I play a lot of NBA Live 14 and I like it a lot despite the graphics. They gameplay is solid to me. But I've been seeing a lot of videos of 2K14 and I'm starting to find myself awed by the graphic intensity. I didn't like 2K14 much on the 360 when it came out which is why I don't have it now.

As for NFSR, I like it but don't play it nearly as much as NBA Live or Battlefield 4, which also brings my to the lack of playing Ghosts.

So, are this solid reasons to trade the 2 for NBA 2K14 and just have both b-ball games to satisfy my sports gaming crave?

This is on PS4 by the way....

nexusprime is right. Here's my quick story.

I have a 20" LCD that goes up to 1080p; used my 360 on it, looked great. didn't have HDMI so my ps3 still showed at only 1080i through component.

Also, have a 32" LCD that goes up to 1080i, most game either show at 720p or 1080p so I was force the play at 720p on both systems. Not that big of a difference from the seeing the 1080p on the 360 on the 20" . Couldn't compare it on the PS3 though.

This weekend I just bought a 50" Plasma 1080p Full HD TV. At 50" I looked at the SOCOM Beta on Friday in 720p and then in 1080p. Yes, HUGE difference to me. Much sharper image and richer color.

So overall, if you're staying under 40" then, you should be fine with 720p. If you want the best go with the 1080p for only this reason: the blu-ray player. You can only get the most out of what blu-ray can do if you plug it in via HDMI and have a 1080p compatible tv. If you won't be big on watching Blu-rays then don't worry about it at all.

The situation I see here is Nintendo is attempting to take a page out of Sony's playbook and support two consoles before any other manufacturer could in the next generation. It could work and it doesn't seem that the next console from Nintendo would just be an ungrade but instead a complete new re-emergence of the Gamecube utilizing the DVD format. And still by all indication, there's nothing stopping Nintendo from bringing the Blu-ray format in their new SKU. My thinking is Nintendo is considering making a more hardcore console and continue the support of the Wii. It would be a bold step for Nintendo and they obviously have the money and technology to pull it off. If they can create a console to compete with the current gen consoles of Sony and Microsoft, they would lock up the spectrum and pretty much become untouchable depending on the success of the new console. They'd have a lock on casual gaming consoles, hard core consoles, and handheld consoles. They would in essence do what Sony wants to do on one level with the PS3 and PSP and also on the other level what Microsoft is doing with the Premium system and the Arcade console.

I say, good thinking Nintendo; they are giving consumers what they want and doing it in a way that no other has attempted yet, or at least if they have, it's only been halfway thought through.

I think you agree with me that Sheffield's thinking to narrow but I will have to say, I think graphics will carry a game pretty far in this day in age. Take Gears 2 for example: yes, I see there will be new mechanics to your the Lancer but it's the graphics that make that worthwhile. Remember the trailer the look of spliting off the quarter section of the Locust. Add in a new game play feature of Brumacks as regular enemy AI, and it's understandable that the possibility of that is attributed to improved graphics engines and processors along with all around processor and game engine archeticture. Yes, like you said before, graphics aren't everything, but my arguement is nothing else would really amount to anything in this age without them.

Thanks for commenting. I love hearing others' point of view.

Shame, I totally agree with you that the visuals are a piece of the pie, but to come across as saying with current technology you'd rather play a game that give you a quick fix of fun based on a game play mechanic such as control or cover or even UI and look at graphics as just a tacked on bonus would leave me thinking the progress made in gaming to date as been for nothing. That's what I'm looking at. So, yes, we've made considerable progress in graphical compabilities, but to say we've done all we can do or to know we can do more but it's not worth it seems senseless.

Sorry, Xaosll, here's the link. Maybe you'll see where I'm coming from after reading Sheffield article.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19626

In a recent article first published in Game Developer magazine, Editor-in-chief Brandon Sheffield discussed his thoughts on "the inevitable point past which graphics do not matter, and the focus turns to gameplay." I urge you to read what he has to say.

Now, as a student of Game Art and Design, my turn...

It would be utterly irresponsible of a game developer in this current generation of gaming to ignore the profound need of high-quality graphics in a video game. It is the very emergence of "the user" interacting with these graphics that provide the full experience of interactive entertainment.

To believe the focus shifts to improved game mechanics, intuitive UI and/or better in-game tutorials solely based on the success of past-generation consoles (namely, PS2) would only gives signs of surrendering to financial gain and forego any sort of quality customer service and support to a community that is driven by new ideals, technology and philosophies.

So what if Rockstar has planned to release a version of their most successful IP on the widely owned Nintendo DS? It is exactly for that reason they are doing it, because of the handheld's install base, not because it is the best direction to go with the franchise. Brandon Sheffield's article seems imply that because we have reached this level of many gamers flock toward systems such as the Wii, DS, PSP, and continue to play on the PS2, that we must have hit some road block in the creativeness of games and must turn focus elsewhere than the improvement of the visual experience. Again, I regress to the point of a GTA on DS. It is safe to say this move is for increased sales of course but not because it is what gamers want and it would be ridiculous to purport otherwise.

The new Madden 09 released on the original X-Box. Gamers wanted that, but certainly not a large majority. The masses demanded better visual content in their football game. What did EA give them? The offering was more inoperable, unnecessary, and convoluted game play mechanics that detached the core audience from the loving experience of virtual football.

Next-gen game developers must be innovative in their approach to game design and it is that very reason why the development of enhanced visuals and immersion into a game world cannot be overlooked. What good is a good cover system if you're taking cover behind a crate that is destructible but when hit, breaks up into 3 or 4 sprite assets? Without meaningful realism to compliment new game play features, the game would more than likely fall by the wayside and be forgotten.

Yes, MGS4 could have released on PS2. And, if that was the case, it could have released on PS1 as well, for that matter. But it didn't. Game play mechanics, voice acting, size and sound all attribute to this on top of outstanding visuals. But you could not perform the former three without the latter on a current-gen system even if you wanted to. Imagine playing MGS4 and not seeing the facial expressions of Snake or Octacon. If it's to your liking, then yes, MGS should've released on PS2, but you still give up so much more.

To continue to say the desire or need for realistic graphics has reached its plateau due to the "average" or "casual" gamers' want for just easy laid back game play is foolish thinking. There is no such thing as a casual gamer (or a hardcore gamer as I think of it). I've been playing games for 21 years, not too long given the history of games and the type of games I've played, but thinking of my time with the medium, it is justly so that the line must be drawn between price-conscience gamers and those who want the best. The Wii does satisfy a large majority of gamers but it is not visual quality or innovative control mechanisms they are settling on; it's more so the system that fits there desire to invest in the entertainment. Of course, I'm not saying that if you had, say, $1000, you would buy a PS3 indefinitely, but if you had only $300 and want to game, what choices do you have left.

Developers would be downright ignorant to focus just on this so called "casual gaming" market and not look at the desire of a core audience that demands the exercise of new technology. Nintendo develops out of the desire to further the sales of their console. If a developer like Nintendo was truly focused on pleasing casual gamers, you'd see Wii Play on PS3. Or, maybe even Super Stardust HD on X360. This is not happening. Why? The market is segmented but is not divided. Unfortunately, this is still going to happen which opens the door for further discussion.

The visuals of games only relates to the experience a gamer wants to have but the success of a console cannot determine the overall cap of such extension of a console's features especially if new technology usage is urged by the customers involved. The term relating to an "average" gamer is old rhetoric and it's time we understand, the true average is only a middle section lodged into that of those who know what's happening with this technology we have and those who don't care. Stop calling this generation a lost cause just based on the last generation's success, especially at the very start.

Just what I think. Comments?

Still playing through MGS4 (on the start of Act 4 now), but I just bought Stranglehold CE off eBay for $17.99 plus $2.99 shipping, thought it was a good buy. Been hearing a lot of good stuff about it and felt the price was justified especially for the CE.

Next game I'm buying will be either Fable II or Star Wars: Force Unleashed haven't decided which one first. but, I don't even need to mention to two that I will buy in September no matter what: Fallout 3 and Rockband 2