Proof that Live kicks ass on ID2000
opran noodlemantra
I second that. Last night I played live on season mode. The final eight were accurate up to the finals.
Lakers won over Indiana 4-2. The MVP was Shaq and Kobe was on the first all defensive team.
MastiCA <mas...@hotmail.com> wrote in article <3942D8EA...@hotmail.com>...
> As if any further proof was necessary... this is for all you confused
> people who swore that ID2K was more reaslistic than Live 2000. In most
> cases this was less a result of terminal stupidity and more a case of
> wanting to bash EA Sports. Wup, this is for you...
>
> Look at the two games that SportsPlanet have allowed to play out between
> the Lakers and Pacers, and the comparisons to real world results. Live
> came within a few points of predicting the score and Shaq's scoring line
> in the first game, and in the second it was very close again, coming
> within a couple of points of O'Neal's line and getting close to the
> final score.
>
> In ID2K the Lakers key scorer so far has been AC Green. Even if it you
> take into account random factors, anybody who knows ANYTHING about
> basketball can tell you _right away_ that a game in which AC Green
> scores 32 points in the NBA Finals is WRONG. Especially when Shaq is
> being held to 12 points. What a joke.
>
> The AI in ID2K is totally braindead when compared to Live 2K. The only
> thing the game does well is commentary.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.sportplanet.com
>
MastiCA
w...@enteract.com.invalid
is going to carry the game? gee whiz, what about ball physics, player
physics, graphics......
that's all right tho. i GREATLY prefer nba2k on the dreamcast to either
live or inside drive. yes, it's got it's shortcomings, but for the first
time in my life, i feel like i'm actually controlling a real player on a
court, and not a pile of polygons.
nba live 2000 *still sucks* tho. just because it's stats engine is
stronger will not save it, unless you're just into the stats (in which
case, i would recommend it). but who buys graphical, gee-whiz sports
games just for the stats engine? aren't there better text simulators
you can get?
> opran noodlemantra wrote:
--
_________________________
Remove ".invalid" to reply
MastiCA
running the GAME and providing observations about how the AI plays.
Yeah I'll give you that NBA2K looks nice. It certainly looks better than Live
does on an average PC. Live is still a great looking game though.
NBA2K even has some nice AI improvements over Live. It also has a totally
arcadey feel (dunk, dunk, dunk, dunk, block, block, block, block), just like
earlier versions of Live. People complain about the blocks and dunks in Live
being frequent... in NBA2K they are RAMPANT. Worse still are the number of
dunks that are blocked; 6-10 per game. Sure you can avoid playing that way
(don't try for the block every time; settle for jumpshots), but that's putting
a bandaid on the problem. The worst thing of all is you can take a single
player (just about anyone decent) and key in on him for scoring throughout the
entire game. The other day I scored 59 points with Derek Fisher on the hardest
level. Very realistic. Takes me back to Live 97.
w...@enteract.com.invalid = ea basher of zero substance
MastiCA
NBA2K for all of its eye candy is not a quantum leap forward in realism and
gameplay. It looks great and that will wow a lot of simple minds like yourself, but
in the end the gameplay is the thing.
I _just_ finished playing a game of NBA2K, highest difficulty. Apparently George
Lynch is an offensive force to be reckoned with; we just don't know it yet. The AI
used him as the primary scorer on Philadelphia (!!!!); he racked up 37 points on
14/19 shooting. Iverson scored 7 points.
Very realistic indeed.
Oh, but you're right! The crowd looks nice!
Fool.
w...@enteract.com.invalid wrote:
> once again, what are you talking about? if you mean that nba2k is MORE
> arcadey than live 2000, then you are nuts.
>
> but, either way, ME and EVERY ONLINE REVIEW must be wrong, and you must be
> right.
>
> (i wonder if deja.com goes back far enough, because i was here reading and
> posting when the nba live 2000 demo came out, and *everyone* here bashed
> it, saying it was several steps BACKWARDS from 99. they completely went
> away from any sense of realism.)
>
> look, if you want to continue playing live 2000, that's your
> business. all i can think is, "why?"
w...@enteract.com.invalid
w...@enteract.com.invalid
2000. any center can store 80 points in any game. if you're going to play
a video basketball game and not play realistically, then you're going to
get weird numbers. nba 2k has an interesting way of dealing with this
kind of playstyle. in real life, players don't keep driving to the rim 40
times per game. why not? they don't want to get hurt. in nba2k, if you
keep driving constantly with one player, the player will very likely get
injured. an interesting way of dealing with the problem. live 2000
doesn't do anything. it's just lets you.
this is the same argument with madden and nfl2k. people picked on all the
little things with nfl2k, but once you've played both, you begin to
realize that madden falls short on the major things.......an unfair
argument.
either way,
your loss. keep playing live with it's 1 pound ball and 20 pound players.
MastiCA
the world be without the plodders?
party on.
w...@enteract.com.invalid wrote:
> eh. i don't feel like fighting anymore. you're having fun, i'm having
> fun, that's all that matters. that's why we play video games.
>
> party on.
w...@enteract.com.invalid
fun, that's all that matters. that's why we play video games.
party on.