Which NBA Live should I buy?

[Leander]

Hi.

I own 2003, 2000 and 1999 so far. My computer is from 2004, with 1 GB ram, 3.2 ghz and a Radeon 9600 with 128 MB.

I liked Live 2003 but ONLY with tweaked rosters and some other stuff to get rid of bugs, unrealistic things and so on.

I didn_t like 2004 much (a friend had it).
Now I want to buy a new one. Which one should I buy?

2008 is too expensive (don`t want to invest much money) and my computer is too old. 2007 is really bad, reviews say so.

2005 or 2006? Forums say 2005 is better.

To me the dynasty mode is really important. I only play a dynastiy for some seasons. The game should only have few bugs, the stats should be as realistic as possible (FG%, PPG and so on...also simulated games of CPU opponents)...and the dynasty should progress well with rookies.

Live 2003 had those good rookies that were not tweaked and you had to tweak them manually, which was annoying.

Could somebody please sum up the main bugs and flaws of 2005 with patches applied, sliders set etc.?

Should I get 2005 or 2006? The game should be cheap, too.

[Andrew]

I think when choosing between NBA Live 2005 and NBA Live 06, it comes down to whether you like the concept of Freestyle Superstars. I enjoyed NBA Live 06 immensely, it's the last game where I was able to play a full 82 game season plus the Playoffs without simulating and had a lot of fun with my Bulls Dynasty that year. Freestyle Superstars can be overpowering though. With slider tweaks, I was able to get realistic scores on both games.

In terms of bugs and flaws, they're pretty similar in little things like blocked shots not registering missed field goal attempts properly and the simulated stats being a bit off, though nowhere near as bad as NBA Live 07 and NBA Live 08 in terms of the latter.

[Leander]

Thank you for your reply, Andrew.

I primarily play for statistics. I am an enthusiast who compares and analyzes the stats. I get the most fun out of NBA Live after playing several seasons and comparing the development of a player. PPG, RPG, APG and so on.

For Live 2003 I had a custom injury system (rolling a die before a game), recorded players' season highs, screenshots, stats. Therefore, the dynasty mode should be good. Generated rookies should be included in new seasons well. What about the jersey numbers? Live used to have this bug that there were duplicated numbers in a team. Even NHL 95 had a solution to this, automatically changing the # if already was used by a player. What about Live 05 and 06?

It is also important to me that players don't dunk through the backboard...Live 06 has this and also "magnetic hands" during rebounds etc.
I think I'd rather go for Live 05.

[Andrew]

Both NBA Live 06 and 2005 allow for duplicate numbers but if you're playing the PC version you can edit that easily enough.

[asgsjb]

I'm another proponent of Live '05. As with any game, there are a few issues that can bug you (liek the duplicate jersey numbers), but the overall play is good, the dynasty mode is excellent, and I have enjoyed going through several seasons with my dynasties. A great version.

[BaBoom]

I recommend either '05 or '06 as they are compatible with most slow computers. Great graphics as well!

[super_man322000]

05

[Leander]

Thanks for your answers. I'll get Live 2005 from Ebay soon.

Andrew, you are an experienced Live-user and always work on good custom sliders each year. Could you please answer these two questions?

1) I used to have custom injuries (rolling dice) for Live 2003 as the likeliness of injuries was just too low in this game. What about Live 2005? Are its injuries realistic? I play 28 game-seasons and realistic injuries are important. When a player is injured his backup will get playing time and I LOVE to use all 15 players of my team.

2) What about rookies? In the Live 2005-section I read that the generated rookies have high ratings. Sounds like a flood of rookies into teams' lineups to me if all of them are that good. What can be done about that?

3) What should I do when I receive Live 2005? Which sliders do you recommend for realistic results concerning scores, simulated stats, injuries, substitutions (fatigue) and cpu-trades? Which patch should I use (edited ratings)?
Are the save games of 2005 still compatible with Live Toolkit (Excel) you could edit ratings and lineups of NBA 2001 and 2003?

In short: what do I have to do to turn Live 2005 into an as realistic game as possible?

An exmaple:

For Live 2003 I used DK's rosters. I had the CPU-teams play sets to avoid pg dominance and 3-pt-madness, using Urotsukidoji's list...also for a realistic shot selection. And finally, I manually tweaked generated rookies...they come into the game unedited...I apply this custom formula to them...then they are tweaked but their overall ratings are still high and not recalculated. I do this manually. Then everything's fine.

I want to have a flawless game for Live 2005 as well, concerning ratings, realism, rookies, injuries. Please help!

[Andrew]

1. In comparison, the more recent NBA Lives are better about injuries; if you want more of them, you can bump up the injury frequency slider and experience them more often. I'd certainly recommend doing that if you're playing a 28 game season.

2. I don't really remember that issue. NBA Live 07 probably generates more talented rookies than NBA Live 2005 from my observation.

3. I believe I've still got a set of sliders in the NBA Live 2005 section, otherwise check out the slider stickied thread. It's been a while so I haven't really kept up with any new slider developments.

[asgsjb]

As for the rookie issue,I'll tell you my experience, but I don't know if it's a blanket "rule".

I have gone through 2 season's worth of drafts with my dynasties and I find that most generated rookies are actually ranked pretty low. The ones drafted in the top 10 seem to be ranked in the 50's, while the ones drafted after that tend to be in the 40's. One draft class was considered "weak" and the other was considered average, but I found that the overall rankings of rookies didn't change based on whether the draft class was weak or average.

I have also found that player height (which is important in Live '05) varies wildly among rookies. In both drafts I've had, PG's, SG's and SF's have been remarkably short. PG's were no taller than 6'1" and many were 5'10". SG's were no taller than 6'3" and SF's no taller than 6'6". In Live '05, I find PG's are best when they are around 6'2" or 6'3" (preferably), SG's when they are around 6'5" or 6'6" and SF's when they are 6'8" or so. As for PF's, I had 1 draft where they were all short (6'8" or so) and another where most were that short and a few were 7'2"...bigger than many C's. Same thing with C's...I find many are 6'11" or 7'0" with some 7'1" C's mixed in, although they throw in a few 7'5" C's, which I love.

Another interesting note...as I went through draft classes, I found that new classes of rookies, while having many weak categories, were incredibly strong. For example, David Harrison and Robert Swift were already on rosters when you start playing Live '05 and you have to develop them to get their strength up. On the flip side, I would see many generated rookie C's who had weak shooting, rebounding, and/or blocking but who had strength in the 70's or 80's. I found that rookies at other positions also seemed to be stronger than the players on existing rosters at the same positions.

Again, this all may not be the "rule", so to speak, but it could be helpful info as you kick off Live '05.

As Andrew mentioned, take a look at the sliders sticky thread...it was helpful to me as I started playing and wanted to make the game more realistic. Also, take a look at the thread JT did (in the Live '05 section)regarding rookie letter grades (like "B-" for FG's), potential (i.e. "Average") and the resulting category ranking (i.e. 55 for FG's)...I think JT said it ended up being not 100% scientific, but it's very interesting, really good and I think it is useful to have in mind as you assess draft classes.

Hope this is helpful.

[Leander]

Cool, I will certainly take this into consideration. Thanks for your long reply.