[o Elevate o]

Quote: Originally Posted by o Elevate o

I was thinking the same thing. 2K goes for the more broadcast graphical look, while Live has the "on-court" or "in-person" look. That doesn't look BAD. But I think people are expecting a more "photorealistic" graphical style going into next-gen gaming. Live's graphics look really detailed, but it's like it's almost SO detailed it begins to look fake, and LOOK like a video game. Hopefully, Live goes for photorealism or a "broadcast" look in the future.

Quote: Originally Posted by JBulls

lol wut.

LOL, that's why I usually preview what I post before I post it. I don't really know how to explain what I was trying to say, so I thought I said it as best I could. (No, I was not high or drunk).

But to me, Live puts a lot of detail in their graphics, but they don't balance it out to look natural, or what you would see in a picture or on TV. I don't know, compare 2k's in-game Dwight to Live's, and compare both to a real picture of Dwight. You can look at Live and tell it's a video game. 2k's next-gen graphics looks like the real thing sometimes.

And I'm not saying Live looks bad, they just have a different way of going about their graphics, as others have said.