actual gameplay graphics vs replay graphics

[SBrooks1]

Simple question.....People on other boards say "The replays look great but the graphics aren't that good when you're actually playing". I think that's BS.

Does ESPN Football use a different graphics engine to generate the replays as opposed to what you seen when you are actually playing?? I don't think for one minute they would do that. I think the player models you see while playing are the same ones you see in the beautiful cut scenes and replays.

[MaddenMan]

Same graphics engine, just zoomed in. The reason that they dont "look as good" when playing is because you are playing from a farther vantage point.

[GnarlyKing]

I'm pretty sure the graphics are the same, it's just the camera angles that are different.

[SBrooks1]

Quote:

---

MaddenMan said:
Same graphics engine, just zoomed in. The reason that they dont "look as good" when playing is because you are playing from a farther vantage point.

---

Exactly my thoughts.

[deez]

what scares me is that some people are too stupid to understand that replays are zoomed in and have diff angles so they will look diff than the actual "in game" graphics"

I bet the same people probably are using tiny/junk TVs and/or composite vid connection which pretty much will kill all detail in non replay/zoomed scenes.

Nothing like people who don't have optimal set ups commenting on things like graphics and sound and acting like what they see is FACT regarding the game....

[boberto]

i will give you some insight because this might be true.

for espn nhl hockey, the reason they do that espn logo wipe when starting a replay, is they have to load the higher-res models for replays and cutscenes. Then they unload then and get back to the game.

So at least in NHL, they are loading better models during the replays. It could be the case in NFL as well. So yes, it's possible the replay graphics are better.

[mgoblue]

Quote:

---

boberto said:
i will give you some insight because this might be true.

for espn nhl hockey, the reason they do that espn logo wipe when starting a replay, is they have to load the higher-res models for replays and cutscenes. Then they unload then and get back to the game.

So at least in NHL, they are loading better models during the replays. It could be the case in NFL as well. So yes, it's possible the replay graphics are better.

---

boberto makes a good point...because when you're in game a lot of processing has to go to the gameplay (AI, controller input, etc), the graphics don't get as much CPU time as would be possible for a replay. They'd have more memory and CPU time for replays, so they could use higher res and more detailed graphics for that. I don't know if they do, but it makes sense that they might

[njskillz]

Quote:

---

deez said:
what scares me is that some people are too stupid to understand that replays are zoomed in and have diff angles so they will look diff than the actual "in game" graphics"

I bet the same people probably are using tiny/junk TVs and/or composite vid connection which pretty much will kill all detail in non replay/zoomed scenes.

Nothing like people who don't have optimal set ups commenting on things like graphics and sound and acting like what they see is FACT regarding the game....

---

Exactly! The game is a thing of beauty on my 46 inch Mitsubishi.