NBA Live doesn't need to be realistic to be successful does it?

[GisherJohn24]

When Live was successful back in the day, and for those old enough to remember, NBA Live was never exactly a basketball simulator. It was definitely not realistic. But why was it so popular? It was FUN. Fun factor should be the developers goal. I can handle crazy dunks and maybe some nutty gameplay as long as the game is a blast to play. Most Live fans of late would agree Live 10 had some "unrealistic" moments occasionally, but we didn't care right? The game was fun to play. Live 2000-05 I had some amazing memories of that and I never said it was realistic, but man what a great time I had. EA needs to come through on just making it fun again, I don't really care what route they take, but if making it a little unrealistic makes it more accessible, I'll be there on launch day.

[shutdown10]

Quote: Originally Posted by GisherJohn24

When Live was successful back in the day, and for those old enough to remember, NBA Live was never exactly a basketball simulator. It was definitely not realistic. But why was it so popular? It was FUN. Fun factor should be the developers goal. I can handle crazy dunks and maybe some nutty gameplay as long as the game is a blast to play. Most Live fans of late would agree Live 10 had some "unrealistic" moments occasionally, but we didn't care right? The game was fun to play. Live 2000-05 I had some amazing memories of that and I never said it was realistic, but man what a great time I had. EA needs to come through on just making it fun again, I don't really care what route they take, but if making it a little unrealistic makes it more accessible, I'll be there on launch day.

The times have changed and the community is now asking for a more realistic style basketball game from both sides. In everything you have to learn how to adapt and innovate yourself, which live has fallen short in doing so throughout the years. All those past Lives were fun, but they are out-dated games. They can have a balance between making it fun and realistic, but they have to nail the basics first like making the animations look more believable. I've invested about $455 dollars into my PS4 and I want to see this Live team become innovative to warrant a $60 purchase, just as others in the community would as well. Last if Live is trying replicating the NBA sport on the pro level, then they have to make it look as authentic as possible. They can always dust off NBA Street if they cannot accomplish replicating the authenticity of the pro-level NBA game to save time and money.

[swac07]

In today's standard 1st generation live might not be considered as realistic as today's iteraions of basketball games, but for 1994 live 95 was as real as it got as far as other basketball games were concerned..
It was fun it even had simulation settings if im correct





.For the time frame that we were in back then what made those live games fun was the fact they mimicked the closest thing to basketball to us. Times and technology have changed but the goal is still the same if EA could recreate the closest game to real life the masses would love it.....its just nowadays they have been slipping...just because its free for all b-ball like nba jam doesnt necessarily equal fun (to me imo)...

Me personally I want/expect to EA to do better and not take the weak way out.

[GisherJohn24]

Quote: Originally Posted by swac07

In today's standard 1st generation live might not be considered as realistic as today's iteraions of basketball games, but for 1994 live 95 was as real as it got as far as other basketball games were concerned.. It was fun it even had simulation settings if im correct .For the time frame that we were in back then what made those live games fun was the fact they mimic-ed the closest thing to basketball to us. Times and technology have changed but the goal is still the same if EA could recreate the closest game to real life the masses would love it.....its just nowadays they have been slipping...just because its free for all b-ball like nba jam doesnt necessarily equal fun (to me imo)... Me personally I want/expect to EA to do better and not take the weak way out.

wow great find. I think that was the beginning of sliders!

[King_B_Mack]

Of course it needs to be realistic. I've used this example before and I think it still rings true. Live is similar to the Chicago Cubs and that fanbase (that I have both the fortunate and unfortunate pleasure of being apart of). Live 95, 96 etc. they were fun games to play for the era they were in. Technology didn't allow the game of basketball to be represented as accurately as it can be today back then and when NBA Live and that brand of "simulation" basketball was all we knew was possible, it was great. We're all older, we have better understandings of the sport, we've had other companies show that there is more out there and more importantly technology is there now to replicating the game more accurately than it's ever been. The Cubs finally spent money and put a good team together and almost got that title in 03. Other long suffering teams started winning doing things differently than what we were used to seeing in Chicago and once we got that taste of it there was no turning back. All that lovable losers, A for effort crap was done. It was time to take winning and putting a good product on the field seriously. Pretty much the same thing here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by GisherJohn24

When Live was successful back in the day, and for those old enough to remember, NBA Live was never exactly a basketball simulator. It was definitely not realistic. But why was it so popular? It was FUN. Fun factor should be the developers goal. I can handle crazy dunks and maybe some nutty gameplay as long as the game is a blast to play. Most Live fans of late would agree Live 10 had some "unrealistic" moments occasionally, but we didn't care right? The game was fun to play. Live 2000-05 I had some amazing memories of that and I never said it was realistic, but man what a great time I had. EA needs to come through on just making it fun again, I don't really care what route they take, but if making it a little unrealistic makes it more accessible, I'll be there on launch day.

No games were really realistic back then. Also pretty much every game has "unrealistic moments" and 10 was more of a sim in some way than 2k10 was.

People arent turning away from this game because its unrealistic. They are turning away because the gameplay, animations and features dont appear up to par yet.

[rspencer86]

I would love to see a new edition of NBA Jam to tickle our itch for arcade basketball. I played a ton of the On Fire edition a couple years back.

But NBA Live is a game trying to simulate the real NBA experience, so it needs to be realistic. Realistic sports game should be fun because:

1) Players and teams play like their real-life counterparts.

2) It is challenging and satisfying to play strategically to use your team/player's strengths and take advantage of of the opposition's weaknesses, including taking calculated risks (speeding up the game to wear down a veteran team at the risk of committing a lot of turnovers or taking bad shots, for example).

I wish more games, including Live, would emphasize the strategy of the sport more so than stick skills. That's what makes sim games fun, IMO. It's great to be able to look back on a game you lost against another person and think something to the effect of "wow, they really pounded me inside, I should have been more aggressive with doubling down low" rather than "man, that guy was really good at full-court passing cheese".

[bigeastbumrush]

Quote: Originally Posted by rspencer86

I would love to see a new edition of NBA Jam to tickle our itch for arcade basketball. I played a ton of the On Fire edition a couple years back. But NBA Live is a game trying to simulate the real NBA experience, so it needs to be realistic. Realistic sports game should be fun because: 1) Players and teams play like their real-life counterparts. 2) It is challenging and satisfying to play strategically to use your team/player's strengths and take advantage of of the opposition's weaknesses, including taking calculated risks (speeding up the game to wear down a veteran team at the risk of committing a lot of turnovers or taking bad shots, for example). I wish more games, including Live, would emphasize the strategy of the sport more so than stick skills. That's what makes sim games fun, IMO. It's great to be able to look back on a game you lost against another person and think something to the effect of "wow, they really pounded me inside, I should have been more aggressive with doubling down low" rather than "man, that guy was really good at full-court passing cheese".

To your first point, Live 10's players did play like their real life counterparts. That was never an issue with Live. The superstars would always put up big games. They didn't suffer from the Jeremy Lamb syndrome where role players were dropping 30+ points.

The franchise always suffered from a pace aspect (so does FIFA) where every team played the same, ie.- Utah running and gunning like Phoenix.

And they never really implemented playbooks properly. Everyone just dealt with it because it played a fun game of basketball.

The word SIM gets thrown around way too much these days.

People have turned SIM into meaning a near-perfect representation of the sport.

Not sure if we'll ever see that.

But when solid fundamental aspects of the game aren't there, yes it goes to beyond realistic. Some people will not care about a rebound hitting the floor or no injuries.

But that's why they made NBA Jam and NBA Street.

Live can't toe the line and try to blame it on the "lack of tech" because that's just a blatant slap in the face.