I thought last years 2k4 sucked compared to Live just my opinion both games look great this year (I'll probably buy both again) and plus 2k5 is only 20$
Im sorry but the game play of Live sucks compared to 2k5. Live is just way to arcadish with fast breaks and dunks as their highlight. They even did it this year. They put so much emphasis in dunking and doing all this fancy stuff rather then making it a good sim to play . 2k series has always been a better sim and more realistic as far as gameplay. I stopped buying Live because of that. Im not sure about the franchise in Live this year but the one in 2k4 is not bad but it's not great either it has stuff they can improve on and i believe they really did improve on it this year because they knew it was one of their weak points last year. However the gameplay is as realistic as you can get with 2k. you can't just do stupid stuff and win.
lol, you mean like shoot 3's with Dikembe Mutombo and they go in? that does happen in Live, you have barely any control on your shot, 2k series are definately better in that category.
I never understood this phenomenon. People will defend their video games more than their wives/husbands. If you dont' like Live, don't play it. I don't like ESPN, but I don't feel the need to go into threads about it and say, "I don't know how you guys can play this. Live rules, ESPN sucks". < /off-topic rant > For those that care, Live is going to be released a week from today. They bumped the release date up. Also, IGN is revealing team rankings every day. I disagree with some of the Nugs ones, but overall it's pretty good.
What the hell is up with the ESPN guys posting in this thread? They keep saying stuff like "Screw live, 2k5 is better" when no one else is even talkning about that r****ded live vs espn sh*t? It all sounds horribly desperate to me. Look guys, if you think 2k5 is better, let its gameplay speak for itself. What the hell are you gaining by pimping it so hard? If you're trying to knock Live off as the #1 selling basketball franchise somehow (though futile, the only motivation I can find that doesn't sound like a complete waste of time), fine, but please do it in you own threads and stop hijacking other people's. Really, why can't you guys just enjoy the game you prefer and quit annoying the hell out of everybody with this dumbass, cyclical video game arguing in threads not devoted to it? Its not going to get anyone anywhere and it's f'n stupid. # # # Now, onto the ratings: I actually like them more this year. They seem to be more under control, continuing last year's trend. Plus, everyone knows that the ratings in live don't matter as much as their values suggest (especially since they do change depending on position, unlike someone posted earlier). Really, a team comprised entirely of 60s and 50s can win if all its players are in the right positions. I really don't have any problems with the marquee players' ratings at all.
I've heard that NBA2K2, 2K3, etc....had better game play, but NBA Live had better graphics/realism. Or was it the other way around? I forgets... I don't have either game yet. So, what's the pros and cons for both games?
To me, I kind of view the 2K series, in both basketball and football, kind of like Firefox. It seems like not many people try it because they are so used to playing the EA games. That's basically why they're only charging $20 for each of their titles this year. They feel as though they have the better game, as do I, but they can't seem to get out to many people. With NFL 2K5 selling at $20, people finally realized that there is another football game to compete with Madden. I would say this is a pretty risky move but one that Sega and VC are confident in winning. However, if people never try it, then they'll just lose a lot of money and have to go bankrupt while Live, as well as other EA titles, stays the "King" by default, which means they'll probably charge $50 for games that remain largely the same, yet they now have a new shoe in the 2006 version. IMO, which is similar to most of the majory video game review sites and magazines, ESPN 2K4 was the better game last year, although Live came closer than I thought it would. If you want pros and cons of the last game, 2K4/2004, I'll try to list what I think of them: Live 2004 Pros: Nice animations, good control features such as the pro hop and buttons for dunking, training camp feature was interesting. Run and gun style, IMO. Cons:Some of the features, such as the pro hop, made it WAY to easy to score no matter what difficulty, which leads to unrealistic stats and scores. Training camp normally led to players getting worse instead of better. Franchise FA's acted strangely. Graphics was the worse of the 2, IMO. ESPN NBA 2K4 Pros: Good graphics, realism is awesome with the ability to actually get somewhat realistic stats and scores, franchise is pretty solid, Isomotion adds some "chess match" type of gameplay. More of a setup the play style, IMO. 24/7 mode, a mode where you make you own "baller" is basically a game within a game and is very nice. ESPN presentation. Cons: Controlling some of the things, such as the Isomotion, needs work. Too many charges taken from those perform Isomotion. Camera angles are bad. Plays from previous games were replaced with more simpler ones to choose from. Shooting free throws is hard, although I personally think it ok. Live 2005, from what I know, has added the ability to control your dunks, which also leads to a dunk contest in the game, and it has also added a move to counter the Pro Hop. IIRC, contracts are now more specific when you make them. I'm sure the graphics and whatnot are better as well, but that's all I can remember. Most of my time has been spent reading about ESPN 2K5. Graphics looks awesome, some of the problems of the last game, such as the camera angles, problems with Isomotion, and the poor selection of plays, looked like they've been fixed for this next game. They've added a pro hop move, as well as a spin hop, but both moves seem to make the player extremely vulnerable so they shouldn't be as abused as they were in Live. They've got loose ball fouls. Post-up game is much improved. In the franchise mode, you have to keep your team chemistry up by answering your team players' questions correctly. ("We've been losing a lot. Should I continue shooting or should I pass more?") You can also do a little planner like in ESPN NFL 2K5 where you can tell you players what to work on, such as free throws, close shots, etc. Instead of simming games, you can play something that allows you to setup the shot distribution along with how the shots are taken from your team. (kind of like a chess match) There is some stuff I forgot to mention as well as more info that is unknown as of now for both, but that's about what I know on both games. And no, AFAIK, the ESPN 2K series is not available for the PC.
No, when sega took the espn name they dropped the pc versions. If you find a way to complain to sega about the lack of pc games for the espn sereis let me know. As far as the player rankings go, they only matter when you go to simulate the games.
That's an interesting article; and should address some points that people bring up. The way it begins tells you what you need to know:
I don't think I want to read another review by Hilary Goldstein. He/she was probably the reason why ESPN got rid of the complex plays since Goldstein complained about so many complex plays, saying that only generic plays are run in the NBA. I guess VC listened last year, although they listened to the wrong person. I loved the variety of plays and hated the basic ones from last year. I'm just glad they have them back this year. You almost screwed things up Goldstein.
I don't think one reviewer will effect the production team that much. As far as reviews themselves go, I like Gamespot a lot more. I almost always agree with what they say. But Goldstein sounds like a lot of the '2K' diehards - always have - "Oh, but Live isn't a sim!" Personally, I thought they both have been subpar the last few years. I've had more fun with the Street style games than anything else. I'll give both a try again this year, but the 2K series has never been that much more special than Live to me, so I don't see where all the praise comes from. More than likely I'll once again be disappointed in both.
You know, I wish they kept some of the game mechanics of Live 2003 and just make it more diffcult to score. I mean, the jumpshots in 2004 was just ugly..so slow looking...2003 felt so smooth...if they take away the super cross over and lower the player ratings, it'd be a really good game. I know it's another 3 days till its release...Can I get some questions answered about Live 2005? 1. Does it have the ocassional slowdowns like 2004? 2. Do the players look like they're going sledding on the floor instead of running? 3. Are all the jumpshots so slow-motion like just like 2004? Questions about ESPN Basketball 2005 1. Is it $20 like ESPN Football ? 2. Are all the jumpshots slow-motion like just like Live?
I don't know how accurately I can answer you questions just based on the few clips I've seen but I'll try. 1. Can't tell from clips. Looks ok I guess. 2. I believe they're still sliding on the floor. The EA people said something about it being necessary from a control issue, saying that they could animate it to look perfect but it play terribly. Judging from the few ESPN clips, where they did this basically, it doesn't look to bad to control. I think that is what you meant anyways. 3. To be honest, I never really even noticed it all that much. I think I only rented Live 2003, so I probably didn't get used to the way it shot the ball, yet I played a lot of 2004. Looking at it now, I guess it is a little slow. From what I can tell, they fixed it. Then again, I never really noticed it. I may think it looks ok while you may still consider it slow. On ESPN 1. Yeah, it will only be $20. 2. Again, not sure what you like, but the ESPN shot looks good to me. Both last year, IIRC, and this upcoming game look better than Live 04.
the overall ratings dont mean much compared to the individual skill ratings, I'e played 900+ nba live 2004 games and i know it inside and out.. a player could be rated a measly 67 overall.. but their FG, 3pt, FT, Inside Scoring could be higher than a person rated in the 80s.. which means that person will most likely score more than the person rated at 80. the downfall in the ratings could be in places that are pointless as far as scoring or even manning their position.. lets say that player who is rated at 67 is a 6'1" PG.. his Offensive and Defensive Rebound stats are way below the average.. lets say in the 40s.. does that really matter that a PG can't rebound as well as a Center/PF rated at 80? No! Overall ratings just give you an idea of if the player is a poor-average-excellent overall player and you cant say that someone is better at their positon based on a overall rating. I'm anxious to play both ESPN and Live this year. I'm a franchise fanatic.
Good you just said what i would have to have typed out lol....Im right there with you in terms of franchise =)
