graphics

by **And1_Aussie** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:04 pm

i just got nba live 2005
and the graphics..look horrible..even on maximum..any ideas on how to change it???

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:49 pm

The graphics aren't great but Live series is not known for great graphics. We are not talking about HL2, Far Cry or Doom 3 here...first person shooters usually have the BEST PC graphics.

People gotta remember that Live is now a PORT game. The graphics won't look dramatically better than let's say Xbox. It will only look more define with AF on and DX9 shaders but you need a card which can use those to see it.

What is your GPU?

by **And1_Aussie** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:48 pm

GPU???
im assuming u mean Graphics card???
if u are Nvidia Geforce 4

by **Bl@ck_Thorne** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:30 pm

And1_Aussie wrote:GPU???
im assuming u mean Graphics card???
if u are Nvidia Geforce 4

yeah if ur using gefoce4 MX then the graphics is horrible even in maximum setting

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 pm

And1_Aussie wrote:GPU???
im assuming u mean Graphics card???
if u are Nvidia Geforce 4

What type of G4? The other poster is right the MX is crap. Those are the low end G4 series. Anyways G4s don't support DX9 completely. They are DX8.1 cards. WORST the MX series are DX7. DX7 looks like shit. Remember just because you have DX9 installed in your OS doesn't mean your GPU actually uses it's tech. You need a TRUE DX9 card to use DX9 tech like DX9 shaders and etc. For Nvidia their DX9 cards include the FX and 6xxx series. For ATI it begins with Radeon 9500 and up including all X series. But the DX9 support in FX cards are crap and hence why their 3dmark scores are usually shit.

by **And1_Aussie** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:39 pm

so if i downgrade my Directx to like 8.1 will it do anything???

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:42 pm

And1_Aussie wrote:so if i downgrade my Directx to like 8.1 will it do anything???

NO. You can have DX9 installed on your OS but if your card is only DX8.1 it will only use the DX8.1 tech that is included within DX9. It just won't use the new DX9 tech.

What is your GPU? G4 what? Ti or MX?

by **And1_Aussie** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:50 pm

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:54 pm

And1_Aussie wrote:MX

Alright so you are not even using DX8.1. Your card is DX7. That explains A LOT. DX7 is considered ancient now. Live 2005 looks good with DX8.1 and a bit better if not the same with DX9. I don't think Live 2005 fully ulitizes DX9 tech like Doom 3 or HL2...obviously.

by **And1_Aussie** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:05 pm

ok..cool..
I wish i could upgrade my Card..but i aint got no money...
i wanna so take it back..but i cant...which really sucks a$$

by **Rork73** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:15 pm

MX or not, it doesn't matter......my Ti4600 can handle any game out there, but NBA 2005 has ported graphics (like Fifa 2005).
The filtering and AA and stuff can make it look smoother, but that's just a trick.
With the MX you're just seeing it the way it was made

The overall detail in the player models and textures is a lot lower on consoles, and because it's ported it's not very well optimized to run on pc. (they sell more on consoles, so it's probably not worth the extra effort).

Like Fifa 2005, it needs an amazing ammount of power to display such a low amount of detail.

I know it doesn't influence the gameplay ofcourse, but in a way it's pretty ridiculous for a game that they work on every year. (they might as well spend some time optimizing the old engine for PC).

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:26 pm

Rork73 wrote:MX or not, it doesn't matter......my Ti4600 can handle any game out there, but NBA 2005 has ported graphics (like Fifa 2005).
The filtering and AA and stuff can make it look smoother, but that's just a trick.
With the MX you're just seeing it the way it was made

The overall detail in the player models and textures is a lot lower on consoles, and because it's ported it's not very well optimized to run on pc. (they sell more on consoles, so it's probably not worth the extra effort).

Like Fifa 2005, it needs an amazing ammount of power to display such a low amount of detail.

I know it doesn't influence the gameplay ofcourse, but in a way it's pretty ridiculous for a game that they work on every year. (they might as well spend some time optimizing the old engine for PC).

We are not just talking about AF and AA. Those are GPU dependent. We are talking about the DX tech. For example, a DX9 card can use DX9 shaders while others CAN'T. Also your card is considered low end now and it's DX8.1 so I won't go as far as it can handle any game out there. It can't handle Doom 3 at high 1024*768 no AA and no AF. The fps is almost unplayable and that is without using DX9 tech. But your card is WAY better than the MX and WAY better than the crappy FX5200 which has the crappiest DX9 support I have ever seen.

I agree with your last line COMPLETELY... (they might as well spend some time optimizing the old engine for PC)...I always thought that EA sports should ONLY release versions every TWO years not every year. Every other year they should just release OFFICIAL roster/uniform patches. This would ensure BETTER quality in upcoming versions of Live because they have TWO years to work on it rather than ONE. Just look at HL2 it has been reviewed as the greatest PC game EVER. Why? It took them SIX years to make it. Also it is not like EA Sports made their own engine for Live 2005 they just licensed the Catwoman engine. Releasing a new verion of Live each year is USELESS and just a marketing ploy to waste consumer money considering that each upcoming version does not add much compared to the last.

by **Bl@ck_Thorne** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:43 pm

im not agree with you released a live in every two years co'z it is tradition that nba live is released every year and i think most pople here that played live is not agree on every two years to released the live co'z we don't need a better graphics on this game we need is a gameplay not a graphics

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:45 pm

Bl@ck_Thorne wrote:im not agree with to released a live in evry two years co'z it is tradition that nba live is released every year and i think most pople here that played live is not agree on every two years to released the live co'z we don't need a better graphics on this game we need is a gameplay not a graphics

You don't think that if they had two years to develop it they won't improve gameplay? Just look at all the bugs in 2005. I'm not talking about graphics because EA can just license an engine instead of create one from ground up. Therefore it is just really a "mod". Truth is 2005 adds LITTLE to 2004 and it seems like a very much RUSHED project.

by **And1_Aussie** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:23 am

i agree to a degree with the two years thing...means they coukd put more detail..and effort into it..
the strange thing with the graphics..is that i have fifa 2005 and it looks awesome on my computer but oh well
i dont know if ill keep nba live and re-install it or try and sell it...
we'll see how we go...so thanks for your help..

by **cyanide** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:32 am

It is strange that other games like FIFA, NHL and Madden has great graphics, but Live is really lagging behind. If you look at the coaches' faces in NHL and compare it to Live, biiiig difference!

by **And1_Aussie** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:05 am

what would a good graphics card be???
ati radeon 9600 128???

by **A.I.2** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:19 pm

I've got Radeon 9600SE, and the graphics are nice.
The players textures are great.

The only thing I hate are the crowd animations like always, but that's minor.
The big problem is the courts. They look very scarppy and blur, and I would like to find a way to make it more sharpened.

Anyway, Live 2004 was great at that area.
They had many options on Detail screens, not like in Live 2005.

by **Alvin** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:06 pm

i've got ati radeon 9550 128mb, it looks great... only 1 problem... it hangs every now and then which s*cks because sometimes i''m in the 3rd quarter and suddenly the game freezes...

by **A.I.2** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:12 pm

ac93 wrote:i've got ati radeon 9550 128mb, it looks great... only 1 problem... it hangs every now and then which s*cks because sometimes i''m in the 3rd quarter and suddenly the game freezes...

Yeah, 1 minute towards the end of the game, and the frickin game just stuck.
I guess it happend because I'm using another downloading programs like Kazza or something like that, which takes some big memory portion of the CPU.

When I don't use that, it's OK.

by **Alvin** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:51 pm

i don't use kazaa... though i have norton up and running. haven't tried disabling it though. before it's not even an issue, but then again, my last video card was a tnt2 or something

by **IluvitLIVE** on Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:33 pm

And1_Aussie wrote:i agree to a degree with the two years thing...means they coukd put more detail..and effort into it..
the strange thing with the graphics..is that i have fifa 2005 and it looks awesome on my computer but oh well
i dont know if ill keep nba live and re-install it or try and sell it...
we'll see how we go...so thanks for your help..

Fifa is still the graphics standard for EASports games. They look incredible but Fifa is a little kids' game compare to Winning Eleven 7.

by **End Boss** on Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:38 pm

ne1 who's been saying that the nba live series is on par with the rest of the pc versions of the ea sports games should have a look at nhl 2005..

by **cyanide** on Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:02 pm

I have a Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB, and it runs great and no driver issues at all.

graphics

graphics

Who is online