yeah there was a big difference. I didnt actually get to play it as it was a toss up between titanfall and this as i was running out of time and both cues were massive. lol i chose titanfall.

I stood and watched for about 10 mins though.
As for loading times. It would would be harsh to comment on it as it wasnt the full game that was being played. It was just what they wanted you to play.(if that makes sense) Therefore i wouldnt know if it would take longer or shorter with the final product. There was alot of action as they had it set up with 64 screens and 64 players. Looked very very good in my eyes. Maybe not quite the same as the released footage they showed at e3 (fishing in baku) but that is single player not multi player so again not a great comparison. The xb1 looked good and didnt seem to struggle,screen rip or have any pop up/texture issues. Looked a million times better than the 360 beta im playing. It was also very very fluid moving which made a great difference.

Im definately getting it for my xbox one put it that way lol.

360/ps3.. id give it a miss. Maps are just to big/detailed for the current consoles. Really needs 64 players. Makes the game much more enjoyable...


As for call of duty ghost. I didnt think it was all that. Like mw3.5.lol exactly the same old crap. different perks, couple of different game modes. i played cranked which was quite good....but it was nothing on the scale of bf4. I played cod on xb1 and it looked nice, but not much better than current gen imo.....nothing like bf4 which you could easily see it was "next gen".

hope this helps....