I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:23 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

Live is not real looking man. Look at the pictures you posted. They're blurry. Look at the audience in the front. I can't tell where their legs are. Live has a better chance in comparing gameplay, but not graphics. Not many people are gonna agree with you. You're in your own little world with this post.

**BigTigLSU** · 10-13-2003, 11:25 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:
bigtiggalsu Dude I never compared the like that all I said was LIVE didn't look all that bad this year, chill out guy. I own ever other sega game out there from FOOTBall to Hockey, and owend NBA2k for the last five year so chill out. Im just stated what Ive seen. ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better, and we know this. READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wha.....?? You just said you think Live's are more real.
I think live looks a little more real if you ask me.

Now you're saying ESPNs are better without a doubt?
ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better,

READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth

I did, and this is what I came up with. Somebody seems to be suffering from a case of amniesa.

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
How else are you comparing them. Actually if you believe the Live's graphics are better cool doesn't matter to me. However how is the graphics more realistic. Its like your are grasping at straws

<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly, get it straight. If you think Lives are more realistic, then how is ESPNs better?? Its diffrent if you say Lives "animations" are more realistic but what you said is hypocritical. In other words, explain the diffrence between "realistic" and "better".

Lives look more realistic but ESPNs are better.

Read that statment and tell me if it makes any sense.

<hr /></blockquote>

and now he wants to lock this thread because he realizes he contradicted his own words. Like I said he should have never made this post.

**BigTigLSU** · 10-13-2003, 11:25 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:
bigtiggalsu Dude I never compared the like that all I said was LIVE didn't look all that bad this year, chill out guy. I own ever other sega game out there from FOOTBall to Hockey, and owend NBA2k for the last five year so chill out. Im just stated what Ive seen. ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better, and we know this. READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wha.....?? You just said you think Live's are more real.
I think live looks a little more real if you ask me.

Now you're saying ESPNs are better without a doubt?
ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better,

READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth

I did, and this is what I came up with. Somebody seems to be suffering from a case of amniesa.

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
How else are you comparing them. Actually if you believe the Live's graphics are better cool doesn't matter to me. However how is the graphics more realistic. Its like your are grasping at straws

<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly, get it straight. If you think Lives are more realistic, then how is ESPNs better?? Its diffrent if you say Lives "animations" are more realistic but what you said is hypocritical. In other words, explain the diffrence between "realistic" and "better".

Lives look more realistic but ESPNs are better.

Read that statment and tell me if it makes any sense.

<hr /></blockquote>

and now he wants to lock this thread because he realizes he contradicted his own words. Like I said he should have never made this post.

**BigTigLSU** · 10-13-2003, 11:25 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Graphik said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:
bigtiggalsu Dude I never compared the like that all I said was LIVE didn't look all that bad this year, chill out guy. I own ever other sega game out there from FOOTBall to Hockey, and owend NBA2k for the last five year so chill out. Im just stated what Ive seen. ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better, and we know this. READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth.

<hr /></blockquote>

Wha.....?? You just said you think Live's are more real.
I think live looks a little more real if you ask me.

Now you're saying ESPNs are better without a doubt?
ESPN graphics are with out a doubt better,

READ my post before you open that thinkg you call you mouth

I did, and this is what I came up with. Somebody seems to be suffering from a case of amniesa.

<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
How else are you comparing them. Actually if you believe the Live's graphics are better cool doesn't matter to me. However how is the graphics more realistic. Its like your are grasping at straws

<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly, get it straight. If you think Lives are more realistic, then how is ESPNs better?? Its diffrent if you say Lives "animations" are more realistic but what you said is hypocritical. In other words, explain the diffrence between "realistic" and "better".

Lives look more realistic but ESPNs are better.

Read that statment and tell me if it makes any sense.

<hr /></blockquote>

and now he wants to lock this thread because he realizes he contradicted his own words. Like I said he should have never made this post.

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:26 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

Won't the game with better graphics look more real?

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:26 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

Won't the game with better graphics look more real?

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:26 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

Won't the game with better graphics look more real?

**RoyalBoyle78** · 10-13-2003, 11:28 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

dude my post is talking about LIVE graphics not being that bad, it not comparing them, I never once said that LIVE are better so READ

before you post. Cause I will take you in to my litte world and well never mide.. Read

**RoyalBoyle78** · 10-13-2003, 11:28 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

dude my post is talking about LIVE graphics not being that bad, it not comparing them, I never once said that LIVE are better so READ

before you post. Cause I will take you in to my litte world and well never mide.. Read

**RoyalBoyle78** · 10-13-2003, 11:28 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

dude my post is talking about LIVE graphics not being that bad, it not comparing them, I never once said that LIVE are better so READ

before you post. Cause I will take you in to my litte world and well never mide.. Read

**Graphik** · 10-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sonicmage said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
SicksentZ said:
THANK U. I think Live has great grafix, I hate 2 see people dog it all the time. They're sufficient enough to get the job done. I'm sorry, but when I'm running a fast break with T-Mac, the last thing I care about is a polygon count

<hr /></blockquote>

You will care when the poly count is too high and the game becomes unplayable when moving at a crawl. The trick with polys is that you want the most bang for your buck by using schemes like progressive meshes, etc. but I wont go into any more details. Graphics programmers have to deal with all this crap that most people never see because it is working by the time the finished product gets published.

There are three things I dont like about Live's graphics.

1) The jerseys. Live uses a lot of compressed textures for their jerseys that can make them appear "blurry" and sometimes I think the numbers on the jerseys can appear exaggerated in size.
2) The faces. Live once again exaggerates certain features that can give the players a cartoonish appeal, especially the eyes.
3) The animations. Again the word here is EXAGGERATION. Animations are moving too fast and can result in missing frames because the frame rate may not be high enough to catch up with it. The result is some animations looking like it skipped a few sequences.

I'm not saying that ESPN doesnt have issues as well, because they do.

<hr /></blockquote>

I am in no wa a graphic whore but graphics do play a role in my decision making.

Alot of ppl are hypocritical when they say graphics dont count because if the frame rate sucked, and the graphics where below standards then the gameplay would'nt hold up.

A prime example would be the High Heat series. Best gameplay with the worst graphics= no sales. Now for all of you who purchased a baseball game this year, why come you did'nt stick with HH despite it having the better gameplay out of all the baseball titles this year. Simple, the graphics lacked and made the game look generic.

Now for all saying that graphics dont count. Would you buy a game today that looks like Double Dribble but yet play like NBA Live? If you say yes, give me a good reason besides the gameplay is all that matters excuse. Because I can counter that one easily.

**Graphik** · 10-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sonicmage said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
SicksentZ said:
THANK U. I think Live has great grafix, I hate 2 see people dog it all the time. They're sufficient enough to get the job done. I'm sorry, but when I'm running a fast break with T-Mac, the last thing I care about is a polygon count

<hr /></blockquote>

You will care when the poly count is too high and the game becomes unplayable when moving at a crawl. The trick with polys is that you want the most bang for your buck by using schemes like progressive meshes, etc. but I wont go into any more details. Graphics programmers have to deal with all this crap that most people never see because it is working by the time the finished product gets published.

There are three things I dont like about Live's graphics.

1) The jerseys. Live uses a lot of compressed textures for their jerseys that can make them appear "blurry" and sometimes I think the numbers on the jerseys can appear exaggerated in size.
2) The faces. Live once again exaggerates certain features that can give the players a cartoonish appeal, especially the eyes.
3) The animations. Again the word here is EXAGGERATION. Animations are moving too fast and can result in missing frames because the frame rate may not be high enough to catch up with it. The result is some animations looking like it skipped a few sequences.

I'm not saying that ESPN doesnt have issues as well, because they do.

<hr /></blockquote>

I am in no wa a graphic whore but graphics do play a role in my decision making.

Alot of ppl are hypocritical when they say graphics dont count because if the frame rate sucked, and the graphics where below standards then the gameplay would'nt hold up.

A prime example would be the High Heat series. Best gameplay with the worst graphics= no sales. Now for all of you who purchased a baseball game this year, why come you did'nt stick with HH despite it having the better gameplay out of all the baseball titles this year. Simple, the graphics lacked and made the game look generic.

Now for all saying that graphics dont count. Would you buy a game today that looks like Double Dribble but yet play like NBA Live? If you say yes, give me a good reason besides the gameplay is all that matters excuse. Because I can counter that one easily.

**Graphik** · 10-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
Sonicmage said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
SicksentZ said:
THANK U. I think Live has great grafix, I hate 2 see people dog it all the time. They're sufficient enough to get the job done. I'm sorry, but when I'm running a fast break with T-Mac, the last thing I care about is a polygon count

<hr /></blockquote>

You will care when the poly count is too high and the game becomes unplayable when moving at a crawl. The trick with polys is that you want the most bang for your buck by using schemes like progressive meshes, etc. but I wont go into any more details. Graphics programmers have to deal with all this crap that most people never see because it is working by the time the finished product gets published.

There are three things I dont like about Live's graphics.

1) The jerseys. Live uses a lot of compressed textures for their jerseys that can make them appear "blurry" and sometimes I think the numbers on the jerseys can appear exaggerated in size.
2) The faces. Live once again exaggerates certain features that can give the players a cartoonish appeal, especially the eyes.
3) The animations. Again the word here is EXAGGERATION. Animations are moving too fast and can result in missing frames because the frame rate may not be high enough to catch up with it. The result is some animations looking like it skipped a few sequences.

I'm not saying that ESPN doesnt have issues as well, because they do.

<hr /></blockquote>

I am in no wa a graphic whore but graphics do play a role in my decision making.

Alot of ppl are hypocritical when they say graphics dont count because if the frame rate sucked, and the graphics where below standards then the gameplay would'nt hold up.

A prime example would be the High Heat series. Best gameplay with the worst graphics= no sales. Now for all of you who purchased a baseball game this year, why come you did'nt stick with HH despite it having the better gameplay out of all the baseball titles this year. Simple, the graphics lacked and made the game look generic.

Now for all saying that graphics dont count. Would you buy a game today that looks like Double Dribble but yet play like NBA Live? If you say yes, give me a good reason besides the gameplay is all that matters excuse. Because I can counter that one easily.

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:32 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:
I dont see what the big problem is with graphics, I think live looks a little more real if you ask me. ESPN players look like they took a bath in baby oil LOL. Take a look and compare, give your thoughts.

<hr /></blockquote>

But you did compare them. Well, you have your own opinion. If it looks more real to you then great.

**howinthe** · 10-13-2003, 11:32 AM

Re: I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:
I dont see what the big problem is with graphics, I think live looks a little more real if you ask me. ESPN players look like they took a bath in baby oil LOL. Take a look and compare, give your thoughts.

<hr /></blockquote>

But you did compare them. Well, you have your own opinion. If it looks more real to you then great.

I dont think the graphics are bad at all !!!!!!

Recommended Videos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment