what version are you going to nba live 2004 for?

Exactly, except i have 2 different sets of friends who play live. My roomates who I play a franchise with, we use the PC for obvious reasons. The x box version is for "the fellas" just chillin and talking sh!t all night.

But as far as people getting a ps2 and an x box version, i guess that doesn't make sense.

On a side-note, I was just wondering why people like to buy multiple versions of the game for different platforms? Like why would anyone buy both the PS2 version and the X-box?

I buy the PC version for single player games and patchmaking. I buy the PS2 version for two player games.

Hey you know, that's not a bad idea. I just never thought about it that way. All I need now is a PS2.

Nah, stuff that. I'll stick to the PC version.

I'm glad that you guys settled that flame with the help of Andrew...i didn't even notice it before while browsing this forum so often.

PC version for me...cause the pc version has the higher resolution and the ability to be patched up. Simply because it can be patched (some patches are better than the element is replaces in the game) i say that live 2004 pc will have better graphics than any console version.

Sure the console versions has the higher and more stable fps...but the we get better graphics...and imo 30+ fps is fine for any game.

All I can say is that on a top of the line computer with all graphics cards and everything up to date, it looks a lot clearer and smoother then on any console I've seen.

I have taken a tour of EA fvdmc, and I don;t know what the hell you're talking about by finding out how many frames there are. You can't see any of that shit and all the workers get pissed off if you disrupt them.

When I meant tour, I meant in general; EA websites, and facilities. I have talked with the developers, and what I got out is that console are generally better in graphics. They also told me that this will change as time passes.

Graphic wise -- PC might look better because of resolution. But place that at normal range, which is about 800 X 600. PS2 looks better at that. It's just that console doesn't have a resolution option, but general... graphics are better. I have tested 2003 2001 and etc on console and PC. PC has a brighter atmosphere with smoother models, but the isn't smooth (Frame) as PS2.

Alternatively, RTCW (Return to castle wolfenstein). This game was originally released for PC only. And yes, the graphic KICKS with a good graphic card. Recently, a console version was release. The console is not only smoother but was much more successful when being sold to consumers.

On a side-note, I was just wondering why people like to buy multiple versions of the game for different platforms? Like why would anyone buy both the PS2 version and the X-box?

I buy the PC version for single player games and patchmaking. I buy the PS2 version for two player games.

Few people here in the forum are extremely bias. I have talked with an EA representive, and here is how it went:

Me: I am looking forward for the upcoming NBA LIVE, and you guys at EA have done a great job thus far. I was wondering, I have a PC downstairs, a bit old, but wonder if it work with NBA LIVE 2004.
EA: Can you give me the specification of the machine.
---I gave it to him--
EA: The processor is fine, but the graphic card might be dragging a bit.
Me: Really? I was really wanting to have two computers working and running for NBA live 2004 so I can play against my friend, etc. on LAN.
EA: Do you have XBOX?
Me: As a matter of a fact, yes.
EA: Try Nba live 2004 on Xbox. Xbox has internet capabilities,and the best thing is that you don't have to be squished in one sit playing on one keyboard. ::laughter::
Me: I know that, but I want a version that would give me the best graphics.
EA: Graphics? Xbox is good as PC.
Me: Really?
EA: Actually, console tend to be better because PC is performance ranged. Which means that PC is rounded up so it fits all PCs.
Me: Don't we have graphic options?
EA: yeah, but even with all the settings maxed out, it isn't exactly up there with console. The models might look drastically sharper, but overall... no. Take a look at IGN ratings. What I meant there was: When all are maxed out, it tends to be somewhat unstable. It is sharp and clean, but it glitches from here to there. I personally have tested NBA Live 2004 on a top end PC, and didn't get much out as a console offered. But I assure you that PC is still great in graphic, but this will change as time passes. Also don't forget, console seems to be more fun to play with. Only downfall is that it is tedious trying to create players and modifying teams.
Me: cool. Console is cool, but it's just more expensive. Can you give me a discount since I called?
EA: Aaaaaa... No. Sorry
Me: Hahahaha... j/k. Thanks for the help.

I hereby declare that all of the following quotes were true. FVDMC
And to clear up that I also support PC: PC will take a bit time to ensure supremacy over console. (Prices are falling baby!)

Random thought: Don't you think it would be cool if there was NBA Live-- virtual reality. lol

To Bishiboy: Take my sincere apology, but you have to admit it. The posting was not confusing, just loaded with mistakes. If you could not understand my posting, Fitagerald would discombobulate you to death. ::joke::

Last edited by fvdmc on Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ That is the biggest piece of shit i ever read why in the blue hell would the ea sports guy say do you have a x-box what the fuck. If you have a regular tv the higest refresh rate is 50mhz that means the game could only run at 50mhz and at 520* 520 resolution ( u an pretty sure most people don t have a Plasma tv or lcd tv, that would be different) An average pc with 1.5 Ghz with a gf4 ti would run better than x-box IMO post your theory at www.guru3d.com/forums and look at your ass get sooooooooo embarresd LMFAO

^ That is the biggest piece of shit i ever read why in the blue hell would the ea sports guy say do you have a x-box what the fuck. If you have a regular tv the higest refresh rate is 50mhz that means the game could only run at 50mhz and at 520* 520 resolution ( u an pretty sure most people don t have a Plasma tv or lcd tv, that would be different) An average pc with 1.5 Ghz with a gf4 ti would run better than x-box IMO post your theory at www.guru3d.com/forums and look at your ass get sooooooooo embarresd LMFAO

Naw... I bet you saw bigger ones in your toilet.
I have excluded few quotes... He asked about console first. Then we got into Xbox. Take it easy. No one is dying if someone is wrong. I advise you to solve some issues you migth have unresolved.

I am not stating theories HERE. I'm posting what EA said. If it's wrong, don't blame me, blame the rep.

Last edited by fvdmc on Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

^please dont be Mad just cause you dont have a high end pc and could only afford an x-box

^please dont be Mad just cause you dont have a high end pc and could only afford an x-box

I have a 2.4 GHZ and GF3... hmmm reconsider.

Don't jump to conclusion. And no... you lost this figh so badly. Finally, don't ry to think of a comeback. B/c they'll suck and you'll just make a complete fool out of yourself. Just sit back and EXPLODED... after that, pull yourself together.

Again... I am not stating theories. Just a messenger here.

You're wrong about the money part. I have enough money to buy you and your toilet to force you to believe that your shit is hell of a lot rancid and bigger. lol ::joking::

Oh no.
here we go again.

I'll try to refrain from posting after i type this because i just don't want ppl to think this is still a flame war because it is not. I just think there needs to be corrections in what fvdmc stated:

Firstly, a P4 2.4Ghz is fine. A GF3 is not. It is quite outdated now so what I will say is that if you think that is high end, then you are mistaken. A Radeon 9100 is around comparable to a GF3 Ti200 and retails for a mere $60 US. In your system, the GF3 is a huge graphics bottleneck for your system. A P4 3.0Ghz coupled with a Radeon 9700 and up is what most people consider high end and is what I would recommend if you want to compare top of the line graphics on a PC to anything else. So IMHO, your system is not high end at all due to the graphics bottleneck. I know this for a fact. Compare numbers in benchmarks if you have to.

Next, what you siad about people playing on 800x600 being normal range is not true. The MINIMUM most people play on now is 1024x768 unless their computers are stone age style: P3 500 with a geforce2mx400. People with high end pc's play at no less than 1280x1024 with 4XAA and at least 4XAF.
Your statement that PS2's look better than even 800x600 on a pc is false as well. A TV cannot even display at that resolution first of all, so it's getting owned in that department. And second, as I said, no one plays at that resolution on a pc anymore, and cannot be called 'average' by today's standards. Lastly, if you try playing GTA: VC and compare both the ps2 versions and pc versions, you'll see just how bad the ps2's graphics are. Blurry and CAPPED at 30fps on this game anyways. My low end pc with an athlon xp 1800+ and radeon 9500pro can play that game at 1280x1024, 4XAA 16XAF at ~50fps constantly. Taht is more than a ps2 can ever do. Keep in mind my pc is not nearly considered high end.

Finally, I just want to comment on your performance range argument on a pc.
What you said is true to some extent: games need to be optimized to take advantage of all ranges of speeds of computers and graphics cards.
Where you are wrong in the argument is when you say that THIS is the reason that pc versions of games will look worse. I think you are mistaken in your understanding of how performance ranges work. This is how it works:
When EA tells you that they produce a game for all ranges of computers they do so by allowing customizability of graphics detail options so that all types of computers can run the game at a decent speed; NOT that they chop off the extra details so low end computers can play. That is the ONLY reason why they let you adjust shadows, reflections etc from low med and high. They know that not everyone can play at max details so to implement a "performance range" for the game, they allow people with lower end computers to turn down graphics quality in exchange for framerate. THIS is how pc games are normally created. A high end pc with a good graphics card has to make no such compromise however, and tehrefore can play at max details which the x-box version runs at while maintaining equal if not superior framerates. In the end, all you need is 60-70fps since the human eye cannot distinguish beyond that. That is smoothness. I honestly believe that an apples to apples comparison of the x-box version (that obviously runs at max details) vs a P4 3.0ghz radeon 9800pro (on max details) will be comparable in framerate and image quality. Why can an x-box compete still? It's because the console is a dedicated machine, so yes it is faster than the average Geforce4 Ti4200 overall, but NO it is not faster than the fastest cards out now. In the end, the reason I give the edge to the pc for most games is because of two things:

1. Increase in resolution (up to 1600x1200)
2. 6XAntialiasing and 16XAnisotropic filtering

Neither of which are possible at high levels on the x-box.

Don't get me wrong, the X-box is a good console and is very capable graphically. But compared to new graphics cards and new computers it is out-dated. All you have to do is look at the specs and you know how behind it is compared to the new technology curve.
So really, the only time an X-box will have better framerates AND image quality is if you're comparing it to a low or mid-range PC that CANNOT display the game at max details.

What EA said might be true that the pc one is "unstable". Drivers need to be optimized before they run perfectly. This is one area the x-box has an advantage in.

In terms of quality of textures and sharpness, I don't know if EA can really say they can't get as much out of a pc as an x-box. Personally, I think the people at EA can't program a game and make it run properly on a pc; as evidenced by the horrendous framerates we get in nba live 2003. PC hardware is capable of better. Whether or not EA can pull it off is another story. That is why I take their comments with a grain of salt, and why I don't think your interview with EA means much. Another reason is because you said you spoke with an EA rep, NOT their developers/coders. That is a big difference there. People in the PR department don't know what they're talking about most of the time.

Sorry for the really really long post. And sorry Andrew if you think this is starting a flame war again. That is not my intention at all.

oh and fvdmc, for the last time i have nothing against your english skills in your post. I just had an issue with THE CONTENT in your post.

ps. notice i did not put down any members in my post. It is civilized and as concise as I can make it. As I said before, I have no intention to flame, just discuss and point out mistakes when they are present.

Have a nice day.

^ Thank you,


fuck off fmdmc

Oh no.
here we go again.

I'll try to refrain from posting after i type this because i just don't want ppl to think this is still a flame war because it is not. I just think there needs to be corrections in what fvdmc stated:

Firstly, a P4 2.4Ghz is fine. A GF3 is not. It is quite outdated now so what I will say is that if you think that is high end, then you are mistaken. A Radeon 9100 is around comparable to a GF3 Ti200 and retails for a mere $60 US. In your system, the GF3 is a huge graphics bottleneck for your system. A P4 3.0Ghz coupled with a Radeon 9700 and up is what most people consider high end and is what I would recommend if you want to compare top of the line graphics on a PC to anything else. So IMHO, your system is not high end at all due to the graphics bottleneck. I know this for a fact. Compare numbers in benchmarks if you have to.

Next, what you siad about people playing on 800x600 being normal range is not true. The MINIMUM most people play on now is 1024x768 unless their computers are stone age style: P3 500 with a geforce2mx400. People with high end pc's play at no less than 1280x1024 with 4XAA and at least 4XAF.
Your statement that PS2's look better than even 800x600 on a pc is false as well. A TV cannot even display at that resolution first of all, so it's getting owned in that department. And second, as I said, no one plays at that resolution on a pc anymore, and cannot be called 'average' by today's standards. Lastly, if you try playing GTA: VC and compare both the ps2 versions and pc versions, you'll see just how bad the ps2's graphics are. Blurry and CAPPED at 30fps on this game anyways. My low end pc with an athlon xp 1800+ and radeon 9500pro can play that game at 1280x1024, 4XAA 16XAF at ~50fps constantly. Taht is more than a ps2 can ever do. Keep in mind my pc is not nearly considered high end.

Finally, I just want to comment on your performance range argument on a pc.
What you said is true to some extent: games need to be optimized to take advantage of all ranges of speeds of computers and graphics cards.
Where you are wrong in the argument is when you say that THIS is the reason that pc versions of games will look worse. I think you are mistaken in your understanding of how performance ranges work. This is how it works:
When EA tells you that they produce a game for all ranges of computers they do so by allowing customizability of graphics detail options so that all types of computers can run the game at a decent speed; NOT that they chop off the extra details so low end computers can play. That is the ONLY reason why they let you adjust shadows, reflections etc from low med and high. They know that not everyone can play at max details so to implement a "performance range" for the game, they allow people with lower end computers to turn down graphics quality in exchange for framerate. THIS is how pc games are normally created. A high end pc with a good graphics card has to make no such compromise however, and tehrefore can play at max details which the x-box version runs at while maintaining equal if not superior framerates. In the end, all you need is 60-70fps since the human eye cannot distinguish beyond that. That is smoothness. I honestly believe that an apples to apples comparison of the x-box version (that obviously runs at max details) vs a P4 3.0ghz radeon 9800pro (on max details) will be comparable in framerate and image quality. Why can an x-box compete still? It's because the console is a dedicated machine, so yes it is faster than the average Geforce4 Ti4200 overall, but NO it is not faster than the fastest cards out now. In the end, the reason I give the edge to the pc for most games is because of two things:

1. Increase in resolution (up to 1600x1200)
2. 6XAntialiasing and 16XAnisotropic filtering

Neither of which are possible at high levels on the x-box.

Don't get me wrong, the X-box is a good console and is very capable graphically. But compared to new graphics cards and new computers it is out-dated. All you have to do is look at the specs and you know how behind it is compared to the new technology curve.
So really, the only time an X-box will have better framerates AND image quality is if you're comparing it to a low or mid-range PC that CANNOT display the game at max details.

What EA said might be true that the pc one is "unstable". Drivers need to be optimized before they run perfectly. This is one area the x-box has an advantage in.

In terms of quality of textures and sharpness, I don't know if EA can really say they can't get as much out of a pc as an x-box. Personally, I think the people at EA can't program a game and make it run properly on a pc; as evidenced by the horrendous framerates we get in nba live 2003. PC hardware is capable of better. Whether or not EA can pull it off is another story. That is why I take their comments with a grain of salt, and why I don't think your interview with EA means much. Another reason is because you said you spoke with an EA rep, NOT their developers/coders. That is a big difference there. People in the PR department don't know what they're talking about most of the time.

Sorry for the really really long post. And sorry Andrew if you think this is starting a flame war again. That is not my intention at all.

oh and fvdmc, for the last time i have nothing against your english skills in your post. I just had an issue with THE CONTENT in your post.

ps. notice i did not put down any members in my post. It is civilized and as concise as I can make it. As I said before, I have no intention to flame, just discuss and point out mistakes when they are present.

Have a nice day.

lol You have too much time in your hands.
If you really didn't care about what people have say that might be "wrong", why do you continue to write. Just forget about it. No hard feelings man.

All I want to say is this. Maybe you missed this post. I have said that I am not posting theories. I am simple reporting what EA said. I am a computer game enthusiast, like all of you guys. Bihis, if it's not much read the conversation I had with the EA rep. I'm no outcast here, just a messenger.

Last edited by fvdmc on Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

^ Thank you,


fuck off fmdmc

Thank you for the comment. I really appreciate it. lol

lol You have too much time in your hands.
If you really didn't care about what people have say that might be "wrong", why do you continue to write. Just forget about it. No hard feelings man.

Actually yes I do have a lot of time on my hands at the moment.
Actually that thing i typed took around 5-7 mins at the most.
And i never said i didn't care if people said wrong stuff. I said if somebody posts something that i think is wrong i will correct it.

All I want to say is this. Maybe you missed this post. I have said that I am not posting theories. I am simple reporting what EA said. I am a computer game enthusiast, like all of you guys. Bihis, if it's not much read the conversation I had with the EA rep. I'm no outcast here, just a messenger.

Yeah i know, but I just don't think the rep you talked to has any clue that's all. No hard feelings intended either.

all i can see in the conversation is that the EA rep trying to sale/promote the console rather than the pc one.

i was suprised that he gave u all the POSSIBLE drawbacks of a PC version and keep promoting the XBOX one

this strengthen my thought that a Concole version is more profitable than PC.

all i can see in the conversation is that the EA rep trying to sale/promote the console rather than the pc one.

i was suprised that he gave u all the POSSIBLE drawbacks of a PC version and keep promoting the XBOX one

this strengthen my thought that a Concole version is more profitable than PC.

Why promote console over PC? They make money either way.

all i can see in the conversation is that the EA rep trying to sale/promote the console rather than the pc one.

i was suprised that he gave u all the POSSIBLE drawbacks of a PC version and keep promoting the XBOX one

this strengthen my thought that a Concole version is more profitable than PC.

Why promote console over PC? They make money either way.

we really don't know how their business, right?
we don't know how big the money they can take from PC or console. It's just what i think .

i can't remeber the reason why EA didn't develop Live 2002 for PC but if it's that profitable, why they would give up the chance to make money??

It's business, all EA want is the MONEY $$ ~

It's business, all EA want is the MONEY $$ ~

Everybody loves money! Who doesn't!?!?!