Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

[23]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

Always knew I was in the minority as far as what I want out of a game. Thank goodness for at least one more year a Dev didn't choose graphics over game play. I liked Live 10 but the one thing I hated more than any other thing was what we referred to as "Suction D"! I don't know much about programming but I'd imagine it was quite an undertaking to replace all the suction or two man animations that both games have depended on for so many years. Again I really don't know if that's accurate but I'm guessing based on the fact that until now everyone relied on it 100% of the time. To me now Live 14 is down to maybe 40%, I guess.


For me I'll take "ugly" in lieu of loss of control at any point. That said Live 14 still has many instances of control loss but it is a huge improvement over Live 10 in that regard. That alone for me is next gen, after that gen, or whatever. I think the under the hood stuff should be the focus, they can put a dress on it once they get rid of all the bacon! Until they get all the game play worked out, fancy graphics/animations would just be a pig with a dress.

We played Live 10 and the suction defense was quelled with roster edits, which is something EA has never done ratings wise for the entire tenure on the 360/PS3. The on ball defense was too high and the recovery defense was even worse.. Remember Dirk's defense on recovery was about an 87?

Anyway, there is no excuse for this game to have last gen graphics and they shouldn't get a pass on it, especially considering they had years to prepare this game.

Secondly the art team and the gameplay team are not one in the same doing the exact same job so this takes out any excuse for the game to look like this.... and as far as animations this series hasn't animated like humans for a number of years either. There is no way they sit in the board room and think this is okay, and if they do then that makes it even worse.

[loadleft]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

We played Live 10 and the suction defense was quelled with roster edits, which is something EA has never done ratings wise for the entire tenure on the 360/PS3. The on ball defense was too high and the recovery defense was even worse.. Remember Dirk's defense on recovery was about an 87?

Anyway, there is no excuse for this game to have last gen graphics and they shouldn't get a pass on it, especially considering they had years to prepare this game.

Secondly the art team and the gameplay team are not one in the same doing the exact same job so this takes out any excuse for the game to look like this.... and as far as animations this series hasn't animated like humans for a number of years either. There is no way they sit in the board room and think this is okay, and if they do then that makes it even worse.

Again speaking out of ignorance I ask wouldn't the Art Dept. have to wait until they had movement, models, and situations on which to layer their art? It would seem if they had to produce models that did something different than what they traditionally did then they couldn't do anything until the game play designers had designed the situations. I know you know much more than I about this sort of thing so correct me if I'm wrong. If indeed they could have produced these things simultaneously then I can see your point. The "look" is not something I spend a lot of time worrying about but for those who do care I can see their gripe.


Also, I agree that suction was improved, but the fact that it existed and was the basis for the defense was the problem. I will say they still don't have it right, the width of the area that is used to determine "contact" is too narrow and seemingly cylindrical as opposed to oblong causing players to "slip" pass one another instead of collide, but it's much closer to how it should be than Live 10 in my opinion.

[23]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

Again speaking out of ignorance I ask wouldn't the Art Dept. have to wait until they had movement, models, and situations on which to layer their art? It would seem if they had to produce models that did something different than what they traditionally did then they couldn't do anything until the game play designers had designed the situations. I know you know much more than I about this sort of thing so correct me if I'm wrong. If indeed they could have produced these things simultaneously then I can see your point. The "look" is not something I spend a lot of time worrying about but for those who do care I can see their gripe.


Also, I agree that suction was improved, but the fact that it existed and was the basis for the defense was the problem. I will say they still don't have it right, the width of the area that is used to determine "contact" is too narrow and seemingly cylindrical as opposed to oblong causing players to "slip" pass one another instead of collide, but it's much closer to how it should be than Live 10 in my opinion.

No the art team just has no excuse to make a game on basically a PC that looks like this. I know we'd like to keep giving EA passes on everything but with this excuse they'll never do more if you don't demand more. Did you see NBA Live 13? Its not just some rush job although it looks like one. Its awful that it moves like crap and still looks just as bad, and for the fact that time wasn't necessarily an issue it just sucks.

I guess now it's on the other extreme end for contact because no suction and now there is no contact at all. Neither is acceptable IMO but basketball produces more contact than guys just sliding out of the way or as if they aren't standing there. That's not basketball at all

[loadleft]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

No the art team just has no excuse to make a game on basically a PC that looks like this. I know we'd like to keep giving EA passes on everything but with this excuse they'll never do more if you don't demand more. Did you see NBA Live 13? Its not just some rush job although it looks like one. Its awful that it moves like crap and still looks just as bad, and for the fact that time wasn't necessarily an issue it just sucks.

I guess now it's on the other extreme end for contact because no suction and now there is no contact at all. Neither is acceptable IMO but basketball produces more contact than guys just sliding out of the way or as if they aren't standing there. That's not basketball at all

Yeah I saw 13, but remember as you and I have discussed a million times in PM's the look isn't my thing. I'm attempting to keep the focus on the thing that matters most to me, game play. I'm afraid that so many people will harp on the graphics that Live DEVs will give in and produce this beautifully animated game that is just about triggering a bunch of mini movies. To me they're already headed that way. To me, the dribble controls are no way as good as they used to be, there now tilted to wards animation triggering more so than controlling the ball like you used to be able to do. Remember how you used to be able to size-up just based on using the dribble controls, no pre-determined sequence based on stick flicks. I hate that loss of control so I try to be the lone voice that says stick with control even if it's not pretty.

[23]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

Yeah I saw 13, but remember as you and I have discussed a million times in PM's the look isn't my thing. I'm attempting to keep the focus on the thing that matters most to me, game play. I'm afraid that so many people will harp on the graphics that Live DEVs will give in and produce this beautifully animated game that is just about triggering a bunch of mini movies. To me they're already headed that way. To me, the dribble controls are no way as good as they used to be, there now tilted to wards animation triggering more so than controlling the ball like you used to be able to do. Remember how you used to be able to size-up just based on using the dribble controls, no pre-determined sequence based on stick flicks. I hate that loss of control so I try to be the lone voice that says stick with control even if it's not pretty.

Yeah I know you don't care but it does matter and here is why. Just a numbers game and yes history, EA is already on shaky ground. Now you have a new system with an old looking game after a 4 year absence. You have 8 million nex gen consoles out there, and this game sold I dont know 80k copies. That's pretty awful by any standard on any gen, especially for a AAA title with bigger budgets. That doesnt recoop license fees worker fees production fees etc.... How long do you think this is going to last?

Now that said, you don't call your game a sim, realistic, authentic and advertise it as such on new hardware, then have the game moving like something out of some half done work. Truthfully the NBA Street series animated better than this series and that's not even right.

With that said, size-ups were canned moves that you held the trigger down to trigger, then you hit the stick in a direction for a move...so in short it was an animation put there because EA never had a large library able to do things like that and til this day is limited and looks generic, ala Steph, Nash, Kyrie etc all doing the exact same flying scoop up and under layup.

This is why they tried to add physics in Elite 11, because that controls alot of movement and contexual stuff and makes contact reactions realistic and throws out alot of the crap you see now in the paint like players just sliding out of the way or as if they aren't there at all.

All of this is animation and they are by and large not evil at all. Most of the past 2 man animation stuff is gone from basketball games and I understand you have issues with 2k's controls but its more like NBA Live used to be than NBA Live itself is now. IMO the control is worse in this game than in past Live's.

Looking at the big picture and past this particular forum...nobody is talking about this game or giving it much interest, so its going to have to be different in alot of ways for them to survive. That's just not something some might want to realize but things have changed over the years and an old ugly game that moves like a mini robot is not going to cut it this gen. Not because I said it, but because people demand way more for their money now and its below a certain standard set by and large with this kind of hardware.

[loadleft]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

...

As far as size-ups I was referring to the days before that canned crap! I was talking about when you used to size-up by simply rocking the right stick. I know back then you had right stick spam but they could have addressed that with better defense or slower dribble moves.


I agree Live 14 has less control than previous Lives, that's my point! DEVs are caving into the less control and more animation philosophy, and I hate it. I agree the poor sales will eventually shut this series down if it hasn't already, I guess before the DEVs sell Live's soul to the masses I was hoping for one true SIM (in terms of game play) experience.


I do have 2K14 I just don't play it.


As far as Live or any b-ball game I just can't stand for the player I supposed to be controlling does his on thing, frankly I'd rather have the game have the player suffer real life type consequences from improper controller input instead of just animated past it like I didn't input a command. For instance when rebounding why when I push the button to early and some one is fighting me for position why not jump anyway and fall or whatever really would happen IRL?

[23]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

As far as size-ups I was referring to the days before that canned crap! I was talking about when you used to size-up by simply rocking the right stick. I know back then you had right stick spam but they could have addressed that with better defense or slower dribble moves.]

This is the thing. There were a number of people on here who said for all of this time there was nothing wrong with controls and that we weren't asking for new controls. This was told to the Elite Devs and up until now because that's all EA advertised..and now that its out, it sucks, and Elite had some weird sucky controls as well. I think we agree they should've left well enough alone but didn't listen.

I agree Live 14 has less control than previous Lives, that's my point! DEVs are caving into the less control and more animation philosophy, and I hate it. I agree the poor sales will eventually shut this series down if it hasn't already, I guess before the DEVs sell Live's soul to the masses I was hoping for one true SIM (in terms of game play) experience.

Thing here is, nobody asked the devs to change anything regarding controls. Im not sure who they caved in to because none of us had issues with the controls. Mike Wang came over and added more to it, choosing which hand to layup with, R Stick passing, off ball control, R bumper play calling... and they decided to change all of that, so guess where it ended up? In 2k11.... I know people didn't forget

I do have 2K14 I just don't play it.


As far as Live or any b-ball game I just can't stand for the player I supposed to be controlling does his on thing, frankly I'd rather have the game have the player suffer real life type consequences from improper controller input instead of just animated past it like I didn't input a command. For instance when rebounding why when I push the button to early and some one is fighting me for position why not jump anyway and fall or whatever really would happen IRL?

I agree, matter of fact I posted a video clip of 2k with that happening which would've been cool if it wasn't a bug. The thing here now is they are trying to simulate boxing out before grabbing boards now and quite honestly I don't think either of these games do rebounding as well as it used to be in the distant past. I do think that last sentence is also a good idea I just don't think we're quite there yet

[Walt Frazier]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

The game looks OKAY when you stop it and zoom in on replays. But who cares. You can't see ANY of that detail when you play the game!!! I think some people here spend more time taking pictures than actually playing it.


The game looks TERRIBLE when you actually play it. Wax mannequins running. Those great tattoo details on FROZEN REPLAYS you can't even SEE when you play. The game looks TURRIBLE (to quote Sir Charles) when you actually PLAY IT. That's the only time where graphics count.
23 is 100% RIGHT. Compare this to some of the best PS3 games like Drake's Fortune. This is nowhere near next gen.

[King_B_Mack]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

The game looks OKAY when you stop it and zoom in on replays. But who cares. You can't see ANY of that detail when you play the game!!! I think some people here spend more time taking pictures than actually playing it.


The game looks TERRIBLE when you actually play it. Wax mannequins running. Those great tattoo details on FROZEN REPLAYS you can't even SEE when you play. The game looks TURRIBLE (to quote Sir Charles) when you actually PLAY IT. That's the only time where graphics count.
23 is 100% RIGHT. Compare this to some of the best PS3 games like Drake's Fortune. This is nowhere near next gen.

Honestly, I wouldn't even compare it to that because that game looks better. The arenas are damn nice in Live though, can't front on that.

Personally I just don't like the hyperbole about every single aspect of this game on both sides of the coin. It seems like nobody can just let the game stand on it's own. Somebody wants to badmouth the graphics so it's got to be a PS2 game bad graphically. Somebody wants to praise it so it's got to be closer to accurately looking like NBA players than this game over here. Just let the game stand on it's own.

[DreamAgain]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

The graphics are downright awful. I own both games and I'm not trying to bash Live or anything but if we include the entire package of graphics.. the terrible animations.. the awful faces.. how awkward EVERYTHING is.. it's a really bad package. 2k looked better 4 years ago. One could argue nba live 10 looked better lol

[Pared]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

The graphics are simply upgraded graphics from when the game was being developed for the PS3/360 and it shows. Much like FIFA, it "doesn't look bad" but doesn't come close to taking advantage of these systems.

If you spent half a grand to play a higher res version of a game, I would say you should have waited until they came down in price. Unless the game is pretty up there overall (again, see FIFA) we should be expecting more.

[nemesis04]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

The graphics are simply upgraded graphics from when the game was being developed for the PS3/360 and it shows. Much like FIFA, it "doesn't look bad" but doesn't come close to taking advantage of these systems.

If you spent half a grand to play a higher res version of a game, I would say you should have waited until they came down in price. Unless the game is pretty up there overall (again, see FIFA) we should be expecting more.

Basically A+ PS3/360 graphics and C- PS4/One graphics based on system potential.

[m1ke_nyc]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

I disagree with that ratedmoney. I'd 10-1 rather have Live's player models over the competitions. I feel body proportions (for the most part) are much better represented here. They have the length that nba players have. I can not stand the "stocky" look.

In 2k in the past for PC, I'd always download Lagoa's body edits, etc to make the legs and arms more lean. Other than looking so "ripped", Live has their shapes down really well. Of course, everyone see's things differently.

Late response. I would agree with that about last gen 2K. I think now the models look pretty good. Although improved I think what they still are struggling with is the uniforms. The uniforms look bloated with air making the players appear bigger than they are. Its not as bad as PS3/360 but still a issue. Live nailed the aspect that basketball players are actually lean and not built like football players. But the players appear to be small or the camera is zoomed out. Maybe I just got used to the other game and its clouding my judgment.

[Pared]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

Basically A+ PS3/360 graphics and C- PS4/One graphics based on system potential.

I would say A+ for PS3/360 is pushing it but you definitely understand my point, more or less.

[PVarck31]

Re: Graphically, the game doesn't look as bad as people say.

I just got the game and I would agree that the graphics are not that great. However they aren't horrible in my opinion. I think saying they are on par with PS3/360 graphics is mostly accurate. But there are a few things that look next-gen.

As far as animations, there are some good and some bad. The dribbling is pretty well done, and has a lot of potential.

Like pared said, FIFA is a good example. Also Madden. Madden might have the best graphics of the three, but none of them are really taking advantage of the new hardware. But, and I know a lot of people don't want to hear this -- this is the first set of games on a new system. Graphics always improve as the generation moves forward. So honestly I'm not worried about that.

And I know 2K looks fantastic, but its the exception not the rule in my opinion. 2K has always been ahead in the graphics department.

This is in no way excusing, or defending Live in any way. Its more than a reasonable expectation that the graphics should take a major step up next year.