Call of Duty Ghosts min spec is up

People moan about CoD..

"same old CoD, same crappy graphics"

They improve the graphics and make it more demanding

People respond.... "what are they thinking? 6gb of RAM?" "how dare they improve the game and make it more demanding"

:lol:

8gb is the average amount of RAM people have these days anyway.
 
Just launched a copy of it to take a look... Textures aren't as bad as a lot of people are making out, granted, I'm only taking a look at the campaign real quick, but it does look alright all things considered. Although it's got some weird texture flickering issues...

It's not what I'd call leaps and bound ahead, but it's certainly an improvement. I don't think it warrants the supposed 6GB limit on the installer, but then, it's about time they started using more ram, we've had 8GB for years now...

The game may not *use* 6gb, but it maybe needs to have 4gb available to it after your OS and all the other crap is loaded in.. (for example, with just windows, teamspeak and google chrome mine is apparently using 2.97gb of 32gb) so from some points of view you can see why it maybe needs more..

*shrug*
 
Editted.........

there is speculation that the ramfix could deliver a vac ban, as it alters game files.....

thats the last thing I wonna do.......
 
Last edited:
Remmy said:
I honestly don't see that as being a problem; how do you know that's not like a deliberate reference?
Click to expand...

because they just reskinned the scene. idk what the big fuss is about though, reskinning stuff is as old as video gaming itself and nobody ever gave a f*ck, but now that it is cool to bash cod because BF definitely never reskinned anything or rips off their customers in any way it's suddenly a big thing.
 
SeekaX said:
because they just reskinned the scene. idk what the big fuss is about though, reskinning stuff is as old as video gaming itself and nobody ever gave a f*ck, but now that it is cool to bash cod because BF definitely never reskinned anything or rips off their customers in any way it's suddenly a big thing.
Click to expand...

Oh lol, I never took much notice of the arguments between the different camps. In my eyes they both have their uses. If I want to play a game and think about what I'm doing, and play carefully, I'll play Battlefield, but if I want to get pissed with my mates and just have a fun mess around, I'll go on CoD; both of them are fun games, and neither one replaces the other.

Also relevant to the thread: How many people is 6GB going to affect really? We've had 8GB and 16GB for years. If you're rocking 4GB, maybe it's a good excuse to upgrade ;) Games advance and technology has to advance with it.
 
Last edited:
Remmy said:
Oh lol, I never took much notice of the arguments between the different camps. In my eyes they both have their uses. If I want to play a game and think about what I'm doing, and play carefully, I'll play Battlefield, but if I want to get pissed with my mates and just have a fun mess around, I'll go on CoD; both of them are fun games, and neither one replaces the other.

Also relevant to the thread: How many people is 6GB going to affect really? We've had 8GB and 16GB for years. If you're rocking 4GB, maybe it's a good excuse to upgrade ;) Games advance and technology has to advance with it.
Click to expand...

i used to play both games, still do but i stopped moving on with cod after cod4 and BF after BC2, to me there is no argument between cod and BF because it's all the same people.
i don't think that the 6GB minimum is a big deal either, if we wouldn't move on with system requirements we'd still have games looking like pong. too bad for the 4GB people but we can't wait forever.
 
I find that kind of thing bothers me personally, I don't mind references but reskins ... Its probably not that big a deal as no one buys COD/Battlefield for the single player though. In all honesty they should just give up and not bother with the single player entirely.
 
SuB said:
Just launched a copy of it to take a look... Textures aren't as bad as a lot of people are making out, granted, I'm only taking a look at the campaign real quick, but it does look alright all things considered. Although it's got some weird texture flickering issues...

It's not what I'd call leaps and bound ahead, but it's certainly an improvement. I don't think it warrants the supposed 6GB limit on the installer, but then, it's about time they started using more ram, we've had 8GB for years now...

The game may not *use* 6gb, but it maybe needs to have 4gb available to it after your OS and all the other crap is loaded in.. (for example, with just windows, teamspeak and google chrome mine is apparently using 2.97gb of 32gb) so from some points of view you can see why it maybe needs more..

*shrug*
Click to expand...


Barely better than COD 4 MW

My Sapphire x1650 pro and P4 ran that game just fine......
 
grassman said:
Back in the day..

-_-
Click to expand...

wat. cod4 was never playable sub 125fps. don't think even the best fps config could save that rig at that game. also they did manage to make the game more demanding, i have no clue how but i barely reach 250 in mw2, bo1 is hard to reach 125, mw3 125 and bo2 125, haven't tested ghosts. i still think cod4 is one of the best looking games with a nice movie config, i've got no clue how no fps dev is able to make proper colors for their game.
 
Played both they're not bad... not much more to say really.

Only thing I will say though if you want realism and gorgeous graphics just play Arma III. Don't see the point in arguing over Arcade style run & gun games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dicehunter
AMD 15.8 Beta Driver Released
Replies
13
Views
6K
NeverBackDown
N
S
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Minimum Requirements
Replies
6
Views
4K
Smizzlopi
S
Wraith
  • Poll Poll
Happy Birthday Windows.
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
Dark NighT
Dark NighT
d1974
Nvidia release a teaser video and full spec sheet of the 980.
Replies
0
Views
874
d1974
d1974
J
Need help with picking a laptop
Replies
0
Views
1K
joca94
J
Back
Top