Call of Duty: Ghosts 'powered by next-generation engine'

4.5
UK superstore chain Tesco has once again seemingly prematurely leaked information on the next Call of Duty game.

The game, expected to be titled 'Call of Duty: Ghosts', thanks in part to an earlier Tesco leak, will be "powerd by a new next-generation Call of Duty engine", according to a new listing which cropped up this weekend (via AllGamesBeta).
The now-removed product description reads:

"The franchise that has defined a generation of gaming is set to raise the bar once again with the all-new Call of Duty: Ghosts. Published by Activision and developed by Infinity Ward, the studio that created the original Call of Duty and the seminal Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series, Call of Duty: Ghosts ushers in the next generation of the franchise, delivering a riveting all-new gameplay experience built on an entirely new story, setting and cast, all powered by a new next-generation Call of Duty engine."

Activision is yet to confirm platforms for the new game, but the series' typical annual November releases would align this year's game with the launch on Sony and Microsoft's next generation consoles, both of which are expected to go on sale before Christmas.

Earlier last week Tesco posted listings for Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the unannounced game, complete with box art which appeared to be genuine.

Additionally, a recently leaked photo of an alleged GameStop 'display blueprint' suggests that the retailer will be receiving new promotional materials related to this year's CoD for display on May 1 - hinting at a public reveal on that date.

Posted:
Related Forum: Call of Duty Forum

Source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/403500/call-of-duty-ghosts-powered-by-next-generation-engine/

Related Articles

Comments

"Call of Duty: Ghosts 'powered by next-generation engine'" :: Login/Create an Account :: 95 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

CuteyPosted:

Pin
Lavish CoD4 is in the passed. I understand that people want it back but it won't happen. Call of Duty 4 is so outdated that the majority of players wouldn't like it.


It is not in the *past. Call of Duty 4 is the sole reason why the COD franchise (was) successful, and many people (including myself) still play it. It is the pinnacle of the series. COD1/2/3 didn't get as much attention as COD4 did, and the games after it have slowly dragged the series downhill. COD4 had balanced guns, a good community, unmatched map designs, and excellent graphics for its time. If it were in the past, and people didn't like it, do you think they would have released 4 COD4 maps on MW2 DLC?

Sure, its graphics aren't up to scratch for a 2013 game. Nobody would like it if it were a "Cod4 v2" with updated graphics. But it certainly has many features that are worthy of being included in MW4, a 2013 game.


COD4 was a great game and I do realize that people would love to have something similar to that but it's because Call of Duty 4 was the 1st gen of Infinity Wards modern franchise of the call of duty series. Even so, COD games after COD4 didn't really degrade because MW2 was actually a good successor to COD4 (Even though people complained about noob-tubing, last stand etc...)

MW2 never was taken into the depths of futuristic timing, that's what made MW2 somewhat similar to COD4 but in a more advanced and upgraded proportion. Terminal was one of the best MW2 maps that could have ever been brought into MW3. Guess there can be some contradiction between games a bit.

PinPosted:

Lavish CoD4 is in the passed. I understand that people want it back but it won't happen. Call of Duty 4 is so outdated that the majority of players wouldn't like it.


It is not in the *past. Call of Duty 4 is the sole reason why the COD franchise (was) successful, and many people (including myself) still play it. It is the pinnacle of the series. COD1/2/3 didn't get as much attention as COD4 did, and the games after it have slowly dragged the series downhill. COD4 had balanced guns, a good community, unmatched map designs, and excellent graphics for its time. If it were in the past, and people didn't like it, do you think they would have released 4 COD4 maps on MW2 DLC?

Sure, its graphics aren't up to scratch for a 2013 game. Nobody would like it if it were a "Cod4 v2" with updated graphics. But it certainly has many features that are worthy of being included in MW4, a 2013 game.

TywinPosted:

CoD4 is in the passed. I understand that people want it back but it won't happen. Call of Duty 4 is so outdated that the majority of players wouldn't like it.

gtapro151Posted:

YoutubeFTL
Kind
Yin
D3FEKT Battlefield engine will always be ahead of call of duty crap. CoD you're so restricted to where you can go and do, call an airstrike and the building doesn't break.. Can't use vehicles. IDK how CoD gets soo many followers over such a hunk of **** game.


Well, not everyone wants their map/environment destroyed and not everyone likes the use of vehicles. I have played all of the Battlefield's from Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. They aren't that bad, but I just really don't like vehicles and you could destroy too many cover spots in the Bad Company's. Call of Duty is a run and gun basically. It's why a lot of people play it. It's easy to just pick up and have fun.

On topic, This sounds pretty cool. I personally never saw where Call of Duty needed a new engine, but that is just me. It just needs an update from one platform to an updated one. I just hope they don't change too much gameplay wise.


Tis exactly. I absolutely hate battlefield, I just hate the whole aspect of the game. And yes, I did try playing it, for about 2 weeks. I got Premium and everything and I can't stand it. You can't just play a quick game, they all last like 20 minutes, you can't easily edit your class load out unless you really know what your doing and have played for months. The maps are stupidly huge. CoD is GUNPLAY. BF is just airstrikes and camping.


I don't hate Battlefield, in fact I love it. I also don't hate Call of Duty, I also love it. From a non-bias stand point, I think they both have their ups and downs, and it all depends on what you're looking for. If you want fast paced action, Call of Duty is your go-to. Battlefield 3 (Or any Battlefield, essentially) is a slow gameplay, high rewarding FPS. Everything you are saying can be argued back, but to save time - I won't touch on them. I believe, for the majority of people, that MOST people play Call of Duty is because it's fast paced. With it being fast paced, you get more kills per minute than BF3, which is highly rewarding to yourself. Most people don't want to get 20 kills in a LONG game of BF3 as opposed to getting 50+ in Call of Duty purely because you do not get that 'happy' trigger in your brain as often from killing someone. But if you look at it in a way for BF3, that the kills should be more rewarding to yourself DUE to the fact that you don't get them as often, is a whole different story. They both have their ups and downs.


i tryed battlefield its fun but the vehicles are actually annoying to me i just like to run and gun

gtapro151Posted:

xXopticsXx
Peer I love how people complain about CoD being the same every year but then say "please make it like CoD4 i love that game" sigh........


Thats because Cod4 was actually a good game, cod 5 was good also but after that...its gone and that is where people start to complain , there is a difference between making a remodeled game with better graphics and a new game that has the same old **** but is still marketed as something new.


how is black ops 2 anything like mw3?

VoyboyPosted:

Peer I love how people complain about CoD being the same every year but then say "please make it like CoD4 i love that game" sigh........


Thats because Cod4 was actually a good game, cod 5 was good also but after that...its gone and that is where people start to complain , there is a difference between making a remodeled game with better graphics and a new game that has the same old shit but is still marketed as something new.

DanimalsPosted:

Vlif
Gossip So this isnt based off of Ghost


probably not :/


Oh wow I was really hoping it was going to be

PoonPosted:

Gossip So this isnt based off of Ghost


probably not :/

GossipPosted:

So this isnt based off of Ghost

YoutubeFTLPosted:

Kind
Yin
D3FEKT Battlefield engine will always be ahead of call of duty crap. CoD you're so restricted to where you can go and do, call an airstrike and the building doesn't break.. Can't use vehicles. IDK how CoD gets soo many followers over such a hunk of **** game.


Well, not everyone wants their map/environment destroyed and not everyone likes the use of vehicles. I have played all of the Battlefield's from Battlefield 2: Modern Combat. They aren't that bad, but I just really don't like vehicles and you could destroy too many cover spots in the Bad Company's. Call of Duty is a run and gun basically. It's why a lot of people play it. It's easy to just pick up and have fun.

On topic, This sounds pretty cool. I personally never saw where Call of Duty needed a new engine, but that is just me. It just needs an update from one platform to an updated one. I just hope they don't change too much gameplay wise.


Tis exactly. I absolutely hate battlefield, I just hate the whole aspect of the game. And yes, I did try playing it, for about 2 weeks. I got Premium and everything and I can't stand it. You can't just play a quick game, they all last like 20 minutes, you can't easily edit your class load out unless you really know what your doing and have played for months. The maps are stupidly huge. CoD is GUNPLAY. BF is just airstrikes and camping.


I don't hate Battlefield, in fact I love it. I also don't hate Call of Duty, I also love it. From a non-bias stand point, I think they both have their ups and downs, and it all depends on what you're looking for. If you want fast paced action, Call of Duty is your go-to. Battlefield 3 (Or any Battlefield, essentially) is a slow gameplay, high rewarding FPS. Everything you are saying can be argued back, but to save time - I won't touch on them. I believe, for the majority of people, that MOST people play Call of Duty is because it's fast paced. With it being fast paced, you get more kills per minute than BF3, which is highly rewarding to yourself. Most people don't want to get 20 kills in a LONG game of BF3 as opposed to getting 50+ in Call of Duty purely because you do not get that 'happy' trigger in your brain as often from killing someone. But if you look at it in a way for BF3, that the kills should be more rewarding to yourself DUE to the fact that you don't get them as often, is a whole different story. They both have their ups and downs.


Latest Downloads

Latest Tutorials