Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

[Bredrin]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I agree that they should be improved and i expected much better since they touted all new graphics this year "down to the meshholes in the jerseys". This years graphics seem too similar to last years and the textures are not well done. Body models are fine in my opinion and animation is the best in a sports game probably. However the lack of polished textures leaves alot to be desired especially since Visual concepts are titans in the graphics department.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I agree with the original poster and few others that graphics in some way do make a game better or more "sim" if you will. My example being this years baseball games. In which 3 of the 5 games all resembled how a baseball game should be played but the deciding factor for me singling out and keeping 1 game was the graphics.

I hated with a passion WSB graphics. The colors were too colorful, the players heads and bodies were incorrectly proportioned, their hats were to little, I hated the way they ran and the fact that 9 out of the 25 players on my team had the same exact face bugged me. But the gameplay was perfect IMO. Next is HH 2004, great gameplay, horrid graphics, nuff said. But the game I decided to keep was ASB because I love thier graphics. Their gameplay is'nt up to par with WSB or HH but the gaphics looked so real to me so I decided to keep it. It made the game look more "sim" like than the others. And I cant understand how some ppl say their graphics are ugly. I just dont see it.

I can talk all day about ASB graphic, textures and the like but I'll go back to the point I was tryna make. Graphics can make a game more better along with good gameplay. As much as ppl say that all they want is gameplay, there is a little graphic whore in all of us. And when you see another game with drop dead gorgeous graphics such as Visual Concepts games, then you start to realize that graphics are one of the key factors that make the game so enjoyable and entertaining. The fact that it can look like it does on tv is simply amazing. And thats when you understand that the other companies(EA, MS, and Sony) should step it up. Cause once the bar is raised, then another company should be the one who raises it even more.

But if you guys know your video game history. You would understand that its always that 1 company that raised the bar and is owner of the best graphics title for a long time. Until someone else comes along and takes them out. Back on NES, Tecmo had that title of best sports games graphics for years. Tecmo Bowl, Tecmo baseball, were always highly anticipated because of the high quality graphics. EA took the title when the 16 bit consoles came out. And now VC has that title in the most recent console battles. Who's next? Microsoft? Sony? Maybe EA again? Maybe some unknown company hiding in the shadows of PS3 and XBOX 2? You never know.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I agree with the original poster and few others that graphics in some way do make a game better or more "sim" if you will. My example being this years baseball games. In which 3 of the 5 games all resembled how a baseball game should be played but the deciding factor for me singling out and keeping 1 game was the graphics.

I hated with a passion WSB graphics. The colors were too colorful, the players heads and bodies were incorrectly proportioned, their hats were to little, I hated the way they ran and the fact that 9 out of the 25 players on my team had the same exact face bugged me. But the gameplay was perfect IMO. Next is HH 2004, great gameplay, horrid graphics, nuff said. But the game I decided to keep was ASB because I love thier graphics. Their gameplay is'nt up to par with WSB or HH but the gaphics looked so real to me so I decided to keep it. It made the game look more "sim" like than the others. And I cant understand how some ppl say their graphics are ugly. I just dont see it.

I can talk all day about ASB graphic, textures and the like but I'll go back to the point I was tryna make. Graphics can make a game more better along with good gameplay. As much as ppl say that all they want is gameplay, there is a little graphic whore in all of us. And when you see another game with drop dead gorgeous graphics such as Visual Concepts games, then you start to realize that graphics are one of the key factors that make the game so enjoyable and entertaining. The fact that it can look like it does on tv is simply amazing. And thats when you understand that the other companies(EA, MS, and Sony) should step it up. Cause once the bar is raised, then another company should be the one who raises it even more.

But if you guys know your video game history. You would understand that its always that 1 company that raised the bar and is owner of the best graphics title for a long time. Until someone else comes along and takes them out. Back on NES, Tecmo had that title of best sports games graphics for years. Tecmo Bowl, Tecmo baseball, were always highly anticipated because of the high quality graphics. EA took the title when the 16 bit consoles came out. And now VC has that title in the most recent console battles. Who's next? Microsoft? Sony? Maybe EA again? Maybe some unknown company hiding in the shadows of PS3 and XBOX 2? You never know.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

I agree with the original poster and few others that graphics in some way do make a game better or more "sim" if you will. My example being this years baseball games. In which 3 of the 5 games all resembled how a baseball game should be played but the deciding factor for me singling out and keeping 1 game was the graphics.

I hated with a passion WSB graphics. The colors were too colorful, the players heads and bodies were incorrectly proportioned, their hats were to little, I hated the way they ran and the fact that 9 out of the 25 players on my team had the same exact face bugged me. But the gameplay was perfect IMO. Next is HH 2004, great gameplay, horrid graphics, nuff said. But the game I decided to keep was ASB because I love thier graphics. Their gameplay is'nt up to par with WSB or HH but the gaphics looked so real to me so I decided to keep it. It made the game look more "sim" like than the others. And I cant understand how some ppl say their graphics are ugly. I just dont see it.

I can talk all day about ASB graphic, textures and the like but I'll go back to the point I was tryna make. Graphics can make a game more better along with good gameplay. As much as ppl say that all they want is gameplay, there is a little graphic whore in all of us. And when you see another game with drop dead gorgeous graphics such as Visual Concepts games, then you start to realize that graphics are one of the key factors that make the game so enjoyable and entertaining. The fact that it can look like it does on tv is simply amazing. And thats when you understand that the other companies(EA, MS, and Sony) should step it up. Cause once the bar is raised, then another company should be the one who raises it even more.

But if you guys know your video game history. You would understand that its always that 1 company that raised the bar and is owner of the best graphics title for a long time. Until someone else comes along and takes them out. Back on NES, Tecmo had that title of best sports games graphics for years. Tecmo Bowl, Tecmo baseball, were always highly anticipated because of the high quality graphics. EA took the title when the 16 bit consoles came out. And now VC has that title in the most recent console battles. Who's next? Microsoft? Sony? Maybe EA again? Maybe some unknown company hiding in the shadows of PS3 and XBOX 2? You never know.

[DueceDiggla]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

The graphics don't bother me at all. Sure they can improve, but the animations are so good that it doesn't really matter how the graphics look. The gameplay graphics are fine...players body proportions are good, and they seem to have all the accessories and tats.

The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

[DueceDiggla]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

The graphics don't bother me at all. Sure they can improve, but the animations are so good that it doesn't really matter how the graphics look. The gameplay graphics are fine...players body proportions are good, and they seem to have all the accessories and tats.

The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

[DueceDiggla]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

The graphics don't bother me at all. Sure they can improve, but the animations are so good that it doesn't really matter how the graphics look. The gameplay graphics are fine...players body proportions are good, and they seem to have all the accessories and tats.

The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

[Klocker]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

the models are NOT bad at all.

The textures are horrible but I think that comes from coding for the PS2 first (not a Xbox PS2 flame war....just a fact) and they unlike VC do not bump up the textures for Xbox as they should/could.

For one EA hates on Microsoft and two, they do not want to do anything to make the PS2 have a disadvantage in its sales over Xbox.

2ndly, I wonder if with the number of frames of animation if it was just too hard (this year) to get to run with higher texture volume.

The animations we all agree are the best in the business.

The undistinguished skin tones (and dark reddish colors) and lack of bump mapping (easy to do on Xbox) are what sets EA below ESPN in graphic quality.

The colors of some of the skin tones are horrible and the generic faces are really bad.
The scanned, REAL faces do not look nearly as bad though.

that said, from Baseline High zoomed all the way in.....they look pretty decent to me.

ALSO re: the SLOWDOWN ISSUE:

I have found much LESS slowdown (almost none except for the rotating court) if I bump UP the play speed back to default or higher.

I think that some of the slowdown comes from the game trying to reduce the speed. That's just my THEORY....I could be wrong.

[Klocker]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

the models are NOT bad at all.

The textures are horrible but I think that comes from coding for the PS2 first (not a Xbox PS2 flame war....just a fact) and they unlike VC do not bump up the textures for Xbox as they should/could.

For one EA hates on Microsoft and two, they do not want to do anything to make the PS2 have a disadvantage in its sales over Xbox.

2ndly, I wonder if with the number of frames of animation if it was just too hard (this year) to get to run with higher texture volume.

The animations we all agree are the best in the business.

The undistinguished skin tones (and dark reddish colors) and lack of bump mapping (easy to do on Xbox) are what sets EA below ESPN in graphic quality.

The colors of some of the skin tones are horrible and the generic faces are really bad.
The scanned, REAL faces do not look nearly as bad though.

that said, from Baseline High zoomed all the way in.....they look pretty decent to me.

ALSO re: the SLOWDOWN ISSUE:

I have found much LESS slowdown (almost none except for the rotating court) if I bump UP the play speed back to default or higher.

I think that some of the slowdown comes from the game trying to reduce the speed. That's just my THEORY....I could be wrong.

[Klocker]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

the models are NOT bad at all.

The textures are horrible but I think that comes from coding for the PS2 first (not a Xbox PS2 flame war....just a fact) and they unlike VC do not bump up the textures for Xbox as they should/could.

For one EA hates on Microsoft and two, they do not want to do anything to make the PS2 have a disadvantage in its sales over Xbox.

2ndly, I wonder if with the number of frames of animation if it was just too hard (this year) to get to run with higher texture volume.

The animations we all agree are the best in the business.

The undistinguished skin tones (and dark reddish colors) and lack of bump mapping (easy to do on Xbox) are what sets EA below ESPN in graphic quality.

The colors of some of the skin tones are horrible and the generic faces are really bad.
The scanned, REAL faces do not look nearly as bad though.

that said, from Baseline High zoomed all the way in.....they look pretty decent to me.

ALSO re: the SLOWDOWN ISSUE:

I have found much LESS slowdown (almost none except for the rotating court) if I bump UP the play speed back to default or higher.

I think that some of the slowdown comes from the game trying to reduce the speed. That's just my THEORY....I could be wrong.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

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


Thank god the cut scenes were reduced drastically. The graphics are in no way bad at all. Its just that if you compare them to ESPN then you got a mediocore graphics model in your hands. But yes, the animations are top notch and as I said a while ago. The animations are what make the game so fun.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

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


Thank god the cut scenes were reduced drastically. The graphics are in no way bad at all. Its just that if you compare them to ESPN then you got a mediocore graphics model in your hands. But yes, the animations are top notch and as I said a while ago. The animations are what make the game so fun.

[Graphik]

Re: Time for LIVE to step up the graphics

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
The only time I ever notice the nasty graphics are close-ups on the players faces.

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


Thank god the cut scenes were reduced drastically. The graphics are in no way bad at all. Its just that if you compare them to ESPN then you got a mediocore graphics model in your hands. But yes, the animations are top notch and as I said a while ago. The animations are what make the game so fun.

[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...

[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...