X360, PC, PS2, XBOX Thursday, October 27, 2005 | 9:23 PM

NBA Live 06: Intro trailer

NBA Live 06: Intro trailer

EA released this trailer of the Xbox 360-version of NBA Live 06. It shows one of the coolest features I've seen in the next-gen: no more loading times! Or, yeah, there is - but you are actually playing the game while it's loading.


Intro trailer
Download: AVI

All comments

Page 1 2 >>
Commented on 2005-10-27 21:39:13
I am definately buying this game. Looks so much more fun than 2k6. Sweat is just as good, and that menu system is a brilliant idea. And i want one of those automatic folding hoops...
Commented on 2005-10-27 21:54:33
OH! MY GOD THANK GOD FOR LIVE !! IT HAS ARRIVED!!
Commented on 2005-10-27 21:57:19
the animations are choppier tha in 2k6, but the gameplay is faster (more arcadey) for some that may be a good thing.
Commented on 2005-10-27 21:59:03
Scarface, I am leaning the opposite direction.

IGN revealed yesterday no EA game will be above 30fps; on the other hand 2K6 runs at 60fps. NBA Live 06 for the 360 guts the game of significant features--like FRANCHISE. Franchise mode has been around for 10 years (or longer, depending on the series) so why a next gen game would remove a feature that has been standard for a decade, on vital to long lasting gameplay, is unthinkable. Further first hand reports from the media not that the gameplay is very sluggish compared to current versions of NBA Live.

I could not see someone buying NBA Live over NBA 2K6 unless they 1. hate NBA 2K6 gameplay and 2. have no intention of playing franchise or any of the other cut features and 3. is not bothered by 50% less framerate on a wide screen TV and 4. NBA Live remedies the sluggish gameplay exhibited in the demos.

Obviously we have to wait for reviews, but so far the press has noted the NBA 2K6 gameplay is solid as ever while NBA Live has issues. That alone is a big red flag. Tossing in the fact 2K6 pwns in features, runs smoother, and so forth I think it would be hard to pass up 2K6 in favor of Live unless you really hate 2K6 and love Live.

Everyone has a right to a preference, but when it comes to features Live is getting spanked--and to most sports fans features, especially franchise, add to the value of the product and the longevity/realism of the experience.

BTW, the NBA Live intro screen and start of the game is waaaay hot. Really well done. Like Madden the stadium and crowd look really solid.
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:06:53
Game looks like a pretty fun game to play. The animation of the player when running around is a bit choppie but it doesn't seem to affect the gameplay. Something that i don't like is the face and skin work of the players in EA's sport games for the Xbox 360. They look like plastic dols and the swet only makes it worse. Off all EA's sport games this is the worst in this game.
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:18:44
Not to fond of live. I might give it a try. I prefer a sim like basketball games. So NBA 2k6 is the better choice.
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:20:41 In reply to Acert93
Posted by Acert93
...
NBA Live 06 for the 360 guts the game of significant features--like FRANCHISE. Franchise mode has been around for 10 years (or longer, depending on the series) so why a next gen game would remove a feature that has been standard for a decade, on vital to long lasting gameplay, is unthinkable.
...
Are you sure that there's no franchise mode?
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:29:15
2k6 still looks better both graphically and gameplay wise. If current gen is any indication then 2k6 will be the better game, and I have no reason to believe Live is gonna get better just because it has improved graphics.
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:36:51 In reply to Acert93
Posted by Acert93
Scarface, I am leaning the opposite direction.

IGN revealed yesterday no EA game will be above 30fps; on the other hand 2K6 runs at 60fps.
Wrong... Read
http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1236/NBA-Liv...

anyway... They are very different styles. For those who can't play real basketball and want to pretend that they can, then 2k is the right choice.
But for those that want a fast paced easy to pick up game for great multiplayer with mates, then Live is the right choice.

For me, Live looks more next gen. They have new ideas for the gameplay, a great new graphics engine and the whole experience looks more fun and immersive.
2k6 looks like a graphical update but gameplay still looks slow and boring, and with horrible animations(look at shaq run on the trailer).

I'm not arguing with you, they are very different games, and I think it is a good thing that we will have a hard choice on launch day.
Commented on 2005-10-27 22:52:01
This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here

Commented on 2005-10-27 23:00:14
that looks awesome.

(if you're going to make obviously trolling comments, you won't last very long.)
Commented on 2005-10-27 23:19:14
In the 1up video preview of NBA Live 2006 and FIFA 2006 the did say that ALL EA games are going to be locked at 30fps and not 60fps. thats what I heard when watching the video.

But in a sports game, 30FPS and 60FPS is not that big of a deal at all. Now in a racing game its different, but IMO, in a sports game, it won't make too much of a difference.

regardless i won't get live or 2k6 cause i'm not a bball fan. but nba live sure does look great, as does 2k6. the 1up preview shows ALOT of nba live gameplay footage, and there are gameplay moments where it literally looks like a TV broadcast. NBA Live really brings out the atmosphere of the game.
Commented on 2005-10-27 23:26:37 In reply to purbeast
Posted by purbeast
But in a sports game, 30FPS and 60FPS is not that big of a deal at all. Now in a racing game its different, but IMO, in a sports game, it won't make too much of a difference.
I really don't understand every ones obsession with 60 FPS.
PGR1 is 60fps but PGR2 and Halo2 are 30fps. And PGR1 runs no where near as smooth as halo 2 or PGR2.

Some one explain the difference...
Commented on 2005-10-27 23:36:03
I dont think 30 or 60 FPS matters!
COD:UO on pc mine runs at 120FPS were new COD2 only runs at 20-30fps but COD2 runs so much smoother, i guess it depends on the engine? dont no but as long as it runs smooth im fine with 30 or 60 i dont care :S
Commented on 2005-10-27 23:41:02 In reply to j0k3r
Posted by j0k3r
I dont think FPS matters!
COD:UO on pc mine runs at 120FPS were new COD2 only runs at 20-30fps but COD2 runs so much smoother, i guess it depends on the engine? dont no but as long as it runs smooth im fine with 30 or 60 i dont care :S
Thanks for the explaination jok3r... So people... stop bitching about fps, there's more to games than how many 10's of frames your eyes can see in one second. And if it wasn't for developers telling us how many frames there are, who would know. I mean who can actually count the difference from 30fps to 60fps....
Commented on 2005-10-27 23:43:41 In reply to domni
Posted by domni
Are you sure that there's no franchise mode?
From what EA has told the press, yes. There is a lot of features have been cut from NBA Live 06 between the 360 version and the current gen titles bearing the same name.
Posted by scarface
Wrong
TeamXbox is noting that the title has slowdown in the build they played but were "promised" it would hit 60fps. Yet 2 other sources are stating that all EA launch titles are now going to be locked down at 30fps.

http://sports.ign.com/articles/661/661869p3.html
Posted by Scarface
For those who can't play real basketball and want to pretend that they can, then 2k is the right choice.
Hmmm...

Basically people who like realistic games are hacks? Objectivity people... its like the Madden/NFL 2K series. I prefer Madden's gameplay (largely due due to the speed boost issues in 2k wich made open field running feel very unrealistic to me) but I could recognize that 1. 2K was a good game and 2. that some people preferred that. I left the same door open for Live--I know some people prefer one over the other.

But calling people hacks and the like because they disagree really is not the way to go about that. Ever consider a fan of the game wants to play the game how it is really played than an arcade game?

Pesonally I hope Live turns out to be a solid game, the bugs are squashed, and fans of the series enjoy it.
Commented on 2005-10-28 00:05:12 In reply to Scarface
Posted by Scarface
I really don't understand every ones obsession with 60 FPS.
1. Research the issue. A lot of research has been compiled in regards to the eye and what it can and cannot detect. Basically anything moving less than 60 frames per second on a screen will not give a proper sense of speed, motion, or fluidity. Google is your friend.

2. Some people's eyes are less sensative.

3. And like most things graphical many people have not been trained to make a distinction in various areas of graphics. e.g. General consumers and even most low end techies cannot point out graphical features like normal maps versus a texture map, or in more general terms great game art versus great game technology.

But make no mistake: a game at 60fps is much smoother than a game at 30fps. In certain genres, especially those where there is a LOT of movement, this can be very noticable.

Think of Lord of the Rings in the Theater. At 24fps the scenes where they pan across the battlefield. If you did not notice how it was blurry, jerky, and looked horrible it either means 1) you are not trained to see it or 2) that your eyes are not sensative to motion. Or both.

But for those with a sensativity to jerky motion this is BAD. Once you know it is there it is BAD. It can even make people motion sick.

Another issue next gen is 16:9 compounds the issue. e.g. in a car game going 30fps the parts of the screen that are the most jerky are the left / right sides of the screen because they exhibit the most movement of detail. (If that does not make sense think of PGR3 when you look out the side window and everything flies by).

When you move to widescreen that area on the sides of the screen is significantly larger and thus even has MORE impact from lower framerates.
Posted by joker
COD:UO on pc mine runs at 120FPS were new COD2 only runs at 20-30fps but COD2 runs so much smoother
?

First, unless you have a super high refresh rate CRT you wont notice 120fps as the monitor cannot output that many screens.

The only thing I can think of in regards to smoothness could be your settings and detail. Framerate is only one part of animation. If I keyframe my animation to 24fps (like Madden has done in the past), even if you run at 60fps the keyrate of the animation is still the same.

That said I have played both CoD titles and I have no clue what you are talking about. 20fps CHUGS compared to 120fps. If you cannot tell the difference I honestly suggest getting your eyes checked.

If turning and doing a 180 degree turn you cannot tell how 120fps is smoother than 20fps then there is either something wrong with your system or your eyes. 20fps will be choppy and 120fps will be a smooth seemless transition.
Posted by Scarface
And if it wasn't for developers telling us how many frames there are, who would know. I mean who can actually count the difference from 30fps to 60fps....
Who needs a developer? I can tell the difference. A LOT of gamers can.

There are gamers who go as far as not purchasing games with sub-60fps if it is an action title. Again, not all consumers really notice.

But side by side it is noticable by almost all people. 2 games, where the framerate/animation rate are keyed at 60fps and 30fps the 60fps will be a lot smoother. Some titles, like a Splinter Cell or MGS, it does not matter. They are slow paced stealth games.

Car games, fast FPS, sports games that are quick and are sensative to quick response, are impacted heavily in the view of many gamers.

Try playing Quake 3 at 30fps. It impacts your gameplay. If you go to a competitive LAN you will notice people sacrifice detail for framerate because it makes the gameplay smoother.

I understand some people just are not aware of the issues. My brother played Battlefield 1942 on a IGP320 and averages 20fps. When he got a new PC with a 6600GT he said he could not play on the old laptop anymore because it was waaay too choppy. He never noticed before because he never knew anything better.

But when he actually got a stable 60fps+ on a PC, the old 20fps seemed like garbage and he said he would never go back. Some people could care less, others--especially with $460+ going into a new console and are techies/early adopters--expect better quality from such beasts of machines.

Everyone is different, but a complaint about framerate is legit and I wish some would stop complaining about people pointing it out. Some people expect better AI, some expect better visuals, some better animation, some better controls, etc... Just because someone may not want better AI does not mean it is not a valid request considering the investment. If you are happy with old AI, playfeatures, etc... buy the system and be happy. Consumers should voice off on what they like and don't like. Don't expect everyone to agree with you.
Commented on 2005-10-28 00:46:16
PC comparisons somehow aren't a good example. Locking a PC game at 30 fps does NOT represent the framerate you see in PGR2. For whatever reason, I don't have the tech know how to tell you why that is.

However, 30/60fps are different. Clearly different. If you played PGR2 a bunch, they took it off you, upped it to 60fps and gave it back, you'd notice.

Noticing does not mean it's a big deal though. If a game can run at a solid 60fps then that's great. Playing Jet Set Radio Future after JSR I couldn't believe how smooth that was. Did playing JSR bother me? Not in the ever so slightest.

The only time fps makes a significant gameplay difference is in games with insanely precise timing such as beat em ups. In an fps, racing game, shooter, the difference is merely cosmetic. Apart from that, if you're really sensitive about it and you desperately crave 60fps in the next generation because that's something you've somehow convinced yourself you NEED, then that's really up to each and every one of you. Sort of like haloking and his endless yelling about "3d textures".

What it doesn't, though, is affect gameplay in 9.9 out of 10 times, (don't ask me to work that math out) and if you don't have anything to compare it with, especially now with clever motion blur effects and whatnot, you'll be even harder pushed to actually make the distinction.
Commented on 2005-10-28 00:55:15
still not buying ea or ea sports or ea big game
Commented on 2005-10-28 01:03:30
while a direct comparison to pc games isn't good, what acer said is spot on! FPS does matter! however, with console games that are designed to run at a low FPS, the game will move along faster than a PC game at a low FPS, although they will both be choppy!

"The only time fps makes a significant gameplay difference is in games with insanely precise timing such as beat em ups. In an fps, racing game, shooter, the difference is merely cosmetic."

Not true!! while fighting games that have precise timing/input need a high fps, so do racers and ESPECIALLY FPS games! everyone knows, and from my own experience, and FPS game played at a high FPS will play SO much smoother and allow you to aim and shoot with more precision and the whole game will be less jerky since you DO move around a lot in First person shooters!!
racing games definitely look more smooth at a higher fps, and if the animation is more smooth, then i bet your gameplay may be better as well..

in any case, high FPS does matter and isn't something that should be considered unworthwhile.
some people are less sensitive, but overall, a game running at a higher fps will play a lot more smoothly.

if not, then why don't developers just push 16xAA and pump up the graphics and have the game running at 10fps or something ;) it will be pretty, but jerky as hell!
Commented on 2005-10-28 01:33:31
I'm not saying low fps isn't noticable, I'm just saying that 30 and upwards is completely fine. Your FPS comparison again brings the PC into the equation and that just doesn't work. On a PC you can even tell the difference between 60 and 120 because the refresh rate is just way different. You just can't compare those two.

In a racer it's true that the sense of fluidity is affected, sure, but go play Burnout Revenge and come back and tell me 30 fps hurts that game. Implying that it affects gameplay on top of that is rediculous, you're just not dealing with timing that precise.

In a fighting game you have some stuff that relies on SINGLE FRAMES in a 60fps cycle. That means you have 60 opportunities a second to perform a parry in Street Fighter 3 for instance, and that actually matters in high level play. Would it matter if the game was built with 30 fps in mind? Probably not, but you'd be dealing with a game half as fast, input wise.

I think maybe the obsession over frames per second comes from PC games really, because it's just so much more prominent in FPS games on there. I remember tweaking refresh rates to get the strafe jumps right on Action Quake 2 and stuff like that, so maybe that puts it closer to a PC gamer's heart. With console games though, in an insane number of cases it just doesn't matter. Even more so in the next generation.

Again if you have a personal affection for 60 fps smoothness then I can understand that, I guess I'm just trying to get people off other peoples' backs. :)
Commented on 2005-10-28 01:51:52
yer i no at low fps u can notice, but im saying with 2days new engines etc 30fps compared to older cod games running at 120fps they both seem about the same. cant your eyes can only see about 20 to 30fps.
with pc games u can opitmize your games to run better like disabling effects etc maybe why comparing pc to console is hard. Aslong as the games play ok im happy.
Im not gonna cry over 30fps to 60fps, like it seems alot of you are!
Commented on 2005-10-28 04:46:38
hey you play SF3 3s too :) i love that game and play it more with friends than anything else.

anyway, i think fps will matter more in the next generation of consoles since we'll be using lcd monitors and stuff with high refresh rates that can display higher fps with ease.

you're right though, you can detect refresh rate/fps differences alot easier with pc gaming than with console gaming, but i think the difference between 30 and 60fps is still a lot even in the case of a game that's designed to run at 30fps. gameplay speed will be designed for it, but overall fluidity isn't as great as say 60fps. the affect on this with timing/precision varies like you said, but the extra fps always helps in my book.

i just want the new console games to be very smooth, especially now that they'll be more in the domain of pc games with the higher resolution and better displays and all.

i have that personal affection for smoothness and i really want it! but to be honest, the 30fps in games like PGR3 or others won't bother me as much especially since it's not a pc game(designed to run smoothly @ higher) running at 30fps, but a game on one hardware that'll run and designed to at a static 30fps. will it be smoother if at 60? yeah, but it probably won't be THAT choppy.

anyway, need to quit repeating myself. higher fps matters to me, that's all.

and joker, like acer said, unless you have a CRT with high as hell refresh rate, you won't see those 120fps. and if you seriously cannot tell the difference between 30 & 120(or whatever your monitor's max refresh rate is) on a PC game, then something's gotta be up as the game will not only be much choppier at 30fps, but also slower. if i run hl2 and limit the fps by vsync to 60, and compare that to if i let it run at 85hz, even i can tell the difference between that 25 extra fps. does wonders for most pc games as it means faster and less jerky gameplay.
Commented on 2005-10-28 05:09:15
Well I'm no basketball fan, but NBA Live gets more playtime than any other game in my livingroom (it's just not me playing it)--so I expect I'll be watching quite a lot of this game--If I like it or not :)

So I'm glad it's turning out nicely.
Commented on 2005-10-28 05:12:29
Thats actually pretty damn good.
Page 1 2 >>

About the game


What's up?
  • scoobs0688
    scoobs0688 Guerilla is so talented its kind of crazy. Lets hope Horizon is as fun as it is beautiful. (1 Hour ago)
  • MinorDespera
    MinorDespera So I see new KojiPro doesn't send uncompressed press kit videos to you guys like Konami used to? (6 Hours ago)
  • aphex187
    aphex187 @Melmoth ;) Current status (Moonwalker might like this ) [url] (14 Hours ago)
  • KORNdog
    KORNdog @Melmoth: that is one impressive engine. Didn't it also run until dawn, and soon a massive open world game. (14 Hours ago)
  • Sdarts
    Sdarts The only bad thing is that now I'm dying to play Crash Bandicoot. I didn't notice the sounds the first time, but from the second onwards they hit me so hard with nostalgia. Those are great games. (15 Hours ago)
  • Sdarts
    Sdarts Just watched PSX 2016 for the 4th time, reactions from the Easy Allies and Kinda Funny guys. It was such an unbelievably amazing show that just gets better after each rewatching. Congrats to Sony! (15 Hours ago)
  • amerakindesi
    amerakindesi @spacemanjupiter: haha I've accidentally done that too. sucks. (15 Hours ago)
PreviousNext
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood New GSY Live dedicated this time to Just Cause 3 on Tuesday 9:30 GMT+2 (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Join us tomorrow at 10 pm GMT+2 for a new livestream. We'll be playing Rise of the Tomb Raider. (> 3 Months ago)
PreviousNext
Top stories