testing people's biases on nba live......

[Alcoholic]

I'd take loading time off of that list. I'll wait a month to load the greatest simulation ever. (ok maybe not THAT long..)

[Andrew]

I am certainly biased when it comes to NBA Live. I have tried other titles (though none of the 2K series) and I still prefer NBA Live. When I review NBA Live for the NLSC I generally compare it to its predecessors rather than other video games since the site is dedicated to the NBA Live series. I feel that is more appropriate on a site for NBA Live enthusiasts where the main concern is whether each game is showing improvement.

As far as graphics are concerned, of course they are significant. Nobody would accept NBA Live 95 style graphics in today's games. But graphics mean little if the game itself isn't that great. Shaquille O'Neal can look as lifelike as possible, but if he can hit threes from ten feet behind the arc, what's the point? (Please note I'm not accusing ESPN games of such flaws: I'm just using extreme, random examples).

EA doesn't step it up enough to compete and usually ends up losing by a close margin on reviews and the only thing that keeps it close is the rest of the game.

But such assessments really aren't fair if NBA Live's gameplay is superior. Such superficial differents don't mean as much when it comes to hardcore gaming and the longevity of a game. A game that looks great but isn't worth playing is not going to hold someone's interest.

In the world of video games, I think a game that looks pretty good and plays extremely well and is a lot of fun can definitely compete with a game that is more visually outstanding but has disappointing gameplay. The superficial elements are important, but so is the substance. We could discuss how this is becoming a problem in the world these days but that would be losing sight of the fact we're talking about two video games.

On bias, well, this is an NBA Live fansite so obviously many of us (myself included) are going to be biased. I enjoy NBA Live, I prefer it to other titles. Though I have my complaints and pet peeves, they are mostly concerned with the gameplay and Dynasty Mode.

ok, judging from those statements, i will never read a review from your perspective. Never played an ESPN game, man that's being biased. Whatever you do, don't pick up ESPN football then because you'll be converted real easy and never look back. I always get both games, but i do have an opinion on each. How can u not care about graphics? That's insane! Graphics=realism=fun. That's why nba live is collecting dust right now at my house because it is just the cheeziest looking bball game ever! Microsoft's nba inside drive 2004 even looked and played better than live this year.

I know this wasn't directed towards me (obviously, since this is my first post in this topic) but I do feel compelled to respond. With all due respect, you seem to be exhibiting quite a bit of bias yourself. In particular, I must disagree with your assertion that "graphics=realism=fun". Are you suggesting that a visually perfect basketball game that allows players to perform somersault dunks or players like Shaq to hit threes with ease is realistic?

I haven't played the Inside Drive series for a few years, but last time I did their roster management features were simply awful (Microsoft's first basketball venture years earlier, Full Court Press, was even worse).

So yes, I think those of us whom are NBA Live enthusiasts are very biased towards our preferred game, but I think ESPN fans are similarly biased towards their preferred game. Gamers who genuinely prefer one game over the other generally don't want to be swayed or convinced they should be buying a different game, which is why some of the other posters here have adoped a somewhat more aggressive defense of the NBA Live series in this discussion.

I don't see any problem with our bias. If we're happy to keep supporting the NBA Live series and enjoy playing it, so be it. You're free to disagree with our opinions and enjoy the game of your choosing, just as we are free to disagree with your opinions and enjoy the game of our choosing. You might believe we're wasting our money and disagree with our perspective, but but we're generally satisfied with our actions and we'll certainly voice our displeasure - not every review is glowing.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should have to explain their right to have a different opinion, but it just seemed as though you were dismissing other's opinions while presenting your own as fact; that's always going to invite this kind of opposition.

[Sauru]

Having bad graphics and good gameplay and still liking the game is the most idiotic thing in the world. That's why i don't understand a lot of you die-hard EA fans. No matter how bad a game looks, u still love it, it's pathetic! If you want to play a game with bad graphics but good gameplay, why don't u just go play a nintendo or a genesis? U wouldn't because of the graphics, so graphics does matter

actually i still play a old NES game from time to time, and they are usually more fun than most new games that come out. doom 3 is far superior in graphics to doom 2 but i still find doom 2 to be the better and more fun game, and i mean still as in i would play 2 over 3. spending all your time on graphics and skipping gameplay is what is actually idiotic and pathetic. who cares what a game looks like when it plays like shit.

just a final note, there is a reason the espn games are only 20 bucks, and that is simply, the EA games are hands down better.

[Null17]

I am certainly biased when it comes to NBA Live. I have tried other titles (though none of the 2K series) and I still prefer NBA Live. When I review NBA Live for the NLSC I generally compare it to its predecessors rather than other video games since the site is dedicated to the NBA Live series. I feel that is more appropriate on a site for NBA Live enthusiasts where the main concern is whether each game is showing improvement.

As far as graphics are concerned, of course they are significant. Nobody would accept NBA Live 95 style graphics in today's games. But graphics mean little if the game itself isn't that great. Shaquille O'Neal can look as lifelike as possible, but if he can hit threes from ten feet behind the arc, what's the point? (Please note I'm not accusing ESPN games of such flaws: I'm just using extreme, random examples).

EA doesn't step it up enough to compete and usually ends up losing by a close margin on reviews and the only thing that keeps it close is the rest of the game.

But such assessments really aren't fair if NBA Live's gameplay is superior. Such superficial differents don't mean as much when it comes to hardcore gaming and the longevity of a game. A game that looks great but isn't worth playing is not going to hold someone's interest.

In the world of video games, I think a game that looks pretty good and plays extremely well and is a lot of fun can definitely compete with a game that is more visually outstanding but has disappointing gameplay. The superficial elements are important, but so is the substance. We could discuss how this is becoming a problem in the world these days but that would be losing sight of the fact we're talking about two video games.

On bias, well, this is an NBA Live fansite so obviously many of us (myself included) are going to be biased. I enjoy NBA Live, I prefer it to other titles. Though I have my complaints and pet peeves, they are mostly concerned with the gameplay and Dynasty Mode.

ok, judging from those statements, i will never read a review from your perspective. Never played an ESPN game, man that's being biased. Whatever you do, don't pick up ESPN football then because you'll be converted real easy and never look back. I always get both games, but i do have an opinion on each. How can u not care about graphics? That's insane! Graphics=realism=fun. That's why nba live is collecting dust right now at my house because it is just the cheeziest looking bball game ever! Microsoft's nba inside drive 2004 even looked and played better than live this year.

I know this wasn't directed towards me (obviously, since this is my first post in this topic) but I do feel compelled to respond. With all due respect, you seem to be exhibiting quite a bit of bias yourself. In particular, I must disagree with your assertion that "graphics=realism=fun". Are you suggesting that a visually perfect basketball game that allows players to perform somersault dunks or players like Shaq to hit threes with ease is realistic?

I haven't played the Inside Drive series for a few years, but last time I did their roster management features were simply awful (Microsoft's first basketball venture years earlier, Full Court Press, was even worse).

So yes, I think those of us whom are NBA Live enthusiasts are very biased towards our preferred game, but I think ESPN fans are similarly biased towards their preferred game. Gamers who genuinely prefer one game over the other generally don't want to be swayed or convinced they should be buying a different game, which is why some of the other posters here have adoped a somewhat more aggressive defense of the NBA Live series in this discussion.

I don't see any problem with our bias. If we're happy to keep supporting the NBA Live series and enjoy playing it, so be it. You're free to disagree with our opinions and enjoy the game of your choosing, just as we are free to disagree with your opinions and enjoy the game of our choosing. You might believe we're wasting our money and disagree with our perspective, but but we're generally satisfied with our actions and we'll certainly voice our displeasure - not every review is glowing.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should have to explain their right to have a different opinion, but it just seemed as though you were dismissing other's opinions while presenting your own as fact; that's always going to invite this kind of opposition.

well stated, i dont think anyone could've stated it better. makes me wonder what happened to guy who made this thread in the first place

[Vi1n5ce]

Haha... We should start a philosophy thread talking about stuff like these...

Wait, that's not enough... we should start a whole new section just on the philosophy of gaming...

[sho89mtx]

u all have very valid points and i just said most of that stuff to get some good feedback because i was getting bored reading the same old posts day after day

I noticed a lot of you guys play this game for PC and that's why most of you don't understand what i'm talking about. I play all my games on Xbox. If I was into PC games, i'm sure Live would be the best hands down because of all the updates and patches u can add to make it awesome! This post is basically just for the console people.

Eveyone keeps accusing me of working for ESPN and being a loyal ESPN member, but look at what I type. I never said, hey everyone go out and buy ESPN because it will be better, I think ESPN has some serious competition with EA finally this year. I was just talking about the graphics and in my opinion even if the graphics aren't as good as ESPN, but ESPN doesn't add anything off the hook, EA will probably win the battle this year because they have made tons of changes for the good and so far I haven't heard of any changes or additions that will put sega over the edge excpet the screencaps look incredible!(like always). It should be fun this year to see who's gonna come out on top and I bet it will be close!

[Wall St. Peon]

I didn't read most of this, but you guys have to understand that there are limitations to hardware and software.

If you have killer graphics, gameplay will suffer because more RAM and processor is being used for the badass graphics....so they build the game to be pretty, but because of technological limitations, they can't add all the nice gameplay features that you want in, or the AI suffers, or whatever.

If you focus on gameplay and have perfect AI and everything, the graphics will probably suck because so much of the processor and RAM and whatnot is being used on the gameplay and AI and player/non-player movements, as opposed to graphics...

To me, Live is the best in this regard because they are in the middle...graphics are good, but not great, but their gameplay is better than their graphics. For those with machines (PC) that can handle it, they can up the res of the textures and graphics in order to get a game that looks ten times better than any of the Sega games (Tony's LeBron and Melo, Steve's shoes with Dahl's shoe patch? Come on, you can't beat the stuff with any commercial things produced).

The gameplay of NBA2kx is declining year by year, that's the EA team and the summit participants consensus. They're mainstreaming the game and cutting production time by pushing the game out and losing money to boot....they're just out there to usurp Live from the bball throne, and they don't seem to care too much about making a better game, just a better looking game (whose only real graphical feat seems to be exceptional faces). I may be wrong about this year's NBA2kx, but I've played Live 2005, and it's by far the best bball game I've ever played.

[John-John Joe]

I didn't read most of this, but you guys have to understand that there are limitations to hardware and software.

If you have killer graphics, gameplay will suffer because more RAM and processor is being used for the badass graphics....so they build the game to be pretty, but because of technological limitations, they can't add all the nice gameplay features that you want in, or the AI suffers, or whatever.

If you focus on gameplay and have perfect AI and everything, the graphics will probably suck because so much of the processor and RAM and whatnot is being used on the gameplay and AI and player/non-player movements, as opposed to graphics...

To me, Live is the best in this regard because they are in the middle...graphics are good, but not great, but their gameplay is better than their graphics. For those with machines (PC) that can handle it, they can up the res of the textures and graphics in order to get a game that looks ten times better than any of the Sega games (Tony's LeBron and Melo, Steve's shoes with Dahl's shoe patch? Come on, you can't beat the stuff with any commercial things produced).

The gameplay of NBA2kx is declining year by year, that's the EA team and the summit participants consensus. They're mainstreaming the game and cutting production time by pushing the game out and losing money to boot....they're just out there to usurp Live from the bball throne, and they don't seem to care too much about making a better game, just a better looking game (whose only real graphical feat seems to be exceptional faces). I may be wrong about this year's NBA2kx, but I've played Live 2005, and it's by far the best bball game I've ever played.

Well said, well said. Ill take gameplay over graphics anyday. Now, I'm not saying it's ok for NBA Live 2005 to look like friggin' "Double Dribble" but the main focus should be on gameplay with respect to graphics. ESPN's game play is well, awkward to say the least...... And why are all their player models hunched over like Quasimodo?

Also, in 2K4 you'd frequently lose control of your man and he will stay still in his " isomotion dribbling animation." He'd be stuck there sometimes for like 8-9 seconds and you can't shoot, pass or anything! Very frustrating..

[Andrew]

Older players who spent a lot of time playing the early games in the titles generally seem to be more interested in gameplay than graphics because the graphics have come a long way since NBA Live 95. Perhaps some of the rookie faces look a little generic and some of the faces aren't quite right, but NBA Live 2004 is far from cartoonish.

As Shane said, the graphics are good and the gameplay is the focus, which results in a game that can hold a player's interest much longer. Does it matter how good a player's face looks if the animations are subpar and the gameplay is unrealistic? It would be much worse if NBA Live fell into this trap.

[John-John Joe]

Older players who spent a lot of time playing the early games in the titles generally seem to be more interested in gameplay than graphics because the graphics have come a long way since NBA Live 95. Perhaps some of the rookie faces look a little generic and some of the faces aren't quite right, but NBA Live 2004 is far from cartoonish.

As Shane said, the graphics are good and the gameplay is the focus, which results in a game that can hold a player's interest much longer. Does it matter how good a player's face looks if the animations are subpar and the gameplay is unrealistic? It would be much worse if NBA Live fell into this trap.

Well said. I think the importance of a multitude of fluid, realistic ANIMATIONS far supercede that of graphics. Often times I feel that these 2K supporters show photographs of player models that is irrelevant anyway. Who on God's good earth can notice minute details on player models during regular gameplay? I understand and applaud the fact that it enhances the instant replay feature as well the average gamer's thirst for eye candy. But why should this factor in so heavily when talking about "committing" to a basketball game for a year.....

Cause you know what? It is sort of like a commitment. Learning different controls, etc. Each game has it's own distinct feel and factors in when fans of either consider trying out the competitor........ Live's graphics are great to me, and I don't even have the benefit of PC enhancement. I'm talkin' console!........ And you're absolutely right, I think the Live veterans put alot more focus on gameplay.

But I must reiterate that point once more. It's all about animations, this can make or break a sports game. Live has historically been much more fluid in the animations dept, and I think consistently offers a greater variety of them......

[sebassss]

Live's graphics are great to me, and I don't even have the benefit of PC enhancement. I'm talkin' console!........

i am controlling little people on a screen with my gamepad, not only do they look very much like people, i can actually tell which real NBA player they are meant to portray

to me, that is all i need as far as graphics go in a basketball sim. Although being able to see my little guys sweat would be awsome, i can honestly say that if they stopped improving the graphics at the '04 level, i would not mind one bit

if what shane is saying about the processor is true (and im sure it is), i'd almost rather they gave up on graphics altogether

everyone is different but i dont buy Live to look at it

[sho89mtx]

here is the level of detail nba2k5 is at this year, let's hope that live is somewhere at least close to this:

[sebassss]

that pic doesnt show the lame ass post move hes about to pull off

[carsley]

is it me or does ben wallace look a little grey?

[robin_528]

Yeah and his right shoulder looks a bit dislocated.

[j.23]

i've always liked espn's graphics over live's but i prefer live's gameplay over espn.. therefore

live > espn

[John-John Joe]

sho89mtx, I understand that Ben Wallace's 'fro looks great. I understand that VC puts alot of stock into having player models as detailed as possible... But answer this, please:

When the heck do you ever get to notice these trivial details on player models during avtucl gameplay? What camera do you use, Super-Duper Zoom?

I think it's great for the instant replay feature I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that nobody in their right mind plays with a camera that close to notice this shit?

Instead of Visual Concepts focusing on making sure they get the right amount of food stains on Oliver Miller's uniforms, why don't they fix their shoddy jumpshot animation? Or their horrible post-game for instance?

[sho89mtx]

sho89mtx, I understand that Ben Wallace's 'fro looks great. I understand that VC puts alot of stock into having player models as detailed as possible... But answer this, please:

When the heck do you ever get to notice these trivial details on player models during avtucl gameplay? What camera do you use, Super-Duper Zoom?

I think it's great for the instant replay feature I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that nobody in their right mind plays with a camera that close to notice this shit?

Instead of Visual Concepts focusing on making sure they get the right amount of food stains on Oliver Miller's uniforms, why don't they fix their shoddy jumpshot animation? Or their horrible post-game for instance?

food stains on oliver miller's uniform U guys keep talking like espn plays like robots or something, I'll agree it doesn't play as welll as live, but not by much. It's not just on replays that make the game realistic, but cutscenes, intro's etc. I'm sorry, it sounds like you guys could play a game no matter how it looks if it has a bunch of options and i'm just different, I can only have fun playing a game with good graphics and ok gameplay, but it has to have great graphics or i can't play it for an entire game. Like I said even if live's graphics are like last year's I'll still play the crap out of it, just not during games, only the dunk contest because I can't stand the catoony look in gameplay. With the dunk contest it's fine because it's something new, but gameplay, there has to be good graphics, not great like espn, but at least good and live didn't have that last year, this year they look a lot better and will proably be tolerable though.

[gut]

ESPN vs NBA LIVE

again, again and again....

it's too subjective for comparing on graphics,
it's no use to convince other people which one is better.

IMO, I don't think Live is worse than ESPN,
at least I feel comfortable when playing Live.

The general look and feel of the game is excellent, that's it.
That's what I need.

I do not have ESPN, I cannot compare the gameplay or animations.

For the graphics, luckly we (Live Fans) have a lot of great patchers provide
us REALISTIC CYBER FACES, SHOES, JERSEYS, COURTS, ETC...

One thing I like from the ESPN is the user interface (according to the screenshots), I like that kind of style, but this is just a minor thing.

I don't have any console, so Live is the only choose for me. Even though ESPN is better in graphics. (to be honest, I don't think so)

[Sauru]

maybe i just dont understand a fro but wtf are all those lines in it? he looks like he got a hair net on. anyway one thing that i think looks bad is the player necks. they all look too stubby for me but whatever.

[cocobee]

sho89mtx, I understand that Ben Wallace's 'fro looks great. I understand that VC puts alot of stock into having player models as detailed as possible... But answer this, please:

When the heck do you ever get to notice these trivial details on player models during avtucl gameplay? What camera do you use, Super-Duper Zoom?

I think it's great for the instant replay feature I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that nobody in their right mind plays with a camera that close to notice this shit?

Instead of Visual Concepts focusing on making sure they get the right amount of food stains on Oliver Miller's uniforms, why don't they fix their shoddy jumpshot animation? Or their horrible post-game for instance?

I have to agree, I remember seeing the beautiful screens from 2k4--then I popped it in. During actual gameplay--the game looks nowhere near that detail. But in Instant Replay, it does. Too bad, I don't play my games in Instant Replay. I won't involve Live PC's graphics because it wouldn't be fair. Those screens are just for attention, but the game doesn't look anywhere close to that detail during gameplay.

[John-John Joe]

sho89mtx, I understand that Ben Wallace's 'fro looks great. I understand that VC puts alot of stock into having player models as detailed as possible... But answer this, please:

When the heck do you ever get to notice these trivial details on player models during avtucl gameplay? What camera do you use, Super-Duper Zoom?

I think it's great for the instant replay feature I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that nobody in their right mind plays with a camera that close to notice this shit?

Instead of Visual Concepts focusing on making sure they get the right amount of food stains on Oliver Miller's uniforms, why don't they fix their shoddy jumpshot animation? Or their horrible post-game for instance?

food stains on oliver miller's uniform U guys keep talking like espn plays like robots or something, I'll agree it doesn't play as welll as live, but not by much. It's not just on replays that make the game realistic, but cutscenes, intro's etc. I'm sorry, it sounds like you guys could play a game no matter how it looks if it has a bunch of options and i'm just different, I can only have fun playing a game with good graphics and ok gameplay, but it has to have great graphics or i can't play it for an entire game.

Wussup sho, I don't think we mean to make it seem like we don't care about graphics because we do. Every gamer does, just some more than others. But the point is, ESPN isn't LIGHT YEARS ahead in that regard and I actually found ESPN 2K4's graphics inferior to that of Live's. Once again, that is all very subjective.

I find the animations and moves the players can execute to be much more important than 100% accurate player models or a ball that's "bump-mapped". I've never said, "Man, Live would be soooo much better if they could just get the ball looking as realistic as possible!" In ESPN, the gameplay was just so inferior to Live's that it pretty much turned me off, especially when I realized how little control I had over my virtual athlete when executing the Iso-Motion feature........

Some ESPN dudes act like comparing the graphics of their beloved game to Live is like comparing the graphics of "Halo 2" to "Contra" on the 8 bit NES. that's just plain ridiculous. I love the way they made Kenyon and Ben look so realistic, it looks fantastic. But how do they look during actual (how embarrasing is it to super size a comment in a post with the word "actual" spelled wrong? ) gameplay? How do they move? Is it fluid? Man, I dunno, the jumpshot animations and a host of others in 2K are extreeeeeemely suspect........

[carsley]

i bought espn basketball and i played it 1 time and never again wanna know why BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FREAKIN ZOOM IN AND CAUSE THAT GAME IS SO WEIRD i mean the faces look allright but when the players run on the court they look like they are made of paper or something

[Andrew]

I'm sorry, it sounds like you guys could play a game no matter how it looks if it has a bunch of options and i'm just different, I can only have fun playing a game with good graphics and ok gameplay, but it has to have great graphics or i can't play it for an entire game.

Earlier in the thread, you said that you would never read a review from the perspective that good/satisfactory graphics were not as important as gameplay. Again, with all due respect, I think that many people would take the same stance on your perspective that it doesn't matter if the gameplay isn't up to scratch as long as the game looks nice.

It really sounds as though you don't care if you can leap from halfcourt to perform a somersault dunk or hit threes with Shaq and Mutombo as long as the game is graphically stunning. If that's how you feel, fine, but please don't try to tell us that such a game would be more realistic because of the impressive graphics. A game that boasts players that look lifelike but act in a completely arcade-ish way is not realistic.

Like I said even if live's graphics are like last year's I'll still play the crap out of it, just not during games, only the dunk contest because I can't stand the catoony look in gameplay. With the dunk contest it's fine because it's something new, but gameplay, there has to be good graphics, not great like espn, but at least good and live didn't have that last year, this year they look a lot better and will proably be tolerable though.

Again, graphics alone do not equal realism. And what exactly was cartoonish about NBA Live 2004's graphics? From most gameplay angles, the detail seemed quite fine to me.

To give you a life example, back in my first couple of years of high school everyone had to take food technology (cooking, basically) as a subject. They presented us with some bowls of ice cream to taste-test. We had no idea of the brands. Pretty much everyone had the same pick for the two best ice creams. When the brands were revealed, most people were amazed to find that the two favourites were a top of the range brand and a generic label.

Now, it's slightly different with video games. Graphics matter. As Dre said, it's not as though we're going to be satisfied with 8 bit graphics. But small complaints with the graphics are not going to deter us from enjoying great gameplay, just as we won't buy the most expensive brand of ice cream if a cheaper brand tastes just as good.

Look, you're free to disagree and enjoy the game as you see fit. But I don't think that our viewpoint that excellent gameplay with good graphics is less realistic than a game that boasted realistic graphics but arcade-ish or flawed gameplay is as absurd or wrong as you assert.

Perhaps we're going to keep going around in circles, but as far as the whole graphics and gameplay debate goes, I think I can sum up my point of view (and the point of view for most of my fellow NBA Live fans) as such: It doesn't matter how good the graphics are, if the players can somersault dunk from halfcourt and don't play anything like their real life counterparts, the game cannot be considered realistic.

[Bill Russell]

that pic doesnt show the lame ass post move hes about to pull off

Man you got my thoughts... Exactly thing I was thinking about...

ESPN series is all about bling bling