testing people's biases on nba live......

If you're playing it on your PC, then I understand, but I played both on console and I found it to be comparing Vermont maple syrup(ESPN) and Aunt Jemima syrup(Live) -- there's just no turning back until you taste the real thing. That was just my opinion.

Gut and Metsis -- that's not how they look! FACT! Stop giving these bullshit screens. In fact, if you were to look more through the Gamespot screens instead of choosing the first and worst one's you could find, you would find some in-game screenshots that do look more like what they'd resemble on a television screen. Whether you have an HDTV or not, I'm telling you that that's not how they look.

It's the way they look on a HIGH RESOLUTION PC SCREEN! On the telly they look better and that is due to the lower resolution. Lower res gives up space for some graphical errors etc, but if you get a game and play it on 640x480 (TV resolution) and then crank it to 1024x768, you'll see the difference and 1024x768 res ain't even that high. My CPU monitor is running on something like 2000x1500 resolution and on that any television screen would look like it was made with legos.

I haven't digged those pics from anywhere... I'm just commenting on them. Something smooth and sharp looking on the television is certainly never that on a PC screen. Unless you have one of those mid-80's PCs...

forgot to post the links:

ESPN screenshots on gamespy:
http://media.xbox.gamespy.com/media/552 ... mgs_1.html

ESPN screenshots on gamespot:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/sports/nba ... index.html

ESPN screenshots on IGN:
http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/552/552377/imgs_1.html

which one shows the best ??

IGN shows the best. Check out the 24/7 screens. That's how it looks.

I took a look at thoe IGN pics and they just suck... Damn body models are from hell and player have no necks etc... It just ain't good.

But what can you expect from consoles... Pretty much nothing else.

And most of the moves look horrible that are pictured on those screens. But it's still amazing that some pictures look better than others??? I wonder why...

PC is the ultimate gaming device if you want Graphics... If you don't settle for a console, but don't come here saying that this console game has godly graphics as each and every PC games knows it doesn't. Every console game has bad graphics... And that's just a fact.

So this is actually quite a moot thread. BOTH SUCK! If we had a basketball game that was PC only, then you'd all see the difference between REAL GRAPHICAL POWER and console shitty images.

it's a no win batle gloveguy, just give it up. If i took an actually gameshot from a real game and said that this was from sega and compared it to live, they would still think live was better because they have to run it through their individiual filter where it makes everything look better than it really is. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the graphics for live last year sucked and epsn's were incredible and that's why almost every single review had it rated a lot higher and graphics, that's not my view, that's a fact! Look it up guys. Man talk about stubborn. I have played live on PC and it does look a little better than on console, but still not enough for me to think it looks good.

Yes, i don't care what they look like. LIVE IS ALWAYS THE BEST!!!


god, get a life kid. You lost the battle. Now leave.

Is it just me, or is Scottie Pippen on steroids in http://media.xbox.ign.com/media/552/552377/imgs_1.html ?

lmao they tried to make pippen look like a thug. lol he looks like he should be in gtasa now instead of a basketball game.

You're clearly as biased as we are, you simply favour the other game. In any event, whether or not ESPN's graphics are better or not doesn't matter to us because we are familiar with and enjoy NBA Live's gameplay. That is the basis for our bias.

I'm new to the forum and I respect everyone's opinions, so here's mine. First off, if you like NBA Live then then that's ok, but if you like ESPN, then that's ok also. I've been with EA Sports since Lakers vs. Celtic and I am a true EA Sports fan, but a couple of years ago when I saw NBA 2K, I thought that is was the best basketball game ever made because the graphic were outstanding and it played well (though it had many flaws). Over the years, now called ESPN Basketball, the graphics have gotten better but the gameplay and player movement has gotten worse year after year. Don't get me wrong, it has some nice features in the game and the graphics are out of this world, but once those players start moving, it's just down hill from there. Not that everything moves bad, but most of the time the players move very awkward and stiff. Now NBA Live has the best gameplay (I think) but EA Sports has to really step up there game and get the graphics to a point to where you can tell that it's next generation graphics. A couple of things that really bother me about NBA Lives graphics are the scale of the players and their detail. From what I've seen so far, NBA Live 2005 has greatly improved the players faces, but to me, the body types look a little skinny and non-athletic. I just read a post about "short arms." I'll have to check that out when I get off work. I hope they fix that though. When all is said and done there are things that I like and dislike about both games. If I had to make the choice though, I would have to go with NBA Live because I'm a person that would rather have better gameplay with sub-par graphics than sub-par gameplay with better graphics. Thank you (Sorry for the lengthy post) Take care y'all.

I'm new to the forum and I respect everyone's opinions, so here's mine. First off, if you like NBA Live then then that's ok, but if you like ESPN, then that's ok also. I've been with EA Sports since Lakers vs. Celtic and I am a true EA Sports fan, but a couple of years ago when I saw NBA 2K, I thought that is was the best basketball game ever made because the graphic were outstanding and it played well (though it had many flaws). Over the years, now called ESPN Basketball, the graphics have gotten better but the gameplay and player movement has gotten worse year after year. Don't get me wrong, it has some nice features in the game and the graphics are out of this world, but once those players start moving, it's just down hill from there. Not that everything moves bad, but most of the time the players move very awkward and stiff. Now NBA Live has the best gameplay (I think) but EA Sports has to really step up there game and get the graphics to a point to where you can tell that it's next generation graphics. A couple of things that really bother me about NBA Lives graphics are the scale of the players and their detail. From what I've seen so far, NBA Live 2005 has greatly improved the players faces, but to me, the body types look a little skinny and non-athletic. I just read a post about "short arms." I'll have to check that out when I get off work. I hope they fix that though. When all is said and done there are things that I like and dislike about both games. If I had to make the choice though, I would have to go with NBA Live because I'm a person that would rather have better gameplay with sub-par graphics than sub-par gameplay with better graphics. Thank you (Sorry for the lengthy post) Take care y'all.

Wussup Rich! No need to apologize for a lengthy post if it offers intelligent insight and critical commentary.

You just told my whole story in a nutshell. I too have been with them since Lakers vs. Celtics and joined forces with Visual Concepts in 2001 and 2002. Everything you said about VC focusing on graphical detail as opposed to fluid movement and gameplay is 100% correct.

To answer your question about EA Canada and their graphics I'd first have to ask if you're a Console gamer or a PC gamer? I'm assuming console like myself because I have yet to hear a PC gamer cite the graphics as a negative....

My answer is that with the limited amount of memory in our XBoxes, PS2s, and Gamecubes, it doesn't allow for EA Canada to go as far with Live's visuals as they'd really like to go with it. So instead of using that memory on high-resolution player's faces and the like they use it towards improving and tweaking the gameplay which I most definitely prefer.

My guess is that on the next-generation consoles we'll truly see what EA Canada can do with graphics, but in the mean time, I'm fine with the graphics and find them sufficient. Sure, I wouldn't mind more detail in that dept. but not at the expense of improved gameplay.

good explanation rich! All i'm trying to do is find out who thinks the graphics are better than sega last year for review purposes, because people that don't beleive the graphics are better on ESPN last year are obviously biased and I wont read their reviews. If people said what u said about how the graphics were not even close last year to ESPN but they liked nba live better because of the gameplay, I can respect that and read their reviews. But in most people's eyes(outside of this forum)it was like comparing night and day in the graphics dept btwn the games last year. Gameplay is relative and people all like different things and too each their own, but there should be no argument on graphics because that's purely visual! I just got done playing both years versions again on my xbox and there is no comparison in that dept. Everyone has their own opinion on what they like in a basketball game and to me graphics=realism and with epsn's good(not great like EA's)gameplay,it makes it a lot more fun for me to play. I can't get past the graphics on EA. That's just me! Yes the gameplay is better because they have more moves and crossovers etc., but that's it! People that think ESPN's animations aren't as smooth as EA's last year, needs to look again. There's a couple animations on Live last year that look awful! Like the one-handed tomahawk dunk, it's missing about 20 frames of action, it starts off cocked back and then next animation is in the basket, but overall they are both smooth to me. Just one looks a lot better and that's the one I play ESPN! I know i've pissed a lot of you guys off because I have a completely oppostie opinon as most of you, but it's mine and it's the truth. All i'm asking for is that EA makes a game with enough realism in their graphics that makes me want to play it. I realize it will never be close to sega in that dept, but as long as sometimes on replays and gameplay I can at least see a resemblence to the actual players in real life, I will be happy this year with Live. But that's gonna take a lot of work to pull off. And i agree with Rich about they shouldn't advertise the "next-generation" graphics with graphics like they've been putting out. And for you PC guys, I just went over to my friends house and played it on PC and yes the graphics are better than xbox for that game, but not by much and saying something better than something that already sucks, isn't something to brag about

good explanation rich! All i'm trying to do is find out who thinks the graphics are better than sega last year for review purposes, because people that don't beleive the graphics are better on ESPN last year are obviously biased and I wont read their reviews. If people said what u said about how the graphics were not even close last year to ESPN but they liked nba live better because of the gameplay, I can respect that and read their reviews. But in most people's eyes(outside of this forum)it was like comparing night and day in the graphics dept btwn the games last year. Gameplay is relative and people all like different things and too each their own, but there should be no argument on graphics because that's purely visual! I just got done playing both years versions again on my xbox and there is no comparison in that dept. Everyone has their own opinion on what they like in a basketball game and to me graphics=realism and with epsn's good(not great like EA's)gameplay,it makes it a lot more fun for me to play. I can't get past the graphics on EA. That's just me! Yes the gameplay is better because they have more moves and crossovers etc., but that's it! People that think ESPN's animations aren't as smooth as EA's last year, needs to look again. There's a couple animations on Live last year that look awful! Like the one-handed tomahawk dunk, it's missing about 20 frames of action, it starts off cocked back and then next animation is in the basket, but overall they are both smooth to me. Just one looks a lot better and that's the one I play ESPN! I know i've pissed a lot of you guys off because I have a completely oppostie opinon as most of you, but it's mine and it's the truth. All i'm asking for is that EA makes a game with enough realism in their graphics that makes me want to play it. I realize it will never be close to sega in that dept, but as long as sometimes on replays and gameplay I can at least see a resemblence to the actual players in real life, I will be happy this year with Live. But that's gonna take a lot of work to pull off. And i agree with Rich about they shouldn't advertise the "next-generation" graphics with graphics like they've been putting out. And for you PC guys, I just went over to my friends house and played it on PC and yes the graphics are better than xbox for that game, but not by much and saying something better than something that already sucks, isn't something to brag about

Ok, ok, ok, so now I've finally figured this out. For the past two weeks, we've all been saying that this has been a war entitled "sho89mtx vs. NLSC" which translated to "ESPN vs. NBA Live", this is incorrect.

What this is about is "Graphics First People" vs. "Gameplay First People". In his lenghthy post he conceded that Live's gameplay is "great" while ESPN's is "good". Graphics obviously make the game for sho89mtx, and he has every right to feel that way.

But at the same time he needs to understand a few things:

- Not every gamer chooses graphics over gameplay.

- While the average NBA Liver will readily admit that ESPN is superior in certain graphical areas it isn't enough to cite a huge disparity in that dept.

- Talking to a PC gamer about a game that isn't even on the PC is like talking to a wall. Why should they care about it? When Sega decides to bring the title to the PC, then it will become an issue for the majority PC gamers here.

- That his attitudes and our attitudes are so indicative of our game of choice. Someone who is "wowed" by graphical slickness and cutscenes will choose the ESPN franchise. Another person who loves graphics too but stresses the importance of gameplay will choose the Live franchise.

good explanation rich! All i'm trying to do is find out who thinks the graphics are better than sega last year for review purposes, because people that don't beleive the graphics are better on ESPN last year are obviously biased and I wont read their reviews. If people said what u said about how the graphics were not even close last year to ESPN but they liked nba live better because of the gameplay, I can respect that and read their reviews. But in most people's eyes(outside of this forum)it was like comparing night and day in the graphics dept btwn the games last year. Gameplay is relative and people all like different things and too each their own, but there should be no argument on graphics because that's purely visual! I just got done playing both years versions again on my xbox and there is no comparison in that dept. Everyone has their own opinion on what they like in a basketball game and to me graphics=realism and with epsn's good(not great like EA's)gameplay,it makes it a lot more fun for me to play. I can't get past the graphics on EA. That's just me! Yes the gameplay is better because they have more moves and crossovers etc., but that's it! People that think ESPN's animations aren't as smooth as EA's last year, needs to look again. There's a couple animations on Live last year that look awful! Like the one-handed tomahawk dunk, it's missing about 20 frames of action, it starts off cocked back and then next animation is in the basket, but overall they are both smooth to me. Just one looks a lot better and that's the one I play ESPN! I know i've pissed a lot of you guys off because I have a completely oppostie opinon as most of you, but it's mine and it's the truth. All i'm asking for is that EA makes a game with enough realism in their graphics that makes me want to play it. I realize it will never be close to sega in that dept, but as long as sometimes on replays and gameplay I can at least see a resemblence to the actual players in real life, I will be happy this year with Live. But that's gonna take a lot of work to pull off. And i agree with Rich about they shouldn't advertise the "next-generation" graphics with graphics like they've been putting out. And for you PC guys, I just went over to my friends house and played it on PC and yes the graphics are better than xbox for that game, but not by much and saying something better than something that already sucks, isn't something to brag about

Ok, ok, ok, so now I've finally figured this out. For the past two weeks, we've all been saying that this has been a war entitled "sho89mtx vs. NLSC" which translated to "ESPN vs. NBA Live", this is incorrect.

What this is about is "Graphics First People" vs. "Gameplay First People". In his lenghthy post he conceded that Live's gameplay is "great" while ESPN's is "good". Graphics obviously make the game for sho89mtx, and he has every right to feel that way.

But at the same time he needs to understand a few things:

- Not every gamer chooses graphics over gameplay.

- While the average NBA Liver will readily admit that ESPN is superior in certain graphical areas it isn't enough to cite a huge disparity in that dept.

- Talking to a PC gamer about a game that isn't even on the PC is like talking to a wall. Why should they care about it? When Sega decides to bring the title to the PC, then it will become an issue for the majority PC gamers here.

- That his attitudes and our attitudes are so indicative of our game of choice. Someone who is "wowed" by graphical slickness and cutscenes will choose the ESPN franchise. Another person who loves graphics too but stresses the importance of gameplay will choose the Live franchise.

if you loved graphics too like you said, u couldn't even pick up live because it would feel too unrealistic for you. Here's something else that has been bothering me. I read in the article about the game that EA has re-designed the graphics in their player models from the ground up, yet if you download any of the gameplay movies it looks exactly the same as last year just with a little better faces. That's really sad that their fan base is like most of you that don't care about graphics and will keep buying the game because of stupid things like "create-a-fan" when they really need to "create some good graphics" feature in the game. I'm pretty sure judging by the gameplay footage of this year's game, it will only be good for one thing, the dunk contest to me. Now a lot of you guys will think it's 100% improved and is the best game ever, and that's cool if you like the way it is, but don't expect the graphics and animations, presentation and replay value to be anything close to ESPN for a long time when their majority of loyal fans keep liking the game no matter how cheezy and cartoony it looks
p.s. mark my words, you can think i'm biased all you want, but wait until the reviews come out and even if espn has no added features, it will probably still win. And if it's improved on any flaws and added a bunch of stuff, it wont even be close,Just watch!

if you loved graphics too like you said, u couldn't even pick up live because it would feel too unrealistic for you. Here's something else that has been bothering me. I read in the article about the game that EA has re-designed the graphics in their player models from the ground up, yet if you download any of the gameplay movies it looks exactly the same as last year just with a little better faces. That's really sad that their fan base is like most of you that don't care about graphics and will keep buying the game because of stupid things like "create-a-fan" when they really need to "create some good graphics" feature in the game. I'm pretty sure judging by the gameplay footage of this year's game, it will only be good for one thing, the dunk contest to me. Now a lot of you guys will think it's 100% improved and is the best game ever, and that's cool if you like the way it is, but don't expect the graphics and animations, presentation and replay value to be anything close to ESPN for a long time when their majority of loyal fans keep liking the game no matter how cheezy and cartoony it looks
p.s. mark my words, you can think i'm biased all you want, but wait until the reviews come out and even if espn has no added features, it will probably still win. And if it's improved on any flaws and added a bunch of stuff, it wont even be close,Just watch!

sho, see, that's where we differ. I do in fact love graphics but in no way do I find Live's to be terrible like you do. I think you have a hard time understanding that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, I don't like ESPN's graphics better than Live and I'm not:

- biased or in denial. I'd stop playing both Live and ESPN tomorrow if NBA Inside Drive offered the best basketball experience.

- to say that we (Live fans) don't care about graphics is unfair and absolutely untrue. Especially unfair is the "Create-A-Fan" comment when for one that feature isn't in the game. And two, if you read the post requesting this very feature here on the board, you'd see that hardly anybody like it at all.....

- and as far as comparing animations, don't even go there. Live destroys ESPN in this dept. year after year.

- you keep eluding to "presentation" and cutscenes, man, I skip them all after a few week's worth of gaming. I find it silly for any game company to invest too much time, energy and $$$ in this dept.

- for you to say that you feel Live looks "cheesy and cartoony" then obviously the game isn't for you. We certainly don't feel that way whatsoever, I love the graphics and so do all of us here. I suppose that makes us "idiots" right? Because the choice of ESPN is such a "no-brainer"?

- for my man Cocobee to say that he feels the player models in ESPN look like "bent over gorillas" then obviously the game isn't for him. You certainly don't feel that way, you love the graphics.

- you have to face facts and accept the fact that there are different strokes for different folks. Why come here and speak on a game or speak to fans of a game that you find so "cheesy and cartoony" anyway?

To tell us we're foolish, in denial, biased, jaded, etc. etc.? That's absolutely ridiculous my man, absolutely. The fans here prefer Live over ESPN, so what? Why is this such an issue of importance to you? Why not spend all this time telling us how "dumb" we are talking to fellow ESPN fans in the IGN boards?

The first line of your response to me is so telling of your mentality: "If I loved graphics like I said, I wouldn't even pick up Live because it would be too unrealistic to me." That's the problem with you fam, you equate realism solely to graphical slickness. You seem to equate a game's worth by graphics also which is downright DUMB.

Great games like Pac-Man and Tetris live on for generations despite the primitive graphics. Why? GAMEPLAY, so put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. "Everybody's an idiot but me!"............

thank you, there is someone in here with some common sense, that's all I'm wanting. I don't care if you guys think the gameplay is better, i'll give you that, but if you guys thought the graphics were better last year, then i wont read any of your reviews for this year because u guys are really, really blind, it's the difference btwn night and day, yet most of you wont admit it except him!

Ahh, I don't know if I'd say "Night and Day", more like ESPN is afternoon, and Live is early evening

well said once again I swear to god people in here are the most biased people I have ever seen. If you guys to the espn boards people will be saying good and bad stuff about the games all day long, but if anything is said that is true and proven to be true like live's graphics, u guys flip! I can admit ESPN's gameplay wasn't up to par to nba live's last year, but u guys have to be able to admit that the graphics weren't even close on consoles. That's a fact, look it up. It's not my opinion, it's a fact! That's why when you look at all the reviews for last years games, most of them rated ESPN almost a 10 on graphics and NBA live at the best got an 8(and that was being very kind). This is why people hate EA fan because of how biased they are, it's crazy! I don't see anyone on the sega boards saying that live sucks and that they would never purchase an EA game even though they have never played one like on here, u guys are hilariously biased. that was my point of this subject and I beleive i proved my point hands down minus 2 people on here

I don't know about that, you need to visit both boards a little more frequently then.

Their are many people on the ESPN boards that don't feel it was inferior in gaemplay, I personally feel it was last year because the gameplay just didn't cut it for me, especially since it took a step down, and most people do to.

To the last bolded statement again, you haven't read near enough threads there then if you actually think that. Their's people that say they won't even buy Live if it's $10, now who wouldn't buy a basketball game if it's $10, that's like how much I spend on lunch.




I bought the game on both PC and X-Box [when it got cheap] , and I got ESPN NBA, and College Hoops, compared to PC, Live won in graphics because, well it's PC. On X-Box ESPN definately won, but the gap wasn't as huge as you were proposing, like I said, afternoon and early evening, like 9.5-8.3.




The best example was about Doom, I hated the game even though it had some sick graphics, I could only play it for like an half an hour without getting bored, and I don't want to sit there and look at the game for an hour now do I?
ESPN's gameplay wasn't that bad that I would compare to Doom's, but graphics should never be a deciding factor in a sport game when it's not below an 8 rating in graphics. As long as the graphics aren't garbage or something then them it's up to gameplay to make a sports game.


Their are people that feel graphics makes the game, but I'll tell you it's the minority not the majority that will take great graphics and decent gameplay over good graphics and good gameplay.




Now if we're talking about football, I liked ESPN better, it had that 0.1 edge for me in terms of gameplay, and in graphics it had the edge too. The presentation was cool too, but you know you skip that stuff after a while because even though it's cool I just want to play

dare i say it? yeah wtf not


OWNED

thank you, there is someone in here with some common sense, that's all I'm wanting. I don't care if you guys think the gameplay is better, i'll give you that, but if you guys thought the graphics were better last year, then i wont read any of your reviews for this year because u guys are really, really blind, it's the difference btwn night and day, yet most of you wont admit it except him!

Ahh, I don't know if I'd say "Night and Day", more like ESPN is afternoon, and Live is early evening

well said once again I swear to god people in here are the most biased people I have ever seen. If you guys to the espn boards people will be saying good and bad stuff about the games all day long, but if anything is said that is true and proven to be true like live's graphics, u guys flip! I can admit ESPN's gameplay wasn't up to par to nba live's last year, but u guys have to be able to admit that the graphics weren't even close on consoles. That's a fact, look it up. It's not my opinion, it's a fact! That's why when you look at all the reviews for last years games, most of them rated ESPN almost a 10 on graphics and NBA live at the best got an 8(and that was being very kind). This is why people hate EA fan because of how biased they are, it's crazy! I don't see anyone on the sega boards saying that live sucks and that they would never purchase an EA game even though they have never played one like on here, u guys are hilariously biased. that was my point of this subject and I beleive i proved my point hands down minus 2 people on here

I don't know about that, you need to visit both boards a little more frequently then.

Their are many people on the ESPN boards that don't feel it was inferior in gaemplay, I personally feel it was last year because the gameplay just didn't cut it for me, especially since it took a step down, and most people do to.

To the last bolded statement again, you haven't read near enough threads there then if you actually think that. Their's people that say they won't even buy Live if it's $10, now who wouldn't buy a basketball game if it's $10, that's like how much I spend on lunch.




I bought the game on both PC and X-Box [when it got cheap] , and I got ESPN NBA, and College Hoops, compared to PC, Live won in graphics because, well it's PC. On X-Box ESPN definately won, but the gap wasn't as huge as you were proposing, like I said, afternoon and early evening, like 9.5-8.3.




The best example was about Doom, I hated the game even though it had some sick graphics, I could only play it for like an half an hour without getting bored, and I don't want to sit there and look at the game for an hour now do I?
ESPN's gameplay wasn't that bad that I would compare to Doom's, but graphics should never be a deciding factor in a sport game when it's not below an 8 rating in graphics. As long as the graphics aren't garbage or something then them it's up to gameplay to make a sports game.


Their are people that feel graphics makes the game, but I'll tell you it's the minority not the majority that will take great graphics and decent gameplay over good graphics and good gameplay.




Now if we're talking about football, I liked ESPN better, it had that 0.1 edge for me in terms of gameplay, and in graphics it had the edge too. The presentation was cool too, but you know you skip that stuff after a while because even though it's cool I just want to play

9.5-8.3 is a huge difference in reviews. They usually are nice in their reviews and don't grade games very poorly because they don't want to take away sales from the games because most of the gamesites get early builds on the game before it comes out to critique and they are not gonna dog on a game that a company went out of their way to hook them up with early. Like no matter how bad live's graphics sucked or will suck this year, you'll never see a rating of 5.0 or lower on any game unless it just looks like contra on nintendo or something. If you don't beleive me with what i said, go look at a review of a game that you think has the worst graphics in the world on that console and see what they ranked it. you'll see what i'm talking about. Their's politics involved in any rating system so the gap can't be too much or it wont sell and if the game doesn't sell because of a bad review, guess who's not getting an early copy next year? Yep, u guessed it. Think about it

all you keep talking about is reviews, tell me this, since when do reviews mean shit when it comes to whats better? you can look back over every review ever for any game and compare them and there will be a whole boat load of games that got amazing reviews but sucked and vise versa. here is a game for you, the sims. the best selling game ever and was always rated high, does this mean this game truely is the best game ever?

also with graphics, since thats what you get a woody over. what is better graphicly is truely up to the individual. for instance take this years 2 big mmo games, eq2 and wow. both look damn good but both went totally different ways. 1 is going for the most realistic graphics(this must be for you) possible, while the other is going for a more toonish and unique look.
now is eq2 clearly the better game since it went with more realistic graphics? do you even need to play it to say it is?

another graphics vs gameplay. baulders gate 2. imo the best rpg for 3 years after its release. many many many rpg's came out with far superior graphics but bg2 was still way more fun and was always rated higher by the reviews you seem to covet as the word of the lord.


graphics dont mean shit without gameplay. you think graphics make a game realistic? man you got some growing up to do. game companies prey on gamers like you.

all you keep talking about is reviews, tell me this, since when do reviews mean shit when it comes to whats better? you can look back over every review ever for any game and compare them and there will be a whole boat load of games that got amazing reviews but sucked and vise versa. here is a game for you, the sims. the best selling game ever and was always rated high, does this mean this game truely is the best game ever?

also with graphics, since thats what you get a woody over. what is better graphicly is truely up to the individual. for instance take this years 2 big mmo games, eq2 and wow. both look damn good but both went totally different ways. 1 is going for the most realistic graphics(this must be for you) possible, while the other is going for a more toonish and unique look.
now is eq2 clearly the better game since it went with more realistic graphics? do you even need to play it to say it is?

another graphics vs gameplay. baulders gate 2. imo the best rpg for 3 years after its release. many many many rpg's came out with far superior graphics but bg2 was still way more fun and was always rated higher by the reviews you seem to covet as the word of the lord.


graphics dont mean shit without gameplay. you think graphics make a game realistic? man you got some growing up to do. game companies prey on gamers like you.

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that graphics in a RPG and graphics in a sports game w/real people in it can't be compared in the same breath. But i'll explain it to you anyway.....RPG games are all about what you do, what u shoot, action, action, action, they can have the worst graphics in the worls and can be fun as hell! Now sports games are patterneed after real life people that actually exist and real life gameplay. If it doesn't look like the real people at all, then the game company failed to do their job. Like EA did last year and will probably do again. That's just my opinion about graphics=realism to me. U guys can play nintendo double dribble all day long and i'll play ESPN basketball and we'll see who has more fun

all you keep talking about is reviews, tell me this, since when do reviews mean shit when it comes to whats better? you can look back over every review ever for any game and compare them and there will be a whole boat load of games that got amazing reviews but sucked and vise versa. here is a game for you, the sims. the best selling game ever and was always rated high, does this mean this game truely is the best game ever?

also with graphics, since thats what you get a woody over. what is better graphicly is truely up to the individual. for instance take this years 2 big mmo games, eq2 and wow. both look damn good but both went totally different ways. 1 is going for the most realistic graphics(this must be for you) possible, while the other is going for a more toonish and unique look.
now is eq2 clearly the better game since it went with more realistic graphics? do you even need to play it to say it is?

another graphics vs gameplay. baulders gate 2. imo the best rpg for 3 years after its release. many many many rpg's came out with far superior graphics but bg2 was still way more fun and was always rated higher by the reviews you seem to covet as the word of the lord.


graphics dont mean shit without gameplay. you think graphics make a game realistic? man you got some growing up to do. game companies prey on gamers like you.

Well said, Sauru. It's ridiculous to equate all of a games worth to graphics and even more phucking ridiculous to suggest that Live would be worthy of a "5.0" in graphics had it not been for "industry politics".....

First off all these props that he's giving to these review crews is so silly. Half of them are computer geeks (no offense to any of my PC brethren here at NLSC) who don't know the first thing about what makes a quality sports game.

I noticed that most of them rated 2K higher as well, and they were completely WRONG. Most don't know the first thing about b-ball or b-ball games with the ability to differentiate between quality and sub par gameplay. But one thing they do know is graphics!

sho, your one-sidedness on this issue is getting more annoying by the day. Until you can prove to me that ESPN plays better than Live I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself,

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

I noticed that most of them rated 2K higher as well, and they were completely WRONG. Most don't know the first thing about b-ball or b-ball games with the ability to differentiate between quality and sub par gameplay. But one thing they do know is graphics!

sho, your one-sidedness on this issue is getting more annoying by the day. Until you can prove to me that ESPN plays better than Live I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself,[/quote][quote]

you guys are hilarious. U noticed that sega was rated higher, so now everyone's a geek and doesn't know how to rate sports games, huh? Maybe....just maybe....the game sucked last year and it deserved it's lower ranking than sega.....wait. that's just too crazy to assume. It must be because all 100% of the reviews don't know what they are talking about. Come one people, get a clue....

all you keep talking about is reviews, tell me this, since when do reviews mean shit when it comes to whats better? you can look back over every review ever for any game and compare them and there will be a whole boat load of games that got amazing reviews but sucked and vise versa. here is a game for you, the sims. the best selling game ever and was always rated high, does this mean this game truely is the best game ever?

also with graphics, since thats what you get a woody over. what is better graphicly is truely up to the individual. for instance take this years 2 big mmo games, eq2 and wow. both look damn good but both went totally different ways. 1 is going for the most realistic graphics(this must be for you) possible, while the other is going for a more toonish and unique look.
now is eq2 clearly the better game since it went with more realistic graphics? do you even need to play it to say it is?

another graphics vs gameplay. baulders gate 2. imo the best rpg for 3 years after its release. many many many rpg's came out with far superior graphics but bg2 was still way more fun and was always rated higher by the reviews you seem to covet as the word of the lord.


graphics dont mean shit without gameplay. you think graphics make a game realistic? man you got some growing up to do. game companies prey on gamers like you.

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that graphics in a RPG and graphics in a sports game w/real people in it can't be compared in the same breath. But i'll explain it to you anyway.....RPG games are all about what you do, what u shoot, action, action, action, they can have the worst graphics in the worls and can be fun as hell! Now sports games are patterneed after real life people that actually exist and real life gameplay. If it doesn't look like the real people at all, then the game company failed to do their job. Like EA did last year and will probably do again. That's just my opinion about graphics=realism to me. U guys can play nintendo double dribble all day long and i'll play ESPN basketball and we'll see who has more fun

"U guys can play nintendo double dribble all day long and i'll play ESPN basketball and we'll see who has more fun."

Sho, this is the kind of shit that absolutely hurts your credibility. You're now comparing NBA Live 2005 to Konami's 1988 game: "Double Dribble"? You're absolutely ridiculous man, absolutely ridiculous. Just face it, you don't like Live, it's fans, or EA Sports for that matter. So why try to act like you're some non-partisan party who's just trying to get us to admit ESPN's graphics are better?

You're really starting to sound like a clown dog, Double Dribble? CLOWN.

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

Once again, CLOWN. The reason EA was behind as you put it for those years is because they didn't even make games for the DREAMCAST! PS2 was just coming out at that time as a first generation console and everything else was still 32 bit!

There's no doubting that Sega has revolutionized sportsgames, every true console gamer knows this! But to say that EA has been complacent because "all we do is pat them on the back", give me a phucking break!

Have you not seen a little thing called the "WISHLIST"??? We're notorious complainers much like other fans of other games, stop the nonsense....

I noticed that most of them rated 2K higher as well, and they were completely WRONG. Most don't know the first thing about b-ball or b-ball games with the ability to differentiate between quality and sub par gameplay. But one thing they do know is graphics!

sho, your one-sidedness on this issue is getting more annoying by the day. Until you can prove to me that ESPN plays better than Live I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself,

you guys are hilarious. U noticed that sega was rated higher, so now everyone's a geek and doesn't know how to rate sports games, huh? Maybe....just maybe....the game sucked last year and it deserved it's lower ranking than sega.....wait. that's just too crazy to assume. It must be because all 100% of the reviews don't know what they are talking about. Come one people, get a clue....

Sho, the operative word there is MOST, and no, I don't put as much stock into reviews as you do. I played ESPN 2K4 and expected this GREAT game according to these dudes. Hehehehehehehehehehe, it was anything but!

Which once again proves my theory that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. Reading those reviews got me more pumped for 2K than Live but once I played both, I knew the truth.

BTW, if you listen to everything the review crew tells you then you must think The Sims is the best thing since sliced bread!

I am very upset right now because I did something wrong in this thread...

1) I've posted some NICE PC'S SCREENSHOT of NBA Live 2004. But they are comparing the console ONLY and ignore the BEST graphic, and said the ESPN is way better than LIVE (in Xbox only, PC shouldn't be considerd)

2) I've found some in-game screeshots from a large game site, gamespot, of both games in Xbox. I got blamed because the ESPN screens aren't the real one (they claimed), and those most importantly, the screens cannot show the BIG DIFFERENT from ESPN and LIVE.

3) I didn't played ESPN on Xbox but I tried to judge their graphics (even though are from gamespot, gamespy, ign, etc). I feel a million sorry about that.



PS. I am waiting for ESPN to release on PC so that I can really see how GREAT their cut-scenes and replay. I would like to watch every closeup shots of every single players. But I am not sure I will play the game or not...