NBA Live 10: Producer Interview (ESPN)

[backbreaker]

Damn Mike Wang was dumping all on his old employers and when he was at 2k he said it wasn't a port, but now he's not there its a port. Also the window dressing remark, stay classy Mike Wang, stay classy.

[Beluba]

Quote: Originally Posted by backbreaker

Damn Mike Wang was dumping all on his old employers and when he was at 2k he said it wasn't a port, but now he's not there its a port. Also the window dressing remark, stay classy Mike Wang, stay classy.

Alright, let me clear up a few things. First off, I think some of the answers I gave ESPN were either a bit distorted or came out the wrong way. I, in no way, intended to slam 2k. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys over there and consider many of them to be my close friends. Here are the points I was trying to communicate in some of those "quotes" that have been debated on OS the past couple of days:

1. 2k porting from old gen and covering up problems with animation. 2k and EA obviously chose 2 very different paths when moving from the last gen of consoles to the current. given the resources at 2k, porting the old gen code up to 360/PS3 and re-writing "chunks" of the game each year was probably the best strategy for the team. it allowed us to shove in a great deal of content without having to rebuild the game from scratch. however, I was admittedly frustrated with several aspects of 2k's gameplay while I was there. And for reasons I don't want to delve into, they just weren't getting fixed. I wouldn't say we tried to cover up those problems with animation... but the animation work we were doing certainly did mask some of the flaws or at least let many consumers look passed them. so one of the reasons I approached EA, was because I felt that Live wasn't suffering from those same problems and I saw a tremendous upside with the game they were building. and I believe, between the 2 games, Live is actually better positioned for me to reach my goal of making the ultimate hoops sim. and that's something I hope you guys will see as well next fall.

2. the window dressing comment. what I meant by that was, 2k does a good job differentiating players via animation. IMO, that's 2k's biggest strength. but there wasn't really a huge commitment to differentiating players via the under the hood logic. Live, on the other hand, is just the opposite. there is so much logic in the underlying systems to try and get players to play like their real life counterparts. I mean, that's the primary goal of Dynamic DNA. but the animation component just isn't up to par yet. I don't want a game that has one and not the other because it'll either be pretty and stupid, or ugly and smart. our goal with Live 10 is to make sure that we capture both the look as well as the brains.

[Altimus]

Solid interview. After playing this year's product and listening to the development team, I can easily say that Live 2010 is my most anticipated sports title.

[Kodii Rockets]

Mike as a gamer and a basketball fan, I truly hope you achieve your goal. You leaving 2K in the first place for me raised questions about MY future gaming to be quite honest with you, since I primarily play Basketball games and nothing else. Although I LOVE this year's iteration of 2K I feel that some of those limitations that you spoke of are beginning to manifest themselves gradually.

I won't lie and say that because you are now at EA and telling me as a consumer exactly what I want to hear that I will be purchasing Live '10, but it does give me hope for the future. This year I will again give Live a shot and try to judge it as objectively as possible, but as you and I know you've got a lot of work ahead of you. I commend you for taking such a bold stance and I appreciate your candor. I hope that your dreams with this series come to fruition and you can restore NBA Live back to it's glory days as the premiere basketball franchise.

[Behindshadows]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beluba

Alright, let me clear up a few things. First off, I think some of the answers I gave ESPN were either a bit distorted or came out the wrong way. I, in no way, intended to slam 2k. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys over there and consider many of them to be my close friends. Here are the points I was trying to communicate in some of those "quotes" that have been debated on OS the past couple of days: 1. 2k porting from old gen and covering up problems with animation. 2k and EA obviously chose 2 very different paths when moving from the last gen of consoles to the current. given the resources at 2k, porting the old gen code up to 360/PS3 and re-writing "chunks" of the game each year was probably the best strategy for the team. it allowed us to shove in a great deal of content without having to rebuild the game from scratch. however, I was admittedly frustrated with several aspects of 2k's gameplay while I was there. And for reasons I don't want to delve into, they just weren't getting fixed. I wouldn't say we tried to cover up those problems with animation... but the animation work we were doing certainly did mask some of the flaws or at least let many consumers look passed them. so one of the reasons I approached EA, was because I felt that Live wasn't suffering from those same problems and I saw a tremendous upside with the game they were building. and I believe, between the 2 games, Live is actually better positioned for me to reach my goal of making the ultimate hoops sim. and that's something I hope you guys will see as well next fall. 2. the window dressing comment. what I meant by that was, 2k does a good job differentiating players via animation. IMO, that's 2k's biggest strength. but there wasn't really a huge commitment to differentiating players via the under the hood logic. Live, on the other hand, is just the opposite. there is so much logic in the underlying systems to try and get players to play like their real life counterparts. I mean, that's the primary goal of Dynamic DNA. but the animation component just isn't up to par yet. I don't want a game that has one and not the other because it'll either be pretty and stupid, or ugly and smart. our goal with Live 10 is to make sure that we capture both the look as well as the brains.

This right here is something I've posted so many times in the 2k threads and got blasted for saying.

Thank you for making me feel like I was right about my statements.

Also thanks for clarifying your words on the interview overall and allowing people to understand you weren't dumping on 2ksports after leaving the company. I even said in one of my post, you were training a guy before you left to carry on where you left off, that is respect enough right there.

Overall good interview and good clarification. Live 10 is definitely in my purchase future, thanks to you, Marcus and the others who have come here to share info with us.

[edubbs]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beluba

I don't want a game that has one and not the other because it'll either be pretty and stupid, or ugly and smart. our goal with Live 10 is to make sure that we capture both the look as well as the brains.

This is great to hear Beluba.

Live has always struggled with the animations and the overall 'look/feel' of the NBA. I have no doubt that if you guys can somehow get the game to animate MUCH better, Live 10 will be a special title.

Can't wait to see what you guys pull off.

[shpankey]

Quote: Originally Posted by jfsolo

This is really important to me. In so many game in the past it has been maddening(no pun intended) to see moves-dribble, shots etc,- totally divorced from their proper context. This has always been one of Live's weakest areas. I like how Sean thinks of this as part of the core functionality of the game, something that isn't going to necessarily be hyped and/or spotlighted, but simply an essentially gameplay element.

i would add to that, what you said is true and very much a problem. what i add is that also the wrong people end up doing the wrong things... like shaq doing a crossover then into a spin or some such. that needs to go. there needs to be a set of moves for each type of player... you shouldn't ever be even capable to take a big man and do guard moves and vice versa, a pg shouldn't be able to post up a pf and push him down into the post and do hook shots.

they should even take it further and try to get each player's capabilities into the game... so iverson would have a bunch of moves at his disposal but some scrub guard wouldn't have those same moves in his arsenal. this would make having super-stars have a more dramatic affect on the outcome of a game.

[23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Beluba

Alright, let me clear up a few things. First off, I think some of the answers I gave ESPN were either a bit distorted or came out the wrong way. I, in no way, intended to slam 2k. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the guys over there and consider many of them to be my close friends. Here are the points I was trying to communicate in some of those "quotes" that have been debated on OS the past couple of days: 1. 2k porting from old gen and covering up problems with animation. 2k and EA obviously chose 2 very different paths when moving from the last gen of consoles to the current. given the resources at 2k, porting the old gen code up to 360/PS3 and re-writing "chunks" of the game each year was probably the best strategy for the team. it allowed us to shove in a great deal of content without having to rebuild the game from scratch. however, I was admittedly frustrated with several aspects of 2k's gameplay while I was there. And for reasons I don't want to delve into, they just weren't getting fixed. I wouldn't say we tried to cover up those problems with animation... but the animation work we were doing certainly did mask some of the flaws or at least let many consumers look passed them. so one of the reasons I approached EA, was because I felt that Live wasn't suffering from those same problems and I saw a tremendous upside with the game they were building. and I believe, between the 2 games, Live is actually better positioned for me to reach my goal of making the ultimate hoops sim. and that's something I hope you guys will see as well next fall. 2. the window dressing comment. what I meant by that was, 2k does a good job differentiating players via animation. IMO, that's 2k's biggest strength. but there wasn't really a huge commitment to differentiating players via the under the hood logic. Live, on the other hand, is just the opposite. there is so much logic in the underlying systems to try and get players to play like their real life counterparts. I mean, that's the primary goal of Dynamic DNA. but the animation component just isn't up to par yet. I don't want a game that has one and not the other because it'll either be pretty and stupid, or ugly and smart. our goal with Live 10 is to make sure that we capture both the look as well as the brains.

You sir are taking on a bold challenge, and in the same breath you have upped the expectations on yourself.

I wish you the best