Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

[platic]

I was checking out "www.gamerankings.com" which compiles video game reviews into their website. In their compilation, they had 11 websites that had reviewed both "NBA Live 2004" and "ESPN Basketball 2004" for the PS2. Amazingly, of the 11 websites that reviewed both games... only 1 gave Live a better grade than ESPN. In contrast, ESPN scored a higher grade on 9 out of 11 reviews.

Now, I'll be the first one to say that reviews usually don't mean much. A lot of times, a website will have a different person review different games --- so it's not fair to compare grades. However, I think the disparity is so large (9 out of 11 reviews?!?) that you can't ignore it. In this day and age, this is about as close as anybody could get to a critics' unanimous choice.

NBA Live is still a great game... but I must say I'm a little surprised. I did a similar research for EA vs Sega on the football reviews, and the ratio is closer to 60:40 or 50:50. But EA got completely trashed on the basketball front.



(Website --- ESPN versus NBA Live ratings)

Stuff Gamer --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Gamepro --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Playstation Magazine --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Game Informer --- 9.5 versus 8.5
IGN --- 9.2 versus 8.8
Lawrence --- 90 versus 83
PSM Magazine --- 9 versus 8
EGM Magazine --- 90 versus 8.5
Gamespot --- 8.9 versus 8.3


GMR Magazine --- 8 versus 8

Play Magazine --- A- versus A

[RoyalBoyle78]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

so your point is.......oh thats what I thought.....nothing

[RoyalBoyle78]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

so your point is.......oh thats what I thought.....nothing

[RoyalBoyle78]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

so your point is.......oh thats what I thought.....nothing

[david14]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

These scores are all pretty close. I dont think there are many of us who are gonna allow a websites opinion dicate what game we play. Fact of the matter is, live has came on very strong this year and in my opinion provides a good mix of excitment as well as simulation. fun game!

[david14]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

These scores are all pretty close. I dont think there are many of us who are gonna allow a websites opinion dicate what game we play. Fact of the matter is, live has came on very strong this year and in my opinion provides a good mix of excitment as well as simulation. fun game!

[david14]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

These scores are all pretty close. I dont think there are many of us who are gonna allow a websites opinion dicate what game we play. Fact of the matter is, live has came on very strong this year and in my opinion provides a good mix of excitment as well as simulation. fun game!

[the_future420]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the_future420]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[the_future420]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kanobi]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
platic said:
I was checking out "www.gamerankings.com" which compiles video game reviews into their website. In their compilation, they had 11 websites that had reviewed both "NBA Live 2004" and "ESPN Basketball 2004" for the PS2. Amazingly, of the 11 websites that reviewed both games... only 1 gave Live a better grade than ESPN. In contrast, ESPN scored a higher grade on 9 out of 11 reviews.

Now, I'll be the first one to say that reviews usually don't mean much. A lot of times, a website will have a different person review different games --- so it's not fair to compare grades. However, I think the disparity is so large (9 out of 11 reviews?!?) that you can't ignore it. In this day and age, this is about as close as anybody could get to a critics' unanimous choice.

NBA Live is still a great game... but I must say I'm a little surprised. I did a similar research for EA vs Sega on the football reviews, and the ratio is closer to 60:40 or 50:50. But EA got completely trashed on the basketball front.



(Website --- ESPN versus NBA Live ratings)

Stuff Gamer --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Gamepro --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Playstation Magazine --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Game Informer --- 9.5 versus 8.5
IGN --- 9.2 versus 8.8
Lawrence --- 90 versus 83
PSM Magazine --- 9 versus 8
EGM Magazine --- 90 versus 8.5
Gamespot --- 8.9 versus 8.3


GMR Magazine --- 8 versus 8

Play Magazine --- A- versus A


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

Those are pretty close for the most part. Live gets pretty good scores regardless so I wouldn't say its being stomped out by espn. Its not as if Live is getting 7's or 7.5's. However for so many of these sites and mags to rate espn as the better game is interesting.

I don't think the scores are as important as the actual content of the review....the author's written thoughts and opinion about the game. When I see stuff like "A True Sim" or "This game is the most realistic"..."This cgame comes closer to simulating the actual sport more than any other game"...thats the stuff I pay attention to because it refers to gameplay and I personally like a very realistic and sim type game experience.

After the gameplay info, I check out what the author has to say about the Franchise Mode and any other Modes or Options that are available because this is typically where the game will get the bulk of its replayability and longevity. This also tells me whether the game will give me the most bang for my buck even though gameplay is what I care about most.

Basically, the content of the review is more important than the final score...to actually see HOW the author came to their conclusion is vital. Ultimately though its up to the user to decide what they like.

I do find it funny though how people ...when they read a review thats favorable to their game of Choice they'll post... " awesome review. I couldn't agree more". But when the review is unfavorable to their game of choice OR another game gets a higher score than their game of Choice..then they'll question the author's/site's actual knowledge of games in that particular sport or even the Sport itself ...and/or the author's/site's intelligence, integrity and credibility. Hilarious ...yet very sad.

[Kanobi]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
platic said:
I was checking out "www.gamerankings.com" which compiles video game reviews into their website. In their compilation, they had 11 websites that had reviewed both "NBA Live 2004" and "ESPN Basketball 2004" for the PS2. Amazingly, of the 11 websites that reviewed both games... only 1 gave Live a better grade than ESPN. In contrast, ESPN scored a higher grade on 9 out of 11 reviews.

Now, I'll be the first one to say that reviews usually don't mean much. A lot of times, a website will have a different person review different games --- so it's not fair to compare grades. However, I think the disparity is so large (9 out of 11 reviews?!?) that you can't ignore it. In this day and age, this is about as close as anybody could get to a critics' unanimous choice.

NBA Live is still a great game... but I must say I'm a little surprised. I did a similar research for EA vs Sega on the football reviews, and the ratio is closer to 60:40 or 50:50. But EA got completely trashed on the basketball front.



(Website --- ESPN versus NBA Live ratings)

Stuff Gamer --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Gamepro --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Playstation Magazine --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Game Informer --- 9.5 versus 8.5
IGN --- 9.2 versus 8.8
Lawrence --- 90 versus 83
PSM Magazine --- 9 versus 8
EGM Magazine --- 90 versus 8.5
Gamespot --- 8.9 versus 8.3


GMR Magazine --- 8 versus 8

Play Magazine --- A- versus A


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

Those are pretty close for the most part. Live gets pretty good scores regardless so I wouldn't say its being stomped out by espn. Its not as if Live is getting 7's or 7.5's. However for so many of these sites and mags to rate espn as the better game is interesting.

I don't think the scores are as important as the actual content of the review....the author's written thoughts and opinion about the game. When I see stuff like "A True Sim" or "This game is the most realistic"..."This cgame comes closer to simulating the actual sport more than any other game"...thats the stuff I pay attention to because it refers to gameplay and I personally like a very realistic and sim type game experience.

After the gameplay info, I check out what the author has to say about the Franchise Mode and any other Modes or Options that are available because this is typically where the game will get the bulk of its replayability and longevity. This also tells me whether the game will give me the most bang for my buck even though gameplay is what I care about most.

Basically, the content of the review is more important than the final score...to actually see HOW the author came to their conclusion is vital. Ultimately though its up to the user to decide what they like.

I do find it funny though how people ...when they read a review thats favorable to their game of Choice they'll post... " awesome review. I couldn't agree more". But when the review is unfavorable to their game of choice OR another game gets a higher score than their game of Choice..then they'll question the author's/site's actual knowledge of games in that particular sport or even the Sport itself ...and/or the author's/site's intelligence, integrity and credibility. Hilarious ...yet very sad.

[Kanobi]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
platic said:
I was checking out "www.gamerankings.com" which compiles video game reviews into their website. In their compilation, they had 11 websites that had reviewed both "NBA Live 2004" and "ESPN Basketball 2004" for the PS2. Amazingly, of the 11 websites that reviewed both games... only 1 gave Live a better grade than ESPN. In contrast, ESPN scored a higher grade on 9 out of 11 reviews.

Now, I'll be the first one to say that reviews usually don't mean much. A lot of times, a website will have a different person review different games --- so it's not fair to compare grades. However, I think the disparity is so large (9 out of 11 reviews?!?) that you can't ignore it. In this day and age, this is about as close as anybody could get to a critics' unanimous choice.

NBA Live is still a great game... but I must say I'm a little surprised. I did a similar research for EA vs Sega on the football reviews, and the ratio is closer to 60:40 or 50:50. But EA got completely trashed on the basketball front.



(Website --- ESPN versus NBA Live ratings)

Stuff Gamer --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Gamepro --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Playstation Magazine --- 5.0 versus 4.5
Game Informer --- 9.5 versus 8.5
IGN --- 9.2 versus 8.8
Lawrence --- 90 versus 83
PSM Magazine --- 9 versus 8
EGM Magazine --- 90 versus 8.5
Gamespot --- 8.9 versus 8.3


GMR Magazine --- 8 versus 8

Play Magazine --- A- versus A


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

Those are pretty close for the most part. Live gets pretty good scores regardless so I wouldn't say its being stomped out by espn. Its not as if Live is getting 7's or 7.5's. However for so many of these sites and mags to rate espn as the better game is interesting.

I don't think the scores are as important as the actual content of the review....the author's written thoughts and opinion about the game. When I see stuff like "A True Sim" or "This game is the most realistic"..."This cgame comes closer to simulating the actual sport more than any other game"...thats the stuff I pay attention to because it refers to gameplay and I personally like a very realistic and sim type game experience.

After the gameplay info, I check out what the author has to say about the Franchise Mode and any other Modes or Options that are available because this is typically where the game will get the bulk of its replayability and longevity. This also tells me whether the game will give me the most bang for my buck even though gameplay is what I care about most.

Basically, the content of the review is more important than the final score...to actually see HOW the author came to their conclusion is vital. Ultimately though its up to the user to decide what they like.

I do find it funny though how people ...when they read a review thats favorable to their game of Choice they'll post... " awesome review. I couldn't agree more". But when the review is unfavorable to their game of choice OR another game gets a higher score than their game of Choice..then they'll question the author's/site's actual knowledge of games in that particular sport or even the Sport itself ...and/or the author's/site's intelligence, integrity and credibility. Hilarious ...yet very sad.

[NoleFan]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
FootballForever said:
so your point is.......oh thats what I thought.....nothing

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

[NoleFan]

Re: Critics on the ESPN vs Live debate

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
FootballForever said:
so your point is.......oh thats what I thought.....nothing

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