Why EA, WHY?

[Silky Smooth Vlade]

The other day I whipped out my Sega Dreamcast from my closet and hooked it up to see just how far gaming has come since then. I had glorious, glorious NBA 2k2 inside of it. I then turned the power on, and I went into practice mode and performed a few dunks with VC and checked them out in instant replay. The frame rate was so smooth, and the graphics were so detailed, it made me think a little bit. This was NBA 2k2, a two year old game, on a console that has been dead for some time, and the graphics and motion capture were still blowing Live 2004 out of the water. When I say framerate, I don't just mean how smooth the game runs (even tho NBA Live 2004 has some trouble there) I mean how smooth, detailed, and frame-filled (if that's even a term) the dunk animations were. And when I say motion capture, I don't mean the variety of moves and such, I mean just the dunks that were included looked better. Then I zoomed in and looked at Carter's face. It looked nothing like him, but it still looked like a real life human more so then Live's models do. Also keep in mind, this was before Sega started the whole greasy, sweaty face look.
Now I know that EA doesn't strive for the best possible graphics, it goes for gameplay, and putting the user in control of the game, and I love that, makes the game ten times more enjoyable then the 2k series. And NBA Live in my opinion, is clearly the better series between the two. But the staff of NBA Live are starting to get just downright lazy in some aspects of their product. I can't believe that playing a two year old game on my dead console would make me notice it, but EA needs to kick it up a notch with the graphics in Live. If Madden can do it, why can't Live?
One last thing, If this post does infact get any replies, please don't make them anything like the following...


"EA doesn't care about having the best graphics..."
Well, that's pretty damn obvious, take one look at their game. Maybe not the best, but can't they strive for something a little better.

"Live has a smooth framerate."
This response deserves some profanity in return, but I won't issue it. I don't think you can even respond to this one.

"You are stupid, Sega is stupid, and you should both die."
Please, let's not get personal.

Infact, all I really want answered is... WHY CAN'T NBA LIVE ATLEAST TRY A LITTLE HARDER WITH THEIR GRAPHICS? When is the last time they TOTALLY revamped the look of their game? I just think it's down right sad that it gets beat in ANY category by a 2 year old game on Sega Dreamcast, let alone in the category of graphics...

[LoveItLive2004]

What kind of computer do you have, because mine is very smooth. The graphic is very good as well,

[Guest]

NBA 2k & 2k2 where really great BBall games and still are. I dont really remember the graphics. Its is a console and alot easier 2 produce better looking "overall" visuals. PCs are all different, each spec 2 its own, there has 2 be some kind of equilibrium and balance so more ppl will buy the game. Dont forget with the pc version patches aand addons are almost limit less, consoles cant even get close 2 what u can do with a pc. I like most of the visuals in the new live game, everything is maxed except bench players and mine looks good. Although my players dont actual touch the floor they seem 2 be walking about 3" above it