Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

[OneBadMutha]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

LOL, no woonder they hate ID. I'm guessing that all the other gaming media sites and magazines play a game that looks just like that. They think they are still playing Sega Basketball. How can you get paid to review sports games for years yet still not have any clue how to play Basketball video games. It shows just how worthless their opinions are.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

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

What about all the other websites that rated inside drive worse than the other games? Are you saying that they all don't know how to play? This site didn't give inside drive a good score either.

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

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

What about all the other websites that rated inside drive worse than the other games? Are you saying that they all don't know how to play? This site didn't give inside drive a good score either.

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
Yup, completely agree. Somebody should write them a letter, pointing out the inconsistencies and how terrible their reviews are as far as what matters in a game.

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

What about all the other websites that rated inside drive worse than the other games? Are you saying that they all don't know how to play? This site didn't give inside drive a good score either.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.


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

Oh, yeah you're right I was thinking about the other sites. Sorry. What I meant to say was that nba2k3 was still rated higher then it on this site. Why would every site rate one game higher then another?

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.


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

Oh, yeah you're right I was thinking about the other sites. Sorry. What I meant to say was that nba2k3 was still rated higher then it on this site. Why would every site rate one game higher then another?

[jmood88]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
neovsmatrix said:
You really seem to talk out of your *** a lot of times, don't you?

"No matter what anyone tells you, Inside Drive 2003 is NOT the same game as last year. With the addition of sliders, how can you honestly say it's the same game?? Inside Drive 2003 offers a realistic simulation of the NBA, while keeping the gameplay fast and fun, all you have to do is play with the sliders. The only problem I have with ID 2003 is the offensive rebounding and the inability to pass out of layups and dunks. If HVS can tweak this area of the game and get the online portion ironed out, this could be #1 on many peoples' wishlists come next year." - by Steve Noah.

It got a 92/100. Those complaints are valid, but, and there's a huge BUT, it says right there that it provides a realistic simulation of basketball. And yes, I do think the majority of gaming sites and mags are run by people who DON'T know sports. It's not inconceivable, since almost ALL of them target the mainstream. Don't ask me how I know, it's because I just know. Only a moron would think otherwise given the recent trends in reviews and the fact that gaming has entered mainstream consciousness.


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

Oh, yeah you're right I was thinking about the other sites. Sorry. What I meant to say was that nba2k3 was still rated higher then it on this site. Why would every site rate one game higher then another?

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

Hmm, couldn't be because of bias and the fact that NBA 2k3 was more polished, not to mention had an awesome presentation, and awesome graphics, could it? Actually, THAT is the reason why it was rated higher. It's a great product for the mainstream, but to a person who wants a game to play a realistic brand of basketball (and I'm talking about authentic plays, as well as real player tendencies and team tendencies and great AI, all of things which are still lacking except maybe great AI in the NBA 2k series now), the NBA 2k series for the most part doesn't do the trick, IMHO.

Of course, there's also the simple and obvious answer as well. No set of reviews can offer insight into which is better when they were written by different reviewers. Steve Noah did not write the Xbox NBA 2k3 review, Jim Kelly did for this site, by the way.

And not to mention that different reviewers put different weight on things. For instance, the Gamespot review even MENTIONED the absurdity in the playcalling system, thinking that it's odd fro a game to have so few plays, especially for a simulation. And yet, they still rated it high! Why the hell would they do that, unless they weren't concerned about the simulation market, just the average buyer who wouldn't even know or mind?

By the way, ID 2003's animations graphics, and presentation were admittedly subpar. If I'd never played the game myself I'd consider it a sh*tty product as well. But I don't, because I have played it and I know better than to say it's a bad game. Id 2003's still a better game as far as I'm concerned than ESPN NBA Basketball, and unless Visual Concepts doesn't get their act together it'll still be a better product than next year's iteration. Meanwhile, EA Sports finally took the hint, and it seems to have modeled its game largely after ID 2003.

I'll say this much: the competition is now a 2-horse race between EA Sports and High Voltage for my money from now on, until Visual Concepts gets their act together (which I really hope happens). By the way, I find that they are EXTREMELY slow in certain areas as far as response time goes. The first few NBA 2k iterations were frustrating, not because of the actual gameplay, but because of the devs' philosophy that ANYONE, even a terrible shooter, can light you up if you don't put a hand in their face. It took them several iterations just to fix something as simple as that. I'm glad they've finally added some good off-ball movement in ESPN, but the lack of plays offsets that drastically, IMHO. First the plays were generic in NBA 2k3, now they've made them even more generic. How can that be acceptable to an unbiased observer?

By the way, have you even played ESPN NBA Basketball? I haven't heard your comments on it, yet you seem to be willing to defend it at all costs, possibly without even having played it. I have played it. And I know its flaws already, and they're pretty big. Some minor ones that are frustrating I can let go, but the major one which really gets me is the lack of plays and the fact that every team has the same set of plays in their arsenal. the only difference is they use it in different frequencies.

[neovsmatrix]

Re: Play of the day ID 2004 vid at IGN.

Hmm, couldn't be because of bias and the fact that NBA 2k3 was more polished, not to mention had an awesome presentation, and awesome graphics, could it? Actually, THAT is the reason why it was rated higher. It's a great product for the mainstream, but to a person who wants a game to play a realistic brand of basketball (and I'm talking about authentic plays, as well as real player tendencies and team tendencies and great AI, all of things which are still lacking except maybe great AI in the NBA 2k series now), the NBA 2k series for the most part doesn't do the trick, IMHO.

Of course, there's also the simple and obvious answer as well. No set of reviews can offer insight into which is better when they were written by different reviewers. Steve Noah did not write the Xbox NBA 2k3 review, Jim Kelly did for this site, by the way.

And not to mention that different reviewers put different weight on things. For instance, the Gamespot review even MENTIONED the absurdity in the playcalling system, thinking that it's odd fro a game to have so few plays, especially for a simulation. And yet, they still rated it high! Why the hell would they do that, unless they weren't concerned about the simulation market, just the average buyer who wouldn't even know or mind?

By the way, ID 2003's animations graphics, and presentation were admittedly subpar. If I'd never played the game myself I'd consider it a sh*tty product as well. But I don't, because I have played it and I know better than to say it's a bad game. Id 2003's still a better game as far as I'm concerned than ESPN NBA Basketball, and unless Visual Concepts doesn't get their act together it'll still be a better product than next year's iteration. Meanwhile, EA Sports finally took the hint, and it seems to have modeled its game largely after ID 2003.

I'll say this much: the competition is now a 2-horse race between EA Sports and High Voltage for my money from now on, until Visual Concepts gets their act together (which I really hope happens). By the way, I find that they are EXTREMELY slow in certain areas as far as response time goes. The first few NBA 2k iterations were frustrating, not because of the actual gameplay, but because of the devs' philosophy that ANYONE, even a terrible shooter, can light you up if you don't put a hand in their face. It took them several iterations just to fix something as simple as that. I'm glad they've finally added some good off-ball movement in ESPN, but the lack of plays offsets that drastically, IMHO. First the plays were generic in NBA 2k3, now they've made them even more generic. How can that be acceptable to an unbiased observer?

By the way, have you even played ESPN NBA Basketball? I haven't heard your comments on it, yet you seem to be willing to defend it at all costs, possibly without even having played it. I have played it. And I know its flaws already, and they're pretty big. Some minor ones that are frustrating I can let go, but the major one which really gets me is the lack of plays and the fact that every team has the same set of plays in their arsenal. the only difference is they use it in different frequencies.