live 2003 - a big step backward from live 2000

[yukon2k]

ea sports knew they had a dud in nba live 2001 and everyone knew it wasn't nearly as good as live 2000. then live 2003 came out and was supposed to be a lot better than 2000 or 2001 - but it's not.

in 2000, you don't have all of the camera to the bench shots to see players gripe on every foul call, the camera to the bench to see the same coach/player sequence on every substitution, the same camera showing the coach wanting to sit down, but there's a player in his seat shots, the players coming out of the tunnell and clowning around before a game, the center clowning around with the ref on every opening tip-off.

in 2000, you can hear the swish of the ball and see the net move naturally when the ball goes through - in 2003, the net and rim look like an old atari game - it looks like a big shapeless net that doesn't move or make a sound when the ball goes through it. the artwork, interface, and playability haven't changed at all from 2000 and, in the cases mentioned above, have taken a step backward.

i haven't tried live 2004 yet because i'm getting very skeptical about the series and am starting to believe that ea sports throws the same game in a new box every year and makes a minor adjustment to the menu so it looks like a completely new game, but it's the same as it was in '99.

i'd like to hear any comments on live 2004

[unoquepasa]

[Andrew]

NBA Live 2004 is far and away the best of the series in my opinion. For more comments, check out the NBA Live 2004 forums.

[alexboom]

yukon2k has spoken the truth Come back to Live 2000, friend, you won't be disappointed and you'll be astonished to see how patched and up-to-date the game is

[yukon2k]

yukon2k has spoken the truth Come back to Live 2000, friend, you won't be disappointed and you'll be astonished to see how patched and up-to-date the game is

i've been using 2000. i'm really not interested in the nba (NSDL- national slam dunk league) anymore since all it is is slam dunks. i've been using ncaa rosters and artwork and really like the game except for the gripes i've mentioned. i've been trying 2003 because the ncaa live site has good ncaa artwork and graphics and i thought the game itself would be a big improvement over 2000 - but it was wrong.

i really hope 2004 is great and has improved on the option selections, playability, realism, and ability to turn off unwanted items - then i'll wait for great modders like dpapollo and ncaa live to come up with ncaa rosters and artwork for 2004 - then i'll be like a pig in s----

[yukon2k]

NBA Live 2004 is far and away the best of the series in my opinion. For more comments, check out the NBA Live 2004 forums.

does it have all of the cutaway scenes like i mentioned in my original post? is the passing speed of the game more realistic? when lnstalling the game, can i eliminate movies, intros, and music like in 2000?

i've read the posts in the forum. a lot of people say they like 2004 - but they also say the same things about '98, '99, 2000, 2001, and 2003 - that the graphics are great, etc. the graphics have always looked good in this series- it's the speed of the game (mainly passing speed-not player speed) that makes it unrealistic. also, a lot of people that like the game are just like i was - nba nuts who will buy this game every year.

i really like using the ncaa art and rosters instead of the nba. unlike all the other years, i'm going to really check out the new version and if i hear that it's a big improvement over 2003 and the modders have ncaa rosters and artwork for it - i'll buy it

[Andrew]

The passing speed is fairly realistic. There are no more "courtside comedy" or frequent cutaway cutscenes.

You can disable music from within the game. I'm not sure about disabling the intro.

[Yao7x]

Live 2004 is as real as the virtual nba game is ever gonna get. It might be better than next year, but I still don't see the point of people still playing live 2000, because live 2000 is practically dead IMO. Live 2000, people don't pick up the ball, the walk over them. They don't catch the ball, it goes thru them into their hands. They don't have sliders so that the gameplay can be anyway you want. Even though the faces from EA Sports were more dissapointing than live 2001's game alltogehter, that is the only problem I see with live 2004. Unless you have a really low end system. Other than that, get live 2004. Trust me, it's like such an obvious choice if you have a high end system.

[alexboom]

why NBA Live 2000 ?
- runs on slow machines, as you mentionned
- a real User Interface, not a conversion from console
- most. patched. game.
- user friendly, in terms of patching
- in game saves
- clutch ratings :p
- players shapes don't look like aliens

I may forget some other points

[Matt]

Live 03's biggest prob is shot blocking, even a guy that has a rating of 50 for blocking can get at least 4 in a game. I had Jason Terry block paul Pierce 3 times in a quarter on 3 pointers. In a 1-0n-1 i was blocked 27 times. The FG% is too high for the CPU mainly due to fast breaks. Steal can be prevented by smart passing and not showing the ball to the CPU. Oher than that i like 03

[PistolPeteMaravich]

NBA 2003, with tweaked rosters, lets the CPU score sooo many 3 pointers. i play it just cause im suckered into whatever is being patched most frequently... i have to admit, the gripes are fair. i havent tried 2000. i got into the game when 2001 came out and always meant to get it from the used store for 5$ but just havent yet.

i hate the 3 point shooting. they step back and fire and its unguardable basically. or if they swing the ball to the corner and you dont switch it to your guard quick enough its basically a made 3. im concentrating on rebounding and the guards are just zombies.

haha why am i complaining