Graphically speaking...

[WTF]

Which game do you find more superior? I'm talking about, total graphics. Not animations, but resolutions, player likeness, stadium replications, shoes, crowd...

We talking about graphics....

Personally, I find the graphics in Live to be better due to the sharpness. I was playing 2k this morning, and looked at a lot of the textures, and they just weren't nearly as sharp. I popped in Live, for comparison, and it's like night and day. The shoe textures are amazing in Live, as are the socks. I know, it doesn't add anything to the gameplay to have those things... but you can see the ribbing in the socks on Live. LBJ's shoes in Live are spot on, very highly detailed. In 2k, I can hardly tell that they're his sigs.

As far as player likeness goes, it's a toss up in my opinion. Live nails some... 2k nails some. On some, neither game even comes close.

I'm still waiting for the 2nd patch for Live to drop so I can give it some more run. I love 2k's gameplay at the moment, after the second patch, but Live's graphics are calling me every waking moment.

What are your thoughts? Does 2k need a new art style? Just up the resolution? Are you happy with the graphics in 2k/Live for the current gen consoles?

[spankdatazz22]

Re: Graphically speaking...

I think it's hard not to take some of the things you're factoring out in terms of overall graphics because the companies take different approaches. Imo it seems Live places more focus on the 10 players on the court and not as much on the surroundings, 2K takes a more broad approach to graphics, placing more resources into benches, crowds, etc. I remember the argument some had with GTAIV when it came out as to how well it's graphics were portrayed. If you put it up against Saints Row, the graphical fidelity of Saints Row is better. But when you take into account the detail of the city in GTAIV, how NPCs are rendered and their actions, the sheer volume of the cities, etc. Saints Row really isn't close (imo). But I can see why people would think GTA's graphics aren't that good.

I prefer 2K's approach because it feels more immersive with all the peripheral detail like interactive refs, the coaches, the benches, the crowds, the people at the baselines, etc. I haven't played Live extensively but I think EA's games tend to have the same approach graphically. Like Madden. There's tons of detail in the 22 players on the field, but the stadiums may as well be the same - there's no unique feel to the different stadiums, very little sideline detail/involvement, etc. These are things people are begging for Madden to add. When I look at Live, I see them moving more towards where 2K is than vice versa in terms of taking a more broad approach to overall graphics

[ehh]

Re: Graphically speaking...

I would rather "look at" 2K eight days a week. If I had Live 10's gameplay with 2K's visuals I would be in heaven.

[DW3]

Re: Graphically speaking...

I'm with you Will, lives grapphics keep me wanting to play. I perfer 2ks skin textures, their crowds, but that's about it. Lives graphics seem to be more vivid. However 2ks players look photorealistic.

[Mintsa]

Re: Graphically speaking...

When it comes to jerseys, courts, stadiums sound, shoes etc.

To me....2k focuses on certain teams really well but leaves stuff out for others.....so fans of certain teams are left dissapointed. In terms of Live a fan of any team in the league will be verry happy...they seem to focus on all 30 pretty damn good.

[raidersbball20]

Re: Graphically speaking...

It is really hard, I think they both have a different style, but to me 2k looks better

[Tha_Kid]

Re: Graphically speaking...

When it comes to jerseys, courts, stadiums sound, shoes etc.

To me....2k focuses on certain teams really well but leaves stuff out for others.....so fans of certain teams are left dissapointed. In terms of Live a fan of any team in the league will be verry happy...they seem to focus on all 30 pretty damn good.

Spot on. Likenesses as well.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: Graphically speaking...

The lighting in Live is off the hook man....Love how the overall game looks....very crisp colors

When 2k zooms in on players\coaches faces in action...its CRAZY though...I love how they capture player faces...Also, as far as animations, 2k is top notch....

I really dont like calling one "better"... both bring alot to the table..

[Bornindamecca]

Re: Graphically speaking...

2k is vastly superior in almost every key visual area. Live is more crisp, but it's like great sauce on a low quality steak. 2k is like award winning prime cut steak, with decent sauce on top of it.

[Altimus]

Re: Graphically speaking...

2k is vastly superior in almost every key visual area. Live is more crisp, but it's like great sauce on a low quality steak. 2k is like award winning prime cut steak, with decent sauce on top of it.

Interesting perspective, but I agree.

[SageInfinite]

Re: Graphically speaking...

Used to think 2k, but this year Live got em.

[Tomba]

Re: Graphically speaking...

For me 2k....

Why?

Because they seem to be more about using photorealistic textures.
That for me is what every sports game should be trying to do not render or do some sort of art syle thing. just a straight up replica.

Does NBA live look bad?

NOPE. Not at all, it's just has more of an artistic approach which I feel does not belong in sports games.


If you were to ask me though which i prefer when it comes to CH2k8 and NCAA 2010 i'd say NCAA 2010, because thats were an exaggeration of realism seems to suit it best...

[Admiral50]

Re: Graphically speaking...

I think there's a huge difference... and Live comes out WAY on top.

Live is crisper, has higher quality textures, a smoother frame rate, player models aren't perfect but resemble real life more than 2K.

During gameplay 2K is jaggy, has low res textures, the player models are too bulky and animations are a part of graphics in 2K's aren't nearly as smooth or realistic. Plus, even before the buggy frame drops (and after the patch) the general frame rate isn't silky smooth at all.

I think 2K's arena's look more solid and both games have example of good and bad faces for players.

On my 50" HD screen, it's hard to even look at 2K after having played Live. I think it's an example of an old and over-used engine that the devs have just pasted layers upon layers onto it without really using much new code.

[KG]

Re: Graphically speaking...

2K. Players in Live look like they've put on too much lotion.

How long before the unbias gamer chimes in...

[DC]

Re: Graphically speaking...

Funny I came in here just to see what Shadows had to say