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.

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.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.htmlHmmm...

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.

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.?

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.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.

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.

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. :)

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.