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

[Pared]

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

Honestly, 14 is kind of like the difference between Saints Row 2 and Saints Row The Third. Saints The Third looks good as a video game, I can't really complain about it graphics wise because it's clean, it's done well, there is detail there. However it's a completely off the wall, cartoonish take on reality and I prefer the look of 2 as opposed to the direction 3 and 4 took with their look.

Bingo. There is an art style to it and it can look cool at times but to argue it looks close to a real picture leaves me scratching my head.

That's what I expect out of these systems, not prettied up PS3 graphics. I would like to see a serious graphics jump and I don't see this in this game. Maybe next year and this is a nice base to build off of but I just don't see what others are claiming are so great overall.

Granted, I am being more harsh and not lowering my expectations. I still believe this entire game is capable of looking as it does now on the PS3/360, although with a bit more "rough" edges. Again, I point to FIFA.

[youvalss]

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

The way I see it, if it's a first title on a new generation and the graphics don't just make you say "WOW!", then it's not that good. I remember when I first saw Live 06/07 graphics (360), I thought it was AMAZING!

In other words, first title on a new generation is supposed to leave you amazed. If it's a case of "not bad, but not that great", then the new generation effect is just not there.

[WTF]

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

Bingo. There is an art style to it and it can look cool at times but to argue it looks close to a real picture leaves me scratching my head.

That's what I expect out of these systems, not prettied up PS3 graphics. I would like to see a serious graphics jump and I don't see this in this game. Maybe next year and this is a nice base to build off of but I just don't see what others are claiming are so great overall.

Granted, I am being more harsh and not lowering my expectations. I still believe this entire game is capable of looking as it does now on the PS3/360, although with a bit more "rough" edges. Again, I point to FIFA.

I'm not arguing that it looks close to a real picture. EA has NEVER went the route of photorealism. I would venture to say that even next year, with a crazy graphical improvement, they won't go to the "photorealism" style.

I'm saying I think that it looks excellent for their style. I'd prefer that style, rather than going the photorealism route. It's a videogame, I want it to look like an awesome videogame. I know that you all aren't on that side of the spectrum, but I am.

I feel like we just went a few years back in time and you're the new mstephenson who can't see how bad DRose looks.

And if having an opinion is wrong, then this may not be the right site for me to be on anymore. There used to be a time where guys could have differing opinions, and right, wrong, or indifferent, we'd still respect it.

[Pared]

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

Oh c'mon Wil. Cut the drama. We're discussing the graphics here. I'm not sure why you are so touchy when someone actually challenges some of the exaggerations here.

[WTF]

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

I'm not exaggerating. I've never once said the graphics were photorealistic. I think with the "emotion", 2k failed miserably with the photorealism. Seeing the facial contortions, I think it looks bad. I'm glad that all games aren't taking that stance.

I'd much prefer the artistic style, and hopefully they won't take the same route next year.

I said that they have their own style, and that they nailed some players. You don't see it that way, and that's fine. I have an opinion Edwin, it's cool. It doesn't conform to the norm, and that's fine. I'd just like my opinion to be respected just the same.



This image right here, you can tell it's a CGI picture. They aren't photorealistic. If I'm playing a videogame, that's what I'd prefer to play.

[Earl1963]

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

I'm glad I'm not all hung up on how a dang game looks, what has happened to gamers? Live looks really good to me anyways. And since I'm so in love with the gameplay it really doesn't matter any how.

[King_B_Mack]

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

Stupid question, but why the hell is Morgan Freeman in CGI? Looks like that's him as Lucius Fox?

[King_B_Mack]

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

I'm glad I'm not all hung up on how a dang game looks, what has happened to gamers? Live looks really good to me anyways. And since I'm so in love with the gameplay it really doesn't matter any how.

Exactly why are people "hung up on how the game looks?" It's a damn thread discussing the graphics of the game. What should we be talking about? Gameplay? I hate when people do this stupid ****.

[JBulls]

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

I'm not sure why you are so touchy when someone actually challenges some of the exaggerations here.

Is that what you were doing when you said he's the new mstephenson?

Whatever the case may be, I would much prefer a photo-realistic approach to the game's graphics because even though it's a video game like WTF says, it's still supposed to be a simulator. To me that means not only simulating the way real NBA basketball is played but also simulating the way everything looks in nature too. I hate this so called "art direction" in sports games. To me there should only be 1 direction, and that's "True to life".

[The 24th Letter]

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

I'm glad I'm not all hung up on how a dang game looks, what has happened to gamers? Live looks really good to me anyways. And since I'm so in love with the gameplay it really doesn't matter any how.

Yeah, what's happened to gamers? Wanting their VIDEO games to look good...it's ridiculous...

[Earl1963]

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

I think a big part of it is not having a Live 12-14 on current gen...would've helped with expectations...

the transition from NBA 2K6, Madden 06 and Live 06 from Xbox/Ps2 to the 360/PS3 just made sense...

(Even though Live 07 dropped the ball that next year)

I honestly am looking forward to Live '15...I think it will shock some people...

This is how I feel about Live as well. Have to remember Live has been out of action for a while and this is really the beginning.

[Pared]

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

I'm not exaggerating. I've never once said the graphics were photorealistic. I think with the "emotion", 2k failed miserably with the photorealism. Seeing the facial contortions, I think it looks bad. I'm glad that all games aren't taking that stance.

I'd much prefer the artistic style, and hopefully they won't take the same route next year.

I said that they have their own style, and that they nailed some players. You don't see it that way, and that's fine. I have an opinion Edwin, it's cool. It doesn't conform to the norm, and that's fine. I'd just like my opinion to be respected just the same.



This image right here, you can tell it's a CGI picture. They aren't photorealistic. If I'm playing a videogame, that's what I'd prefer to play.

Why are you bringing up 2k? Don't you keep asking people to stop bringing up 2k in this forum?

This has nothing to do with 2k. 2k could look phenomenal and it could look terrible. That has no bearing on the discussion about Live's art direction and why some don't like it.

SOME people don't want a cartoon version of their favorite NBA star, they want a photo-realistic looking version of them on a console they paid half a grand to play... when it is CAPABLE of doing just that. They want EA to squeeze as much out of the hardware as possible.

Remember - EA tried to do this with last gen and failed MISERABLY. The ENTIRE game suffered and the art was a mess. They went the safe route here by prettying up the PS3 game they were developing and it shows. Again, other EA dev teams did the same thing. Some did a better job than others.

[Earl1963]

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

What I don't understand is, why are 2K fans in a Live forum complaining about the graphics of a hoop game that Live fans are happy with?

[WTF]

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

I'm not the one telling people to stop bringing 2k in, others are. If it's a valid comparison, then it's fine. We're talking graphics. One takes one approach, one takes another. I prefer one over the other. I'm not talking gameplay.

Regardless, enjoy whatever style you want. No need to downplay others opinion on what they themselves like.

[Pared]

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

Is that what you were doing when you said he's the new mstephenson?

You should not have any idea what I'm talking about if you "just joined" last year.