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

[sho89mtx]

what i mean by cartoony graphics last year



i know that's on a zoom in, but when they zoom in and throw some espn overlays on it, it's just like watching a real game. when they zoom in on live last year it just looked like cartoons and very unrealistic. that's what i'm talking about. U wanted examples of what i meant from last year, lets hope the difference is a lot less for this year because I'm tired of EA slacking on graphics. Too me there is no comarison in graphics unless your blind or very biased, that's my point. People that say live didn't have good graphics last year but good gameplay, i'll agree with, but those of you that don't see a huge difference please look at those pics last year and tell me there isn't a HUGE difference. If you can't see it in those pics, i'm sure you'll be very happy with live again if it looks like that this year hahahahhahaha

[Vi1n5ce]

Hmm... I always think that PC have far superior graphics than any console..... for the past few years anyway...

It is strange to see a guy who loves graphics that much (like sho) would play his games on a console...

Is not just about the patches that makes Live looks good on PC... Afterall, you can download 10G of patches and have a crappy graphics card that can't see the difference between the patched and the original...

It is about the hardware on the PC AND the graphics engine that EA put effort into the PC version....

Lastly, last time I was in front of a PC monitor playing games, I was like few inches away from it... And the last time I was in front of a TV playing games, I was about 1m to 1.5m away from it...

My point is that you won't see all the details anyway(regardless you are watching the intro/cut-scene or playing an actual game)... Unless you sit a few inches away from the TV (By then your glasses will be an inch thick)...

[Andrew]

Yes, the faces in ESPN are better, though the jersey textures aren't. That particular screenshot of NBA Live 2004 doesn't really show off the textures. In any event, I don't think cartoonish is the correct adjective to describe Live's graphics but in any event, you see them as inferior. That's fine.

What we're saying is, graphics don't mean much if the gameplay is lousy. If the gameplay isn't realistic then it doesn't matter how good the graphics are. It may look more realistic, but if the gameplay isn't realistic, the game is not realistic.

The other point is, you're dismissing the opinion that glitz isn't as important as substance, which is a biased viewpoint; which is what you seem to be accusing us of. Of course we're all biased, and there's nothing wrong with that when it comes to video games. To each their own, and who cares what other people prefer?

I can say with confidence that if EA focused on the graphics and not the gameplay, your or someone else would criticise them for making a game that looked great but had terrible gameplay.

Once again, you're entitled to your own opinion and I certainly respect that. But it takes more than graphics to make a realistic NBA simulation.

[gut]

Check these out.

These are the REAL cartoony of NBA Live 2004

http://gallery.flyupsky.net/albums/user ... ot0075.jpg

http://gallery.flyupsky.net/albums/user ... ot0077.jpg

lol

Because it IS cartoon.

But Damn. The real players are not that cartoony as you think.

Yes, the faces are not as good as ESPN, but this DOES NOT MEAN it's unrealistic.

And what? you use the xbox screens (Live 2004) for comparison, but you don't know how well the graphics can be in the PC? (or you still think it's not good?)

check my gallery too. (it might be a little bit slow, it locates in HK)

http://gallery.flyupsky.net/thumbnails.php?album=6

I have changed the default language to English so that everyone can read it. Cheers.

and yes, not all of the guys look realistic, many of them are too thin,
and K.Mart & big ben are not that detailed as ESPN does.

But please check the others, can anyone RECOGNISE who they are?
If yes, then I congratulate that you can enjoy the game because we can use a normal "camera" to play the game.
If no, I think you are not belong to tv / pc gaming. Or wait until the virtual reality is well developed, say, 50 years later.

Imagine you are watching a real NBA game on TV, will you be able to see big ben's close up all the time? Is it useful?

PS. sorry for my poor english...

[Bird123]

I did recognize close to everybody, although Ben Wallace looks like he now smoke crack rocks.

[GloveGuy]

I think if we're going to compare Live and ESPN's graphics, we should keep it limited to console. Sega doesn't release on the PC. If they did than they'd probably sell more than they do now. But the fact is, they don't. ESPN gamers are fortunate to have a game whose graphics and textures are so good, that you really don't need to edit them, something that PC gamers have an advantage over.

[sho89mtx]

ok for the 100th time now, I don't give a rat's butt about PC, I don't play my pc. My PC is just to be on the internet, I don't enjoy being in a room with a 21" monitor trying to play video games when I can go in my living room play it in HDTV on xbox with a 72" HDTV TV with Dolby Digital sound. There is no comparison in that category! Listen to what I type and don't read into what U think i'm talking about. I said numerous times that i'm taking about live for console, in specifically the Xbox because that's what i'm playing. If you want to play PS2 versions btwn espn and EA that's fine too, but don't compare sega on Xbox to PC, that's not even the same thing and u guys know it. I guess most of you have pc's and that would explain how in the world some of you haven't even played a sega game, yet continue to have a so-called "educated opinion" on it. There is no such thing. If you haven't played both, don't comment because u have no credibilty and my point of making this post was too show people who read this board how biased people can be when talking about a video game they like. I will have both games this year and will play which ever one I think is more realistic on XBOX, last year it was an easy choice in ESPN basketball and I hope this year it's a lot harder for me to choose because I want some competition!

[Sauru]

if nba live actually took 3 steps back in terms of graphics but kept improveing on the gameplay/features i would still say its the best game. graphics dont mean anything really. once you got a fun game then work on graphics, not in reverse. who cares if the game is the best looking game ever if its boreing. i also have to agree with andrew, graphics dont = realism. ofcourse you guys can think whatever you want and play whatever you want, just dont try to come onto this msg board and convert us. alot of people have said they will get both games actually. i think the espn fans are just upset cause it will not outsell live. but honestly, who cares?

[gut]

I said numerous times that i'm taking about live for console, in specifically the Xbox because that's what i'm playing. If you want to play PS2 versions btwn espn and EA that's fine too, but don't compare sega on Xbox to PC

Because of YOU play Xbox only, so that we HAVE TO discuss the xbox version?

How about I play PC only so that I discuss the PC version?

why should I follow your... instructions ? orders ?

In your first message in this thread, you just compare the 2 big TITLES:
NBA Live and ESPN.

any single word stating that you are talking about the console only??

yes, comparing the game in different platforms is not that fair, I know it.
So, Ok, if you are talking about the Xbox version, you win, ESPN is LOOK
more realistic than NBA Live.

But you are generally comparing the graphics, hey, NBA Live's graphic in PC are way better than in Xbox. But you try NOT to use the best graphic
for comparison.

How come I should not use the BEST graphic of each other for comparison?

I would really like to see ESPN releases on PC and see how sweet the graphics will be.

And then I could have a deep comparison on both games.

if I am still misunderstanding your meaning, I feel sorry about that and you can just ignore my messages.

You can express whatever you want, express what you think is correct.

[sho89mtx]

I said numerous times that i'm taking about live for console, in specifically the Xbox because that's what i'm playing. If you want to play PS2 versions btwn espn and EA that's fine too, but don't compare sega on Xbox to PC

yes, comparing the game in different platforms is not that fair, I know it.
So, Ok, if you are talking about the Xbox version, you win, ESPN is LOOK
more realistic than NBA Live.

that's all i'm saying and more realistic game gets more playing time with me, thanks for helping me prove my point.

[Vi1n5ce]

Ok, so you also agree our... well... my point also...
"NBA Live on PC does looks better than ESPN on Xbox..."
And yes, I agree that ESPN looks better than NBA Live on Xbox...

This statement is then true "NBA Live on PC > EPSN on Xbox > NBA Live on Xbox"

Anyway, my point is that if you are so into graphics... why not go for the most superior one instead of the second best???

[John-John Joe]

I said numerous times that i'm taking about live for console, in specifically the Xbox because that's what i'm playing. If you want to play PS2 versions btwn espn and EA that's fine too, but don't compare sega on Xbox to PC

yes, comparing the game in different platforms is not that fair, I know it.
So, Ok, if you are talking about the Xbox version, you win, ESPN is LOOK
more realistic than NBA Live.

that's all i'm saying and more realistic game gets more playing time with me, thanks for helping me prove my point.

Wussup sho! First off, from console gamer to console gamer, you have to understand that the majority here are PC gamers. Xbox and PS2 to them is like a different world and I've noticed that some kind of look down on it a bit.......

We all look for something different out of the gaming experience. I absolutely cannot be mad at a PC gamer who gets to download all those cool patches and basically make the replay value go through the roof. But either you're a PC gamer or you're not, and I'm like you I don't game on my PC and prefer consoles.......

Now as far as the whole realistic graphics thing goes, you have to understand that looks are subjective. For instance, I'm a moderator on another NBA message board and in the Non-Sports section there is a topic comparing famous females. When it came to Carmen Electra vs. Beyonce Knowles, I thought it was a no brainer that Beyonce wins by a landslide. But low and behold, they ALL picked Carmen. I was like WHAT THE PHUCK?!?

The point being, no one's mad at'cha for thinking ESPN looks better, I know I'm not. But don't be mad at us for thinking Live looks better. I don't "ride" with any particular videogame company what-so-ever and I'll be picking up ESPN as well. 20 BUCKS? Sheeeetttt........ But at the same time while I'll readily admit that ESPN's graphics look great, it's not the end all for me. I think ESPN and Live are neck and neck when it somes to graphics. But gameplay? No comparison dog, Live all the way baby. The gameplay has got to be tight or what good are the amount of polygons they used to create Benjamin's ugly afro?

[gut]

I searched some of the sho's topics, he seems cannot accept the fact that the majority here think Live is better the ESPN (graphically)

Whenever a member said Live is best in graphics, he would reply the others by saying something like, "are you blind?", "I think you need glasses", etc.

I immediately know what kind of person he is and from now on I don't even willing to reply him anymore.

At last, sho is trying to quote just one of the sentences from my message and said I am helping him for proving his statement.

Great!

if you think that you'll be alright about that, it's fine.

if you think that avoiding my other points is intelligent, it's fine.

Again, the majority here care about GAMEPLAY more than GRAPHICS,
by the way, the PC VERSION is best in graphics.

We will still enjoy the game, we can install tons of the patches for fun.

But sorry sho, you just can play with you xbox and sit in front of your great HDTV, and enjoy to watch the realisitic K.Mart and big ben

cheers

[cocobee]

Ok Sho, since this a console game discussion--lemme put it to you this way.

ESPN is the hot girl with a nice body but is a stiff in bed. Live is the decent looking girl but can f*uc*k your brains out. If you had good p*ssy before, you'll know that guys will pick the girl that f*uck*s the best. With the addition of the All Star weekend, that same girl who f*uck*s your brains out, can now cook a hell of a meal too. Now you got a girl who can f*uc*k and cook--sounds like a winner to me.

hey bro, there is no denying that ESPN has better "instant replay" graphics, but i swear the game doesn't look like that when i'm playing it. Looks are very subjective. You have to respect people opinions, even though they might not agree with yours. You seem very egocentric in thinking--and I think that's why people are getting a little pissed off.

[John-John Joe]

Ok Sho, since this a console game discussion--lemme put it to you this way.

ESPN is the hot girl with a nice body but is a stiff in bed. Live is the decent looking girl but can f*uc*k your brains out. If you had good p*ssy before, you'll know that guys will pick the girl that f*uck*s the best. With the addition of the All Star weekend, that same girl who f*uck*s your brains out, can now cook a hell of a meal too. Now you got a girl who can f*uc*k and cook--sounds like a winner to me.

hey bro, there is no denying that ESPN has better "instant replay" graphics, but i swear the game doesn't look like that when i'm playing it. Looks are very subjective. You have to respect people opinions, even though they might not agree with yours. You seem very egocentric in thinking--and I think that's why people are getting a little pissed off.

Wow C, way to break it down! I love that p*ssy analogy......

[Colin]

Ok Sho, since this a console game discussion--lemme put it to you this way.

ESPN is the hot girl with a nice body but is a stiff in bed. Live is the decent looking girl but can f*uc*k your brains out. If you had good p*ssy before, you'll know that guys will pick the girl that f*uck*s the best. With the addition of the All Star weekend, that same girl who f*uck*s your brains out, can now cook a hell of a meal too. Now you got a girl who can f*uc*k and cook--sounds like a winner to me.

hey bro, there is no denying that ESPN has better "instant replay" graphics, but i swear the game doesn't look like that when i'm playing it. Looks are very subjective. You have to respect people opinions, even though they might not agree with yours. You seem very egocentric in thinking--and I think that's why people are getting a little pissed off.

And if we ever get Owner Mode it will be like she cleans too.

[Sauru]

lol, my man cocobee just put it in the best way possible.

[GloveGuy]

I always though ESPN was the hot girl who was terrific in bed -- that was until 2004 where she showed up absolutely smoking but lost her touch after a long summer. Her moves were out of your control and her style was fast paced leading to awkward outcomes. But as appealing as Live looked, I was rather superficial on her looks and I decided not to spend my 50 bucks on her.

(Yeah, I took the joke too far leading to a halt of momentum)

(And yes, I just ranked on ESPN 2004's gameplay)

[afroken]

Damn those pic that sho89mtx posted at the top are amazing in the difference. I am new to this board but i have been playing live for about 6 years. I have onlt ever played 2k3 and I thought that live was much better in the gameplay department but on the consels I really did not notice too much difference in graphics. I have not played any of the 2k* after 2k3 but I have played every live since 98. This year I think that I am going to do the pepsi challenge and buy both game and see for myself which I perfere.

[sho89mtx]

Damn those pic that sho89mtx posted at the top are amazing in the difference. .

yes they are, but yet some people on here, still don't see it and they wonder why i call them blind. To me it's like the difference from playing a genesis basketball game and an xbox game. I never understood it, but ea's player models on football and basketball always look stocky and shorter than real life and it shows big time in those pics. It look like a bunch of eric cartmen's with different faces playing basketball

[gut]

Oh my God !
I reply this thread again...

Let's take a look of the IN-GAME SCREENSHOTS !!

ATTENTION !
This is the in-game screens of XBOX VERSION'S Live 2004 & ESPN 2K4 provided by gamespot.com

ESPN 2K4
==========================================







NBA Live 2004
===========================================







Where is the so-called BIG DIFFERENCE ??

[Riot]

Very well said Gut. I don't see what is so great about ESPN's graphics compared to Live's.

[cocobee]

Great find Gut! WOW--those screens tell alot.

[GloveGuy]

Those screens don't tell shit. Ya know why? Because they don't look like that! I can't speak for NBA Live, but I will say that ESPN's graphics on any television look much better than that. More crisp, more detailed, more smooth.

I can't believe we're even debating this. ESPN's graphics last year were clearly better than Live's if you were to compare them on a console. This is ridiculous.

[gut]

oh really ??

then I will never trust gamespot anymore ~
and i won't trust any screenshot of any game unless I play that game...