espn beats live, and heres why

by **jiggaman** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:30 am

everyones buzzing off espn nba basketball now, cuz its just better then live. i played both and looked at all of it, first off espn graphics are millions times better then lives, players look perfect down to shaqs tatoos, and you can tell who every player is and you dont need a jersey to do that. live is like a cartoon. also live players ice skate on the court, whats up with that? espn moves are wayyyyyyy more fluid then live, and more accurate. in live, you can mash the freestyle buttons EVERY TIME and get a lay up. how is this fun???? i know its not fun if you want a realistic game that is challenging, no matter what you do with the SLIDERS, the fact is you can mash the freestyle stick and get to the hoop, no matter what. in espn , you cant do that. you have a fatigue meter, and can only pull off maybe 3 or 4 moves at most when you try to get to the hoop, then u get tired. you cant mash on it and score easily. in live i found myself ALWAYS slowing the pace up, and purposely not trying to scare to get a realistic outcome, which is wack. in espn i found myself trying hard EVERY SINGLE PLAY! and that neither team shots 60% the whole game, more around what a real game would turn out like. i didnt have to stop mashing freestyle to get easy lay ups, which if i was ever down in a game, would do. its actually challenging and realistic, TAKE NOTES EA!! espn trades are wayyy better too, you can put players on the trading block, and it doesnt have that GAY f'n free agent bug that EA is too stupid to fix. whats up with signing future hall of fame stars at the league MINIMUM?? the dynasty mode in espn kills live, you can hire every type of coach, and decide what kind of team you want to run!!! why didnt live think of this???? if you hire a great scout, during the draft (which your actually ON THE CLOCK by the way) you will know everything you need to know about the draft picks you scouted. if you hire a bad scout, its more of a guessing game. the dynasty is so deep its ridiculous. if you like realistic play and graphics then live just isnt what you want. and i never even played espn b4 this year and it just blows away live. ive always bought live games but not anymore, espn is on the rise. its MUCH more realistic then live all around, and if thats what you want then you want espn, its the best bball game ive ever played for ps2. and you can also get hot and cold in espn, and it actually matters as you can go off and hit a few threes in a row if you have a player thats hot. 24/7 mode is so addictive i could actually play it 24/7. go look at espn boards and reviews, people are going crazy over it, but people on nba live boards post how annoying some of the stuff in the game is. espn is the best $50 i spent on a game EVER. but anyway, i switched over cuz EA isnt doing anything to make the game better, just a bunch of fancy jerseys and shoes, isnt gonna cut it.

by **EGarrett** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:12 am

1. Paragraphs are your friend.

2. If you think that you can't neuter freestyle with higher difficulty or by adjusting the sliders then you are very ignorant or very lazy. Either possibility makes me question the value of your entire review...

by **jiggaman** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:17 am

oh well who cares about paragraphs, but yeah, sliders STILL do not equate to the level of realism that ESPN has, and ive always been a live fan man. you just dont get the same realism from live that you get from epsn.

by **Doug** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:41 am

meh in my opinion live 04 when i get it will be the only best one this year i played espn at my cousin's and it plays the exact same as nba 2k3 and they added three new features it's like all they did was make the same game and rename the name to espn.

by **deluxxe** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:11 am

I own both for ps2, and i play both frequently. They are different games, and i enjoy both. Live i find slightly more frustrating and unrealistic, but for the most part, i think Live is BY FAR the better product. The audio in ESPN stinks. no player chatter, the shoe squeaks are really lame, and the audio commentary is repetitive and not nearly as good. Also, the crowd in ESPN is virtually none-existant. they don't seem to get into the game like they do in Live.

I don't know what you're talking about with graphics... but you do have the xbox version, so i'm sure the graphics are better for you. But i don't like ESPN's graphics at all. the stadiums aren't nearl as good as lives and the animations for layups and pro-hops are way better in live. Player models i don't really care about. personally, i like Live's better, but they seem too big for the court. I like how in ESPN you seem to have way more court to play in.

I'll take Live's graphics and audio over ESPN's any day.

Live just has a better bball atmosphere.

Gameplay wise, right now, i would say ESPN just edges out Live. but i need to play them both more to make a final decision.

i don't know what level you play Live on, but i play on allstar and i find it pretty difficult to get to the rim by mashing the freestyle control.

by **JdotK** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 10:57 am

To be honest, im pretty tired of Live 04.

Today I bumped the difficulty all the way up and put it on 10 minutes because I though I would need it to have accurate scores now that its on the hardest level... I was playing with All Star at 8 min before.

Well, I ended up winning 135-103, and shot well above 60%... would have been even higher, but after getting a Quadruple Double with Pierce with about 6 minutes left in the 3rd Quarter, I subbed Kedrick in for him and put in Battie and Blount at the PF/C positions respectively.

My lineup included consisted of:

Blount
Battie
J. Jones
K. Brown
and Mike James...

I think the highest rated guy on the court for me mioght have been battie with a 57 rating (i think its 57)

And we were still dominating.

I love the new animations, i love the defensive side of the ball, and I love the feel of the game, but.... Its way to easy. Again, I find myself trying no to kill the other team... trying to feed the ball to Tony Battie when he's being Gaurded by Shaq even tho i know he wont get a shot off.... it doesnt help that the defender can basically jump on your back and not get called for a foul either.

I will say this tho, out of All the games, i think with the improvements made this year to Live, that it definatly has a great future... I think this was a make or break year for them and luckily for us, they did well.

BTW, I havent even played ESPN yet, so this isnt a biased commented at all, just my opinion on Live all by itself, not compared to anything.

by **Colin** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:00 am

Have you been using the sliders? If you completly change the sliders (ie. 0 for all of yours, and 100 for the cpu's) I can guarantee that you won't do that every game.

by **JdotK** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:05 am

Yes, I have changed the sliders.... everything is about equal... i have fouls on at 70 for all of them, except collision fouls I have at 85. I have my fatigue impact or whatever its called to 70. I have Speed set to 45. I have all of my shooting down.

And another thing... even tho I was killing them, they made their little comebackl like they always do. Even their subs came in and would hit 3s with me in their face... the only thing is they couldnt stop me on the offensive end. Pierce had 42 points in 21 minutes. Ive played about 16 games now and have not won by anything less than 10 and have never lost.

Ive looked at posted sliders and used them, adjusted them, readjusted them.... its still too easy.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:56 am

jiggaman wrote:oh well who cares about paragraphs

It's good manners/netiquette to post in a fashion that makes it easier for others to read what you have written. Everyone is encouraged to break their posts up into paragraphs, avoid posting in all capital letters, etc.

As EG has pointed out before, these ESPN vs NBA Live topics are essentially trolling. It's not really anyone's place to convince us all that ESPN is better or that NBA Live is inferior. If it's all the same to you, we'll make up our own minds. :wink:

I haven't been locking any of the threads thus far as I understand the need for freedom of speech. But we don't need several threads telling us that ESPN is a better game - one topic dedicated to that debate is enough. I'm going to treat future ESPN vs NBA Live topics posted in this forum as spamming, which means they'll be locked and warnings will be issued.

If you want to discuss any games in the 2K series, Other Games is the place to do it. Obviously, it's in our best interests to discuss negative aspects of the NBA Live series too, but that feedback should be solely NBA Live related. This is the Live 2004 General Issues forum, for discussions related to NBA Live 2004. More than one ESPN vs NBA Live thread is too many.

by **BShaw20** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:48 pm

Umm, ESPN messed up royally on the lack of edit number, and Yao Ming's jersey has "MING" in the back instead of "YAO." How stupid! I trade Arenas to the Magic, now Arenas and Gooden have "0." I can't edit the numbers! I think Jumaine Jones also has "33" for the Celtics. And "7" has been retired by the Jazz, yet Keon Clark has it in the game. Stupid idiots. It's cool that they have Drazen Petrovic, and Kareem, but Kareem's name is not announced.

by **jiggaman** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:06 pm

Bshaw, thats a minor flaw compared to LIVE...i bumped it to all star and still wipe teams out, and find myself slowing it down on purpose. Anyway, in ESPN they actually shoot MID RANGE JUMPERS! AND they pass the ball around, and none of those "run to the three point line, shoot without looking and drain it", if theres a hand in their face they usually miss it.

I just like it soooo much more more then LIVE, cuz really I got tired of LIVE just like alot of people have. im in a dynasty mode with the 6ers and I've hired new coaches, and teams interest bars in trades actually matter, another bug that LIVE never fixed.

I also simulated a few seasons, and the draft is awesome, where you have to scout and send trainers to attend work outs, and they come back with alot of details for you. Overall, its just real fun, and realistic too. There is none of that LIVE bullshit about it, you can actually play defense, and a hand in the face actually means something. Instead of shooting fade-away, no look threes out of a double team and draining them..

Anyway, I just suggest more LIVE fans to check it out, cuz I'm hooked now (I was a former LIVE fan)...just because its actually challenging. And LIVE "sliders" don't even bring it close to ESPN, ESPN is playable and very realistic without even touching the sliders, I haven't yet, and I'm a hardcore game fan. oh and about the mashing freestyle, you have fatigue in ESPN like I said before, and the graphics are MUCH better, they look like the real person, EVERYONE does. But yeah, I think ESPN is definitely on the rise, LIVE needs to be careful everyone like me doesn't switch over.

AND yes andrew, im aware of all that..but this is my opinion about the new NBA Live too, I personally don't like it. And i LOVED old Live games, this is simply a post to show people there is another real good game out there that is worth the money

by **- Ace -** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:26 pm

lol why don't you post at a ESPN fan site rather than at a nba live fan site?

by **jiggaman** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:30 pm

because espn fans already know how good of a game it is, the post for people who were stuck between getting the 2 of them like i was

by **joemimic** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:33 pm

jiggaman wrote:Bshaw, thats a minor flaw compared to LIVE...i bumped it to all star and still wipe teams out, and find myself slowing it down on purpose. Anyway, in ESPN they actually shoot MID RANGE JUMPERS! AND they pass the ball around, and none of those "run to the three point line, shoot without looking and drain it", if theres a hand in their face they usually miss it.

I just like it soooo much more more then LIVE, cuz really I got tired of LIVE just like alot of people have. im in a dynasty mode with the 6ers and I've hired new coaches, and teams interest bars in trades actually matter, another bug that LIVE never fixed.

I also simulated a few seasons, and the draft is awesome, where you have to scout and send trainers to attend work outs, and they come back with alot of details for you. Overall, its just real fun, and realistic too. There is none of that LIVE bullshit about it, you can actually play defense, and a hand in the face actually means something. Instead of shooting fade-away, no look threes out of a double team and draining them..

Anyway, I just suggest more LIVE fans to check it out, cuz I'm hooked now (I was a former LIVE fan)...just because its actually challenging. And LIVE "sliders" don't even bring it close to ESPN, ESPN is playable and very realistic without even touching the sliders, I haven't yet, and I'm a hardcore game fan. oh and about the mashing freestyle, you have fatigue in ESPN like I said before, and the graphics are MUCH better, they look like the real person, EVERYONE does. But yeah, I think ESPN is definitely on the rise, LIVE needs to be careful everyone like me doesn't switch over.

AND yes andrew, im aware of all that..but this is my opinion about the new NBA Live too, I personally don't like it. And i LOVED old Live games, this is simply a post to show people there is another real good game out there that is worth the money

I have the CPU shooting mid range jumpers all the time on me. A hand in the face does mean somethin on this game, I notice it all the time. The computer will miss 8 out of 10 times if you play correct defense, I've never even seen a CPU player run down the court and jack up a three pointer and make it. Never seen a fadeaway three pointer either out of a double team either.

by **Hoozah** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:40 pm

Everyone here can form their own opinions about which game is better. We don't need another 'Espn 2k4 Rocks!..Live 2004 Sucks!' thread to sway our opinions one way or the other.

We are all hardcore Bball fanatics and we will all eventually try both versions to see which one really does immerse us in the truest sense of the NBA experience.

by **Bang** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:39 pm

ESPN basketball MIGHT have better realism.
ESPN basketball MIGHT have better trades.
ESPN basketball MIGHT have better gameplay even.
but ESPN basketball is not patchable.
but ESPN basketball is not for the PC
but ESPN basketball does not benefit from hundreds of minor and major changes from a community like NLSC.

Therefore, no matter how good ESPN basketball can be.
NBA LIVE 2004 will be better.
period.

by **Metsis** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:08 pm

Is jiggaman playing 2003??? Cause that where all that sheit happens... CPU runs up the score with 3ptrs and a hand in the face doesn't matter for nothing.

In 2003 you can exploit the freestyles to get to the hoop anytime and you don't even need them to do it.

In 2003 you shoot 60+ percent...

I've heard that you usually shoot 40-55% in Live 2004.

It is a fact about basketball that if you run, your scores get high, but so do usually your opponents scores... You have to control how you play the game and if you play the game at a walking pace, well don't count on scoring 100+.

And Pierce getting 42 in 21 minutes... You are playing player locked aren't you? Or you are just putting the ball in his hands in every attack... And Pierce does not take all the shots on the team. No one ever does. Someone might take a huge chunk, but the fact is that Live has always been kind of an arcadish game so that you don't have to play full 12 minute quart games to get realistic scores and this is just fine with me. Do you have to play ESPN with 12 minute quarters to get realistic scores??? If you do, well I'll bet you that the gameplay will not be nearly as enjoyable as Live... And that's a fact.

Good scoring and good moves and nice passing make for a good and entertaining game... Not a completely realistic. You forget that these are just games... I usually play for entertainment and not that much realism. If you want realism... Go play a chess game. It's the closest thing to the real thing on any platform...

It is still good that a game represents realism, but it doesn't need to obey all of that sheit to the bottom line.

YouTube · by **Andrew** on Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:27 pm

jiggaman wrote:AND yes andrew, im aware of all that..but this is my opinion about the new NBA Live too, I personally don't like it. And i LOVED old Live games, this is simply a post to show people there is another real good game out there that is worth the money

I understand, but like I said, one NBA Live vs ESPN thread is enough. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I am going to treat future NBA Live vs ESPN/"NBA Live sucks, buy ESPN!" as spamming/trolling. Everyone can form their own opinions. Your opinions are as worthy as the next person's, but remember this is an NBA Live forum - discussions should be NBA Live related. Positive or negative, it should be concerned with NBA Live.

I understand the comparisons, I respect your right to play the game of your choice. But there's just too many mentions of ESPN of late. It wouldn't be a problem if it was kept to one thread, but this forum is for discussing NBA Live 2004. The Live vs ESPN debates are getting tiresome, because it all comes down to personal choice.

Again, if threads about ESPN vs Live/how ESPN is better etc keep popping up, I'm going to lock, move and warn as the situation warrants. We're just going to have to accept each other's choices, and keep in mind that this is an NBA Live fansite - hence, the love of and bias towards the NBA Live series is only natural.

by **JdotK** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 1:37 am

Ok, so I had a good friend of mine come over last night to spend the night, so i just said fuck it, we played the shit out of live last weekend, so let me get ESPN and see how it works.

MY GOD.

Ok, it almost hurts me to say this, but this game is fuccin awesome. Everything you love about Live, this game does better. The crossovers, the player animations, the slams, everything. The tempo of the game is perfect, you can lead passes. WE can't believe how great this game is.... you can actually steal the ball from behind.... just all kinds of shit you can do. The things Live excells in are: Stadiums, Commentary, and i think they got a better driving in the lane system... but that may that ive only had the game for 10 hours.

I know Live will be the best game on the PC cuz u can patch it and all that, and cuz ESPN aint on the PC, but on console, ESPN is the game.

by **Charlie Martel** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:30 am

bangyounh wrote:ESPN basketball MIGHT have better realism.
ESPN basketball MIGHT have better trades.
ESPN basketball MIGHT have better gameplay even.
but ESPN basketball is not patchable.
but ESPN basketball is not for the PC
but ESPN basketball does not benefit from hundreds of minor and major changes from a community like NLSC.

Therefore, no matter how good ESPN basketball can be.
NBA LIVE 2004 will be better.
period.

That is 100% true but also 100% sad. I wish EA Sports didn't have their "realistic" football/basketball monopoly on the PC. EA Sports would be forced to put out much better games for the PC if they actually had competition.

by **deluxxe** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 5:12 am

jiggaman that's 2003 you're talking about. You should try playing Live 2004 before you start telling people that ESPN 2k4 is better.

by **[Q]** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:49 am

Ok, I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but you ESPN fans better find your own site. I'm getting annoyed by the "ESPN is the best game" threads in the NBA Live 2004 General Issues forum...
With that said, I agree that NBA Live always comes out on top because it is patchable.

by **Jux** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 8:40 am

espn may be better but for PC users it's zero. So no need talk about it here. I have big hopes for live this year and i allready know that it won't be the perfect basketball game, but at least it's getting better.

by **Metsis** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:12 pm

Yeah, the most important thing about Live 2004 is that it will be better then Live 2003! If it's better, well it is better.

And to all you ESPN fans... EA has done a lot of changes behind the scenes, like they've taken out the DSTATS system that really needed to go too. This time around they appear to have worked out the dynasty setting all new... Last year they did the gameplay, this year multi-season-mode. And gameplay is much better this year then last, so I'd expect dynasty to be far better in Live 2005 then it is in 2004. They will have massive data on how things work in Live 2004.

They are in the process of taking out the old teams stuff and putting in their own stuff.

If 2004 is better then 2003, that's enough...

by **Bang** on Tue Oct 28, 2003 6:29 pm

Charlie Martel wrote:That is 100% true but also 100% sad. I wish EA Sports didn't have their "realistic" football/basketball monopoly on the PC. EA Sports would be forced to put out much better games for the PC if they actually had competition.

yea...(plays Winning Eleven)
that's kind of true.
but now EA is seeing competition.
So EA upped it's gameplay a lot for NBA Live 2004.
(now, for the franchise! ok? EA?)
and if you look at FIFA 2004, it is A LOT like Winning Eleven.
(but Winning Eleven is STILL better, except for graphics.)

espn beats live, and heres why

espn beats live, and heres why

i own both

Who is online