Pixel Enemy

Battlefield 4 vs. Call of Duty: Ghosts “Forest” screenshot face-off: Who Wins?

Authored by

codvsbf

Last night during Microsoft’s Xbox One reveal, the biggest game they reserved for last was Call of Duty: Ghosts by Activision.

Understandably so, given that the Call of Duty franchise has done very well on the Xbox 360, and Microsoft is even continuing their timed-exclusivity agreement for Call of Duty DLC.

Speaking of Call of Duty: Ghosts, Activision showed off the game yesterday with not just a trailer, but even a behind the scenes look at the franchise’s new game engine. So, how does it stack up against EA’s Battlefield 4 which is running on Frostbite 3?

While we can’t really tell since we haven’t seen a full-fledged gameplay trailer for Ghosts yet, what we can do is compare how a forest looks in Ghosts, to that of Battlefield 4, which DICE conveniently released today with the statementBattlefield 4: The first TRUE next-gen title.

I don’t know about you, but that seems like a dig at Call of Duty, no? In any case, you can compare the two game engines in the images shown below.

Call of Duty: Ghosts

codghostsforest1

 Battlefield 4

bf4forest1

There are a few things to note though, which bears mentioning. I presume the Battlefield 4 screenshot is from a PC, while the Ghosts one is from an actual Xbox One.  So, that alone might kind of skew the comparison a bit.

Nevertheless, which one, in your opinion, looks better? Let us know in the comments below.

18 comments on “Battlefield 4 vs. Call of Duty: Ghosts “Forest” screenshot face-off: Who Wins?

  1. I see what you did there, BF screen is too small! Change the picture!

    Frostbite 3 win by far!

     
  2. No the Ghosts screenshot is NOT from the Xbox one because the game is not currently running on the platform. The “gameplay” we saw yesterday was running “in engine”. It means it was running in the engine it was developed on. That’s where the screenshot came from. So it’s PC.

     
  3. If both where on the same angle with the sun reflecting directly it would look almost the same, BF4 has too much shine from the sun where we can barely see the forest, while CoD Ghosts doesn’t but in CoD Ghosts we have more foliage than in BF4, i don’t have a direct conclusion with this, i can’t say much since none of these games are already out

     
  4. Compared to BF3, COD is an arcade game (at best). Run 3 feet, get shot, respawn, repeat.

     
  5. Don’t let this fanboy fool you, people. I’ve taken a closer look at the full trailer of CoD: Ghosts, and to be honest, the graphics looks outdated for a so called “next-gen” engine. I’ve seen some very low res textures and the game looks identical to it’s predecessors. Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Killzone: Shadow Fall and even Battlefield 3 looks way better, trust me on this.

    This guy seems to mislead you, and that’s what I hate about people like him. The foliage and textures doesn’t even look that impressive in CoD: Ghosts. I’m being serious and honest here, the trailer that I saw, mixed with a few gameplay, looks absolutely crappy. Not to mention the animations were clunky and the character models are nothing amazing since even The Last of Us looks better.

    Let’s be more honest here, shall we? Call of Duty never had amazing graphics to begin with. Battlefield will always have the upper-hand in terms of technology, ALWAYS! So Frostbite 3 > CoD: Ghost’s new crappy engine which by the way looks nothing like next gen, but more like this gen.

     
  6. If you take the time to download the pictures and look at the file size you will notice the CoD picture is more than four times larger. Meaning that it was posted with a higher resolution than the Battlefield picture. If you really want to compare I would suggest you go to each games respective website and examine the images there as both will actually be in HD that way.

     
  7. The colouring on the call of duty picture just looks so wrong. It’s like they took concept art and shoved it though a rendering machine. It also to me looks less life-like than the Battlefield 4 picture.

    In fact, I’d be confident in saying that the cod engine is round about the quality of the original frostbite engine DICE used for Battlefield: Bad Company, maybe Battlefield 1943 on a bad Internet connection day. They just look about five or six years behind, and then you have to add in all the features that Frostbite can pack into a game that Call of Duty simply will not have (Destruction mechanics, the way it handles long camera distance rendering, which gives you backgrounds to maps that aren’t static or poorly rendered, etc.)

     
  8. are you all crazy ,, Look at the The BF4 pic ,,Its no the in game footage it’s just like the Art work….YES I AGREE THAT BF 4 LOOKS BETTER THAN GHOSTS BUT SUCH A MEANINGLESS comparision is useless…

     
  9. have to wait and see more images, because BF4 win by far in graphics and design but it can’t be apreciated in this images cause this BF4 image is just a simple forest and COD is a jungle full of vegetation, have to wait for a COD forest image or a BF4 jungle image.

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>