(Poll) Which Console Are You Buying WWE 2K15 For?

[the King Lives]

Add PC to the Poll and ill tick that box and also pirating on the 360

I just hope that PC box art wasn't by accident lol

[Red Rooster]

 

Add PC to the Poll and ill tick that box and also pirating on the 360

I just hope that PC box art wasn't by accident lol

 

Dont worry it wasnt

 

[Tamer™]

Versus an actual in-game screenshot.

I'd say 2K14 looked ten times better than this lumpy mess.

Thank you.

why did you just compare a booker t screenshot to a scott steiner screenshot?

Ok then. Find me an actual Booker T Screen and I'll show you how crappy the graphics really are.

[Penguin]

Best I could do.

 

I would like to point out their was no hair physics  in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

[Tamer™]

Best I could do.

I would like to point out their was no hair physics in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

Well even from the super CGI'd screen we saw Booker's hair was glued then. Let's begin.

Right off the bat the model loses tons of detailing that was hyped before the release of the game, the attire texturing shows lack of detailing. From what I can see on the left arm his tattoo in game (or whatever it is) is barely visible. Facial expressions weren't even added in so no matter what you did Booker would keep that same exact face. The knee pads look almost glued on and drawn on too. The skin also doesn't even look human nor realistic, the overall look of everything seems more like a budget indie wrestling game.

[the King Lives]

Best I could do.

I would like to point out their was no hair physics in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

Well even from the super CGI'd screen we saw Booker's hair was glued then. Let's begin.

Right off the bat the model loses tons of detailing that was hyped before the release of the game, the attire texturing shows lack of detailing. From what I can see on the left arm his tattoo in game (or whatever it is) is barely visible. Facial expressions weren't even added in so no matter what you did Booker would keep that same exact face. The knee pads look almost glued on and drawn on too. The skin also doesn't even look human nor realistic, the overall look of everything seems more like a budget indie wrestling game.

Lol poor booker t. He's always the before part of a visual aid lol

[fufu ÷]

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

 

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

[OLD ACCOUNT]

Still haven't decided between One and PS4 yet.

[the King Lives]

Still haven't decided between One and PS4 yet.

Just "deal with it" and get a ps4! That way we can play dc universe lol

[Aero]

Ps4 is a dream to play. Its "for the gamers" moniker seems fairly spot on. The xbone doesn't seem to be getting the same reviews.

[the King Lives]

Ps4 is a dream to play. Its "for the gamers" moniker seems fairly spot on. The xbone doesn't seem to be getting the same reviews.

It's the exclusives the swayed me the most. Xbox has always been about first shooters exclusives. Other than mass effect and gears of war. I can deal without Xbox lol

[Penguin]

 

Ps4 is a dream to play. Its "for the gamers" moniker seems fairly spot on. The xbone doesn't seem to be getting the same reviews.

It's the exclusives the swayed me the most. Xbox has always been about first shooters exclusives. Other than mass effect and gears of war. I can deal without Xbox lol

 

Mass Effect is on Playstation as well and Gears should have ended at 3 so you're not really missing anything at all.

[the King Lives]

Ps4 is a dream to play. Its "for the gamers" moniker seems fairly spot on. The xbone doesn't seem to be getting the same reviews.

It's the exclusives the swayed me the most. Xbox has always been about first shooters exclusives. Other than mass effect and gears of war. I can deal without Xbox lol

Mass Effect is on Playstation as well and Gears should have ended at 3 so you're not really missing anything at all.

Yeah but as far as I know there's a next gen mass effect in the works oh never mind I forgot ea has the license now lol and yeah not that much pressed about gears of war lol

[Jhbboy1989]

Does anyone know for sure if the NXT stars will be in the Xbox 260 & PS3 versions  as well plus does anyone know if Superstar threads is still in?

[Tamer™]

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

Maybe the gameplay was superior to the WWE Games, but the actual models I have to disagree with. Only the TNA Games Booker T exceeded Yukes's version. The only reason I compared was to show what the graphics really looked like rather than the majorly edited screen Waleed brought into the topic, because in reality you're pretty much looking at 2 different games with the CGI Booker vs the actual in game Booker.

[fufu ÷]

 

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

Maybe the gameplay was superior to the WWE Games, but the actual models I have to disagree with. Only the TNA Games Booker T exceeded Yukes's version. The only reason I compared was to show what the graphics really looked like rather than the majorly edited screen Waleed brought into the topic, because in reality you're pretty much looking at 2 different games with the CGI Booker vs the actual in game Booker.

 

No, the graphics all round were comfortably better. It took THQ like 3+ more years after that to even give proper lighting to the arena - let alone give more realistic models. The teaser one actually looks closer to his model in the entrance video. I dunno whether they had two sets of models, but it certainly looked a lot closer to the screenshot. Maybe it had something to do with framerates or whatever that they didn't use those in the matches, but they were still pretty okay.

Edited October 4, 2014 by fufu ♡

[the King Lives]

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

Maybe the gameplay was superior to the WWE Games, but the actual models I have to disagree with. Only the TNA Games Booker T exceeded Yukes's version. The only reason I compared was to show what the graphics really looked like rather than the majorly edited screen Waleed brought into the topic, because in reality you're pretty much looking at 2 different games with the CGI Booker vs the actual in game Booker.

No, the graphics all round were comfortably better. It took THQ like 3+ more years after that to even give proper lighting to the arena - let alone give more realistic models. The teaser one actually looks closer to his model in the entrance video. I dunno whether they had two sets of models, but it certainly looked a lot closer to the screenshot. Maybe it had something to do with framerates or whatever that they didn't use those in the matches, but they were still pretty okay.

No it had more to do with thq refusing to grant more financial resources to the wwegames/yukes teams for improvements and such. They more than rather wanted to promote that failed u-draw

[fufu ÷]

 

 

 

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

Maybe the gameplay was superior to the WWE Games, but the actual models I have to disagree with. Only the TNA Games Booker T exceeded Yukes's version. The only reason I compared was to show what the graphics really looked like rather than the majorly edited screen Waleed brought into the topic, because in reality you're pretty much looking at 2 different games with the CGI Booker vs the actual in game Booker.

No, the graphics all round were comfortably better. It took THQ like 3+ more years after that to even give proper lighting to the arena - let alone give more realistic models. The teaser one actually looks closer to his model in the entrance video. I dunno whether they had two sets of models, but it certainly looked a lot closer to the screenshot. Maybe it had something to do with framerates or whatever that they didn't use those in the matches, but they were still pretty okay.

No it had more to do with thq refusing to grant more financial resources to the wwegames/yukes teams for improvements and such. They more than rather wanted to promote that failed u-draw

 

I dunno about that. Midway must have had barely a tenth of the budget Yukes had and managed some pretty snazzy stuff. Either way, it's flogging a dead horse.

[AgeofSandow]

 

Best I could do.

I would like to point out their was no hair physics in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

Well even from the super CGI'd screen we saw Booker's hair was glued then. Let's begin.

Right off the bat the model loses tons of detailing that was hyped before the release of the game, the attire texturing shows lack of detailing. From what I can see on the left arm his tattoo in game (or whatever it is) is barely visible. Facial expressions weren't even added in so no matter what you did Booker would keep that same exact face. The knee pads look almost glued on and drawn on too. The skin also doesn't even look human nor realistic, the overall look of everything seems more like a budget indie wrestling game.

 

1) Let's look at the release year and put it in perspective.

2) Look at the budget

3) WWE games still lack hair physics

4) Facial expressions are only really coming into play now.

[Tamer™]

Best I could do.

I would like to point out their was no hair physics in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

Well even from the super CGI'd screen we saw Booker's hair was glued then. Let's begin.

Right off the bat the model loses tons of detailing that was hyped before the release of the game, the attire texturing shows lack of detailing. From what I can see on the left arm his tattoo in game (or whatever it is) is barely visible. Facial expressions weren't even added in so no matter what you did Booker would keep that same exact face. The knee pads look almost glued on and drawn on too. The skin also doesn't even look human nor realistic, the overall look of everything seems more like a budget indie wrestling game.

1) Let's look at the release year and put it in perspective.

2) Look at the budget

3) WWE games still lack hair physics

4) Facial expressions are only really coming into play now.

1) I was only proving a point to waleed who brought in an edited screen.

2) Still on cheaper budgets model detailing has been done okay enough for complaints not to be prominent

3) The hair isn't glued at least

4) Fair point. Doesn't mean that faces should be the same at all times though.

[the King Lives]

When has a WWE game ever lived up to it's teasers graphically? In fact very few games ever have. The TNA game wasn't perfect, but it was still a great looking game, with an arena that felt alive and character models that for the time were far superior to any WWE game. Also the screenshots you're analysing aren't even HD screenshots lmao. You also aren't accounting for the fact that if you take a screenshot of a moving video - even when paused - you don't get a clear image and a lot of quality is lost on moving parts. That game came alive when you played it, which wasn't bad for 6 years ago.

Not really sure why it was brought up though.

Maybe the gameplay was superior to the WWE Games, but the actual models I have to disagree with. Only the TNA Games Booker T exceeded Yukes's version. The only reason I compared was to show what the graphics really looked like rather than the majorly edited screen Waleed brought into the topic, because in reality you're pretty much looking at 2 different games with the CGI Booker vs the actual in game Booker.

No, the graphics all round were comfortably better. It took THQ like 3+ more years after that to even give proper lighting to the arena - let alone give more realistic models. The teaser one actually looks closer to his model in the entrance video. I dunno whether they had two sets of models, but it certainly looked a lot closer to the screenshot. Maybe it had something to do with framerates or whatever that they didn't use those in the matches, but they were still pretty okay.

No it had more to do with thq refusing to grant more financial resources to the wwegames/yukes teams for improvements and such. They more than rather wanted to promote that failed u-draw

I dunno about that. Midway must have had barely a tenth of the budget Yukes had and managed some pretty snazzy stuff. Either way, it's flogging a dead horse.

Lol yeah I guess you're right about that but they put all their eggs in the graphics department from what I experienced lol but to say tht every wwe booker model was bad I think the 07-08 models on last gen were pretty good

[deshay28]

³⁶⁰

[AgeofSandow]

 

 

 

Best I could do.

I would like to point out their was no hair physics in the match I watched which made Booker's dreads look painted on his body.

Well even from the super CGI'd screen we saw Booker's hair was glued then. Let's begin.

Right off the bat the model loses tons of detailing that was hyped before the release of the game, the attire texturing shows lack of detailing. From what I can see on the left arm his tattoo in game (or whatever it is) is barely visible. Facial expressions weren't even added in so no matter what you did Booker would keep that same exact face. The knee pads look almost glued on and drawn on too. The skin also doesn't even look human nor realistic, the overall look of everything seems more like a budget indie wrestling game.

1) Let's look at the release year and put it in perspective.

2) Look at the budget

3) WWE games still lack hair physics

4) Facial expressions are only really coming into play now.

1) I was only proving a point to waleed who brought in an edited screen.

2) Still on cheaper budgets model detailing has been done okay enough for complaints not to be prominent

3) The hair isn't glued at least

4) Fair point. Doesn't mean that faces should be the same at all times though.

 

yes, I think this was comparing it to a game that came out years later and looks much better still considering the graphic limitations. Plus the skin wasn't messed up.

 

2) TNA budget, not much at all compared to a WWE games version.

 

3)nobody's hair really moves

[Bob_Van_Dam]

The TNA game was supposed to be released at a later date, it was supposed to have a shitload of stuff added to it. MIDWAY was going out of business so they had to release the game early.

[the King Lives]

The TNA game was supposed to be released at a later date, it was supposed to have a shitload of stuff added to it. MIDWAY was going out of business so they had to release the game early.

Why does that sound so familiar? Hmmmmm