what version are you going to nba live 2004 for?

AND DON"T POST ANYMORE... I AIN'T HERE TO LECTURE YOU ON HOW TO READ ENGLISH, AND LEARN HOW TO ACCEPT TYPOS AND FEW GRAMMAR ERRORS.

Tour around EA... READ BETWEEN THE LINES... I MEANT THE WEBSITE! You must have been either under a rock, or a person with an IQ of a PIG.

Last edited by fvdmc on Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here is an additional back up that might shut your mouth, BISHI:
When computer games are made, they have to be made at a range where numerous people can purchase and play. If a game required a P4 and a Radeon 9800 Pro --HELL YEAH IT WOULD KICK ASS -- but think about how it would do out in the market? FREAKIN HORRIBLE. In other words, NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY IT; THUS, NO ONE WILL PURCHASE IT. Do you think a software compant would be willing to throw tons of money down the drain for no reason? HELL NO. Therefore, before the game is released, it is tested and rounded up. Testers and the developers MAKE SURE that it fits a range so majority of computer game consumers can purcahse it and play. I hope I made myself clear! If this does not sound persuasive, I advise you to contact EA yourself and ask.

That's hands down one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of. The only thing you got right is that a high end pc running a demanding game would not be good. But you see, THAT is why they allow you to turn down resolutions, change detail levels, etc, etc. SCALABILITY. Half life 2 will run at around 60fps on a Radeon 9800pro. That DOES NOT mean it will not run on a P3 1Ghz with a Geforce2mx. It just means the Geforce2mx ppl will run it at a lower resolution with LOTS of options turned off.

You dumb ass PARIAH! Call up EA yourself and ask you dumb FUCK. You'll be DEAD WRONG.

And you are abosolutely wrong about no one buying a game requiring a high end pc. At the time Unreal 1 was released the top of the line graphics card could only run it around 25fps. The game did awesome in sales still.
Quake3, the best graphics card at the time could barely break 30fps. It took the power of a Geforce2 to bring it to >60fps.
Games that push the envelope for technology will still do well. You missed the entire point that people can STILL PLAY THE GAME, ONLY NOT AT FULL DETAIL LEVELS WITH LOW END SYSTEMS.

You dumb ass PARIAH! Call up EA yourself and ask you dumb FUCK. You'll be DEAD WRONG.

I am not.
I don't need to ask EA. This is common sense in the computer world. And you don't have to call me a dumb fuck cuz i don't agree with you. Try to be more civilized.

And you are abosolutely wrong about no one buying a game requiring a high end pc. At the time Unreal 1 was released the top of the line graphics card could only run it around 25fps. The game did awesome in sales still.
Quake3, the best graphics card at the time could barely break 30fps. It took the power of a Geforce2 to bring it to >60fps.
Games that push the envelope for technology will still do well. You missed the entire point that people can STILL PLAY THE GAME, ONLY NOT AT FULL DETAIL LEVELS WITH LOW END SYSTEMS.

Hmm... that's called exaggeration. I'm curious, did you go to school?

And exactly waht am I saying is wrong? Let me ask you this, will YOU be able to play half life 2 on your rig when it comes out? I am assuming you don't have a P4 3.0Ghz with a 9800pro.

I have already CALLED EA... and they support my concept of console being better, graphic-wise. I have 100% True proof. And you, have an legitimate explanation, but it's not backed. SO NO.

And you are abosolutely wrong about no one buying a game requiring a high end pc. At the time Unreal 1 was released the top of the line graphics card could only run it around 25fps. The game did awesome in sales still.
Quake3, the best graphics card at the time could barely break 30fps. It took the power of a Geforce2 to bring it to >60fps.
Games that push the envelope for technology will still do well. You missed the entire point that people can STILL PLAY THE GAME, ONLY NOT AT FULL DETAIL LEVELS WITH LOW END SYSTEMS.

Hmm... that's called exaggeration. I'm curious, did you go to school?

What in my post was an exaggeration?
All of this is the blatant truth. You need to keep up more with what's going on.
Go to ANY hardware site. Hardocp, Tomshardware, Anandtech, etc.

I think.... you could say (and what EA said) the XBOX give out the best graphics ~~ because it need not to concern about the performance range.

But you couldn't say that all PC will kicked by the XBOX~
I think with a powerful PC (with Top GPU, CPU, etc) should have better graphics than XBOX~

You claimed why PC version always came out last, "... because EA is cutting out things and rounding things up so it fits all computer PERFORMANCE RANGES", that is what I disagree.

I think what they did is try to implement more possible combination of different hardware/classes of hardware. So that everyone can choose from a range of performance options.

But not what you said to cutting out something ~

Did you ever play the "TOMB RAIDER: The Angel of Darkness"??
there are plenty of options for you to select. The quality can be totally different between the lowest & highest settings.

All in All, i agree that XBOX should "AVERAGING" the best graphics. However, you can still taste better if you have a top PC ~

I have already CALLED EA... and they support my concept of console being better, graphic-wise. I have 100% True proof. And you, have an legitimate explanation, but it's not backed. SO NO.

What does calling eA have to do with anything? Are they god? Do you accpet everything they say with a blind eye? Does it MATTER what one of their unknowledgable sales ppl say? Learn to reason. They will spew out any garbage they want to make a sale.

And you are abosolutely wrong about no one buying a game requiring a high end pc. At the time Unreal 1 was released the top of the line graphics card could only run it around 25fps. The game did awesome in sales still.
Quake3, the best graphics card at the time could barely break 30fps. It took the power of a Geforce2 to bring it to >60fps.
Games that push the envelope for technology will still do well. You missed the entire point that people can STILL PLAY THE GAME, ONLY NOT AT FULL DETAIL LEVELS WITH LOW END SYSTEMS.

Hmm... that's called exaggeration. I'm curious, did you go to school?

What in my post was an exaggeration?
All of this is the blatant truth. You need to keep up more with what's going on.
Go to ANY hardware site. Hardocp, Tomshardware, Anandtech, etc.

HOLY COW!!! When I said NO BUYS THE GAME... that's when I meant exaggerated. For christ sake... take an online english COURSE OR SOMETHING AND THEN COME BACK. GEEEISH.

I think.... you could say (and what EA said) the XBOX give out the best graphics ~~ because it need not to concern about the performance range.

But you couldn't say that all PC will kicked by the XBOX~
I think with a powerful PC (with Top GPU, CPU, etc) should have better graphics than XBOX~

You claimed why PC version always came out last, "... because EA is cutting out things and rounding things up so it fits all computer PERFORMANCE RANGES", that is what I disagree.

I think what they did is try to implement more possible combination of different hardware/classes of hardware. So that everyone can choose from a range of performance options.

But not what you said to cutting out something ~

Did you ever play the "TOMB RAIDER: The Angel of Darkness"??
there are plenty of options for you to select. The quality can be totally different between the lowest & highest settings.

All in All, i agree that XBOX should "AVERAGING" the best graphics. However, you can still taste better if you have a top PC ~

Finally someone that knows something.

And you are abosolutely wrong about no one buying a game requiring a high end pc. At the time Unreal 1 was released the top of the line graphics card could only run it around 25fps. The game did awesome in sales still.
Quake3, the best graphics card at the time could barely break 30fps. It took the power of a Geforce2 to bring it to >60fps.
Games that push the envelope for technology will still do well. You missed the entire point that people can STILL PLAY THE GAME, ONLY NOT AT FULL DETAIL LEVELS WITH LOW END SYSTEMS.

Hmm... that's called exaggeration. I'm curious, did you go to school?

What in my post was an exaggeration?
All of this is the blatant truth. You need to keep up more with what's going on.
Go to ANY hardware site. Hardocp, Tomshardware, Anandtech, etc.

HOLY COW!!! When I said NO BUYS THE GAME... that's when I meant exaggerated. For christ sake... take an online english COURSE OR SOMETHING AND THEN COME BACK. GEEEISH.

I can't read your mind. Quote specific lines. How am i suppozed to knwo waht you're referring to in my post?

I have already CALLED EA... and they support my concept of console being better, graphic-wise. I have 100% True proof. And you, have an legitimate explanation, but it's not backed. SO NO.

What does calling eA have to do with anything? Are they god? Do you accpet everything they say with a blind eye? Does it MATTER what one of their unknowledgable sales ppl say? Learn to reason. They will spew out any garbage they want to make a sale.

Hmmm GOD??? AAAA they MADE THE GAME,a dn you think they're wrong.

I have already CALLED EA... and they support my concept of console being better, graphic-wise. I have 100% True proof. And you, have an legitimate explanation, but it's not backed. SO NO.

What does calling eA have to do with anything? Are they god? Do you accpet everything they say with a blind eye? Does it MATTER what one of their unknowledgable sales ppl say? Learn to reason. They will spew out any garbage they want to make a sale.

Hmmm GOD??? AAAA they MADE THE GAME,a dn you think they're wrong.

They may be right. But until you see the game you don't know. NBA Live 2003 on Xbox did not look better than PC. I 've played both. They are comparable in quality until you jack up the resolution and AA and AF on the pc.

Last edited by bishibashiboy on Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fvdmc,
I may be a little simple--but are you telling me that NBA Live 2004 for the x box will look better than the PC version? So, is the graphics chip in the x box better than a Geforce ti 4600 or an ati 9800? Are we talking about graphics or gameplay? Don't talk about the the quantum stuff, b/c that won't be out for awhile. Let's talk about Live 2004 now. I have played x box games, and I'm sorry--I don't know a lot of the cpu mumbo jumbo--but I know Madden 2004 at 1280X1024 (maxed out)looks a helluva lot better than Madden on my Xbox. Live 2003 pc on 1600X1200 maxed out looked a lot better than Live 2003 for the x box. That's what my eyes tell me. The gameplay was smooth in my opinion. Now, this might just be an opinion--you may just prefer x box graphics better (and that's cool) but to say it looks better than a maxed out PC version of the same game--I'll have to disagree with you there bro. Don't forget in the PC version we can patch different textures and better (higher resolution) faces. Now if this is a console argument, then YES, the x box has the best graphics vs the PS2 and gamecube.

But, I'll be more than happy to compare the pics when the game comes out b/c I'll have the x box version as well as the PC version.

This might just be a case of what we think looks good? Some people think Jay Lo looks good and some people think she's not all that. No one is right or wrong, it's who bangs that ass at the end of the night

I've play 2003 on PS2 and on an Alienware Radeon 9800 pro. They are very similar and you really can't tell. It's just that PS2 did not glich from rarely time to time. I have posted this WAT BACK when 2003 was coing out. If you do not believe, call EA up for yourself. Bishiboy, sorry if I got rude, but I'm sorry... YOU REALLY NEED TO IMPROVE ON YOUR READING COMPREHENSION. You would kill yourself reading Emily Dick.

Okay, forget this nonsense. It seems like we're getting NOWHERE. You believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I and EA believe.

Let's ends this RIGHT HERE........Good.

It's settled.

If I caused a raucous... my sincere apologies.

Last edited by fvdmc on Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Okay, forget this nonsense. It seems like we're getting NOWHERE. You believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I and EA believe.

Let's ends this RIGHT HERE........Good.

It's settled.

You really need to learn about what you're talking about before you type something. Nobody agrees with you here for good reason. Your points don't make sense.

Okay, forget this nonsense. It seems like we're getting NOWHERE. You believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I and EA believe.

Let's ends this RIGHT HERE........Good.

It's settled.

You really need to learn about what you're talking about before you type something. Nobody agrees with you here for good reason. Your points don't make sense.

You really have to learn how to read. How come everyone here was able to interpret my "confusing" sentences, except you?

Okay, forget this nonsense. It seems like we're getting NOWHERE. You believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I and EA believe.

Let's ends this RIGHT HERE........Good.

It's settled.

You really need to learn about what you're talking about before you type something. Nobody agrees with you here for good reason. Your points don't make sense.

You really have to learn how to read. How come everyone here was able to interpret my "confusing" sentences, except you?

I can read perfectly fine. If i'm discussing something i want to make sure i know what the other person is talking about and not assume. I'm sorry if I can't understand all the stuff you said. It was just so mindboggingly wrong in my opinion.

OK OK OK...Whooooo I forgot context clue from here to there. But that's how sentences are structured. This way, the thoughts you try to convey isn't 243267 pages long.

This is where you have to be watchful and coloquial.

Bishi... I'm getting tired. Please, end this nonsense. I was up at 96 post at the beginning. Look at my posts tracking NOW! lol

Trust me, I know how to write. I work at my school (NYU) as a writer.
Going on that statement you made about my writing stunk here: of sourse it does, why in the world would I try to be grammatically correct here? All the viewer needs are FEW context clues. It's a "I got that, good, thanks for ther info" kind og thing.

Last edited by fvdmc on Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

one more thing,
would it be possible that the XBOX version is the most profitable version ??

maybe that's why the sales guy told you that the XBOX one is the best~

OK OK OK...Whooooo I forgot context clue from here to there. But that's how sentences are structured. This way, the thoughts you try to convey isn't 243267 pages long.

This is where you have to be watchful and coloquial.

Bishi... I'm getting tried. Please, end this nonsense. I was up at 96 post at the beginning. Look at my posts tracking NOW! lol

Listen to me. I have no english problems whatsoever. Asking for clarification in a post is nothing new, especially when it relates to hardware related topics.
And about what you said about "no one buying the game". Did you even read my post? I know you didn't figuratively mean no one will buy it. I said Unreal 1 still had GOOD SALES despite what you think taht high end games never sell.

I can stop whenever you want. I just don't think you think you knew what you're talking about, and you still don't. I don't need to call EA to ask them anything. They know nothing. You think the peole you speak to are the people that develop the game? You're talking to the Q and A people that take your calls, not the head developer. Q and A people know NOTHING.

one more thing,
would it be possible that the XBOX version is the most profitable version ??

maybe that's why the sales guy told you that the XBOX one is the best~

Nah i doubt it. Last I saw X-box sales were terrible.