About NBA Live 2004

[Raúl López]

I think that a thing should be corrected in the next NBA Live series: In a game of 48 minutes there would have be a normal punctuation (80-120 points) as like in the NBA Live 2001. Fewer blocks, steals,a slowest game and more strategy. The playable of the 2001 (Sorry for my english)

[Tony]

are you serious? the 2001 gameplay sucked... the rebounding was horrible, i nearly broke my controler how annoying it was... personally i don't care for the scores, as long as the game is fun to play...

[emadhn15]

2001 was the worst nba live version ever made! so I dont care if the points arent realistic, all i care about is the gameplay!

[Metsis]

Live 2001 was alright... It had too many rebounds, but it was good. It actually had realistic scores with 48 minutes. But I personally don't like to play with 12 minute quarters. So a faster paced game is better in my mind.

Live 2001 was the most realistic Live to date with dunking, defense etc. It was a good game.

[Ruff Ryder]

Seeing how if live 2004 had realistic scores in 48 minutes what would happen to the live players who dont have time to play 12 minute quarters and prefer 7-8 minute quarters? Scores would be like 50-45 or 57-62. "Iverson leads the way with 14 points "

Plus the only way to get realistic stats is to slow the gameplay way down because if you use live 2003 s gameplay the scores may be realistic but rebounds not. Most likely fg% will be way down which leads to 60 rebounds.

[Andrew]

Realistic scores in 48 minutes need not mean low scores in shorter quarters. The sliders will probably allow you to speed up your game to get scores in the 90s or 100s even in 7-8 minute quarters.

[Metsis]

But using the sliders to get the scores into the 90-100 range with 7-8 minute quarters could be a bad thing. The game might seem too 2003-like. Too fast to control and extremely hard to defend.

NHL with the fastest speed settings... I don't even think I've even tried it. But it get ridicolously fast before that.

But we'll just have to see what they give us this year.

[ReyJ]

I think that's why sliders will be in place and will be a lot more important than we may think.

I myself play 48 minutes, to get the most of out realism. I've also played NBA Live since 95 and to know that sliders will be implemented into Live 2004, I must say I'm excited.

A note about Live 2001, it was pretty decent. Jumping and rebounding was a real pain, as Tony already mentioned. But I think all in all, Live 2001 wasn't too bad.

[Metsis]

But we should always remember that Live 2001 was the first one to implement the thing where players jump to different heights. So the jumping and thus rebounding would be kind of awkward. If you played it now, it could be whole new experience. Now that you know the men jump to different heights.

I liked it otherwise except the fact that you had to play 12 minute quarts to get realistic scores.

[Andrew]

But having realistic scores for 7-8 minute quarters isn't fair for those of us who like to play 12 minute quarters. Sliders are the only way to satisfy everyone's needs and settings.

[CHAMP23]

Yeh sliders kind of put EA in a position where they can't lose. Everyone should be satisfied with the realism or arcade or whatever style they prefer.

I plan to play dynasty mode with the current Bulls (but I will add legend Jordan) and I want to get through as many seasons as possible. However I also want to play all 82 games, and have realistic scores. But I don't have time to play 48 minute games all the time. This could mean I decide to make the sliders produce 90-100ppg in 28 minute games or something like that. As mentioned above this could produce an arcade-type game which I do not prefer. Anyway it sounds like a fascinating game with the sliders.

[JP_Frost]

I like to play 12 minute quarters as well. In fact, when I played live '99 I even took about 2 or 3 minutes off during timeouts and about 15 or so minutes during halftime! I might not do that now ( who has time these days ? ) but I certainly will play 12 minute quarters if the scores are realistic. I understand you guys wanting to play 28 minute games cuz you don't have enough time, but really...we all complain about realism, but still you play 7 minute quarters...how realistic is that ?

I agree with Andrew though, sliders should fix the problem and there should definately be something for all sorts of gamers; more arcade kinda players and more realism kinda players without sacrificing the gameplay.

My biggest concern though is that the simulated stats are still not fixed. Meaning that Tim Duncan wins the mvp trophy every single season and bench players just getting 12 minutes a game and scoring 5 points. That was a bitch in previous lives, guys like gary trent and rodney rogers were not scoring like they should just becuz the starters played way too many minutes. And I don't wanna fix shit like that with dbf editors and stuff, cuz it should just be in the game.

anyhow...Live 2004 will prolly be pretty damn good.

[Raúl López]

I don't said the rebounds like the NBA Live 2001, I sais the stats, a realistic puntuation, not the rebounds, a realistic puntuation.If you simulate a game in 48 minutes u have for example, 98 points, and if you play in 48 minutes you have 180 points.If u play with the 6ers, in 24 minutes, Allen Iverson will average 20 minutes per game and that's no realistic

[ReyJ]

Don't know about you guys, but I'd really LOVE for in-game saves to be back in Live 2004.

[cocobee]

Don't know about you guys, but I'd really LOVE for in-game saves to be back in Live 2004

I feel you on that, that's one feature I would love --Man, I would love to play 12 minute quarters but i just don't have the time. Man--I loved that in Live 2000 pc!

I hope they bring it back!

[TRUball]

I don't said the rebounds like the NBA Live 2001, I sais the stats, a realistic puntuation, not the rebounds, a realistic puntuation.If you simulate a game in 48 minutes u have for example, 98 points, and if you play in 48 minutes you have 180 points.If u play with the 6ers, in 24 minutes, Allen Iverson will average 20 minutes per game and that's no realistic

That is not true, I have not once had a game with over 140 points simulated in live 2001..... and AI playing 20 minutes in a 24 minute game is realistic, cause think about, AI avereages like 40 minutes in 48 minute games in real life so half the time of the game, so half his playing time.

[CHAMP23]

What do you guys think the probablity is of 'in-game saves' being a feature? Cos yeh I probably would play 48 min games if it had that feature. Its cool how you might have 15 minutes free before you go out somewhere and you can just play the game for those minutes and save. You would get through a lot of games that way.

[Andrew]

My guess would be not likely.

[killerht]

You all crazy? NBA Live 2001 was the best Live game. I'm a huge Live fan and I didn't even buy 2002 or 2003 cuz they sucked, I still have and often play 2001, its the best cuz the gameplay is the most realistic. 2002 and 2003 are both arcade games, 2001 was a simlaution game. But that's my point.

[TRUball]

You all crazy? NBA Live 2001 was the best Live game. I'm a huge Live fan and I didn't even buy 2002 or 2003 cuz they sucked, I still have and often play 2001, its the best cuz the gameplay is the most realistic. 2002 and 2003 are both arcade games, 2001 was a simlaution game. But that's my point.

same with me. I never bought 2002 cause i didn't have a ps2 or anything but i didn't buy nba live 2003 cause I liked 2001 alot. I play the demo of live 2003 when i want to play a fast arcade style of game and when i have like 10 minutes to kill or something cause it is only a 4 minute quarter in the demo, but i get like 25 points in the 4 minutes, can easily get 30 points and once got 43 in that 4 minute demo! that is so unrealistic so i stayed wit live 2001, but i 4 sure gonna buy live 2004....

[Metsis]

Okay people, listen up... (I can feel another rant coming on)

The problem here is not wheter you have a realistic score with 7 minute quarts or 12 minute quarts. The problem really is when you get the realistic scores, well the other stats aren't realistic. In live 2001 you got realistic scores with 12 minute quarts, but you could easily have 10+ steals with your pointguard and 20+ rebounds with Greg Ostertag. How realistic is that??? In Live 2003, cause of the faster pace of the game you get realistic scores with 6-8 minute quarts, but you hardly get any rebounds cause all the shots go in.

The problem is that when you have the realistic scores, well the rest of the stats are not quite as realistic. And this is what needs to reckoned with. Live 2001 had it probably the best. The only problem was that the ball got stuck on the iron and rarely there were any long rebounds for the guards to grab (same goes for Live 2003 btw)... So the centers and power forwards took them all. Players like Jason Kidd and Kobe Bryant average 6-7 rebounds per game and they should be able to do so in the game too. In Live 2003 with 6-8 minute quarts it is next to impossible to average 6-7 rebounds per game with Ben Wallace and hard to get one or two with a guard.

It is the balance of things... You need to have a realistic balance in the game and thus you need the sliders to tweak the game so that you can have realistic scores, rebounds, steals, blocks and assists. I do hope EA has noticed this...

And about the problem with the simulated player stats that come off the bench wasn't always so. You could actually have a player coming off the bench and scoring 10 points per game with decent minutes before they changed the production team. I hope this gets fixed too. The stats and the minutes too.

(rant over, for now)

[Colin]

In Live 2003 with 6-8 minute quarts it is next to impossible to average 6-7 rebounds per game with Ben Wallace and hard to get one or two with a guard.

Wrong. You can easily crash the boards by pressing pass then jump once a shot has been released. I play 7 minute quarters and Tim Thomas averages 8.6 and has 4 off. rebounds a game. But that's a flaw too.

[Andrew]

I hear what you're saying Metsis, but realistic stats would yield realistic scores anyway.

[ReyJ]

I think everyone can agree on the fact that Live 2001 has the most realistic scores in 12 min quarters. But to say that Live 2001 (or any other Live for that matter) has unrealistic rebounding, steals, etc etc etc stats for players is wrong.

Player and team stats will always be affected by the way you play the game. If you are the Spurs with Duncan, he's not automatically gonna get 20 pts and 10 boards. You have to work and play at it to get those stats.

Players like Kidd and Bryant CAN get rebounds, if you use them wisely and time your rebound to perfection. Just because there were no long rebounds didn't mean you couldn't get rebounds from your guards. Since there were no long rebounds, how about switching to your guard and have them move into the paint when a shot is being attempted?

I play with the Hornets and I have B Diddy averaging 5 boards a game, both in Live 2001 and Live 2003. Of course it helps to have a guard that has a good rebounding rating.

With Live 2003, getting realistic stats wasn't the problem. It was the arcade-ish style of game that made it a problem. It was the way steals were made that were the problem. It was the way blocks were made that were the problem. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....

It was this arcade-ish style of play that orchestrated the tempo of the game that the user would play, which lead to unrealistic stats. And I think everyone here knows about that.

[Andrew]

Exactly. You didn't play your game, you played the CPU's game. Slowing the game down to run down the clock and take the time to properly execute a half-court offense was a risky gameplan, but one that you would sometimes have to use.