Just a thought Anyone worried about the game requirements?

[Malakai 2001]

I was wondering because it seems to me that last years game engine wasn't all that great. When the game demo came out last year I just knew that when the full game came out it the engine would be better tweaked but it wasn't.

I never really could understand why last year I could run Madden at 1600x1200 @32bit and it would run fine but if I tried to do the same with Live my computer would skip frames. I know its time for me to upgrade my video card (Geforce 3 Ti 500) but Damn.. I know my computer will far surpass the minimum requirements for the game but I at least wanna play the game at 1280x1024 maxed out.

I'm definately gonna upgrade my vid card but probably not at least until Live or HL2 or Doom comes out. Whichever one comes out first. I'll probably go with the Nvidia 5900 but I just cant see myself paying 500 bucks for a video card. I really just hope that they didn't forget about the game engine while they were adding all the new stuff I dunno maybe I'll wait for the demo and judge from that.

It just seems to baffle me that I can run Madden and damn near all these first person shooters on my computer great but when it comes to Live its never quite right. I always have to turn some details down. I dont know maybe its just basketball games. I think if EA put as much work into Live as they do in Madden I wouldn't be having these problems.

Heres my specs:
Pentium 4 2.4g
512 megs 333mhz memory
GForce 3 ti 500

[malice_05]

Do you really think a Live 2004 would require more than that
Cmon now.
It might not even require 1 Ghz.

[AznBBoyX]

I also seriously hope they change the graphics engine. The graphics engine for Live 2003 is horrible and inefficient. There is no way that I can run Madden 2003 silky smooth at 1024 x768 res with 100+ fps and yet can hardly run 2003 at 800 x 600 at 60 fps with some of the details turned off.

[Malakai 2001]

Do you really think a Live 2004 would require more than that
Cmon now.
It might not even require 1 Ghz.

Yeah but thats just the thing I was talkin about it might not require a 1Ghz processor, It might even let u play the game with a Geforce 2 but if u wanna play the game the way its meant to be played U would have to have much more. I believe that if you have the recomended requirements you should be able to Max out the game and still get respectable framerates and by respectable I mean at least 60 fps.

I reallly think the game engine sux. If its the same engine as last year I'll have to get a new video card. I don't see whats the big deal basketball only has 10 people on the floor to draw and football has up to 22 or more including refs and sideline objects. I hope people realize that when your computer skips frames ur missing animation and the game doesnt play as smooth. I have the game for Ps2 and the PC and there is a HUGE difference.

[nickia]

get a ATI card,it's much better than nvidia cards

[Andrew]

The minimum requirements shouldn't be much higher than NBA Live 2003, but for the best performance with maximum detail settings, you'll need a pretty good PC to say the least.

[kume]

NBA Live works better with ATi cards...numbers of posts have proved this before.
I can't really remember what's the reason...(I think it was caused by pixel shader?)

Sorry to tell that if the sluggish performance was caused by the game itself(perhaps bad programming and lack of optimization. As you know, Live series were presented on console and PC, different platforms need different setting), you could not get a smooth gameplay even with a monster PC.
I have said before, a 2200+ cpu+512MB RAM and Ti4200 display can't even let me play the game in "High"(yeah, high, not maximum) detail smoothly. In a half-court offense, the fps dropped to about 30-40 (counted by fraps)

[bishibashiboy]

Yeah the programming was pretty pathetic in this game. It ran at around 30-40fps on MAX on mine too, which is absolutely unacceptable. There's no reason why UT2003 runs better than Live 2003, when Live is definitely inferior graphically.
The biggest fear I have about Live 2004 is that they might use some dx9 features on top of their horribly unoptimized engine which almost certainly means you'll want a radeon 9700 and up in order to play the game at high frame rates. I doubt my 9500pro and xp1800+ will cut it at MAX details as well.

btw, if I were you Malakai 2001, I'd suggest that you get the Ati Radeon 9700 pro or 9800 pro instead of the GeforceFX. Don't be fooled by the FX's seemingly better benchmarks than the 9800pro. They're both around equal in performance while the Radeon gives better AA quality. It's also well known that Nvidia had blatantly cheated on many benchmarks (most notably 3dmark03) to skew their numbers. If image quality and games other than Doom3 concern you, get an Ati card. And according to Valve, HL2 ONLY runs with FSAA on ati cards, and there is no workaround for nvidia cards, until the nv40 comes out.

[Malakai 2001]

Thanx man lots of ggod info. I know its gonna be a while b4 I do anything though. What u guys think about the deal EA struck up with Nvidia supposedly the games are gonna be optimized for Nvidia based cards. These video cards are getting outrageous with the prices. A few months ago I bought a new CPU doubling my clock speed a new motherboard and 512 megs of memory and I didn't even spend close to 500 dollars. Now if I wanna get the newest vid card I'd have to come off another 500 bucks. I probably shoulda kept my 1.2 Athlon and just bought me a 9800 back then.

[bishibashiboy]

Thanx man lots of ggod info. I know its gonna be a while b4 I do anything though. What u guys think about the deal EA struck up with Nvidia supposedly the games are gonna be optimized for Nvidia based cards.

wow really?..nvidia and EA???..first i've heard of it!..do you have a link to the official statement? This I have to see to believe!

These video cards are getting outrageous with the prices. A few months ago I bought a new CPU doubling my clock speed a new motherboard and 512 megs of memory and I didn't even spend close to 500 dollars. Now if I wanna get the newest vid card I'd have to come off another 500 bucks.

Yeah i know what you mean about the cost of cards these days. My r9500 pro costed me $300 CAD at the beginning of summer, and this is just to get semi-decent performance. It's sad when you can buy almost 2 17-inch monitors for the price of one lousy graphics card.

I probably shoulda kept my 1.2 Athlon and just bought me a 9800 back then.

Oh..and of course, the big problem with not upgrading is that you can't see the full benefit of these new cards w/o the fastest processors since your CPU will begin to bottleneck your system despite your super fast 9800pro or 5900ultra.
I hate the technology curve.

[kume]

Yeah, I also heard about the deal between EA and nVidia...through I cant get any proof by now(actually, I just remember I have heard the news few months ago)

However, never treat that kind of "deal" seriously. For me, it is nothing more than promotion tricks of these two companies.

[Malakai 2001]

Heres a link
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/n ... deal.shtml

[bishibashiboy]

Heres a link
http://www.megagames.com/news/html/pc/n ... deal.shtml

ahhh crap...
I hate Nvidia.
My card better not run like crap in Live 2004.

[emadhn15]

yeah, I had Geforce 2 last year and worked like crap on NBA Live 2003, but I bought a new one, Radeon 7000 (or 7500 [cant remember]) and its working more than perfect,,, so I advice anyone to buy Radeon over Geforce,,,