Competition and Comparison thread.

[magicman32]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Played a good amount of live 16 demo. Just makes me appreciate 2k so much more. Even with its flaws. Live has so many more flaws


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[strawberryshortcake]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Played a good amount of live 16 demo. Just makes me appreciate 2k so much more. Even with its flaws. Live has so many more flaws

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After playing quite a few games in Live16's demo, I wouldn't completely write it off. There are things in Live16 that I would absolutely love to be implemented in 2k. For one thing, stolen passes are better represented in Live16 than 2k.

2k would have represented both of these with Lebron and Bogut putting their hands up to steal the passes long before the ball reaches their respective location in Live16. One thing that frustrates me is not that the passes are stolen in 2k, but the animation that precedes the stolen passes. Based on 2k16 leaked gameplay footage, unfortunately, I still see psychic defenders putting their hands up picking off passes before the ball reaches the halfway point.

Bad passes in 2k and sometimes even simple passes into the post or to one of the wing players, whenever the defenders begins to stick one of their arms out, you kind of figure it's going to be a stolen pass. Live16, however, doesn't telegraph stolen passes. Live16 defenders only reacts to passes when the ball has gone well pass the halfway point and almost 3/4 of the way to its intended target BEFORE Live16 defender can realistically react to the pass. The way Live16 does it looks more authentic and more realistic. Dang, I wish it was in 2k.


<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/J_EuipEnB-M" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AqcR7cR8XcU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qxVKCDJGi30" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[lakers24]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

To me it just seems like Live hasn't fully accepted going the full on simulation route. While that's not really a bad thing, it's kind of disappointing for someone looking for a full on sim experience.

[benefactor]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Both games have their share of good and bad player faces. But on the whole, I think it's pretty clear which game is now the pinnacle.

2K16 PC max settings. Live 16 PS4 Share captures.

[The 24th Letter]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Prefer 2k to be honest.

The player visuals seem aimed more at photorealism, while Live gives off more of a 'gamey' look...and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion because I really like Live's art style...I also like their player models.

Faces are going to be hit and miss all around, but what sets 2k apart is when the faces start animating. Its not perfect but they improved upon it ten fold and I would like to the see Live do the same. It happens in both games, but I see more often in Live that the expression a player makes can completely take away from his likeness.

At the end of the day, they are two beautiful looking games and it will come down to your preference.

[Earl1963]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Wow, didn't realize Live looked so much better.


Sent using a telephone

[benefactor]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Prefer 2k to be honest.

The player visuals seem aimed more at photorealism, while Live gives off more of a 'gamey' look...and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion because I really like Live's art style...I also like their player models.

Faces are going to be hit and miss all around, but what sets 2k apart is when the faces start animating. Its not perfect but they improved upon it ten fold and I would like to the see Live do the same. It happens in both games, but I see more often in Live that the expression a player makes can completely take away from his likeness.

At the end of the day, they are two beautiful looking games and it will come down to your preference.

Totally respect anyone preferring 2K over Live.

But I think you need to look up the word photorealism in the dictionary because what you've described is the opposite of what is going on in those two games.

2K create great videogame models that exist in some alternate NBA (virtual) reality.

Live is now the one coming close to a photoreal look. Less visible joins and edges on the polys, a much more natural skin tone, more realistic facial expressions (again, it's like you described the opposite with your facial animation comment, I had to scroll through multiple frames for the 2K shots because their weird open mouths made them all look weird) and a slightly more 'alive' look to them, whereas 2K (the Curry and Westbrook pics especially) look like uncanny valley models.

Again, I can see people will prefer one look over the other but just can't get my head around how anyone would look at the two and use the word photorealism to describe 2K.

[The 24th Letter]

Competition and Comparison thread.

Totally respect anyone preferring 2K over Live.



But I think you need to look up the word photorealism in the dictionary because what you've described is the opposite of what is going on in those two games.



2K create great videogame models that exist in some alternate NBA (virtual) reality.



Live is now the one coming close to a photoreal look. Less visible joins and edges on the polys, a much more natural skin tone, more realistic facial expressions (again, it's like you described the opposite with your facial animation comment, I had to scroll through multiple frames for the 2K shots because their weird open mouths made them all look weird) and a slightly more 'alive' look to them, whereas 2K (the Curry and Westbrook pics especially) look like uncanny valley models.



Again, I can see people will prefer one look over the other but just can't get my head around how anyone would look at the two and use the word photorealism to describe 2K.

Don't need to look up anything in the dictionary. It's just my opinion, you may want to look that word up though. Not to mention how you hand picked the shots from 2k....I see the Live shots are all from great angles, and have the sweat effect going for extra emphasis. Picking a cover boy who was scanned vs. a obviously not scanned model. Where's the AD/Harden comparison?

You look at that 15/16 YouTube comparison video in the Live forum and some of the players look god awful in 16 from the way they were captured...so it definitely plays a part

I already know you think Lives models and graphics and generally everything else are the greatest of all time.....I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you.

Just my opinion...ill post some comparison shots on an even playing field later...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[magicman32]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

I prefer 2k also. Overall Players look more life like. I'm talking faces and body. I think Live's faces for the most part are really good, but the bodies' and player models are not my taste. A lot of the models in live look like body builders and it looks a little more cartoony.

[iLLWiLL]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

I'd give Live the edge. It fits my interpretation of photo-realism.

That said, once things get ta movin', 2K is better. I wouldn't be surprised if 2K had 3-4 times more animations than Live does.

And I used to not understand why people would say "Live doesn't look as good when you're playing it". But I see it now. It probably is merely due to the gameplay cameras being so far back and the players looking so small on the court. But with 2K the players still look sharp and you can still see the details like skin textures, muscles, light reflecting of players, hairstyles, etc. Not that these aren't visible in Live; it's just remains sharper in 2K.


Both games are graphically amazing. Both have their artistic styles, of which I am more of a fan of Live's. I said before, give me Live's graphics, and 2K's everything else, and I got the perfect basketball game.

[swac07]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Prefer 2k to be honest.

The player visuals seem aimed more at photorealism, while Live gives off more of a 'gamey' look...and I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion because I really like Live's art style...I also like their player models.

Faces are going to be hit and miss all around, but what sets 2k apart is when the faces start animating. Its not perfect but they improved upon it ten fold and I would like to the see Live do the same. It happens in both games, but I see more often in Live that the expression a player makes can completely take away from his likeness.

At the end of the day, they are two beautiful looking games and it will come down to your preference.

This....

Sent from my Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator using Tapatalk

[Calvenn]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Totally respect anyone preferring 2K over Live.

But I think you need to look up the word photorealism in the dictionary because what you've described is the opposite of what is going on in those two games.

2K create great videogame models that exist in some alternate NBA (virtual) reality.

Live is now the one coming close to a photoreal look. Less visible joins and edges on the polys, a much more natural skin tone, more realistic facial expressions (again, it's like you described the opposite with your facial animation comment, I had to scroll through multiple frames for the 2K shots because their weird open mouths made them all look weird) and a slightly more 'alive' look to them, whereas 2K (the Curry and Westbrook pics especially) look like uncanny valley models.

Again, I can see people will prefer one look over the other but just can't get my head around how anyone would look at the two and use the word photorealism to describe 2K.

This.

Love both but Live this year has that undeniable "it factor" if we are talking player models and overall graphics!

[Earl1963]

Competition and Comparison thread.

To me Live players look more photo realistic. Ask any professional artist. And Kyrie Irving looks insanely good in Live.


Sent using a telephone

[The 24th Letter]

Competition and Comparison thread.

"Ask any professional artist"

Like I said, both have their strengths

All about preference after that

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Earl1963]

Re: Competition and Comparison thread.

Not sure what's funny, but as a artist myself, Live is the look I want on my canvas for a realistic look.


Sent using a telephone