Menu

Monday Tip-Off: Renders or Real Photos?

Monday Tip-Off: Renders or Real Photos?

We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on players either using renders or real photos for portraits in basketball video games.

When you’re a fan of a specific sport or genre – probably both in the case of basketball video games – it’s easy to get stuck in a bubble. As such, it’s always interesting to take a glance at other fandoms, and observe familiar debates over similar issues. Of course, if you’re part of multiple fandoms, you may have had those discussions many times! Case in point, I happened across a thread in the WWE Games subreddit that raises a question about an issue that I’ve had as a fan of both basketball and wrestling games: in-game renders, or real life photos for portraits?

Reading through that discussion reminded me of my own conflicting thoughts on the matter throughout the years. Like many incompatible preferences, both are reasonable to desire, and both have clear advantages and disadvantages. To that end, it’s hardly surprising that the debate rages on, and that it’s difficult to find common ground. In the grand scheme of things, there are certainly more important issues with basketball and wrestling games than whether their presentation makes use of in-game renders or real portraits. All the same, the little things in gaming definitely do still matter. And so, while I don’t expect to settle the debate here, I’ll throw in my two cents once again.

As I’m sure we’re all aware, there are basically two ways to handle the portraits in the presentation of sports games, be they basketball, pro wrestling, or whatever. A game can either use real photos – action shots, media day headshots, and so on – or in-engine renders of their likenesses. Some games use a mixture of both in order to avoid having “No Portrait Available” placeholders for created players/wrestlers, allowing them to better blend in with the originals. Over the years, NBA 2K has also come to replace real photos with a render in the event that a player is moved to a new team, in order to avoid displaying a portrait in which they’re wearing a jersey that’s now outdated.

NBA Live 09 Used Renders For Player Portraits

Accuracy and uniformity are the chief advantages of using renders for portraits in menus, overlays, and so forth. It’s distracting when an original player or wrestler is using a real photo, while a created counterpart displays a render. To that point though, renders themselves can distractingly stand out, even if everyone is using them. If a game’s models and faces aren’t particularly lifelike, the uniformity may not be worth the inferior aesthetics that would be avoided by using real photos. No matter which approach a game adopts, it’s never going to be perfect, or please everyone. A mix of real portraits and in-game renders is arguably the least contentious compromise.

For my part, renders rather than real photos for portraits are something that I had to warm up to. Way back when we were discussing ideas and compiling suggestions of what we wanted to see in NBA Live 10, I was staunchly in favour of bringing back photos rather than continuing to use rendered portraits. I understood why the recent games were using renders instead, but I still preferred real photos. While NBA Live’s graphics had come a long way, the use of renders was immersion-breaking for me; a clear reminder that it was a video game. Nostalgia for recent favourites such as NBA Live 06, and classics like NBA Live 96, undoubtedly shaped my preferences as well.

Therefore, I was pleased to see NBA Live 10 bring back the real photos as part of a general effort to add more authenticity to presentation. With that being said, there’s no denying that players with mismatched jerseys in their portraits stood out after roster updates, and fictional moves in Dynasty mode. Indeed, even in the default rosters, there were some players with newly-outdated portraits that stuck out like a sore thumb during the starting lineup introductions. That makes it harder to argue my preference, especially as NBA Live 10’s faces and models were generally an improvement over NBA Live 09. It definitely could’ve used rendered portraits instead of real photos.

Real Photos in the Presentation of NBA Live 16

These days, NBA 2K’s graphics have reached a point where in-game renders are basically just as suitable as real photos for player portraits. There’s still a slightly uncanny valley aspect to them, but the players with great scans and models do look realistic enough. Furthermore, it’s pretty much impossible to argue in favour of the old “No Portrait Available” approach. Even though there’s some nostalgia in it for me, it would simply be too jarring now; too outdated when there’s a much better solution. Renders were a hit-and-miss idea back in the early 2000s when games such as ESPN NBA 2Night had poor likenesses, but by eighth gen, the graphics were good enough.

Then again, the “3D portraits” in NBA Live around the turn of the millennium were also generally popular. NBA Live 2000 and 2001 have some impressive faces that make that setting appealing on PC, though I did appreciate having the “2D Portraits” option. The players seemingly bopping their heads along to the soundtrack in NBA Live 2002 was a fun detail, though looking back, the movement in those 3D portraits was probably a way of distracting us from the fact that not all of the faces were totally photorealistic! I can’t deny the novelty of renders, especially when animated in those old games, but for me it had worn off by 2008. Inconsistent quality didn’t help, either.

That’s why part of me will always lean towards real photos for portraits over in-game renders, even with all the graphical improvements in NBA and WWE titles. Renders are obviously more flexible and consistent with custom players/wrestlers, and thus still have merit even if the models and textures aren’t entirely lifelike. Again, I can’t deny that, but I’ll always be drawn to the authenticity of using real photos in a game’s presentation. Seeing real action shots on the stats overlays during the halftime report of Ultimate Team games in NBA Live 15 and 18 only added to the nostalgia. Sure, it didn’t gel with the jerseys that I’d chosen, but it reminded me of watching real games.

CAW Renders in Smackdown vs. RAW

At the same time, I can remember trying to position my created wrestlers in old WWE games for the best possible headshot for use on the selection screen, and never being happy with the results. Even in games that used pre-rendered portraits, CAWs looked fake and out of place. Once the games could render their models with similar quality to the original wrestlers, they did a better job of blending in, and that’s important. In basketball games, we may not necessarily create as many players as we used to, but with career mode avatars, it’s crucial that our players fit in with the presentation. You don’t want your MyPLAYER to be the only one on the team using a rendered portrait!

Of course, not everyone uses custom players and wrestlers, or plays the career modes. Glancing at a few replies in that thread on the WWE Games subreddit, it’s clear that while many gamers do enjoy the benefits of rendered portraits, I’m not the only one that retains a fondness for the use of real photos. Naturally, the quality of the renders is a major factor here, especially when historical players/wrestlers are involved, and there are multiple versions of them. Referring to the examples in the aforementioned thread, the matchup screen using real photos for Stunning Steve Austin vs. Brian Pillman looks more professional than the render of Flyin’ Brian vs. The Undertaker.

And so, once again, we reach an impasse. Whatever trade-off you make between photorealism and aesthetics, consistency, accuracy between portraits and in-game models, and so on, you’re never going to satisfy everyone. There’ll be people like me who recognise the advantages of in-game renders and have come to like them, but still can’t completely shake a preference for the authenticity of real photos. Others simply won’t care that the renders aren’t perfect, because they prefer the consistency with original and created players/wrestlers, and between the portraits and in-game models. Sometimes a mix of both works, while other times it feels sloppy and inconsistent.

Jeff Malone Portrait in NBA 2K25

When considering potential solutions, I don’t see one that can feasibly cater to both sides. I suppose games could bring back the 2D/3D Portrait options, but that would probably be too much of a niche preference to justify. It also made more sense when it was a fallback option for the console ports, and less powerful PCs. As much as I like the use of real photos for headshots and action shots in various menus and overlays, I do think that NBA 2K’s current approach is the best solution. The faces are generally good enough, and consistency, accuracy, and flexibility are significant advantages. I don’t find them nearly as distracting as NBA Live 09’s far more primitive models.

Mind you, considering that people have frequently inquired as to how to override the replacement renders for players when trading them in NBA 2K, I’d suggest there’ll always be a preference for real photos, even when they’re mismatched or outdated. As someone who has advocated for photos over renders for player portraits, I understand it. For many of us older games, there are lingering memories of the earliest attempts at rendering portraits from in-game models; attempts that were novel and are nostalgic in their own way, but with plenty of blocky and low-res examples. We remember a time when real photos were the most accurate portrayal of players in video games.

However, there was always interest in rendered portraits, and we appreciated those early attempts at consistency between presentation and gameplay. As I said, the 3D portraits in NBA Live titles from the late 90s and early 2000s are nostalgic, too. The concept of portraits that reflect player movement was even older than that. The 16-bit versions of NBA Live 95 placed headshots on a handful of matching shoulders, which then allowed them to wear the appropriate jerseys during starting lineup introductions following trades in Season mode. Some of the seventh gen NBA 2K games also opted for portraits of players wearing generic white jerseys, avoiding potential mismatches.

NBA Live 95 Used Real Photos on Interchangeable Shoulders for Portraits

Those are fine solutions, though I’m not sure how good a modern take on NBA Live 95’s concept would look. Similarly, portraits with generic white jerseys have their own shortcomings, namely a lack of detail that we’d normally expect to see from official NBA media day headshots, inconsistency with MyPLAYERs and created players, and an inevitable lack of portraits for certain free agents added in the official roster updates. It’s difficult to advocate for the realism of real photos, when in-game renders can reflect the changes of custom rosters, provide consistency throughout the presentation, and now look more like the actual players than they did decades ago.

Nevertheless, while I’ll yield to renders being the more suitable approach now, I’ll still defend the preference for real photo portraits and action shots. With the quality of certain faces, and even the best ones veering into uncanny valley at times, they can fall short of the authenticity that many gamers still clearly desire. A combination of real portraits and renders can absolutely work, and the former is often better for the historical players, who obviously can’t sit for an accurate face scan for their younger selves (if indeed they’re still with us). For some, consistency between renders and gameplay is more immersive, while for others, that effect comes from real photos.

If you’re after a definitive answer to the question “renders or real photos?”, then I must disappoint you. There simply can’t be one, and to this day, I’m in two minds about the issue myself! Using a mix of both is a decent compromise: real headshots in roster listings whenever available, renders for MyPLAYERs and players without a photo portrait, and then renders for traded players and everyone in starting lineup overlays and so forth. There’s always going to be some inconsistency somewhere, but if it’s not distracting and the presentation is immersive, then that’s what ultimately matters. At least “No Portrait Available” has now become an oddly nostalgic relic!

Support The NLSC on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments