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

[BigTigLSU]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
I think live looks a little more real if you ask me. ESPN players look like they took a bath in baby oil

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

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

[SonicMage]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">

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.

[SonicMage]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">

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.

[SonicMage]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">

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.

[RoyalBoyle78]

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

some one please lock up this thread cause people can't seem to read. I said REAL not better. Lock it before I get out of hand or someone else.. Thanks

[RoyalBoyle78]

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

some one please lock up this thread cause people can't seem to read. I said REAL not better. Lock it before I get out of hand or someone else.. Thanks

[RoyalBoyle78]

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

some one please lock up this thread cause people can't seem to read. I said REAL not better. Lock it before I get out of hand or someone else.. Thanks

[BigTigLSU]

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

Look man in this situation realistic=better. They are trying reprsent the player realistically so how can the game with the best graphics not look the most real. These two things have to go together in order for your statement to work. Now if we were talking about a fanasty game potraying some imaginary place and then comparing it to GTA and then saying GTA is more realistic looking but the other game hads better graphics this would make sense. But these two games are of the same thing so you can have one with out the other. The most realistic of the two is the game with the better graphics

[BigTigLSU]

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

Look man in this situation realistic=better. They are trying reprsent the player realistically so how can the game with the best graphics not look the most real. These two things have to go together in order for your statement to work. Now if we were talking about a fanasty game potraying some imaginary place and then comparing it to GTA and then saying GTA is more realistic looking but the other game hads better graphics this would make sense. But these two games are of the same thing so you can have one with out the other. The most realistic of the two is the game with the better graphics

[BigTigLSU]

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

Look man in this situation realistic=better. They are trying reprsent the player realistically so how can the game with the best graphics not look the most real. These two things have to go together in order for your statement to work. Now if we were talking about a fanasty game potraying some imaginary place and then comparing it to GTA and then saying GTA is more realistic looking but the other game hads better graphics this would make sense. But these two games are of the same thing so you can have one with out the other. The most realistic of the two is the game with the better graphics

[Graphik]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">


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><font class="post">


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">



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.

[Graphik]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">


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><font class="post">


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">



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.

[Graphik]

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Graphik said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">


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><font class="post">


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><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><font class="post">



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.

[howinthe]

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.

[howinthe]

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.