Why play Live 2003? Live 2000 is where it's at.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:26 am
Seriously guys,
If Live 2000 is the San Antonio Spurs, then Live 2003 is the Cleveland Cavaliers. Honestly, Live 2000 is the most realistic basketball simulation out there. No patch or tweaked roster can fix Live 2003's failures. I used to think Live 2003's graphics were better, but I think Live 2000 holds up quite well--the players are actually bigger and move at realistic speeds. All you patchers need to wise up and hop on over to Alexsite.....at least till Live 2004 comes out--I'm sure with all the gameplay sliders it will be the game to get next fall.
If Live 2000 is the San Antonio Spurs, then Live 2003 is the Cleveland Cavaliers. Honestly, Live 2000 is the most realistic basketball simulation out there. No patch or tweaked roster can fix Live 2003's failures. I used to think Live 2003's graphics were better, but I think Live 2000 holds up quite well--the players are actually bigger and move at realistic speeds. All you patchers need to wise up and hop on over to Alexsite.....at least till Live 2004 comes out--I'm sure with all the gameplay sliders it will be the game to get next fall.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:45 am
isn't this the reason there is a live 2000 board?
i'm enjoying live 2003.
but then again, i have 2 other roomates I'm playing franchise mode with...
the game is definetly "fun-ner" multiplayer rather than vs the cpu.
i'm enjoying live 2003.
but then again, i have 2 other roomates I'm playing franchise mode with...
the game is definetly "fun-ner" multiplayer rather than vs the cpu.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:24 am
Of course it's more fun when you can dunk and score at will. I'm just saying while Live 2003 thrives with superior graphics and player movements, Live 2000 is the epitome of realism. I guess it's just preference--NBA Jam, err, I mean Live 2003 or Live 2000. Realism vs. fantasy.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:37 am
actually,defence is a challenge, but a fun one. My friends and I have almost perfected the getting the charge call and stopping fast breaks by running into the player (although it's all timing). I love swatting fast break dunks and layups too. The gameplay isn't as fast when you've played the game alot.
Yes, it's basically a score fest--but the majority of the games end up around the high 70's mid 80's with 6 minute quarters.
Live 2004 will be so much better with the sliders.
to each his own, but I definetly prefer live 2000 over 2001.
Yes, it's basically a score fest--but the majority of the games end up around the high 70's mid 80's with 6 minute quarters.
Live 2004 will be so much better with the sliders.
to each his own, but I definetly prefer live 2000 over 2001.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:35 pm
There are some improvements in NBA Live 2003 that are evident when you play the older NBA Lives.
The most obvious: Freestyle
When I've had a moment or two to spare, I sometimes play a quick game of the older Lives. And I find myself tapping the right analog stick in an effort to spin or perform a crossover. No other NBA Live allows so much control over the players.
The less obvious: Restricted player movement
In NBA Live 2000, you cannot back down your defender until you start dribbling - ie. if you catch the ball while stationary and do not start dribbling, you cannot start backing down your defender. You must move (and thus start dribbling) first.
With all due respect, you must understand that your assertion that NBA Live 2000 is better and more important than NBA Live 2003 is your opinion, not fact. As Coco said, to each their own...it's not about having your eyes opened or realising anything, a lot of people play NBA Live 2003 despite the complaints.
The most obvious: Freestyle
When I've had a moment or two to spare, I sometimes play a quick game of the older Lives. And I find myself tapping the right analog stick in an effort to spin or perform a crossover. No other NBA Live allows so much control over the players.
The less obvious: Restricted player movement
In NBA Live 2000, you cannot back down your defender until you start dribbling - ie. if you catch the ball while stationary and do not start dribbling, you cannot start backing down your defender. You must move (and thus start dribbling) first.
All you patchers need to wise up and hop on over to Alexsite.....
With all due respect, you must understand that your assertion that NBA Live 2000 is better and more important than NBA Live 2003 is your opinion, not fact. As Coco said, to each their own...it's not about having your eyes opened or realising anything, a lot of people play NBA Live 2003 despite the complaints.
Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:32 pm
yeah... but i like nbalive series on ps1 except nba2001 and under! the nice thing about ps1nba2002 and 03 is that you should need stars while playin in the game! i mean you can win with no stars but its a sweat. while nba live 2003 in the pc.. its all in the user, even if you use vancouver you can still down ai to many points! and the bad thing is the bench can score like any other starters.. u can score on shaq in your face! thats sad. ..the bench should panic while shooting on defensive players right?? no hard feelings.. this is just my opinion. 
Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:14 pm
Of course, Live 2003 is not without its flaws. But it's not totally unplayable either - though NBA Live 2004 is looking like blowing it away.