Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

[silky4]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I think the animations are much more important than overall graphical polish to make a game feel more "sim" like. Ask yourself this: Does it really matter if Allen Iverson looks spot on if he moves like Olden Polynice? The animations, as stated before, are what make the game fun to play. I can tell all of the players apart, even from far away, and that's good enough. I was playing with a buddy of mine last night, and we were just amazed at how realistic the post moves were, how you could ball fake, jab, face up, ball fake, shoulder fake, then attack. Just mesmerizing...

[Calvenn]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Offcourse, this question about " subpar graphics" would be a non-issue in regards to the PC version for this game. I'll re-state this: If you want to see Live in all its "high resolution graphical glory" pay a visit to the PC game. With the inclusion of various assortments of graphic update patches, the game is bar none on par, or even exceeds Nba2k! (Although I understand we're comparing 2 different platforms here). The unfortunate thing is that EA was unable to present the console game to look half as good as it does on PC..that's the shame! If they'd been able to achieve this feat, you'd soon begin to fully appreciate the TRUE beauty of the game, the detailed players models and faces, the textures, the arenas, the lighting effects, etc.

Having said all that, we all know what really keeps us coming back for seconds, thirds and fourths this year

[Calvenn]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Offcourse, this question about " subpar graphics" would be a non-issue in regards to the PC version for this game. I'll re-state this: If you want to see Live in all its "high resolution graphical glory" pay a visit to the PC game. With the inclusion of various assortments of graphic update patches, the game is bar none on par, or even exceeds Nba2k! (Although I understand we're comparing 2 different platforms here). The unfortunate thing is that EA was unable to present the console game to look half as good as it does on PC..that's the shame! If they'd been able to achieve this feat, you'd soon begin to fully appreciate the TRUE beauty of the game, the detailed players models and faces, the textures, the arenas, the lighting effects, etc.

Having said all that, we all know what really keeps us coming back for seconds, thirds and fourths this year

[Calvenn]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Offcourse, this question about " subpar graphics" would be a non-issue in regards to the PC version for this game. I'll re-state this: If you want to see Live in all its "high resolution graphical glory" pay a visit to the PC game. With the inclusion of various assortments of graphic update patches, the game is bar none on par, or even exceeds Nba2k! (Although I understand we're comparing 2 different platforms here). The unfortunate thing is that EA was unable to present the console game to look half as good as it does on PC..that's the shame! If they'd been able to achieve this feat, you'd soon begin to fully appreciate the TRUE beauty of the game, the detailed players models and faces, the textures, the arenas, the lighting effects, etc.

Having said all that, we all know what really keeps us coming back for seconds, thirds and fourths this year

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Good point about the PC version. To bad though you gotta pay thousands of dollars to enjoy everything.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Good point about the PC version. To bad though you gotta pay thousands of dollars to enjoy everything.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

Good point about the PC version. To bad though you gotta pay thousands of dollars to enjoy everything.

[Court_vision]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
Are we talking about graphics during gameplay?

Because if we're talking about graphics during cutscenes, I'll give ESPN 2K4 the nod over ID and Live.

But during gameplay?

For argument's sake, I'll say that EA's graphics are... "subpar". (LOL).

Let's just say that Graphics are the absolute worst part of NBA Live '04. Okay.

How does the absolute worst part of Live '04 (subpar graphics) compare to the absolute worst part of NBA 2K4 (poor overall gameplay) and ID2004 (a combination of poor graphics and subpar gameplay)?

It's up to you to decide which one is a "game-killer", no?

I, for one, would go with the game that lacks in one area, but excels all-around. But, that's just me.



BTW, this is flaming because it seems better suited for the Wishlist forum.

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

BIGEAST...the gameplay is very debatable IMO. Both are good. That's not the topic though...

And, this is not flaming...not unless people are 12 years old and can't comprehend a debate. The thread so far has shown everyone can handle the debate and have stayed on topic

What I am getting at is, how do they come up with a Kenyon Martin that looks like THAT???

I mean, it's not just bad...it's farking horrible.

How do they come up with so many generic players? Guys with wrong faces, skin tones, hair etc. The question really is, is it the engine...?...or is it simply laziness?

Due to the slowdown, I am forced to play with the sideline camera...and it's hard to take a game v Jersey too seriously when you've got a Jason Kidd and KMart etc that are funnier than they are realistic.

EA aren't idiots...someone must sit in an office and say "hows this KMart look"? Odviously they'd agreee it's horrible...so I am presuming their engine doesn't allow them to do it any better?

[Court_vision]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
Are we talking about graphics during gameplay?

Because if we're talking about graphics during cutscenes, I'll give ESPN 2K4 the nod over ID and Live.

But during gameplay?

For argument's sake, I'll say that EA's graphics are... "subpar". (LOL).

Let's just say that Graphics are the absolute worst part of NBA Live '04. Okay.

How does the absolute worst part of Live '04 (subpar graphics) compare to the absolute worst part of NBA 2K4 (poor overall gameplay) and ID2004 (a combination of poor graphics and subpar gameplay)?

It's up to you to decide which one is a "game-killer", no?

I, for one, would go with the game that lacks in one area, but excels all-around. But, that's just me.



BTW, this is flaming because it seems better suited for the Wishlist forum.

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

BIGEAST...the gameplay is very debatable IMO. Both are good. That's not the topic though...

And, this is not flaming...not unless people are 12 years old and can't comprehend a debate. The thread so far has shown everyone can handle the debate and have stayed on topic

What I am getting at is, how do they come up with a Kenyon Martin that looks like THAT???

I mean, it's not just bad...it's farking horrible.

How do they come up with so many generic players? Guys with wrong faces, skin tones, hair etc. The question really is, is it the engine...?...or is it simply laziness?

Due to the slowdown, I am forced to play with the sideline camera...and it's hard to take a game v Jersey too seriously when you've got a Jason Kidd and KMart etc that are funnier than they are realistic.

EA aren't idiots...someone must sit in an office and say "hows this KMart look"? Odviously they'd agreee it's horrible...so I am presuming their engine doesn't allow them to do it any better?

[Court_vision]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
bigeastbumrush said:
Are we talking about graphics during gameplay?

Because if we're talking about graphics during cutscenes, I'll give ESPN 2K4 the nod over ID and Live.

But during gameplay?

For argument's sake, I'll say that EA's graphics are... "subpar". (LOL).

Let's just say that Graphics are the absolute worst part of NBA Live '04. Okay.

How does the absolute worst part of Live '04 (subpar graphics) compare to the absolute worst part of NBA 2K4 (poor overall gameplay) and ID2004 (a combination of poor graphics and subpar gameplay)?

It's up to you to decide which one is a "game-killer", no?

I, for one, would go with the game that lacks in one area, but excels all-around. But, that's just me.



BTW, this is flaming because it seems better suited for the Wishlist forum.

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

BIGEAST...the gameplay is very debatable IMO. Both are good. That's not the topic though...

And, this is not flaming...not unless people are 12 years old and can't comprehend a debate. The thread so far has shown everyone can handle the debate and have stayed on topic

What I am getting at is, how do they come up with a Kenyon Martin that looks like THAT???

I mean, it's not just bad...it's farking horrible.

How do they come up with so many generic players? Guys with wrong faces, skin tones, hair etc. The question really is, is it the engine...?...or is it simply laziness?

Due to the slowdown, I am forced to play with the sideline camera...and it's hard to take a game v Jersey too seriously when you've got a Jason Kidd and KMart etc that are funnier than they are realistic.

EA aren't idiots...someone must sit in an office and say "hows this KMart look"? Odviously they'd agreee it's horrible...so I am presuming their engine doesn't allow them to do it any better?

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

EAs graphics have been pretty much "cartoony" since I can remember and also in different sports games (Live, Madden, etc.).

This is no suprise. Everyone who's played more than one EA title knows this.

My point was that, knowing the above, is it a game-killer?

Does it completely ruin the gaming experience or does it even prevent people from buying the game?

That's the gamer's decision.

Just as EA employees sit and evaluate a game's graphics before a game is released, EA, Microsoft and Visual Concepts sit around and evaluate animation, presentation, commentary, sound, gameplay, etc. before a game is released.

Now, with that said, I'm puzzled how games digress from series to series, year to year.

If EA's graphics actually got worse each year, I'd have a huge problem with Live '04.

Just like I have a problem with other titles whose gameplay, animations, etc. digress each year.

I'd rather have a Jason Kidd that looks close to Jason Kidd (yeah his skin tone may be a hue off). But if you have an exact resemblance of Jason Kidd and this player can do things like jump from the Foul Line, I know which one I'd go for.

Again, that's just me though.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

EAs graphics have been pretty much "cartoony" since I can remember and also in different sports games (Live, Madden, etc.).

This is no suprise. Everyone who's played more than one EA title knows this.

My point was that, knowing the above, is it a game-killer?

Does it completely ruin the gaming experience or does it even prevent people from buying the game?

That's the gamer's decision.

Just as EA employees sit and evaluate a game's graphics before a game is released, EA, Microsoft and Visual Concepts sit around and evaluate animation, presentation, commentary, sound, gameplay, etc. before a game is released.

Now, with that said, I'm puzzled how games digress from series to series, year to year.

If EA's graphics actually got worse each year, I'd have a huge problem with Live '04.

Just like I have a problem with other titles whose gameplay, animations, etc. digress each year.

I'd rather have a Jason Kidd that looks close to Jason Kidd (yeah his skin tone may be a hue off). But if you have an exact resemblance of Jason Kidd and this player can do things like jump from the Foul Line, I know which one I'd go for.

Again, that's just me though.

[bigeastbumrush]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

EAs graphics have been pretty much "cartoony" since I can remember and also in different sports games (Live, Madden, etc.).

This is no suprise. Everyone who's played more than one EA title knows this.

My point was that, knowing the above, is it a game-killer?

Does it completely ruin the gaming experience or does it even prevent people from buying the game?

That's the gamer's decision.

Just as EA employees sit and evaluate a game's graphics before a game is released, EA, Microsoft and Visual Concepts sit around and evaluate animation, presentation, commentary, sound, gameplay, etc. before a game is released.

Now, with that said, I'm puzzled how games digress from series to series, year to year.

If EA's graphics actually got worse each year, I'd have a huge problem with Live '04.

Just like I have a problem with other titles whose gameplay, animations, etc. digress each year.

I'd rather have a Jason Kidd that looks close to Jason Kidd (yeah his skin tone may be a hue off). But if you have an exact resemblance of Jason Kidd and this player can do things like jump from the Foul Line, I know which one I'd go for.

Again, that's just me though.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I remember on Lakers vs. Celtics. On there, the player likeness added so much to the game. Bird has his golden blond hair, Jordan was Bald, most players skin tones were exact, the hieghts were proportioned correctly, the courts all had the proper team colors, etc.

The point is, that graphics do have a role to play in ppls decisions. Put it like this, if EA was'nt the big name that it is today, neither is VC, which game do you think would of sold the most coppies by now based on Screen Shots and movies alone? Easy answer right?

Ugly graphics are defetnitly not a game killer but as monkey started the post, the graphics do have a big role in a game being more "sim" then a cartoonish looking game with good gameplay.

On that note, I'm not a graphic whore,(a closet graphic whore, yes) but I would rather put gameplay over graphics but sometimes, the graphics NEED to be up to par in order to enjoy the game more. My prime example is the High Heat series.

Its like choosing a ugly girl with a good personality and smarts versus a fine girl with a stuck up personality and is dumb as a rock. Believe it or not, alot of fellows would choose the fine looking female.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I remember on Lakers vs. Celtics. On there, the player likeness added so much to the game. Bird has his golden blond hair, Jordan was Bald, most players skin tones were exact, the hieghts were proportioned correctly, the courts all had the proper team colors, etc.

The point is, that graphics do have a role to play in ppls decisions. Put it like this, if EA was'nt the big name that it is today, neither is VC, which game do you think would of sold the most coppies by now based on Screen Shots and movies alone? Easy answer right?

Ugly graphics are defetnitly not a game killer but as monkey started the post, the graphics do have a big role in a game being more "sim" then a cartoonish looking game with good gameplay.

On that note, I'm not a graphic whore,(a closet graphic whore, yes) but I would rather put gameplay over graphics but sometimes, the graphics NEED to be up to par in order to enjoy the game more. My prime example is the High Heat series.

Its like choosing a ugly girl with a good personality and smarts versus a fine girl with a stuck up personality and is dumb as a rock. Believe it or not, alot of fellows would choose the fine looking female.