Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

[howinthe]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

I prefer Freestyle. Playing with triple threat is a blast. Once I receive the ball whether it be a big man or guard, I like to fake with freestyle. Then when the defender tries to steal, I go one way or spin the other way to the hooop.

I also like dribbling to the other side of the court. I like the move where I go to the other side with a slant and then when the defender comes, I move the stick left or right (opposite from the direction of the slant) and do a crossover that works most of the time. Then when he gets back on guard or someone else comes, I spin the other way.

Great Feature!

[Pared]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

[Pared]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

[Pared]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

[jmood88]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Pared said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I haven't played either so I don't know what they're like but are you saying that when you play basketball you know what move a playera is going to make before they do it? You have to guess when you're guarding someone or else you aren't playing defense. Nobody just stands there and looks at somebody go by them.

[jmood88]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Pared said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I haven't played either so I don't know what they're like but are you saying that when you play basketball you know what move a playera is going to make before they do it? You have to guess when you're guarding someone or else you aren't playing defense. Nobody just stands there and looks at somebody go by them.

[jmood88]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Pared said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Virix said:You really are reaching for things now. We ar talking about basketball games, not all sports games so what does a baseball game have to do with the conversation?

I honestly think it is the most realistic system to date. Is it as realistic as can be? No, but it is much more realistic than what can be found in other games. In Live you dont have much risk vs reward when pulling off freestyle moves. You can go nuts on the stick and one of two things will happen. You will either get open, or you wont. You dont have to worry about a turnover nearly as much as you do in ESPN.

In ESPN you really have to watch and have good reflexes, because although there arent nearly enough defensive isomotion moves, they do add another dimension without question. Ive spent the time needed to learn to use isomotion and can say it makes you think a bit more when the ball is in your hands. It can be improved upon, but after learning how to use it well, Im pretty impressed with it.

If there was any risk vs reward in Live, I might agree with you simply because it controls better. Ive played Live online and people just go nuts with freestyle because, theres no risk. They get open or they just keep wiggling the stick... thats not basketball imo. Going to make a move, and needing to change your move because the defense was able to get into position in time is a more accurate representation of basketball imo.

As I said before, its the most realistic system of any basketball game to this point. That doesnt mean its perfect, but it does mean that imo it is alot closer to realism than freestyle.

That said, freestyle is great simply because of the control you have on the players and the ease of use. If they can get some kind of defensive system to counter all of the control offensive players have, it may actually be better than isomotion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Reaching has nothing to do with anything aside from getting called for a foul. *Rimshot*

The point I'm making in comparison to a baseball game is that you have to outline that one on one matchup. In basketball, by implementing this Rock-Paper-Scissor method, the game becomes a one on one... Similar to a guessing game. That's not the essence of basketball.

The other users above have made the point I would make also, the whole point of the Freestyle-IsoMotion system is to allow the user to control the player. In Live, you're controlling dribbling. It's not about Rock-Paper-Scissor.

You're entitled to your opinion, but then again, so am I. I don't feel I'm anywhere near wrong in disagreeing with your statement for IsoMotion. Other's have given plenty of reasons why IsoMotion isn't as innovative. Hell, all they did was move the crossover button onto the control stick, when you break it down to it's essence. It's as if it was a way of Sega saying "Well we have something similar to Live, just for the sake of having it."

But then again, I'm more of a team player in sports... maybe that outlook affects my opinion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I haven't played either so I don't know what they're like but are you saying that when you play basketball you know what move a playera is going to make before they do it? You have to guess when you're guarding someone or else you aren't playing defense. Nobody just stands there and looks at somebody go by them.

[Bredrin]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

You know that rock paper sciccors analogy is something that just came to mind when i was commenting but from looking on the forums I guess some ppl took it and ran with it or had the same outlook on it. Its somewhat shocking to me how many ppl find this to be a great idea but hey i guess to each his own.

[Bredrin]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

You know that rock paper sciccors analogy is something that just came to mind when i was commenting but from looking on the forums I guess some ppl took it and ran with it or had the same outlook on it. Its somewhat shocking to me how many ppl find this to be a great idea but hey i guess to each his own.

[Bredrin]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

You know that rock paper sciccors analogy is something that just came to mind when i was commenting but from looking on the forums I guess some ppl took it and ran with it or had the same outlook on it. Its somewhat shocking to me how many ppl find this to be a great idea but hey i guess to each his own.

[Shadow]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

My pick would be the free style control.

[Shadow]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

My pick would be the free style control.

[Shadow]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

My pick would be the free style control.

[Jeff8275]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

I myself prefer Freestyle. I think in the end it's about the "natural flow of the game" vs. "look ma no hands" type of showmanship. Obviously Freestyle would be the "natural flow of the game" and Isomotion would be the "look ma no hands" showmanship, substance vs. style kinda thing I guess. I'm not saying that Isomotion is total crap but I do think that EA has implemented their "system" much better than Sega. NBA Live 2004 just plays a better game of basketball, has a more natural flow or feeling to it. Anyone who plays basketball will understand exactly what I mean. I play Basketball with a solid group of players every friday afternoon and I'll tell you it's all about getting into the flow of the game and getting a good rythym down both offensive and defense. In Live I am able to do this. In ESPN it's kinda a detached sorta of feeling. There is no real constant flow to the game, it's broken up so to speak. OK well I am starting to ramble, I'm sure you get the gist.

[Jeff8275]

Re: Freestyle vs. Isomotion

I myself prefer Freestyle. I think in the end it's about the "natural flow of the game" vs. "look ma no hands" type of showmanship. Obviously Freestyle would be the "natural flow of the game" and Isomotion would be the "look ma no hands" showmanship, substance vs. style kinda thing I guess. I'm not saying that Isomotion is total crap but I do think that EA has implemented their "system" much better than Sega. NBA Live 2004 just plays a better game of basketball, has a more natural flow or feeling to it. Anyone who plays basketball will understand exactly what I mean. I play Basketball with a solid group of players every friday afternoon and I'll tell you it's all about getting into the flow of the game and getting a good rythym down both offensive and defense. In Live I am able to do this. In ESPN it's kinda a detached sorta of feeling. There is no real constant flow to the game, it's broken up so to speak. OK well I am starting to ramble, I'm sure you get the gist.