Graphics different from those previewed

[End Boss]

It's not something that's going to decrease your enjoyment of the game in any significant way, but the graphics particularly those relating to the jerseys seem more in line with that seen last year than those previewed..



It's nothing new for previewed graphics to be different from those featured in the real game.. most of you will remember teasers like this from last year



although it does seem as though they've pulled out on the graphical upgrade pretty late in the piece..

in case you were wondering I'm running everything maxed out, so it doesn't really get any better than the 2nd image

[Lappi]

The last screenshot is form 2005

[End Boss]

most of you will remember teasers like this from last year

[Jowe]

yeh the jerseys aren't that detailed in the game, from those shots they gave us earlier..
the players aren't detailed too. And i have teh game cranked to max settings.

[Cloudy]

First I thought one of the best part of Live 06 is the new jersey detail that makes it look so nice... Now it really seems to be gone

[junwin]

is it possible to update these sort of issues through patches??

im new to PC versions of NBA Live so yeh, but i want to get into shoe makin or sumthin like that

[Andre]

Just another proof that EA is bitching us...nothing new

[Mentally Hilarious]

is it possible to update these sort of issues through patches??

im new to PC versions of NBA Live so yeh, but i want to get into shoe makin or sumthin like that

Kinda. The textures can be modified.

[Steve [The Spiderman]]

That truly is rediciulous. For someone that has the game...are there any new textures in the game...what am I saying. They will all be redone anyways...

[End Boss]

the reason the previewed jerseys looked so good is normal mapping.. unless patchers can change the normal maps (if indeed they're even supported) they won't be able to produce results as seen in the previewed screens.

[Cloudy]

Normal mapping? That means most of our computers don't support normal mapping?

[The X]

I'm not surprised at all....previews are from XBox360....PC is ported from XBox/PS2 etc so it should be no surprise to anyone....misleading, but not surprising....I guess next year should be a port from XBox360 so that should be alright....

[End Boss]

Normal mapping? That means most of our computers don't support normal mapping?

Any graphics card that supports pixel shader 1.0 supports normal mapping.. so basically anything after geforce 3 generation..

for those of you who don't know a normal map is a 2D reference map applied over a texture that can alter the surface normal for any given pixel in a texture. Basically how any surface is lit is determined by the angle made between the angle of incidence of light in relation to the normal of that surface. Usually the normal is determined by the geometry of the object, normal mapping allows the normal to be determined by a texture creating the illusion that there is more geometric complexity (in terms of polygons) than is actually on display.

[zmac]

I think the actual gameplay one looks better.....
Well the jersey does anywayz...too big mesh holes in the teaser

[Andrew]

I agree, I might be in the minority but I actually think the graphics in the game are superior. The lighting effect is, pardon the pun, light years ahead of last year's "glow".

[madskillz]

Andrew Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, I might be in the minority but I actually think the graphics in the game are superior. The lighting effect is, pardon the pun, light years ahead of last year's "glow".

I think it might look somewhat better than Live 05, but when you look at thse new Driving simulations and they look so real Do you Agree?

If such Graphic engines are availiable in the market, why CANT EAsport, make the game look more like what you see on TV?

Who doesnt like to control 'real-person'(virtual) like players?



my 2ents

[nickia]

not to be a prick on Nba live forum but 2006 compare to 2k6 is like #$%$

I almost dropped my jaw when I watched the 2k6 preview videos.

Live just doesn't change, still skating and bubble head. According to IGN's Review NBA Live is very arcadish

From IGN:

Sporting an all-new graphics engine, these are the best looking Live players to date, but this game isn't anywhere near the quality of NBA 2K6's visuals.

so while the Superstar moves add the realism of individuality to the court, don't expect to play any realistic type of basketball game here. Sure, you can call plays and players act more realistically than in the past, but this is far from a basketball simulation

a videogame, it's extremely fun and addicting, especially playing two-players, but if you're looking for a true sim, you're looking in the wrong place. There are way too many blocks, way too many steals to mirror anything close to a real game.

[End Boss]

I think it might look somewhat better than Live 05, but when you look at thse new Driving simulations and they look so real Do you Agree?

If such Graphic engines are availiable in the market, why CANT EAsport, make the game look more like what you see on TV?

Since 2001 all PC versions have been ports from the console. NBA Live 2000 actually had largest texture sizes for player faces out of every Live to this date, including 2006. There are several reasons why some games look better on the current generation consoles.

1) NBA Live has a 1 year development life cycle. The time spent developing and optimising a game's graphics for consoles is therefore greatly reduced. AAA PS2 games like Gran Turismo are developed over 3 to 4 years for 1 system.

2) Number of polygons on screen in a basketball game will be consistently higher than that of a racing game, first person shooter, or most other sports games. The human form is curvacious with many subtleties and independent joints and articulations. Basketball, unlike other sports, is consistently represented at closer to the players so more often than not you have to represent players in high detail as opposed to having a 20 polygon 2 box player representing someone taking the punt return.

Why would NBA 2K6 look better than Live? With the NFL 2K stripped of it's liscence NBA 2K is now Take 2's flagship sports title. EA Sports is spreading it's risk evenly over 5 or more sports. NBA 2K6 has more at steak so they spend more money to make sure that anyone who would be buying on the grounds of graphics (I'm not making any comment about the gameplay) would buy there version. More money invested means more man hours, which means more work done per development life cycle.

Expect to see an appreciable step up in detail between the 2 generations though. The stakes are raised (for better or worse), but the capabilities of the hardware allow higher quality visuals without that much more investment in R&D or actual coding because those capabilities are built into the hardware. Sports games don't have to worry too much about the spiralling cost of art in the next gen because the players and environments lend themselves to reuse of assets.

[Andre]

madskillz wrote:
I think it might look somewhat better than Live 05, but when you look at thse new Driving simulations and they look so real Do you Agree?

If such Graphic engines are availiable in the market, why CANT EAsport, make the game look more like what you see on TV?

I agree. I guess Live raphic is just ok...but can be a way better. It's just that all of us are used ot this type of graphic so it does look ok to us...but when you think f how it could be........well.......

Still it is true that:

2) Number of polygons on screen in a basketball game will be consistently higher than that of a racing game, first person shooter, or most other sports games.

..and therefore it will never look as great as a racing or action game.

1) NBA Live has a 1 year development life cycle. The time spent developing and optimising a game's graphics for consoles is therefore greatly reduced. AAA PS2 games like Gran Turismo are developed over 3 to 4 years for 1 system.

But 2k has a 1 year developmet cycle too, and it looks a way better.

Why would NBA 2K6 look better than Live? With the NFL 2K stripped of it's liscence NBA 2K is now Take 2's flagship sports title. EA Sports is spreading it's risk evenly over 5 or more sports

Not completly correct. EA has many development teams..so Lives's team doesn't have to work on different games at the same time. Live has a dedicated team exactly like 2k.

There is no excuse for Live not having good graphic as 2k. I am actually thinking that the graphic programmer at EA isn't just very good at his job. I mean he has his own style, and while many are ok with it, I am not. It's just a matter of tastes...but the way EA build player models just isn't real for me.

I'd love to see:
- longer legs (Live players look like soccer players)
- larger shoulders, without turning players into bodybuilders
- smaller size for heads
- a smaller ball. As it is now it's not proportioned with the player models

[End Boss]

Not completly correct. EA has many development teams..so Lives's team doesn't have to work on different games at the same time. Live has a dedicated team exactly like 2k.

You missed the point. I wasn't saying that EA Canada has to produce more games. I was saying that EA (the publisher) creates more sports titles and therefore has a diversified risk port folio. This means that they have the luxury of assigning development cost to it's higher grossing titles, because to make money they don't need all of their games to turn a high profit so long as one or two do.

Take2 sports on the other hand has a limited array of sports titles. If one of their sports titles fails then overall they see a loss. So they protect their investment by increasing spending to make sure that they have better graphics.

The publishing business is all about economics, and sports title development is games economics at its crudest.

[k083]

Not completly correct. EA has many development teams..so Lives's team doesn't have to work on different games at the same time. Live has a dedicated team exactly like 2k.

You missed the point. I wasn't saying that EA Canada has to produce more games. I was saying that EA (the publisher) creates more sports titles and therefore has a diversified risk port folio. This means that they have the luxury of assigning development cost to it's higher grossing titles, because to make money they don't need all of their games to turn a high profit so long as one or two do.

Take2 sports on the other hand has a limited array of sports titles. If one of their sports titles fails then overall they see a loss. So they protect their investment by increasing spending to make sure that they have better graphics.

The publishing business is all about economics, and sports title development is games economics at its crudest.

Not really. EA as a company just SUCK at doing anything graphics related as of now. This is EA's motto.

1. We are sporting an all new graphics engine that will provide the best graphical experience on the market! Releases some screens, then when the final game comes out, completely opposite of what they claim.

2. Not as of now, but we are considering this for future versions.*

*Next year:

1. See above

2. See above

[madskillz]

EA have MONEY, Stop Being GREDDY for ONE YEAR I ASK and INvest some MOney!.

WE bought the game for $50


Are you Trying to make game Better OR Just trying to Make MOney from US?


Dont get me wrong, I've been a Biggest FAN of LIVE until recently.

I owned 2copies of LIVE 05 for ps2 and pc. You know i'm speaking from my heart. This Live is Garbage.

[Andre]

Are you Trying to make game Better OR [b]Just trying to Make MOney from US?

it's no secret all they want is money, like every business.

But the business equations should be:
good game = good money for EA
Bad game = bad money for EA

But instead it is good money for EA in either case. And you know why? It's our fault...YES, it's our f......g fault. Because many of us still pay 50$ for a shitty game like they had no other option.

I cannot undertand this stubborness, really. I am having enough of it.

I have already stopped buying LIVE in the past, from 2001 to 2003 included I didn't buy anything from EA. Then I bought 04 and 05 caz I could see their efforts. But this year, NO NO NO NO.

Better give my money to 2k, which only costs 30$ and worth a way more than LIVE, and I help that company to survive...caz I thank God that we have their games instead of a sad LIVE monopoly.

[hipn]

98% of all games have pre-rendered trailers/pictures. So stop complaining, you shouldve seen this coming. I cant beleive most of you think Live 06 graphics for the XBox360 will be like the one in the teaser/trailer. It wont be close. WHy am I saying this? Becuase I saw gampley footage of this game for the X630 and it didnt look much better than the Xbox graphics. The game was just 2-3% clearer and had more things happeneing in the background than the Xbox does. So trust me, the Xbox360 version of NBA Live wont have the graphics you are expecting.

[Devin112]

there's no way that you can lead in all catagories, when ur competition is mainly focused on one.

EA was the first to give you freestyle, they spent time and money and took that chance. That whole time, 2K focused on graphics and stole the idea to use next year.

This year EA worked on giving us the supertar experience, and at least to me that's enough with the graphics they have provided for his year. IF they had no given us the superstar ablity, then yes I would bitch too.

But the difference with the screens before the games release and the final is soley the JERSEY RIGHT? What else??????