this is what i was afraid of.....

[sho89mtx]

But while the mo-cap adds realism, the player models themselves are anything but realistic looking. The Live team took great strides forward in incorporating the realistic heads for most of the stars in the game, but it's nothing compared to the fact that ESPN NBA Basketball has the realistic head modeling for every player in the NBA, not just the stars. The players themselves also don't have the detail down to every tat like ESPN, and when you look at both games side by side, there really is no comparison.

what did i tell you guys, it's a fact that espn has always had better graphics and i thought ea would step it up, but they didn't. Oh well at least the gameplay will be a lot better. I will still get espn nba basketball, nba live 2004, nba inside drive 2004, and espn college basketball when they come out because i love basketball games.

You know the best thing sega ever did to ea was stop making the dreamcast and go into the video game development area. They have constanly made EA work their butts off to step it up so they could try and compete with sega, and so far they have stepped it up, just not to the level i wish they did graphically again. Sometimes EA makes me sick. Do you guys remember when sega only made games for the dreamcast and how much better sega football and sega basketball was for the dreamcast than ps2? The first live made for the ps2 was a direct port of the ps1 version the year before and it made sega look like the best sports game company ever. I have to admit that ea is getting a lot better, but it's only because they have competition in their own market now. Before they were the market. Thank god for sega

[Jase23]

I dont care much about graphics, i only care about realism and gameplay..... player injuries..... trading draft picks...etc etc..

[sho89mtx]

u don't care about graphics? What the heck? If that's the case, why don't u rent a genesis and play the original nba live. That's crazy. U said i don't care about graphics, just realism? That's what makes realism is the graphics. Go check out espn nba basketball's videos and how detailed every person in the league is and how fluid and realistic it is, it's unreal!

[sho89mtx]

u don't care about graphics? What the heck? If that's the case, why don't u rent a genesis and play the original nba live. That's crazy. U said i don't care about graphics, just realism? That's what makes realism is the graphics. Go check out espn nba basketball's videos and how detailed every person in the league is and how fluid and realistic it is, it's unreal!

[Colin]

Graphics need to be at a relatively good level for me, but they're certainly not the end all be all in games. I think that gameplay is most important, followed by franchise depth, then graphics, maybe the UI after that.

[cyanide]

I agree with Jase23 and colin here. I prefer realistic gameplay to graphics. We're not saying we don't mind Genesis graphics while playing realistic gameplay, we're saying that we don't mind decent graphics as long as the players don't dunk from the free throw line and can actually grab defensive rebounds. Decent graphics with realistic real-life motions is what makes basketball simulation so much more fun than amazing graphics and repetitive can't-happen-in-real-life animations.

[Ricks]

realism as in gameplay... not realism as in looks real...

I can have sh*t hot graphics but if I need to play 5 minutes just so I can get the scoring to be under 100 then you know where you can stick that game...

what really gave me the sh*ts about last years game was that someone like tyrone lue can get on fire and cash in on like 5 threes in a row...

now that's bullsh*t...

I don't give a damn about the graphics, but it is important...

[sixerfan03]

Gameplay's the most important.

#2 is how the players move. If it looks too chopy, or if it just looks bad, I won't like it.

Then I care how the game looks.

The least important to me are the extras (but I still like them)

[nickjgar]

gameplay is definitely the most important but last years live had the best graphics of any basketball game so wouldn't you automatically expect it to improve on that or at least match?

[HillwoodBalla]

you crazy shox, the crazy are tight as fuck, quit hatin

[JdotK]

Yeah, I agree, In sports games, its more important to feel like your actually playing a game of basketball (thats why Inside Drive 2003 was the best bball game year last year).

I think Sega got its "more realistic gameplay" based only on competition with Live... because where Live is too fast, and 2k was too slow, ID was perfect.

Any way, when I think of live, I do think of a toned down version of 5 on 5 NBA Jam. There isnt bballs on fire or 30 foot jumps, but the game is ment to be similar.

When you pick up the game, your suppose to be your favorite player, every play is suppose to be your man running at full speed and doing unbelievable moves... this is something I expect... it isnt ment to be walking the ball up the court and passing trying to find the man coming off the screen... at least in older versions it wasnt.

Now the exact opposite could be said about 2k. It isnt ment to see Kobe breaking his mans ankles time and time again, its more about running plays... its slower pace.

But 2k itself isnt realistic either. The player moves, while not as exagerate as Live, are exactly the opposite and is almost boring. Doing a crossover and having your defender block you makes you stop instantly... yeah I know they kinda trip, but thats just an animation, they dont go anywhere. And the worse thing about 2k... Chris Webber backing down his man around the 3pt line, doing a step around and getting a clear lane to the hoop from 20 feet out... every time down the court.

Bottom line is, when I pick up either game, which is going to entertain me more? Speed and crazy cross overs, and dunks ment for the slam dunk contest, or walking my guy up the court, passing it to a shooting gaurd, trying to beat my guy, not being able to, having to pass it to another guy, trying to beat his defender, not being able to, repeat repeat repeat untill 2 seconds are left and then shooting... thats not fun to me.

Now, I love ESPN Football, so dont call me a fanboy or whatever, but NBA 2k is not fun... it seems like the only thing Sega fans ever say is that their game is more realistic and that AI really looks like AI... but it aint realistic, beacause, although NBA Live captures the Excitement of the NBA game and multiplies it by 1000, its still better than NBA 2k which captures the excitement and then divides it by 1000.

Id rather play a fun game thats excieting with stick figures than a beautiful game with realalistic players thats boring as fuck.

Just my Opinion, so dont flame...

[Jase23]

u don't care about graphics? What the heck? If that's the case, why don't u rent a genesis and play the original nba live. That's crazy. U said i don't care about graphics, just realism? That's what makes realism is the graphics. Go check out espn nba basketball's videos and how detailed every person in the league is and how fluid and realistic it is, it's unreal!

I dont need to rent a genesis, i have one, and nba live 95 & 96 for it. I like good graphics and realistic motion ... was just saying its not the most important thing in my opinion.

[BMG]

why rent a genesis when you could just download the game rom and a emulator for free?

[pinero]

gameplay and graphically espn nba is still a better game as it has been since 2001, live is good no doubt a bout it but real nba feel comes from playin espn nba

[Ceasar121]

I love Live, and I really want Live to be better than ESPN BBall, but graphically, Live can't even compete. ALL the players look like the real life counterparts, The franchise has friggin scouts so you can observe the talent pool, The depth and presentation is better... Live is just as fun to play, but overall, ESPN is a better game. If it was PC available, this might just be the ESPN Forum... Don't get it twisted, I will still get Live for PC, but if I had to pick, this year, for the least flawed most complete BBall game, the one I would bring on a deserted island with me... It would be ESPN. On gameplay, I'd say they are about equal, but ESPN has more Dynasty depth and better overall features and presentation. Hopefully, Live 2005 will step EA back to prominence, cuz 2004 is a definite improvement, great game... Just not enough to take the title.

[ReyJ]

I gotta admit, the only reason why I stick with Live is coz of all the patches that you can create with it.

Just look at Live 2003...

That and along with me being more of a PC gamer kind of guy rather than console.

If I do get a PS2 though, I'd definately get another bball sim other than Live, perhaps ESPN. Either that or hope that ESPN releases their game for the PC.

[Metsis]

I couldn't agree with JdotK more... The thing of it is that the game needs to be fun... I enjoy playing real basket ball with real people, but I'm not sure I would enjoy it too much playing it on my pc. The game needs to have some flare and big moments and great plays to make it as fun as in real life.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a simulation freak, but the fact is if I am meant to play the 25 year dynasty mode through with 82 games a season and 12 minute quarters, well the game just has to have that pull and a boring real life style just don't do it for me. That's a lot of hours and a lot of games... If you have to struggle for each and every point, well the game will get boring and futile.

I want the game to challenge me to making some tough calls and trying to make possible of the almost impossible like a huge come back victory and just have it thrown away with a last second shot... I want to experience the game, I want to feel the good and the bad that come with it...

What is lacking in NBA is the fact that this game is a team effort... The NBA focuses too much on the one-on-one matchups and that is what kills the game pretty much. If you ever see a college game or a game outside of the states, well you can certainly get entertained by the incredible ball movement and great plays. There has never been a team in Live games, just some random drones going about their game in some weird intelligence behind it all. Now with the ten-man-mo-cap this could be better and the other guys might do something to make a play work or something. I want to experience the game, not just marvel at it's beauty.

Graphics have always been good enough with Live games... And that's the bottom line.

[deleteduser]

ESPN is a better game.
-----------------------------------


Wow, i can't believe so many people actually like that shitty game. Espn basketball is not the best. I don't got to be kidding myself when i say that. The game is freaking boring as hell. If Espn basketball is all i'd have to play then lets just say i'd stop playing video games because of being so damn bored!

[MPAndy]

EA has fallen behind in some areas recently compared to sega and one of them is basketball - but live is a step in the right direction and EA just need to continue this drive towards a sim game by stepping things up again next year.

[cocobee]

All this game really needs is an ingame save option, because I want to play 12 minute quarters but man--they are long. I'm having a hard time trying to fit 8 minute quarters in my life.

I'm very satisifed with Live 2004 this year, yes it has its flaws--but unlike previous versions--it doesn't really take too much out of the our enjoyment of the game. A lot of things can be better, but instead of crying over spilt milk--I choose to keep playing and having fun with it. I just wish the PC version comes out soon.

BTW-MPAndy--I like your franchise site. I'll prolly go with you when i start my franchise. Hopefully, you'll have some more different NBA templates.