As the resolution wars continue, key developers working only on the PS4 and Xbox One (along with PC) are being questioned on which console they’re able to get the most out of. This is especially true of CD Projekt RED’s The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, arguably the most visually appealing title in development, and Eurogamer asked studio co-founder Marcin Iwinski whether the game’s open world surroundings will look better on the PS4.

Iwinski stated that, “We are still working on squeezing the juice out of the consoles and Microsoft are supporting us in this respect.”

However, he indicated that the development team isn’t too concerned about the differences between the different versions, especially with regards to resolution. “The final effect, whether it’s 720p, 1080p – we had the debate in the studio about it and actually asked our tech guys to explain how it works, and they sent me some complicated graphs that ‘if I have this size of the screen, and I sit one meter or two meters from it, then I might be able to see the difference’.

“It’s more of a PR differentiation, which is very important for Sony right now – and they are using it, obviously – than something that is really meaningful to gamers.

“We’re definitely working to max out each of the platforms in terms of what we can get, because that’s a crucial element of The Witcher. Will there be big differences? Really I don’t think so. It’s too early to say. If there will be, they will be tiny. It will be more like people talking ‘hey, I have this and you have that and this is better’.”

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt will be releasing in February 2015 on PS4, Xbox One and PC.

When looking at the frame rates and resolutions, Kojima specified right out of the gate that the PS3 and Xbox 360 run at 720p and 30 FPS while the Xbox One version runs at 720p and 60 FPS. It’s the PS4 which runs at the highest grade, featuring a 1080p resolution and 60 FPS frame rate. The director himself even said the PS4 version looks the best.

"Asset streaming is incredibly improved with zero loading times and almost no pop-up for background objects."

But it’s still interesting to analyse the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions. While even a game like Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag had frame rate drops on current gen, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes’ frame rate somehow drops as far as below 30 FPS. The level of detail is impeccable though – Kojima’s emphasis on the photo-realistic nature of the FOX Engine, which mixes fast approximate anti-aliasing and material based rendering along with a very strong asset streaming pipeline. This is still current-gen though, so you’ll notice objects loading in the distance at times and some slightly less fine details compared to the next gen consoles.

In terms of performance, it’s the Xbox 360 which maintains a lead on the PS3. This could be due to the difficulties the latter faces with its architecture but the difference isn’t as startling as one would think. In terms of resolution, detail, lighting and overall visual appeal, both versions are fairly similar.

It’s the Xbox One and PS4 versions that provide the meat of the discussion.

With all the extra power, what exactly can the FOX Engine build off? Asset streaming is incredibly improved with zero loading times and almost no pop-up for background objects. Objects in the foreground tend to remain in their low-detail state, updating into high detail when you get very close, very quickly and a healthy dose of optimization should fix that.

"Performance on the Xbox One and PS4 in terms of frame rate is strong and very impressive with virtually no drop or screen-tearing at all."

The lightning system truly shines in next gen with a healthy mixture of hard and soft light sources. The edges of the spotlights training on you, the reflections and hues seen from guns as light bounces off them, lens flares, ambient occlusion and much, much more help bring the grim world of Ground Zeroes to life. The environmental effects are similarly amazing, with individual rain drops streaming down Snake’s face and catching the light of neighbouring light sources. It’s almost impossible to find a much better looking sky among next gen consoles, though the effect is best pronounced on the PS4 version.

And yes, the PS4 version is indeed superior to the Xbox One. This is in heavy part due to the 1080p resolution which provides a far stronger draw distance and depth of field along with crisper edges. A better form of anti-aliasing could have been utilized but it does nothing to defer the beauty of the game.

Performance on both consoles in terms of frame rate is strong and very impressive with virtually no drop or screen-tearing at all. The Xbox One employs motion blur more frequently than the PS4 version but aside from the resolution, you’ll find the exact same streaming capabilities, attention to detail, lighting system and texture quality.

"No matter which platform you pick it up for, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes is a visually impressive game."

It’s a shame that Kojima Productions couldn’t do much more on the PS4 and Xbox One. Tessellation appears sporadically and as stated before, the anti-aliasing is noticeably low-grade. Environmental destruction is limited, and some buildings look all too familiar at times. While Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes does look stunning, we haven’t seen the FOX Engine stretched to its limits yet.

No matter which platform you pick it up for, Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes is a visually impressive game. It lacks the detail and outright scale of some open world titles on the current generation like Grand Theft Auto 5 but it’s important to remember that it is still just a prologue. What it does offer in terms of sheer visual magnitude, photo-realistic quality and lighting even on current gen consoles is simply amazing.

The PS4 and Xbox One versions offer a glimpse of what The Phantom Pain will be capable of, and it’s the former that delivers the definitive experience for those interested in Snake’s next-gen exploits. The aesthetic appeal may be grimy and dingy at most times but when Ground Zeroes shines, it warrants a look.

"With Call of Duty: Ghosts, Infinity Ward leaned heavily on adding and modifying its key engine."

Fast forward several years to the release of Call of Duty: Ghosts. The game has received rather average reviews from critics, some who praise it for its changes in multiplayer and others who pan it for just being more of the same. Going back to the debate of annualization, the series suffers in one key area when released on a yearly basis: visuals. It’s far more cost-effective and time-efficient to reuse the same engine, tacking on the odd visual flourish here and there, rather than working on a new engine from the ground up.

With Call of Duty: Ghosts, Infinity Ward leaned heavily on adding and modifying its key engine. Why? Because Ghosts would be the first cross-generation game in the series, releasing in the same month for the Xbox One and PS4 as for the Xbox 360, PS3, Wii U and PC. The PC version would be bumped up significantly to compete with next-gen versions. However, consider how other developers like Ubisoft and DICE who have developed engines for eight generation hardware but their games to be optimized for the Xbox 360 and PS3, scaling up visually when arriving on the PS4 and Xbox One. Can a game like Call of Duty: Ghosts compete on the same level using what is essentially last year’s (and the year before that) technology?

Current-gen analysis: PS3 and Xbox 360

"The Xbox 360 version of Ghosts runs at a 1024x600 resolution while the PS3 version has an 860x600 resolution with 2x multisample anti-aliasing (MPAA) on both formats."

Yes, we know you’d be more interested to know how the PS4 and Xbox One versions fare, especially with the controversy regarding the former’s use of native 1080p resolution and the latter’s 720p resolution. Here’s the thing: Both versions are essentially sharper, smoother and faster than the Xbox 360 and PS3, and provide higher resolution textures. You’ll see the difference when looking at the Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions (even more so then the PS3 and PS4 versions), but is it a substantial step up visually? Not really.

The Xbox 360 version of Ghosts runs at a 1024×600 resolution while the PS3 version has an 860×600 resolution with 2x multisample anti-aliasing (MPAA) on both formats. Both versions run at 60 frames per second, though there is a major drop when a lot of action is happening. The PS3 version, as is usually the case with Call of Duty, comes off as inferior. Along with MSAA problems, there are blurry textures inherent.

"There’s just nothing you haven’t seen before, by Call of Duty standards."

In terms of assets and presentation, both versions are a by-the-numbers Call of Duty game. You have the usual set-pieces, with good particle effects and explosions but nothing on the scale of Battlefield 4, especially in terms of destructibility. Character models in single-player are seemingly the same as last year’s Black Ops 2, even if there is a slight improvement in animation and facial expressions.

You can choose different skin tones and genders in multiplayer which wasn’t possible in earlier releases. The problem is that the improvement appears so miniscule and yet so inferior to what we’ve seen before that it’s rendered irrelevant. Sense of scale is downplayed despite some of these seemingly more “epic” environments with slightly better draw distance. There’s just nothing you haven’t seen before, by Call of Duty standards.

Next-gen analysis: PS4, Xbox One and PC

"Draw distance is a big step above the current-gen version, and effects like volumetric fog, depth of field, lens flares and enhanced particle effects are seen in both versions."

The PS4 and Xbox One versions look almost identical. The native 1080p resolution on the PS4 makes things sharper, smoothing out the details on weapons and character models. However, the quality of textures, effects and animations are the same on the Xbox One and definitely inferior to the PC (especially when you look at the quality of anti-aliasing on display).

Both versions run at 60 frames per second, with the Xbox One running pretty solid while the PS4 suffers from some skipped frames and jitters. Draw distance is a big step above the current-gen version, and effects like volumetric fog, depth of field, lens flares and enhanced particle effects are seen in both versions.

The PS4, unlike the PS3, doesn’t suffer from streaming problems when it comes to textures. However, is either version an enormous step up from the current generation? Not in a way that is noticeable right away. Is it a good thing that current-gen users can expect the same experience without having to upgrade to either the Xbox One or PS4?

Or is it a poor deal for next-gen owners when there aren’t that many differences?  Battlefield 4 does 64 person multiplayer on next-gen consoles and PC. The differences in Call of Duty: Ghosts across versions aren’t that extravagant though, even if the PS4 version runs at a higher resolution (1080p vs 900p for Battlefield 4).

"Little touches such as being able to see your character's reflection in a scope on your gun add a good amount of immersion to the experience."

That’s not the case with the PC version though. Whichever way we look at it – whether the PS4 and Xbox One featured just enough details to have a solid frame rate or not – the PC version looks good, while achieving much more. DirectX 11.1 is in full force with tessellation, ambient lightning – including light shafts – and horizon-based ambient occlusion which lends a shading effect to everything. The metal components of your gun are cracked and significantly worn out, highlighted by the texture resolution. Little touches such as being able to see your character’s reflection in a scope on your gun add a good amount of immersion to the experience.

Anti-aliasing options include FXAA, SMAA and TXAA, another Nvidia exclusive. Pair that up with a native 1080p resolution with enhanced particle effects, objection motion blur and alpha buffers. In this case, going 60 frames per second is tough with all details turned except if you have some of the latest Nvidia-based graphics cards. It looks good, don’t get us wrong, but again, it’s not competing with Battlefield 4 any time soon.

Aesthetically, Ghosts is grimmer and washed-out in comparison to Battlefield 4. Foliage is detailed across the PC, Xbox One and PS4. Shadow details are excellent, with no shimmering effects, and a rock solid frame rate though the jitters caused by the PS4’s unstable frame rate do tend to disrupt the proceedings at times. But you can only recycle the same elements, over and over again, before it becomes stale, no matter how much more solid or sharp it looks. Compare the differences visually between Black Ops 2 and Ghosts, against Assassin’s Creed III and Black Flag and you’ll get what we mean.

Call of Duty: Ghosts is just more of the same. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s the best looking Call of Duty yet, which isn’t much of an achievement since it falls short compared to other games.

Thankfully, the next gen versions look better than current gen, competing quite well with the PC version which takes advantage of several Nvidia and DirectX 11 exclusive features. It’s just a bit underwhelming that minor differences in resolution, texture quality, anti-aliasing and frame rate instances are what separate the current and next gen versions. Could Infinity Ward have gone for a uniform level of detail across platforms, similar to what Ubisoft Montreal achieved with Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag? Time will tell how they take advantage of the power of the Xbox One and PS4 when Call of Duty inevitably become next gen-exclusive, but for now, Ghosts is a somewhat weak start on the console side.

For more exciting features and top 10 lists, please click here. Stay tuned to GamingBolt for more news and updates.

1. In 2007 Sony began a post-mortem analysis of PS3 on what went wrong.

2007 was the year when Sony began to breakdown what went wrong with the PS3, and it was them figuring out their identity on whether they are a software or a hardware company. The hardware guys developed the console rather independently then dumped it onto the software guy’s lap. Sony Computer Entertainment America’s CEO Jack Tretton stated that the PS3 was not developed in collaboration between the development team and the hardware team and this was something they wanted to fix.

Did Crytek manage a successful balance between the gameplay, resolution and frame rate? “Definitely. I mean honestly, the truth is, it doesn’t matter what generation you’re developing for, you’ll always have constraints. And I think, you know, the thing we were fortunate about is we had a great partner in Microsoft in getting the hardware, and kind of really digging into it, and having a back and forth dialogue.

“I think Cevat released some technical reasons why we did the things that we did, but I mean, when it comes down to it, every project has their own cross to bear, and you’ve got to figure out what you want to do and what’s the best way to use the tech.

“We were really fortunate, we had a great partner, so whatever curve balls we had, we saw them coming well before they actually hit us. We kind of joke that it’s like landing a plane on the runway as you’re going down and your engine is on fire and the fuselage has holes in it and stuff like that.”

Hopefully it doesn’t turn out to be an apt analogy when Ryse: Son of Rome launches for the Xbox One on November 22nd.

“Even before then we thought it’d be prohibitive to even consider that, because essentially you have to do everything twice, which is just massive when you think of it. It’s more important that the end image looks awesome – look at how much stuff is on screen, that’s always been a Dead Rising sort of brand. That still looks really good, and that’s been our goal. I hope it shows – just look at how much insane stuff is going on screen.”

Bridge says that the studio is satisfied with being able to reach 720p. “I’m really happy with that, with the sheer amount of stuff we have in an open world game locked at 30fps, that’s just brilliant,” he said. “Of course our UI (user interface) runs at 1080 native on top, but no, we’re a 720p game locked at 30fps.”

Does this impact Dead Rising 3’s appeal for you? The game will release on November 22nd alongside the Xbox One.

“I was talking about the Sessler/Dent/Gies thing which is what I thought was causing all the ruckus, as people appeared to be connecting that back to the resolution rumors. As people have noted, and I was catching up on as I got online late tonight, they are two separate issues. There was also some other BS thing about advertising or console problems (?). Is anyone taking that stuff seriously or did that all die? Consoles are fine, and the advertising thing is completely made up. So anyway, one of them has nothing to do with us. Whew.

“As for the resolution stuff I hadn’t realized there was a new set of rumors popping up today. On that topic, and as I’ve said in my previous posts, I don’t comment on 3rd party games stuff. Not my area. So nothing new from me, I’m not going to get into the fray on the resolution stuff. G’night! For once I was just glad the other thing wasn’t about us.”

Will Call of Duty: Ghosts be 1080p on the PS4? Will it be 720p on the Xbox One? Will either fact stop it from selling millions of copies when it launches on November 5th for current-gen consoles, on November 15th/29th for PS4 in North America/Europe and on November 22nd for Xbox One? Most likely not, but the issue isn’t going to die down until Infinity Ward clarifies things real soon.