How do people judge the graphics?

[Court_vision]

I actually really like the graphics in this game. I say "actually", because it seems a lot of people don't.

Now...I am wondering what constitutes good graphics in peoples opinions?

Is it simply player faces and jerseys? If so...I can see why some people don't like it.

Or, is it player models, courts and stadiums? If so, I think this game has done a great job.

The player models I feel are just about perfect. You instantly see the difference between Iverson to Ray Allen...from Loren Woods to Shaq. The players "feel" like they are NBA players with "NBA bodies".

The stadiums...and this is just about the number one thing for me, as I love the feeling of 'journeying' around the NBA...are GREAT this year.

ID 02 and 03 had horrible stadiums. They looked and felt very bland. The lighting was poor, the stadiums had a lot of generic elements (whilst still shaped as per the real ones) and were a long way behind NBA 2K3.

2004 though and these things have improved out of sight.

IMO, this should give the graphics ratings a significantly higher mark.

Just check out the detail in the stadiums and courts IMO, they are really close to ESPN this year (ID's courts are better, ESPN's stadiums are slightly better). ID's camera angles and cut scenes let you enjoy the stadiums a lot more though

[Admiral50]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

Those pics look cool, great stadiums!

I judge on a number of things for graphics. I think I might have a hard time explaining so I have to compare other games... (note: not a flame or war...just comparision and explanation).
I look at a game like NBA Live and see (in my opinion) low quality player models that don't seem to relate to human, or nba body shapes. So that is important to me (although I can still enjoy the odd game of Live, so I don't just need to see good graphics). While every game has good and bad points with gameplay, I think it's the same with graphics. However, Live annoys me more because it just doesn't look crystal clear like ESPN, ID and most other next-gen console games. It doesn't seem to have detailed textures, rather it is full of flat shaded and one toned players with dodgy looking faces and the whole look to it, especially when comparing to ESPN or ID looks very low-res.

ESPN, good (not great) body shapes and sizes. If you look at the jersey you get the impression the players have a 'beer gut'. I guess it's because they try to make the clothes move and front of the jersey look like it's not stuck to the skin but it looks weird. I also think they never seem to make the huge guys stand out enough. Overall though, it looks awesome...pity the camera's are so far away. (My theory of the game's graphics being 'fake' ...one example is during replays the headband colours are different then the one's on the court and sometimes different style headbands and such. Along with the replay's not even letting you fully zoom in or rotate like previous years... but that's another topic.)

ID... I always liked the look because it was unique. I don't think they are great graphics but they are good enough and certainly very clear and sharp (unlike Live). I also judge frame rate under 'graphics' because there is no point having great graphics if it is going to slow down or chug along (which makes me wonder how an average graphically look in Live is still slow and framey). So in the first year of ID (didn't play 2003 much more than the demo) I was disappointed that the frame rate wasn't perfect.

So player models (ESPN the best, ID - judging from pics and clips, a clear second and Live next in line) are important. In terms of at least looking like a human and hopefully an NBA body.

I guess textures are important (ESPN would be the best there, followed by ID then Live again) because I want the jerseys to look right and skin tones and tatoo's to add the detail.

Frame rate...(in this day I expect all games to be smooth, hopefully 60 frames a second) (so ESPN the leader there, Live is pretty average this year and haven't played ID to see their frame rate this year.) Gamespot's preview said the frame rate in ID 2004 wasn't perfect...anyone want to comment on playing the final game? Also...if the frame rate is perfect I wonder if it's because they turned off the anti-aliasing (as I saw a comment here that suddenly this year the game has sharp edges/jaggies... this is all speculation until I rent ID next week...

And while on that...there is no point having great graphics if they can't be seen in the gameplay camera's (ESPN). ID clearly has the best camera's in my opinion.

Stadiums are not so important to me, but they do help to give you the feeling that you are actually in a different place each game.

My favourite graphics are still in NBA Street 2. The body sizes and looks (not faces though) are superb! The resloution is great and textures crisp and sharp. Jordan is Jordan just by looking at his shape and muscle tone, Shaq is a beast and like I said about the faces being only average, every player is instantly recognizable. (The animation is so much more smooth then the already decent Live) I prayed that Live 2004 would use this engine but I guess they can only handle a few guys on the screen at once here.

Anyway...I don't know if I prefer any graphic feature over another, but I can live with a game that looks like ID because it's nice and clear. ESPN looks great and Live doesn't

[Admiral50]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

Those pics look cool, great stadiums!

I judge on a number of things for graphics. I think I might have a hard time explaining so I have to compare other games... (note: not a flame or war...just comparision and explanation).
I look at a game like NBA Live and see (in my opinion) low quality player models that don't seem to relate to human, or nba body shapes. So that is important to me (although I can still enjoy the odd game of Live, so I don't just need to see good graphics). While every game has good and bad points with gameplay, I think it's the same with graphics. However, Live annoys me more because it just doesn't look crystal clear like ESPN, ID and most other next-gen console games. It doesn't seem to have detailed textures, rather it is full of flat shaded and one toned players with dodgy looking faces and the whole look to it, especially when comparing to ESPN or ID looks very low-res.

ESPN, good (not great) body shapes and sizes. If you look at the jersey you get the impression the players have a 'beer gut'. I guess it's because they try to make the clothes move and front of the jersey look like it's not stuck to the skin but it looks weird. I also think they never seem to make the huge guys stand out enough. Overall though, it looks awesome...pity the camera's are so far away. (My theory of the game's graphics being 'fake' ...one example is during replays the headband colours are different then the one's on the court and sometimes different style headbands and such. Along with the replay's not even letting you fully zoom in or rotate like previous years... but that's another topic.)

ID... I always liked the look because it was unique. I don't think they are great graphics but they are good enough and certainly very clear and sharp (unlike Live). I also judge frame rate under 'graphics' because there is no point having great graphics if it is going to slow down or chug along (which makes me wonder how an average graphically look in Live is still slow and framey). So in the first year of ID (didn't play 2003 much more than the demo) I was disappointed that the frame rate wasn't perfect.

So player models (ESPN the best, ID - judging from pics and clips, a clear second and Live next in line) are important. In terms of at least looking like a human and hopefully an NBA body.

I guess textures are important (ESPN would be the best there, followed by ID then Live again) because I want the jerseys to look right and skin tones and tatoo's to add the detail.

Frame rate...(in this day I expect all games to be smooth, hopefully 60 frames a second) (so ESPN the leader there, Live is pretty average this year and haven't played ID to see their frame rate this year.) Gamespot's preview said the frame rate in ID 2004 wasn't perfect...anyone want to comment on playing the final game? Also...if the frame rate is perfect I wonder if it's because they turned off the anti-aliasing (as I saw a comment here that suddenly this year the game has sharp edges/jaggies... this is all speculation until I rent ID next week...

And while on that...there is no point having great graphics if they can't be seen in the gameplay camera's (ESPN). ID clearly has the best camera's in my opinion.

Stadiums are not so important to me, but they do help to give you the feeling that you are actually in a different place each game.

My favourite graphics are still in NBA Street 2. The body sizes and looks (not faces though) are superb! The resloution is great and textures crisp and sharp. Jordan is Jordan just by looking at his shape and muscle tone, Shaq is a beast and like I said about the faces being only average, every player is instantly recognizable. (The animation is so much more smooth then the already decent Live) I prayed that Live 2004 would use this engine but I guess they can only handle a few guys on the screen at once here.

Anyway...I don't know if I prefer any graphic feature over another, but I can live with a game that looks like ID because it's nice and clear. ESPN looks great and Live doesn't

[Admiral50]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

Those pics look cool, great stadiums!

I judge on a number of things for graphics. I think I might have a hard time explaining so I have to compare other games... (note: not a flame or war...just comparision and explanation).
I look at a game like NBA Live and see (in my opinion) low quality player models that don't seem to relate to human, or nba body shapes. So that is important to me (although I can still enjoy the odd game of Live, so I don't just need to see good graphics). While every game has good and bad points with gameplay, I think it's the same with graphics. However, Live annoys me more because it just doesn't look crystal clear like ESPN, ID and most other next-gen console games. It doesn't seem to have detailed textures, rather it is full of flat shaded and one toned players with dodgy looking faces and the whole look to it, especially when comparing to ESPN or ID looks very low-res.

ESPN, good (not great) body shapes and sizes. If you look at the jersey you get the impression the players have a 'beer gut'. I guess it's because they try to make the clothes move and front of the jersey look like it's not stuck to the skin but it looks weird. I also think they never seem to make the huge guys stand out enough. Overall though, it looks awesome...pity the camera's are so far away. (My theory of the game's graphics being 'fake' ...one example is during replays the headband colours are different then the one's on the court and sometimes different style headbands and such. Along with the replay's not even letting you fully zoom in or rotate like previous years... but that's another topic.)

ID... I always liked the look because it was unique. I don't think they are great graphics but they are good enough and certainly very clear and sharp (unlike Live). I also judge frame rate under 'graphics' because there is no point having great graphics if it is going to slow down or chug along (which makes me wonder how an average graphically look in Live is still slow and framey). So in the first year of ID (didn't play 2003 much more than the demo) I was disappointed that the frame rate wasn't perfect.

So player models (ESPN the best, ID - judging from pics and clips, a clear second and Live next in line) are important. In terms of at least looking like a human and hopefully an NBA body.

I guess textures are important (ESPN would be the best there, followed by ID then Live again) because I want the jerseys to look right and skin tones and tatoo's to add the detail.

Frame rate...(in this day I expect all games to be smooth, hopefully 60 frames a second) (so ESPN the leader there, Live is pretty average this year and haven't played ID to see their frame rate this year.) Gamespot's preview said the frame rate in ID 2004 wasn't perfect...anyone want to comment on playing the final game? Also...if the frame rate is perfect I wonder if it's because they turned off the anti-aliasing (as I saw a comment here that suddenly this year the game has sharp edges/jaggies... this is all speculation until I rent ID next week...

And while on that...there is no point having great graphics if they can't be seen in the gameplay camera's (ESPN). ID clearly has the best camera's in my opinion.

Stadiums are not so important to me, but they do help to give you the feeling that you are actually in a different place each game.

My favourite graphics are still in NBA Street 2. The body sizes and looks (not faces though) are superb! The resloution is great and textures crisp and sharp. Jordan is Jordan just by looking at his shape and muscle tone, Shaq is a beast and like I said about the faces being only average, every player is instantly recognizable. (The animation is so much more smooth then the already decent Live) I prayed that Live 2004 would use this engine but I guess they can only handle a few guys on the screen at once here.

Anyway...I don't know if I prefer any graphic feature over another, but I can live with a game that looks like ID because it's nice and clear. ESPN looks great and Live doesn't

[faster]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

This is an excellent post.

I have zero problems with the graphics in this game. Actually, and I know I'm in the minority, but I think they are BETTER than ESPN. I thought ESPN was choppy and clunky and the courts were horrible. Now I play from the broadcast angle, so perhaps my experience is different.

When I bought Inside Drive, I had just gotten done playing about 50 hours worth of ESPN Basketball. I popped in ID and thought, wow, it looks pretty good. And I immediately thought the stadiums were much much better. No jaggies, more detail, brighter.... overall just better.

[faster]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

This is an excellent post.

I have zero problems with the graphics in this game. Actually, and I know I'm in the minority, but I think they are BETTER than ESPN. I thought ESPN was choppy and clunky and the courts were horrible. Now I play from the broadcast angle, so perhaps my experience is different.

When I bought Inside Drive, I had just gotten done playing about 50 hours worth of ESPN Basketball. I popped in ID and thought, wow, it looks pretty good. And I immediately thought the stadiums were much much better. No jaggies, more detail, brighter.... overall just better.

[faster]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

This is an excellent post.

I have zero problems with the graphics in this game. Actually, and I know I'm in the minority, but I think they are BETTER than ESPN. I thought ESPN was choppy and clunky and the courts were horrible. Now I play from the broadcast angle, so perhaps my experience is different.

When I bought Inside Drive, I had just gotten done playing about 50 hours worth of ESPN Basketball. I popped in ID and thought, wow, it looks pretty good. And I immediately thought the stadiums were much much better. No jaggies, more detail, brighter.... overall just better.

[Crucial Mike]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

I'm also liking the graphics of this game.

You're totally right about the stadiums...except, you forgot to mention the crowd. The bright colours seem to be burning my retinas at times.

[Crucial Mike]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

I'm also liking the graphics of this game.

You're totally right about the stadiums...except, you forgot to mention the crowd. The bright colours seem to be burning my retinas at times.

[Crucial Mike]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

I'm also liking the graphics of this game.

You're totally right about the stadiums...except, you forgot to mention the crowd. The bright colours seem to be burning my retinas at times.

[Klocker]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

All it needs IMO is TEXTURES for the uniforms and we have a winner. (see Rivals and even Fever for texture glory)

That cell shaded look to the jerseys kills the intstant Replay fun for me.

in game it's not nearly as noticable though.

also when I say "graphics" I include animations to a degree and several must have animations are missing. i.e. the blocking foul animation.

[Klocker]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

All it needs IMO is TEXTURES for the uniforms and we have a winner. (see Rivals and even Fever for texture glory)

That cell shaded look to the jerseys kills the intstant Replay fun for me.

in game it's not nearly as noticable though.

also when I say "graphics" I include animations to a degree and several must have animations are missing. i.e. the blocking foul animation.

[Klocker]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

All it needs IMO is TEXTURES for the uniforms and we have a winner. (see Rivals and even Fever for texture glory)

That cell shaded look to the jerseys kills the intstant Replay fun for me.

in game it's not nearly as noticable though.

also when I say "graphics" I include animations to a degree and several must have animations are missing. i.e. the blocking foul animation.

[wwharton]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

i think it's a misunderstanding. i have no problem with the graphics and i think many that say they do don't have that big of a problem with them. the problem is with the animations. there are many animations that just look bad and others that just don't exist that make things a little different. the still shots look great to me too but many instances in motion leaves a lot to be desired.

[wwharton]

Re: How do people judge the graphics?

i think it's a misunderstanding. i have no problem with the graphics and i think many that say they do don't have that big of a problem with them. the problem is with the animations. there are many animations that just look bad and others that just don't exist that make things a little different. the still shots look great to me too but many instances in motion leaves a lot to be desired.