the first to bring them to the games industry.

    They’re not pioneering anything, but this does look rather good for 1080p and 60Hz on the Xbox One.

    • Giving off the impression that something is groundbreaking is the first rule of “selling to Joe Public 101”.

      Apple use it to excellent effect, as do Activision here and so are MS with the Xbox One.

      It looks good, but it’s still very clunky and angular compared to more modern engines.

  7. If they have to relase a video specifically pointing out how it is graphically superior to 6-7 year old systems then there is definately room for improvement.

  8. New engine? I thought it was an upgrade of the old one?

    • It is an upgrade, but to such an extent it might as well be called a new engine.

  9. I must say I’m quite impressed. Call Of Duty games have always looked pretty simple in comparison to other games so it’s good to see them taking a leap forward, even if it’s nothing we haven’t seen before.

  10. I’d like to think that the next gen consoles will have less of the ‘faking’ that current consoles rely on to save resources. i.e. using displacement maps to extrude rocks from an image – i guess it would be a tall order to model every rock and pebble in a game but still it would be cool if next gen consoles brought us to a point where you could interact with every pebble, branch etc in an environment … oh well, maybe next-next-gen .. :/

    • I suppose but it would beg the question of “why do you need to?”. If they save quite a serious bit of horsepower in having stunning bump and deformation maps as oppose to individually modelled cobbled streets, for example, then let’s go that way and let them channel the spare horsepower on the things we’ll interact with (characters, items we need, etc).

      It’s interesting that it’s taken so many generations to have a smattering of real 3D models in the crowds at racing games. We’re still miles off from having 20,000 folk in the stadiums but we’re getting there. Aren’t we?

Comments are now closed for this post.