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

ok before nba live 2005 comes out and people give their reviews on here, i got one question to ask all of you....which game last year had better graphics in your opinion? The reason I ask this question is to find out who here can't really see through a company name no matter how bad something is and who here can point out flaws in the game from last year before they post a biased review. In my opinion last year nba live 2004 was improved graphically from the year before, but they were not even on the same playing field as sega. Now on gameplay, they kicked sega's butt and pretty much everything else. but i just couldn't bring myself to play live after playing espn last year because it was like i was watching cartoons ball instead of a digitized people. Let's put it this way, if EA's team kept the gameplay the same, but stole the designers for sega to make all their player models and then EA would make all the rest of the game, it probably would of been the perfect game last year. But unfortunately no matter how many years sega dominates EA in graphics both in football and basketball games, EA doesn't step it up enough to compete and usually ends up losing by a close margin on reviews and the only thing that keeps it close is the rest of the game. If they didn't score so low on graphics and make the game actually feel like your controlling the real players and not a loony toon production of them, it would of beat sega every year. I just pray that EA stepped up their graphics as much as they say they have. No matter what i'll still buy both games and if ea is the exact same as last year, i'll still buy it just to play that awesome dunk contest about 1000 times

I don't care too much about graphics, I want them to look good, but I think Live's are fine. I've never played an ESPN game, but after watching many videos, I just don't buy their player models. Maybe it's the animations, but their guys look weird, like none of them have necks or something like that..

Having worse graphics wouldn't make me not buy a game.. I'd buy it because I like the gameplay better.

I hate when people say they don't like graphics or don't care for it. It whats gonna help push the game play that much further. If the player looks and plays like the NBA players then it's an ultimate basketball game but right now from live 04, the series have to step that up, and they said they did for live 05 but NBA 2k series look real and thats why they are EA's second compititor. If EA Live series looked AS REAL (no less) as the NBA 2k series (or 2k5, just saw new pics) then there would be no such thing as Visual Concepts, I promise you thats all EA needs, trust ME!

not to put words into his mouth but i dont think hes saying that he doesnt care about graphics...
just saying that id much rather have EA spend their time with animations, AI and features than with lifelike sneakers and faces.
I agree that perfect graphics can push Live further to perfection but '04 would still be irratating as hell even if the players were literally perfect.

It's no secret.....

2k4 was the airhead with a knockout body. Fun for awhile, but gets boring eventually, and Live 2004 was a little smarter, but wasn't as cute as 2K4.

I don't care too much about graphics, I want them to look good, but I think Live's are fine. I've never played an ESPN game, but after watching many videos, I just don't buy their player models. Maybe it's the animations, but their guys look weird, like none of them have necks or something like that..

Having worse graphics wouldn't make me not buy a game.. I'd buy it because I like the gameplay better.

ok, judging from those statements, i will never read a review from your perspective. Never played an ESPN game, man that's being biased. Whatever you do, don't pick up ESPN football then because you'll be converted real easy and never look back. I always get both games, but i do have an opinion on each. How can u not care about graphics? That's insane! Graphics=realism=fun. That's why nba live is collecting dust right now at my house because it is just the cheeziest looking bball game ever! Microsoft's nba inside drive 2004 even looked and played better than live this year.

I hate when people say they don't like graphics or don't care for it. It whats gonna help push the game play that much further. If the player looks and plays like the NBA players then it's an ultimate basketball game but right now from live 04, the series have to step that up, and they said they did for live 05 but NBA 2k series look real and thats why they are EA's second compititor. If EA Live series looked AS REAL (no less) as the NBA 2k series (or 2k5, just saw new pics) then there would be no such thing as Visual Concepts, I promise you thats all EA needs, trust ME!

amen brotha, preach it!

he didnt say he doesnt care about the graphics but he said he didnt care TOO MUCH about it...

graphics may help in the realism part but it isnt the whole of it... it helps but it isnt the whole experience. i never played espn so i cant judge em yet. and besides i dont care which game is better right now since i can only play live since i dont have a console. so i can only hope live ends up being a good game, at least.

graphics don't make the whole game. its a part of it. i care about it but not too much as to judge the whole game because of it. thats why there are still people playing live2000 because of its gameplay and features not the graphics.

he didnt say he doesnt care about the graphics but he said he didnt care TOO MUCH about it...

graphics may help in the realism part but it isnt the whole of it... it helps but it isnt the whole experience. i never played espn so i cant judge em yet. and besides i dont care which game is better right now since i can only play live since i dont have a console. so i can only hope live ends up being a good game, at least.

graphics don't make the whole game. its a part of it. i care about it but not too much as to judge the whole game because of it. thats why there are still people playing live2000 because of its gameplay and features not the graphics.

so in summary if you want to play a game with good graphics don't get live then, right? Having bad graphics and good gameplay and still liking the game is the most idiotic thing in the world. That's why i don't understand a lot of you die-hard EA fans. No matter how bad a game looks, u still love it, it's pathetic! If you want to play a game with bad graphics but good gameplay, why don't u just go play a nintendo or a genesis? U wouldn't because of the graphics, so graphics does matter, it's just how to what degree do they suck, huh? I have an xbox and only play console games and if you compared the 2 games last year on my tv in HDTV format, there is no comparison. It's like the difference btwn watching a real game and watching an cartoon of people playing basketball, and i'm not exagerating either. There's been several times i've been playing ESPN basketball and football and people thought i was watching a real game, it's unreal!

i didnt say that..sheesh. im not even a die hard ea fan...i didnt even care about live a few years ago...in fact i didnt even say the live had bad graphics...you seem like a die hard sega fan that goes to live forums to bash live... frankly i dont care what you think...im gonna buy live and other basketball games and try em out and see which i think is better...but the thing is i dont have any other choice since there is no other bball game for the pc other than live...and your statement about playing genesis games if i prefer good gameplay? how bout just watching a cg movie and not play video games if you want good graphics and nothing else. take a look at bouncer for the ps2...had awesome graphics but really horrible gameplay. thats what video games are for, to be played with and not just looked at...you dont seem to understand that games arent just graphics and also not just gameplay but the overall package:graphics, gameplay, sound, etc... thats why game reviews have a criteria and they dont base their reviews on just the graphics...

and for your info, i wouldnt mind playing classic games. hell, i even play them once in a while.

I don`t even waste my time for reading this...

Stop worshiping the dunk contest.

To sho89mtx:

Hey... Think about this... Graphics are important to you but to other people it is not that important...
But overall in general... Do the majority of the people agreeing or disagreeing with you??? You and I don't know that because that is just 7 people discussing this matter in this thread...

Having bad graphics and good gameplay and still liking the game is the most idiotic thing in the world.

So there is no reason to call some group of people 'idiot' just because you feel differently... (Whether you are the majority or the minority)....

I know people that play BattleFleet: Pacific War (Released in 2004, I believe)... It doesn't have much graphics but the gameplay is surely more realistic than any WWII game... (More info at http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/pw.htm)
And what about online mud game??? They are completely text based with no graphics at all... Yet thousands play them...

who here can point out flaws in the game from last year before they post a biased review.

If you are bias yourself... You've got no right to judge someone if they are bias or not...

Lastly... I just want to say that people's opinions are always subjective... Some people WILL agree with the opinion while some people WILL NOT....
You have the right to comment on people's work but always remember that your opinion is also subjective too...

to be perfectly honest, I always thought the graphics were better in live 04 than 2k4 and I have both games. I was suprised when I looked on the internet that people thought otherwise. To me i prefer leves style of graphics.. but thats just me
Chris

Lastly... I just want to say that people's opinions are always subjective... Some people WILL agree with the opinion while some people WILL NOT....
You have the right to comment on people's work but always remember that your opinion is also subjective too...

damn right

damn..skippy....what you "shoe" dont understand..is your coming to the "live" boards,trying to convert us all to ESPN.even tho most of us,grew up on Live...and had it in our household's every yr..

i just started buying ESPN..and it's fun for awhile,but then it gets stupid,and i just put it away...it's only fun to see how many blocks Steve Nash can get on Shaq..and see how many people Karl Malone can dunk on....if ESPN would stop giving us that shitty gameplay,and them good graphics,there might actually be competition..

And Live's graphics aint all ugly....there okay....nothing to ESPN ..but not UGLY....i guess it's an older people thing(not in age,in game experiance)..some younger people think graphics over gameplay.while the older ones thing gameplay over graphics..

if you wanna judge bias people...on a Nba Live board..then thaz you...but you should know most of us buy both games and then put one away...

i think you belong here.....http://www.espnvideogames.com .....just register in the forums

I don't really care about graphic, they are important but not as important as gameplay. I am still playing NBA 2K2 on DC that's why i hope NBA Live 2005 will replace it.

Graphics are important, but so is gameplay. Live 2004 had bad graphics, but they had great gameplay. Live 2005 looks like it will have great graphics and gameplay.

NBA Live or ESPN 2k, this debate will continue for another couple of years probably. When making a thread of this kind make sure your own points are valid and sensible. ESPN had a better graphical experience than EA did last year and that's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact, but when the gameplay being the most important aspect of any game , IMO, was better(IMO and yours) than what is the real argument? Who cares about graphics when you are having the time of your life with kickbutt gameplay, i.e., the millions of GBA, GB color and GB sp users across the world. I actually thought the movement of the players in Live were more fluid and natural where as ESPN came across, to me , as being robotic. Back to graphics though, yes I would love to play a great video game with graphic to match(see Ninja Gaiden) but overall the most important aspect of a game is whether it keeps you playing and not if it keeps your friends saying " Man what is that, the graphics are so real! "

Last edited by galvatron3000 on Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't see how graphics are so important. Sure it may help the game look real but if the gameplay sucked why would you play it?

A good example of a game with ok graphics and amazing gameplay is the GTA series, it's one of the most popular games around and the graphics aren't even as good as Max Payne's.

As someone said earlier, it's not the graphics and gameplay alone that makes the game it's the combination of both that makes great games so great.

People have to realize that Graphics are only part of a whole in most videogames. In basketball's case you have graphics, gameplay, dynasty, animations, defensive and offensive AI, and features, not in that order.

You're not a fan of basketball in it's totality, if you're not expecting every one of those features in a new basketball game. We didn't get them all in EITHER game last year. The two closetst games were Live 2000 and NBA 2K2 for dreamcast, but even those games have their flaws.

Like the poster above me said, look at GTA series, look at how beautiful Doom3 is, but the highest review score I've seen is 8.9. If it was all about graphics Doom would have had 10.0 on every site.

the way i see it, every yeah both games are given a budget and a time schedule. with this in mind, i much rather have a team devote the bulk of thier time makeing a fun game and a indepth franchise. espn can spend all thier time on graphics every year and it wont matter cause next to live and specially madden the gameplay is junk. graphics only matter when the game is fun. if the game sucks then who cares if its the best looking game ever. graphics aint even top 3 for me when it comes to a game.

the way i see it, every yeah both games are given a budget and a time schedule. with this in mind, i much rather have a team devote the bulk of thier time makeing a fun game and a indepth franchise. espn can spend all thier time on graphics every year and it wont matter cause next to live and specially madden the gameplay is junk. graphics only matter when the game is fun. if the game sucks then who cares if its the best looking game ever. graphics aint even top 3 for me when it comes to a game.

My list of importance:(1-5)

1)Gameplay
2)Dynasty Mode
3)add ons such as all star weekend.
4)graphics
5)loading time(lol)

I mean the graphics are good anyways because it's just good. So what ESPN's screenshots look better. We will see

also with gameplay, there are so many levels of it. graphics are just 1 base level and thats it. with gameplay you got so many things. for instance you got stuff like dribble moves, collisions,speed,shooting,movement of ai, computer offensive/defensive ai, i mean the list goes on and on.

ESPN had better graphics, but the animations were crap.

It looked like cardboard cutouts moving around. Well, the animations weren't that bad of course, but it was just a bunch of good looking models moving around awkwardly.

I like for a game to have good graphics, but that's not really my main priority. As long as the game has graphics that looks good enough for me. The thing I really want in a game is better features, A.I. and a great dynasty mode. I also want things like shoes from real life and not letting all the players wear the same shoes. If the players look alike then I will accept the graphics. If has like a hightop fade and in real life he is like bald head then I'm not going to like that.