MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

**Rickster101** · 11-04-2003, 04:21 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
I completely disagree with you that Live is more realistic, cause yes players move around waving their arms and stuff, but they have no reason to move most of the time, they are just programmed zombies....

<hr /></blockquote>

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>Good point and good post here. I'd like to think of it as this no matter how good you are with a joy stick this is not that type of game where you just "Point" "Aim" and shoot.

Those days are gone and now you have to deal with the reality of it all,the machine has gotten smarter with its AI,the players do move and function independently of one another and just pressing the shoot button is not going to cut it.

This guy sounds like someone who is well prepared with a mind set and game plan to match taking on whomever crosses his path.

I'm not a big X's and O's guy when it comes to shootin' the "Rock" but this guy sounds scary in a good why. How?

His game plan,knowing the strength and weaknesses of his team what plays work and don't work for his personal...he sounds like a coach who has a well prepared game plan. I'd watch out for this cat,he sounds like a real pro as far as the X's and O's go.

Good post there dude, I see you know your game plans and game play and strategies,you're pretty deep on that. Point well taken.

GO BUCKEYES

**bigeastbumrush** · 11-04-2003, 04:32 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

I think you perfectly summed up Live '04 versus the other games on the market. This was well written and very accurate.

With so much bitching about graphics, or the lack thereof, your post summed up why I keep coming back to this game and can't get enough of it.

**bigeastbumrush** · 11-04-2003, 04:32 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

I think you perfectly summed up Live '04 versus the other games on the market. This was well written and very accurate.

With so much bitching about graphics, or the lack thereof, your post summed up why I keep coming back to this game and can't get enough of it.

**bigeastbumrush** · 11-04-2003, 04:32 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

I think you perfectly summed up Live '04 versus the other games on the market. This was well written and very accurate.

With so much bitching about graphics, or the lack thereof, your post summed up why I keep coming back to this game and can't get enough of it.

**ATrillionaire** · 11-04-2003, 06:53 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
I completely disagree with you that Live is more realistic, cause yes players move around waving their arms and stuff, but they have no reason to move most of the time, they are just programmed zombies....

<hr /></blockquote>

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

Call it what you want, I call it Zombie moving. In the NBA, guys don't all come in the middle of the floor and run into each other, than slide on out of the paint and do it again. ESPN off the ball movement is great. Players cut when they are suppose to, and move out the way when they are supposed to. And I for one have seen many players fight for position in the post without calling a play. Matter of fact, seeing that I never call plays, I guess they always fight for position without calling a play. Live's court spacing is just HORRIBLE. The players are just too big for the court. And what's the point of a fouling animation when a foul doesn't get called. Basically is just like running over someone in NBA Live 2003, the only difference is you get a cool animation to go along with it. The speed is to fast(and sliders won't help, cause I'm talking about the shift in animation speed) and fastbreaks are basically you getting ahead of the crowd, the computer runs 89999 miles per hour to catch up with you, alter your shot and you miss. The commentary sucks worst than ESPN....I thought Live had a 2 man crew?........Bottom line is NBA LIVE has the advantage in only department(crowd atmoshpere), and maybe camera angles, but I prefer ESPN's. Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

**ATrillionaire** · 11-04-2003, 06:53 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
I completely disagree with you that Live is more realistic, cause yes players move around waving their arms and stuff, but they have no reason to move most of the time, they are just programmed zombies....

<hr /></blockquote>

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

Call it what you want, I call it Zombie moving. In the NBA, guys don't all come in the middle of the floor and run into each other, than slide on out of the paint and do it again. ESPN off the ball movement is great. Players cut when they are suppose to, and move out the way when they are supposed to. And I for one have seen many players fight for position in the post without calling a play. Matter of fact, seeing that I never call plays, I guess they always fight for position without calling a play. Live's court spacing is just HORRIBLE. The players are just too big for the court. And what's the point of a fouling animation when a foul doesn't get called. Basically is just like running over someone in NBA Live 2003, the only difference is you get a cool animation to go along with it. The speed is to fast(and sliders won't help, cause I'm talking about the shift in animation speed) and fastbreaks are basically you getting ahead of the crowd, the computer runs 89999 miles per hour to catch up with you, alter your shot and you miss. The commentary sucks worst than ESPN....I thought Live had a 2 man crew?........Bottom line is NBA LIVE has the advantage in only department(crowd atmoshpere), and maybe camera angles, but I prefer ESPN's. Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

**ATrillionaire** · 11-04-2003, 06:53 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
I completely disagree with you that Live is more realistic, cause yes players move around waving their arms and stuff, but they have no reason to move most of the time, they are just programmed zombies....

<hr /></blockquote>

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game. Yes, there are some situations that call for that, but that's why you have a play called "isolation". Otherwise, I'd expect my guys to be active off the ball. That is what makes Live so realistic.

I don't even have to call a post up play. I just bring the ball up the court, and my big man starts battling for post position. My off gaurd and small forward are either spotting up or cutting to the basket. And if theey don't, I can take control of them and cut myself. The great thing about Live is, you have complete control over what's going on. If your team screws up, it's your fault. There' no canned animation routines. Gameplay flows dynamically. Even when Iverson isolates in Philly's offense, it's usually AFTER they run a motion play to run him off a couple of screens. They don't just give him the ball and run away. Despite what some of you think, they do run plays in the NBA, even if they're simple turnouts.

The fact that I can run box, motion, flex, 4 corners(!!!!), etc. is a huge plus in the "realism" factor. I can think about what I want to accomplish, say Webber at the high post with Peja cutting to the basket. Then I can go dig through the playbooks to see if I can find a play that does exactly that. Then I can go practice that play until I get the timing, spacing and execution down (thanks to the play diagram/animation). Then I can incorporate that play into my playbook the next time I play a human opponent. Do that for 3-4 plays, and you've got a human opponent that's going to have a very difficult time stopping you. Why, because you're freestyling all the way down the court? No. Because you did your homework, looked at your personnel, thought of a way to utilize them, and found a play that took advantage of your personnel. To me, that's as realistic as it gets.

<hr /></blockquote>

Call it what you want, I call it Zombie moving. In the NBA, guys don't all come in the middle of the floor and run into each other, than slide on out of the paint and do it again. ESPN off the ball movement is great. Players cut when they are suppose to, and move out the way when they are supposed to. And I for one have seen many players fight for position in the post without calling a play. Matter of fact, seeing that I never call plays, I guess they always fight for position without calling a play. Live's court spacing is just HORRIBLE. The players are just too big for the court. And what's the point of a fouling animation when a foul doesn't get called. Basically is just like running over someone in NBA Live 2003, the only difference is you get a cool animation to go along with it. The speed is to fast(and sliders won't help, cause I'm talking about the shift in animation speed) and fastbreaks are basically you getting ahead of the crowd, the computer runs 89999 miles per hour to catch up with you, alter your shot and you miss. The commentary sucks worst than ESPN....I thought Live had a 2 man crew?........Bottom line is NBA LIVE has the advantage in only department(crowd atmoshpere), and maybe camera angles, but I prefer ESPN's. Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

**Klocker** · 11-04-2003, 10:06 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

<hr /></blockquote>

How could we take something personally when it's obvious that you have NO IDEA what the he!! you're talking about.

I'm KIDDING!!!

Just messin' wit ya Bro....love the avatar BTW.

**Klocker** · 11-04-2003, 10:06 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

<hr /></blockquote>

How could we take something personally when it's obvious that you have NO IDEA what the he!! you're talking about.

I'm KIDDING!!!

Just messin' wit ya Bro....love the avatar BTW.

**Klocker** · 11-04-2003, 10:06 PM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
ATrillionaire said:
Now this is all my opinion so noone please take it personally.

<hr /></blockquote>

How could we take something personally when it's obvious that you have NO IDEA what the he!! you're talking about.

I'm KIDDING!!!

Just messin' wit ya Bro....love the avatar BTW.

**Court_vision** · 11-05-2003, 01:46 AM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:

<hr /></blockquote> Espn is not more realistic to me, players just standing around with there thumbs up there @ss is not real to me at all. The players move more lif like in LIVe hands down, and with sliders form pared I have great stats, so I dont know how anyone could say ESPN is more real.

<hr /></blockquote>

It's an old and pointless debate...but the simple facts are, guys DO stand around a tonne in the NBA.

ESPN has NBA spacing and movement.

LIVE has NCAA spacing and movement, ie guys always rotating, guys always in deep pockets etc.

That happens to make for a better ball game...but it's not the NBA

You guys seem to want to hammer ESPN's flaws...while ignoring LIVE has no rebounding AI to speak of, every teams C rocket passes to the half court without even looking, the post game is way exaggerated with too much sliding...etc etc.

BOTH have flaws...but both are great games.

If your going to hammer one...you can't be blind to your own fav

Enjoy whichever one you go with...both are big, big improvements on last year.

It's really personal preference...simple as that. Some of the fella's will like LIVE's crowds better, some will like that ESPN has authentic arena sounds (ie ONLY the organ at MSG etc). Some will like the crowd noises better in LIVE, some will prefer the crowd actually being at the game and being in 3D in ESPN.

As Graphic said...each to his own.

**Court_vision** · 11-05-2003, 01:46 AM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:

<hr /></blockquote> Espn is not more realistic to me, players just standing around with there thumbs up there @ss is not real to me at all. The players move more lif like in LIVe hands down, and with sliders form pared I have great stats, so I dont know how anyone could say ESPN is more real.

<hr /></blockquote>

It's an old and pointless debate...but the simple facts are, guys DO stand around a tonne in the NBA.

ESPN has NBA spacing and movement.

LIVE has NCAA spacing and movement, ie guys always rotating, guys always in deep pockets etc.

That happens to make for a better ball game...but it's not the NBA

You guys seem to want to hammer ESPN's flaws...while ignoring LIVE has no rebounding AI to speak of, every teams C rocket passes to the half court without even looking, the post game is way exaggerated with too much sliding...etc etc.

BOTH have flaws...but both are great games.

If your going to hammer one...you can't be blind to your own fav

Enjoy whichever one you go with...both are big, big improvements on last year.

It's really personal preference...simple as that. Some of the fella's will like LIVE's crowds better, some will like that ESPN has authentic arena sounds (ie ONLY the organ at MSG etc). Some will like the crowd noises better in LIVE, some will prefer the crowd actually being at the game and being in 3D in ESPN.

As Graphic said...each to his own.

**Court_vision** · 11-05-2003, 01:46 AM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
FootballForever said:

<hr /></blockquote> Espn is not more realistic to me, players just standing around with there thumbs up there @ss is not real to me at all. The players move more lif like in LIVe hands down, and with sliders form pared I have great stats, so I dont know how anyone could say ESPN is more real.

<hr /></blockquote>

It's an old and pointless debate...but the simple facts are, guys DO stand around a tonne in the NBA.

ESPN has NBA spacing and movement.

LIVE has NCAA spacing and movement, ie guys always rotating, guys always in deep pockets etc.

That happens to make for a better ball game...but it's not the NBA

You guys seem to want to hammer ESPN's flaws...while ignoring LIVE has no rebounding AI to speak of, every teams C rocket passes to the half court without even looking, the post game is way exaggerated with too much sliding...etc etc.

BOTH have flaws...but both are great games.

If your going to hammer one...you can't be blind to your own fav

Enjoy whichever one you go with...both are big, big improvements on last year.

It's really personal preference...simple as that. Some of the fella's will like LIVE's crowds better, some will like that ESPN has authentic arena sounds (ie ONLY the organ at MSG etc). Some will like the crowd noises better in LIVE, some will prefer the crowd actually being at the game and being in 3D in ESPN.

As Graphic said...each to his own.

**Court_vision** · 11-05-2003, 01:58 AM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game.

<hr /></blockquote>

That's actually really interesting in the context of what the real NBA is nowadays. Basketball SHOULD BE as you say...but in the NBA, it rarely is. Sac v Dallas on a hot night, yep. 90% of other games...rare.

ESPN has much, much better off ball movement than NBA 2K3 did. IMO they have got a nice balance this year. There are guys going around double screens, cutting etc.

NBA 2K3 was horrible.

**Court_vision** · 11-05-2003, 01:58 AM

Re: MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />
silky4 said:

?????? Ummm, they have reason...it's called cutting to the basket, posting up, and setting picks. And these are the things they do whether you call a play or not. Basketball is a game of cutting and moving, not standing around watching someone go one-on-one all game.

<hr /></blockquote>

That's actually really interesting in the context of what the real NBA is nowadays. Basketball SHOULD BE as you say...but in the NBA, it rarely is. Sac v Dallas on a hot night, yep. 90% of other games...rare.

ESPN has much, much better off ball movement than NBA 2K3 did. IMO they have got a nice balance this year. There are guys going around double screens, cutting etc.

NBA 2K3 was horrible.

MAN I LOVED LIVE..............

Recommended Videos

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment