The not so distant future of the NBA Live Series
Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:33 am
I kind of started to talk about in another thread, about the future of NBA Live.
Tim sort of eluded to that they were about at the end of what they could do on the current consoles in his interview with IGN. I popped in the DVD for PS2 (04) into my PC to check the size and it is indeed 4.x gigabytes, almost a full 4.7 DVD, but that is probably not the problem with the new usage (old for XBoxers) HDD which could perhaps help streaming a bit.
But I digress....the PS2 has a whopping 4MB of RAM in it and all of the graphics chips for the current generation consoles have 128-bit graphic interfaces (PC have been 256 for awhile now).
This is why we have 3 or 4 shooting styles instead of 40, decent graphics, but nowhere near to where they could be, condensed franchises, limited ball physics, no cutscenes, 2D audiences, less animations as possible (even though we have a LOT, we could have tons more). I also believe this is why instead of adding things to the next game, they have to trade-off things.
I know that gameplay is the MOST important thing, don't get me wrong, but as the gameplay nears perfection (at least as perfect as any game can be) the little things start to count even more.
Next generation consoles will probably not hit until 2006 (I'd be very suprised if it were any earlier, although I read somewhere PS3 is supposed to be playable at E3 2005). Console gamers pays the bills for EA Sports, it's no secret, so will they be catered to until a next gen console hit, or will PC'ers be given a little something more before, or even provide as test dummies for the next gen consoles since we have the horsepower. Live 98,99,and 2000 on PC were miles ahead of it's PS1 counterparts. I remember having a 3dfx Voodoo!! and playing live in it's 3D glory. It seemed like Live was being handled very differently for PC back then because PC had the horsepower to do more.
You can't expect a major overhaul every year from the live team, but you have to wonder how much of an improvement can be done when the consoles are at thier limit with possibly 2 years to spare, while us PC'ers have the future in our hands, but can't take advantage of it, at least in sports games. Look at Doom3, got dayum!!! It's absolutely stunning, visually!! The human models put everything on ANY console to shame. I mean you can see the lines on the man's freaking fingernails! Live will look that good one day for sure, having details down to the 13,021st fan in section A Row 10, and showing thier 8 millionth hair on their hear (Kidding), but when?
I dunno, I'm just trying to start a discussion on the near future. Do you think Live PC will move ahead of the console verisons ala 98-99, and 2000? Or will we get the mild updates the consolers are gonna get for 2 years? This is neither a rant or a praise, just talking, so talk!
Tim sort of eluded to that they were about at the end of what they could do on the current consoles in his interview with IGN. I popped in the DVD for PS2 (04) into my PC to check the size and it is indeed 4.x gigabytes, almost a full 4.7 DVD, but that is probably not the problem with the new usage (old for XBoxers) HDD which could perhaps help streaming a bit.
But I digress....the PS2 has a whopping 4MB of RAM in it and all of the graphics chips for the current generation consoles have 128-bit graphic interfaces (PC have been 256 for awhile now).
This is why we have 3 or 4 shooting styles instead of 40, decent graphics, but nowhere near to where they could be, condensed franchises, limited ball physics, no cutscenes, 2D audiences, less animations as possible (even though we have a LOT, we could have tons more). I also believe this is why instead of adding things to the next game, they have to trade-off things.
I know that gameplay is the MOST important thing, don't get me wrong, but as the gameplay nears perfection (at least as perfect as any game can be) the little things start to count even more.
Next generation consoles will probably not hit until 2006 (I'd be very suprised if it were any earlier, although I read somewhere PS3 is supposed to be playable at E3 2005). Console gamers pays the bills for EA Sports, it's no secret, so will they be catered to until a next gen console hit, or will PC'ers be given a little something more before, or even provide as test dummies for the next gen consoles since we have the horsepower. Live 98,99,and 2000 on PC were miles ahead of it's PS1 counterparts. I remember having a 3dfx Voodoo!! and playing live in it's 3D glory. It seemed like Live was being handled very differently for PC back then because PC had the horsepower to do more.
You can't expect a major overhaul every year from the live team, but you have to wonder how much of an improvement can be done when the consoles are at thier limit with possibly 2 years to spare, while us PC'ers have the future in our hands, but can't take advantage of it, at least in sports games. Look at Doom3, got dayum!!! It's absolutely stunning, visually!! The human models put everything on ANY console to shame. I mean you can see the lines on the man's freaking fingernails! Live will look that good one day for sure, having details down to the 13,021st fan in section A Row 10, and showing thier 8 millionth hair on their hear (Kidding), but when?
I dunno, I'm just trying to start a discussion on the near future. Do you think Live PC will move ahead of the console verisons ala 98-99, and 2000? Or will we get the mild updates the consolers are gonna get for 2 years? This is neither a rant or a praise, just talking, so talk!
Re: The not so distant future of the NBA Live Series
Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:46 am
Bird123 wrote:Look at Doom3, got dayum!!! It's absolutely stunning, visually!! The human models put everything on ANY console to shame. I mean you can see the lines on the man's freaking fingernails! Live will look that good one day for sure, having details down to the 13,021st fan in section A Row 10, and showing thier 8 millionth hair on their hear (Kidding), but when?
Okay, that section right there literally gave a brother goosebumps! Details on fingernails you say?
I couldn't even imagine playing Live with that level of detail, I might become celibate! 
As far as your PC question goes, it surprises me greatly that y'all aren't more of a prioirty since they are PC guys themselves. Also, it makes perfect sense to test things out on the PC games as it will enable them to tweak gameplay, etc. until the next generation consoles.....
I've only played Live on PC once and that's when my squad leader in the military had 2000 for his PC. I remember going back to my PS1 afterwards in a sort of mini-depression those graphics were so good! But alas, once a console man always a console man...........
Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:57 am
Hmm I was thinking other day that xbox gamecube and ps2 were out since 2001. For console 3 years on is definitely getting towards the end. By year 4 the production usually slows and just work on next system. year 5, new system and one or two last games for the oldie.
I seen this with n64, 96-01, and Snes 91-97, Genesis 89-97, Nintendo 85-92, they don't last much longer than five years and PS2 will be 5 next year. PC I don't play it on (controller comfort), but Live 05 video look a lot like live 04.
I seen this with n64, 96-01, and Snes 91-97, Genesis 89-97, Nintendo 85-92, they don't last much longer than five years and PS2 will be 5 next year. PC I don't play it on (controller comfort), but Live 05 video look a lot like live 04.
Fri Sep 10, 2004 1:28 pm
nba live wont ever be the top notch game graphic wise that some might want it to be. i can even tell you why, consoles. if EA stopped makeing games for consoles and did them pc only the graphics would be insane. of course this wont ever happen and with good reason, EA would stand to lose a ton of money buy not makeing games for the consoles. so basicly we will have to wait for the ps3 and the graphic boost that comes with it, which btw still wont be on the level of a pc.
Sat Sep 11, 2004 12:47 am
Good points everyone. The consoles market for sports games is definitely bigger (or at least more profitable) than the PC market. So they cater to consoles first, PC second. Additionally, from what I hear, porting console games to PC is easier than vice-versa.
And one other reason comes to mind - on PC, there is no competition. Live is the only basketball game worth mentioning. So even if the gfx are not up to par, they will still sell a ton of copies.
And one other reason comes to mind - on PC, there is no competition. Live is the only basketball game worth mentioning. So even if the gfx are not up to par, they will still sell a ton of copies.
Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:27 pm
i dont get why they cant do some minor improvements just for PCers, it wouldnt be that diff.
Sat Sep 11, 2004 1:35 pm
basicly if we wanted changes for pc only we are looking at a 3 month delay behind the ps2 release. also i think i read somewhere that once they finish a game they get to work on the next. if this is true then they just dont have the time to rework the pc game at all for us. honestly if thats the case i rather thier work be spent on the next live, not graphics for this one.
Sat Sep 11, 2004 2:00 pm
Live 2000 was excellent, and more playable than the years after it. I wish EA could go past another level the same way Doom 3 did for the PC users, but that's wishful thinking. Businesses' main focus is profit, and if they're not willing to create a large distinction between PC and consoles or place greater emphasis on PC over consoles, they're not going to make as much profit.