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

[fgrep15]

9.5-8.3 is a huge difference in reviews. They usually are nice in their reviews and don't grade games very poorly because they don't want to take away sales from the games because most of the gamesites get early builds on the game before it comes out to critique and they are not gonna dog on a game that a company went out of their way to hook them up with early. Like no matter how bad live's graphics sucked or will suck this year, you'll never see a rating of 5.0 or lower on any game unless it just looks like contra on nintendo or something. If you don't beleive me with what i said, go look at a review of a game that you think has the worst graphics in the world on that console and see what they ranked it. you'll see what i'm talking about. Their's politics involved in any rating system so the gap can't be too much or it wont sell and if the game doesn't sell because of a bad review, guess who's not getting an early copy next year? Yep, u guessed it. Think about it

You really went off topic here, who was talking about 5, obviously not many games would deserve a 5 anyways. The thing is that in gameplay it would flip, but I would'nt give either game 9, more like 8.5 to 7.3, but with the scale I'm comparing to, then year it'd be like 9.2 and 8.0.

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that graphics in a RPG and graphics in a sports game w/real people in it can't be compared in the same breath. But i'll explain it to you anyway.....RPG games are all about what you do, what u shoot, action, action, action, they can have the worst graphics in the worls and can be fun as hell! Now sports games are patterneed after real life people that actually exist and real life gameplay. If it doesn't look like the real people at all, then the game company failed to do their job. Like EA did last year and will probably do again. That's just my opinion about graphics=realism to me. U guys can play nintendo double dribble all day long and i'll play ESPN basketball and we'll see who has more fun

Seriously, you're not making sense to me, we buy sports games to play, not to look at the players faces and bodies, I mean I sometimes still play NBA Live 2000 because it's a nice game gameplay wise.
I mean, you see the players face right on a few times a game, but the rest of the time your playing, which is the gameplay, and in ESPN this year, the camera angles weren't that great anyways [dissapointing ]

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

you guys are hilarious. U noticed that sega was rated higher, so now everyone's a geek and doesn't know how to rate sports games, huh? Maybe....just maybe....the game sucked last year and it deserved it's lower ranking than sega.....wait. that's just too crazy to assume. It must be because all 100% of the reviews don't know what they are talking about. Come one people, get a clue....

You guys, you guys, stop saying you guys, we aren't all one person, if your quoting someone, don't say "you guys".



In terms of reviews, I only trust reviews from sports based sites, the most prominent one being Operation Sports, about sports games, because some of the other sites firs of all don't play the game long enough, and secondly have a different criteria when rating sports games than what they should.

[sho89mtx]

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

Once again, CLOWN. The reason EA was behind as you put it for those years is because they didn't even make games for the DREAMCAST! PS2 was just coming out at that time as a first generation console and everything else was still 32 bit!

There's no doubting that Sega has revolutionized sportsgames, every true console gamer knows this! But to say that EA has been complacent because "all we do is pat them on the back", give me a phucking break!

Have you not seen a little thing called the "WISHLIST"??? We're notorious complainers much like other fans of other games, stop the nonsense....

that's another thing that's hilarious to me. I've been a member of this board for a long time and i remember all the hype that was surrounding Nba live last year and the year before and right after the game came out, about 90% of the people on this board complained all day about how bad it sucked, yet all of a sudden everyone is talking about how good last year's version is that posted last year.....now that's the height of hypocracy to me
in fact, I remember when Tim used to run this site and used to read this message board and got so ticked off about the harsh criticism about the game sucking that he gave it up to andrew, remember that guys? Well I do, that's why when most of you talk or respond, all i hear is "blah, blah, blah" because I've been on here forever and have seen the repeating cycle ever year. It always goes like this:
Hype, Hype, Hype the game up, then everyone is talking about how the game looks so good in the screen and movies, then the game comes out, about 90% of the people on here rip it a new one and then they forget about all that next year and start the cycle over again. Watch how it plays out this year, you'll see.

[John-John Joe]

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

Once again, CLOWN. The reason EA was behind as you put it for those years is because they didn't even make games for the DREAMCAST! PS2 was just coming out at that time as a first generation console and everything else was still 32 bit!

There's no doubting that Sega has revolutionized sportsgames, every true console gamer knows this! But to say that EA has been complacent because "all we do is pat them on the back", give me a phucking break!

Have you not seen a little thing called the "WISHLIST"??? We're notorious complainers much like other fans of other games, stop the nonsense....

that's another thing that's hilarious to me. I've been a member of this board for a long time and i remember all the hype that was surrounding Nba live last year and the year before and right after the game came out, about 90% of the people on this board complained all day about how bad it sucked, yet all of a sudden everyone is talking about how good last year's version is that posted last year.....now that's the height of hypocracy to me
in fact, I remember when Tim used to run this site and used to read this message board and got so ticked off about the harsh criticism about the game sucking that he gave it up to andrew, remember that guys? Well I do, that's why when most of you talk or respond, all i hear is "blah, blah, blah" because I've been on here forever and have seen the repeating cycle ever year. It always goes like this:
Hype, Hype, Hype the game up, then everyone is talking about how the game looks so good in the screen and movies, then the game comes out, about 90% of the people on here rip it a new one and then they forget about all that next year and start the cycle over again. Watch how it plays out this year, you'll see.

OMG, sho, give it a rest already!

- First "we're" a bunch of guys who don't care about graphics and only pat EA on the back. Now we're a bunch of hypocritical whiners that only have bad things to say? Which is it? Here's the first comment:

quote="sho89mtx"]The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys.
[/quote]

that's another thing that's hilarious to me. I've been a member of this board for a long time and i remember all the hype that was surrounding Nba live last year and the year before and right after the game came out, about 90% of the people on this board complained all day about how bad it sucked, yet all of a sudden everyone is talking about how good last year's version is that posted last year.....now that's the height of hypocracy to me
in fact, I remember when Tim used to run this site and used to read this message board and got so ticked off about the harsh criticism about the game sucking that he gave it up to andrew, remember that guys?

See how you contradict yourself? First we're "back-patters" with no constructive criticism to offer, which explains why the Ea Canada has been complacent.....

Then, we're a bunch of guys who complained about how much the game sucks and had so much criticism that Tim left the site!

Which is it sho, are we "back-patters" or "complainers"???
Look, feel free to enjoy whichever franchise you choose but don't expect us to jump up to agree with you just because you say so.

And for pete's sake, get your story straight next time.....

[sho89mtx]

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. Did you guys forget when Dreamcast was out and EA didn't make games for it, so it was a battle btwn Dreamcast's sega sports and EA and it was completely off the charts in favor of Sega sports? If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys. When dreamcast went bankrupt and sega just made games and made them for all systems, it was the best thing that could ever happen to us sports fans because it put EA and Sega in direct competition for sports games and made both companies make better games. Well if you guys keep patting EA on the back no matter how their crap looks, i dont' feel sorry for you guys when sega dominates the reviews again. But what does piss me off is that EA is better than that. They have so much potential, but don't use it. They are creative by coming up with new things(like all star weekend)and certain gameplay elements, but still don't realize how bad they look and then try to lie to you guys and say that it's completely different graphics engine this year. Hahahahhahaha. Look at the gameplay footage and tell me that it looks completely different, yeah right! U guys have to be crazy and blind to beleive that.

Once again, CLOWN. The reason EA was behind as you put it for those years is because they didn't even make games for the DREAMCAST! PS2 was just coming out at that time as a first generation console and everything else was still 32 bit!

There's no doubting that Sega has revolutionized sportsgames, every true console gamer knows this! But to say that EA has been complacent because "all we do is pat them on the back", give me a phucking break!

Have you not seen a little thing called the "WISHLIST"??? We're notorious complainers much like other fans of other games, stop the nonsense....

that's another thing that's hilarious to me. I've been a member of this board for a long time and i remember all the hype that was surrounding Nba live last year and the year before and right after the game came out, about 90% of the people on this board complained all day about how bad it sucked, yet all of a sudden everyone is talking about how good last year's version is that posted last year.....now that's the height of hypocracy to me
in fact, I remember when Tim used to run this site and used to read this message board and got so ticked off about the harsh criticism about the game sucking that he gave it up to andrew, remember that guys? Well I do, that's why when most of you talk or respond, all i hear is "blah, blah, blah" because I've been on here forever and have seen the repeating cycle ever year. It always goes like this:
Hype, Hype, Hype the game up, then everyone is talking about how the game looks so good in the screen and movies, then the game comes out, about 90% of the people on here rip it a new one and then they forget about all that next year and start the cycle over again. Watch how it plays out this year, you'll see.

OMG, sho, give it a rest already!

- First "we're" a bunch of guys who don't care about graphics and only pat EA on the back. Now we're a bunch of hypocritical whiners that only have bad things to say? Which is it? Here's the first comment:

quote="sho89mtx"]The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept. If you remember, it was Sega who revolutionized the way basketball and video games look today, EA was still about 2 decade behind in that dept and it wasn't for another 2 years before EA even made a game close to Sega. Reason being? People like you guys.

that's another thing that's hilarious to me. I've been a member of this board for a long time and i remember all the hype that was surrounding Nba live last year and the year before and right after the game came out, about 90% of the people on this board complained all day about how bad it sucked, yet all of a sudden everyone is talking about how good last year's version is that posted last year.....now that's the height of hypocracy to me
in fact, I remember when Tim used to run this site and used to read this message board and got so ticked off about the harsh criticism about the game sucking that he gave it up to andrew, remember that guys?

See how you contradict yourself? First we're "back-patters" with no constructive criticism to offer, which explains why the Ea Canada has been complacent.....

Then, we're a bunch of guys who complained about how much the game sucks and had so much criticism that Tim left the site!

Which is it sho, are we "back-patters" or "complainers"???
Look, feel free to enjoy whichever franchise you choose but don't expect us to jump up to agree with you just because you say so.

And for pete's sake, get your story straight next time..... [/quote]

that's my point! Hypocracy is your guys game. When the game comes out, u guys bash it and rip on it, then the cycle repeats itself and u start hyping next years game and talk about how good last year's version was, it's hilarious! My story hasn't change. The whole point of those comments were to show you guys how hyporcitical u can be, you'll catch on one day....i got faith in ya

[John-John Joe]

A wise man once told me never argue with fools
Because from a distance, a person can't tell who is who.

Jay-Z, from 2001's "The Takeover"

[slicknickshady]

i did not play espn 2k4. i bought live 2004.

This year im buying both and whit Michigan tax it will only be $66.00 for both.

Im a huge piston fan so im buying espn 2k5 because it's so cheap and ben wallace is the cover dude and the graphics look awesome.

Im buying live 2005 because the graphics look awesome, it has all star weekend so it's even in my book.

Espn 2k5 Football and Madden 2005 are even also.

Not one games better than another of the same type imo it just has some differences!

[RICH72601]

I'm a basketball player myself, so I know what to look for in a game. When the b-ball games come out every year, I always buy both of them and pick them apart to compare and see what has improved and what needs to be improved. I have sent EA Sports 4-page letters with paragraphs detailed to how I thought they could improve in all areas.

To me, graphics and presentation play a big part in a successful videogame, but it's not the most important. It's like meeting a gorgeous, voluptuous woman, only to find out that her iniside is very ugly and she has a lot of problems. After a while, that pretty exterior just gets old and takes away from the whole experience. You catch people's attention with what they can see, but you keep people with substance.

The little things matter that make a game what it is. If I had the talent and intelligence that these programmers had, a b-ball game mad by me would be so deep. I always thought that at least the first 3 rows in the crowd should be 3D because I always wanted to go for a loose ball and jump into the crowd, knocking their popcorn and drink over. It's like knocking down the man on the sideline of Madden.

If I had the money, I'd go back to school just to learn how to make and produce games (maybe in the very near future). Working at EA Sports would be my dream job or working for ESPN games. I know it's a competition, but I'm only concerned with giving the gamer the most realistic, fun, deep, and best game possible (though I'd have to say that I would rather go with EA Sports, sorry ESPN gamers). Ever since the NBA 2K series came out, I've always said that the best basketball game to me would combine the gameplay and features of NBA Live, with the graphics and presentation of NBA 2K (a.k.a. ESPN Basketball)

[John-John Joe]

I'm a basketball player myself, so I know what to look for in a game. When the b-ball games come out every year, I always buy both of them and pick them apart to compare and see what has improved and what needs to be improved. I have sent EA Sports 4-page letters with paragraphs detailed to how I thought they could improve in all areas.

To me, graphics and presentation play a big part in a successful videogame, but it's not the most important. It's like meeting a gorgeous, voluptuous woman, only to find out that her iniside is very ugly and she has a lot of problems. After a while, that pretty exterior just gets old and takes away from the whole experience. You catch people's attention with what they can see, but you keep people with substance.

The little things matter that make a game what it is. If I had the talent and intelligence that these programmers had, a b-ball game mad by me would be so deep. I always thought that at least the first 3 rows in the crowd should be 3D because I always wanted to go for a loose ball and jump into the crowd, knocking their popcorn and drink over. It's like knocking down the man on the sideline of Madden.

If I had the money, I'd go back to school just to learn how to make and produce games (maybe in the very near future). Working at EA Sports would be my dream job or working for ESPN games. I know it's a competition, but I'm only concerned with giving the gamer the most realistic, fun, deep, and best game possible (though I'd have to say that I would rather go with EA Sports, sorry ESPN gamers). Ever since the NBA 2K series came out, I've always said that the best basketball game to me would combine the gameplay and features of NBA Live, with the graphics and presentation of NBA 2K (a.k.a. ESPN Basketball)

Wussup Richie-Rich, I like the metaphor you used about the gorgeous woman with the bad personality. To me, this perfectly explains how I feel about ESPN though it isn't as lurid as my boy Cocobee's p**sy analogy.


I think it would be a dream for all of us to take a crack at tweaking our favorite franchise but I bet it's no walk in the park! Regardless, much like yourself, I feel that it would be the most wonderful experience imaginable for EA Canada to appoint me as official gameplay and creative consultant. Heck, I'd "gofer" too, anything..........

I love that idea of smashing into the first few rows, it would certainly add to the experience but I'm quite sure you wouldn't make that a priority if you landed a gig with EA. In a nutshell, what do you think is the very first thing, one thing that you'd do first as part of their team. Just ONE element, feature, etc.

[RICH72601]

The very first thing I would do is build the body types from the ground up. Since NBA Live already has great gameplay, my main focus on this year's title would be the graphics. One should see the difference between Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, Carmello Anthony, Oliver Miller, and Shaquille O'Neal. From what I've seen so far, the player's faces are greatly improved, but the body types and details of those body's are worrying me a little bit (but hey, it's still early to judge). Not only the types bother me, but it is the identifying marks that makes a person who he is. Take the tattoos for instance. On the consoles, you could hardly tell what tattoos a player had. They were in the shape of the real life thing, but not close enough (even though they look very detailed on the PC). One thing that always amazed me about the 2K/ESPN series is their attention to detail. When I first bought NBA 2K for the Dreamcast, I paused the game, (which I do to check for little things) went into instant replay, and zoomed in on players. I selected Chris Gatling. Don't you know that SEGA knew enough and put the big scar on his head from his brain surgery? I was so hyped about that game. No one probably cares about stuff like that but me, but it just showed how dedicated and detailed they are in their work. So the first thing I would work on would be the body types and detail of those bodies, heads, and faces. Oh, and like the first 2K, the player's hands were bigger and they seemed to actually hold and cuff the ball like they were supposed to (which I liked very much).

[Sauru]

The only reason I get so passionate about this discussion is because people like you guys that pat EA on the back every game no matter how it looks are the reason why it never accels in the looks dept.

we could all say the same about espn and thier gameplay department. as long as people like you keep buying a game based solely on looks they will never improve the gameplay or the little things it takes to keep a game going, give it replay value.

[Bang]

Um, of course we criticize Live when a new version comes out. That's the way the whole video game industry works for every single game. And of course we hope for better in 2005.

1.) Hype up everyone
2.) Release
3.) The game doesn't live up to hype so we complain.
4.) Hype up the next game
5.) Repeat

Yada yada yada...It's not really hypocritical, since that's how people generally think.

Wait, but if we criticize the game, that doesn't make us "back-patters" does it? It makes us "criticizers" or something. Ah, a hypocrisy in your statement explaining a paradoxical behavior.

Sega Sports revolutionized basketball? For some reason it seems like you haven't played anything in the span from Double Dribble to NBA 2K series. There was a game called NBA Live 2000 which was by far the best basketball game up to date.

And Graphics...jeesh, big deal. I don't really care. The best game I've played is Chrono Trigger, and even still it beats every other game released. I wouldn't care if NBA Live were made out of stick figures as long as it's better in gameplay. I'm disgusted by Graphic-buffs really. I mean, it looks good, then look at a photo. WOW...REALISTIC!

[Sauru]

you know, gta may be the best example of gameplay vs graphics. i dont think anyone here would say gta is top notch console(i say console as it is less than pc) graphics. there are a bunch of gta clones out there and several have better graphics but none can even begin to match gta in terms of gameplay.

[fgrep15]

that's my point! Hypocracy is your guys game. When the game comes out, u guys bash it and rip on it, then the cycle repeats itself and u start hyping next years game and talk about how good last year's version was, it's hilarious! My story hasn't change. The whole point of those comments were to show you guys how hyporcitical u can be, you'll catch on one day....i got faith in ya

It happens with every sports game.

[Sauru]

thats actually the story for every game basicly. any game that gets any hype whatsoever never lives up to the hype at initial release, after the hype fades and you are left with the game thats when people tend to say what they really feel about a game. sometimes people get made at a game simply cause it takes time to learn it, while the older game they knew inside and out, so this causes people to instantly say the last game was better.

[John-John Joe]

you know, gta may be the best example of gameplay vs graphics. i dont think anyone here would say gta is top notch console(i say console as it is less than pc) graphics. there are a bunch of gta clones out there and several have better graphics but none can even begin to match gta in terms of gameplay.

Excellent example Sauru, GTA doesn't really have the best graphics but they serve the purpose of the game well. As you eluded to those clones out there could destroy Rockstar from a graphical standpoint but fail miserably when comparing gameplay.

Game companies I think, are starting to reconsider what is most important lately. It seems like there are more quality titles that make gameplay a focal point instead of trying to simply wow us with graphics. Rockstar started a revolution...

[Metsis]

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that graphics in a RPG and graphics in a sports game w/real people in it can't be compared in the same breath. But i'll explain it to you anyway.....RPG games are all about what you do, what u shoot, action, action, action, they can have the worst graphics in the worls and can be fun as hell! Now sports games are patterneed after real life people that actually exist and real life gameplay. If it doesn't look like the real people at all, then the game company failed to do their job. Like EA did last year and will probably do again. That's just my opinion about graphics=realism to me. U guys can play nintendo double dribble all day long and i'll play ESPN basketball and we'll see who has more fun

Man... You really are living in your own little fantasy world where you want to watch a video of someone playing an NBA game! If I wanted that too, I'd be like you. Alas, you won't find many friends here...

Isn't the choice between passing/dribbling/shooting exactly the same as between casting a spell/striking an opponent with a sword/moving to another position??? It's exactly the same thing... Sometimes you should do one thing and other times you should do other things... RPG games have characters with skills... Well so does NBA games have, you have guys that are better at shooting the three than others, and you have in RPGs guys that are better with sword than others... There really is no difference...

If I could have an ultra-realistic basketball game without any flaws with a completely realistic dynasty mode with bad graphics, I'd take it any day of the week... Of course there are bad graphics and then there are BAD graphics, but with Live 2000 graphics a game that would play out just like the real life, I'd take it and play it and play it. If you play basketball in your real life it doesn't matter what the game looks like. Only thing that matters is what the game feels like... If you get chunky moves with good graphics, that's even more unrealistic than the game with a good gameplay...

I want to play a realistic game of basket ball off the courts. Live is the closest... NBA is based in reality... RPGs are based in alternate realities, but they too have their own rules and own do and don't just like we do in real life... A Basketball game is just game among others and if you can't tell that, just get yourself NBA TV or something and watch that! It has the best GRAPHICS and the MOST REALISTIC FLOW OF THE GAME. And you can admire the detail on those players without even touching the gamepad! You just can admire the whole scene of things... Man that would probably be a trip for you...

If you don't want to play the best GAME gameplay wise, you should just watch television... Tape all the games with TIVO and watch them all day long... Then you won't have to bitch to us about bad graphics or gameplay at all. Just live in your little apartment and enjoy the realistic view of the "game" you just got...

GET REAL...