NBA Live vs. NBA 2K

[LJJ]

Originally Posted by JalenRawley

.........

Why do you bother to make such a big argument?

You posted yourself you don't play a lot of videogames, and you only play on your PC. You probably played NBA 2k7 a few times at your buddy's house, and played it on a system you have already expressed a strong disliking for.
But you still try to argue both games are essentially the same.


I can tell you this:
Those proffesional reviewers, those guys who get payed to play videogames and write their opinions about them. All of them think 2k7 is a lot better. And read their reviews. It's not just because of the features, the graphics, the settings you can change, etcetera.
It's also about the core gameplay.

[EricForman]

Originally Posted by JalenRawley

I personally do not like console gaming. I don’t like sitting on my couch in front of the TV all of the time, I’m just not a couch potato. If I were one of the larger retarded meatheads on this board, I’m sure I would be saying things like, “consoles are for n00bs” or something similar, but that’s just not the case. Consoles aren’t for morons, they just don’t fit in with the way I prefer to play. The few video games I do play, I play on my PC. .

"I don't play consoles, because I'm not a couch potato...I play PCs"

So by your very own logic, you would be considered a "computer chair potato" then...


WTF?

[EricForman]

and for the record, 2k has beaten Live in review scores out of just about every major publication EGM, Gamepro, IGN, Gamespot.com EVER SINCE 2K DEBUTED IN 1999. EVERY PUBLICATION. EVERY YEAR. 2k wins. That's freaking 8 years running. So for clowns to still make a case for Live or ask "which is better" is almost equivalent to "whos better, Jordan or Kobe" threads.

[JalenRawley]

Originally Posted by SCREWstonRockets

blah blah blah, you said absolutely nothing. Thats always the excuse for NBA Live, "You can always change the setting if you don't like it." Well guess what, you shouldn't have to mess with every single slider just to get some realism into the game. With NBA 2K, it plays great out the box. Of course you can change the sliders to make it play even better but the whole point is that you don't even have to do that to enjoy the game. Just pop in the disc and play.

Congratulations, you're the lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by SCREWstonRockets

2K could have easily half assed like EA to where you have to change the sliders in order to have a playable game but chose not to. They made it well enough that you can play it right out the box without much customization. While with NBA Live, you have to change up every single slider just to have a somewhat enjoyable game and it still doesn't match the gameplay of 2k (on default). Change the 2k sliders/settings like you do with NBA Live and it's not even a competition anymore. Point being, 2k was already a great game out of the box while NBA Live needs a complete tune up. Which game is better again?

Green’s Law of Debate:

Anything is possible if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

First of all, let’s start with education.

Default
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English defaute, defaulte, from Anglo-French, from defaillir to be lacking, fail, from de- + faillir to fail

1: failure to do something required by duty or law : NEGLECT

2: archaic : FAULT

3: a failure to pay financial debts

4: failure to appear at the required time in a legal proceeding b : failure to compete in or to finish an appointed contest <lost the game by default>

5 a: selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative <remained the club's president by default>
b : a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user

The default settings are the settings that the company ships the product with so as to provide a basic starting point for the -very- wide consumer base for the product. Game designers recognize that everyone is different and has different expectations from a game. That’s why they come with multiple difficulty levels and various levels of customization. Default is not “good”. Default is not the intended state of -anything-. Note definition 5(b) for default: “a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence of a choice made by the user.” How many default selections do you let your computer make for you? I don’t let my computer do -anything- by default, because I want it to run correctly, not run the way someone else thinks it should run.

If NBA 2K runs perfectly right out of the box, and you didn’t have to make a single change to it, that’s great. You are the perfect lowest common denominator for the game. Those pesky roster updates, and lowball stats for second round picks and little used bench players who blow up during a season and show numbers. Do you just wait until next year to get those updated? Or do you wait for someone to put out another “official roster update” to download, that still never gets anything right.

See, I’m just not that simple minded. I change my rosters up all the time. I try and make them reflect the correct stats for the players they’re simulating. Iverson doesn’t dunk from the free throw line in my rosters, Walter Herrmann is actually there in my rosters, Monta Ellis isn’t a 62 in my rosters, and Adam Morrison isn’t Larry Bird in my rosters. You do realize that every single year, the stats table from last year’s game is imported in, a few players are added, a few tweaks are made, and it gets shipped out. Each company has a different way of converting real life stats to their simulation stats, but it still all boils down from statistics. Everyone with a brain knows statistics do -not- tell the whole story. So if you’re basing a simulation of a player based upon -ONLY- his recorded statistics, they’re probably not going to be very accurate. And if you’re basing a simulation of players who don’t even have any recorded statistics, they’re -definitely- not going to be very accurate. And you’re going to consider these “guesstimated” statistics as canon?

And finally, this wonderfully ignorant statement here: “While with NBA Live, you have to change up every single slider just to have a somewhat enjoyable game and it still doesn't match the gameplay of 2k (on default) .

This pretty much sums up everything that I’ve been saying about this vote: The only responses you are going to get regarding this topic are ignorant, uninformed, biased hyperbole from the least mature and dumbest possible people on the internet. You won’t -ever- hear anything like “That game sucks! This game rules!” from me, because I’m not a f*cking idiot.

Which game is better again?

Any of them, as long as someone with your level of intelligence and maturity isn’t on the other end.

[Optimus Prime]

I guess all the professional reviewers and 99% of the gaming population who have played 2K and Live are also the "lowest common denominator" too, eh?

When you have lost an argument and don't have any ground to stand on, insult someone's intelligence! Yeah, that'll show 'em how superior you are, and how right you really are, despite all the evidence against you!



[quote=JalenRawley]

[IGOTGAME]

If you play other people either online or offline..you need universal sliders..That is only 1 reason 2k is better... You dont just go changing players ratings around when playing people or tendencies, that is cheating in my book...

[adamcz]

In the 2k games, you can do online leagues with fantasy drafts. That's a pretty huge feature.

[EricForman]

Jalen, how thehell you spend so much time writing such a long post and claim to spend so much time adjusting sliders and ratings.. I thought you weren't a couch potato, like us poor old console gamers?

And really, 2k is better than live not just cause "you dont have to adjust sliders". It's just a better game. Serious. There hasn't been one review that ranks live over 2k, NOT A ONE since 1999. Go check EGM, Gamepro, IGN.com, Gamespot.com, Gamerankings, etc.

The only time Live even TIED 2k's ratings was in 2003 when they first introduced freestyle and some people fell for the gimmick, Playstation Monthly (PSM) gave them both an equal score. Beside that one time (note: ONE review out of, literally hundreds), 2k has been ranked above Live every year from every review.

So really, all that time you spent writing that crap about common denominator and all that meant NOTHING.

[abuC]

Someone on Operationsports.com made a nice comparison, he said and I quote:

Live is Drew Gooden, 2k is Tim Duncan

[adamcz]

That's fair. There's nothing wrong with Gooden, just like there's nothing wrong with Live. If Live were the only game around, it'd be worth playing, and we wouldn't have to give up on playing cyberhoops. But seeing as how 2k exists....

[Los Angeles]

Saying Live is better then 2K series is like claiming FIFA is better then Winning Eleven. Untrue.

[JalenRawley]

*Sigh* Alright, I realize asking people to read is asking a bit too much from you people, so I won’t take that part of things out on anyone too badly. But for f*ck’s sake people, everything is -right- there in front of you, and you still can’t read it, or quote it properly.

Originally Posted by IGOTGAME

Not every1 can get to play people they know in person..They play them online because It can bring someone from Jersey and Cali together for a game...So yeah thats a big deal for me..

I don’t get to play with my friends in person as much as I used to. I now live two hours away from all of my friends back home, and I just haven’t hooked up with anyone else out here who is into basketball the way we all were back home. Occasionally friends visit, and we play here (I do have a (hacked) Xbox, although it’s not a 360, but since I don’t use it for much other than taking it on the road, it’s not updated. In fact, I think only Live 2006 and 2K6 are on it, none of the 2007 games are on it right now), but most of the time I play with friends, I drive into Chicago to play with my buddies at their place. Xbox An 360 on a 61" DLP is hard to beat for gaming fun! They have both Live 2007 and 2K7; we played Live a lot more when it first came out, and after games got to be kind of routine, they picked up 2K7 and we play that a lot more now.

Originally Posted by IGOTGAME

And the games are nothing close to identical..Please tell me how you fix the poor ball and net physics or the funny dunk animations adamcz mentions...or the fact that Live's 08 sig shots look really off... and 2k7s were better and more plentiful last year.

I didn’t say they were identical, I said they were “essentially identical”, meaning that when you boil the games down to their core, they’re both doing the same thing. Neither one is leaps and bounds ahead of the other. For every feature Live has but 2K doesn’t, 2K has a feature that Live doesn’t. When you take the personal subjectivity out of the games, like shot stick vs. crossover stick (neither is better, neither is worse, they’re just different), they basically balance out.

As for the poor ball and net physics and funny dunk animations, 2K has ‘em too ya know. If I had a dollar for every single time my breakaway layup bricked the BOTTOM of the rim or when a player took a fadeaway from a FOOT away from the basket in 2K, I’d buy both franchises and merge ‘em into one good game.

And as for Live 2008's signature shots, neither one of us can comment on them, they’re not out yet. When the game is out, then we can comment on them. Until then, we’re just assuming things that may or may not end up that way. It’s better to get all of the information first, -then- speak.

Originally Posted by RapsFan

I actually found Live to be very slow compared to 2K. There were no fastbreaks in Live at all, so unrealistic.

Game Speed slider. Solves the problem real quick.

Originally Posted by RapsFan

Again, I just can't see how anyone could handle playing Live'07 and not be so pissed off you were charged over $50 for such a piece of **** game. That alone should be enough to at least try 2K.

I rent or download the game and if I like it, I buy it. If I don’t like it, I don’t buy it. I’m never pissed off about spending $50 for a piece of **** game, because I never spend $50 on a piece of **** game. If anyone, anywhere, ever gets pissed off about spending money for a piece of **** game, they should absolutely beat the living hell out of the person to blame: Themselves. Help clean up the gene pool, use a sledgehammer when you beat the hell out of yourself.

One thing people just don’t seem to realize is that NBA Live did something really weird in 2007; the version on the console is -nothing- like the version on the PC. The PC version of Live 2007 looks almost identical to the PC version of Live 2006, with a few minor touchups. So for me, I picked the game up for the PC and played it for a while, wondering what all these people were complaining about. It wasn’t until I played the console version that I realized that it was a -completely- different game. So different, it seemed like a completely different company designed and released it. In my opinion, the PC version of Live 2007, although it’s basically a retouched Live 2006, is far superior to the console version of Live 2007. The major complaints people have about Live just aren’t in the PC version. Having played the console version, if I were a console gamer and stuck with the console version of Live 2007, I still would own both games, but I would probably play 2K more, I just wouldn’t be happy about it. To me, there are a lot of things lacking in the 2K game that should be common sense additions. They’ll come with time, Live has been around for what, 12 years now? 13 if you include NBA Showdown in ‘94? They had a lot more time to do the trial and error thing. Now, if only 2K would come out on the PC!

Originally Posted by adamcz

I didn't read the rest of your post yet, but I just wanted to say I have no idea what you're talking about. There are no graphics settings to change in 2k7; are there in Live?

There definitely are on the PC version of Live 2007. On the console version, I don’t know. I only play the console version at my buddy’s place, and it looks absolutely great there, so I wouldn’t bother with any changes anyway. But then, 2K looks great there as well, so same thing there.

Originally Posted by LJJ

Why do you bother to make such a big argument?

Everything I post is big. Sorry to make you have to read. But it’s not an argument, I’m not arguing any one point. An argument is where two morons slam their heads into walls because neither can realize that both are wrong.

All I’m posting for is because I’m sick and tired of people saying “NBA Live sucks”. No, NBA Live does not suck. NBA 2K does not suck. Just because you don’t like something does not mean that it sucks. Are you people 8 years old? Have none of you learned this lesson yet?

Originally Posted by LJJ

You posted yourself you don't play a lot of videogames, and you only play on your PC. You probably played NBA 2k7 a few times at your buddy's house, and played it on a system you have already expressed a strong disliking for.
But you still try to argue both games are essentially the same.

And here I thought you actually read what was written. I almost got my hopes up.

No, I don’t play a lot of videogames. Of course, what isn’t a lot to me, might be a lot to others and vice versa. I have a handful of games I’m into at any given time, various different genres, some new, some old classics, but on the average I play about five or six different videogames at any given time. It depends on what mood I’m in when I actually have the free time to play. Flight sim, racing, FPS, RTS, MMO, NBA, NFL, etc.

No, I don’t -only- play on my PC. I prefer to play on my PC. I only have one console now, a hacked Xbox. It can’t play on Xbox live because of the hack, but it has a 120gb hard drive in it with 50 or so games loaded on it and the ability to operate as a media center over the network, which is primarily what I use it for.

No, I didn’t “probably” play NBA 2K7 a few times at my buddy’s house. I have played it a LOT at my buddy’s house in Chicago, just like we’ve played a LOT of Live 2007 there. We play quite a bit when I’m up there... let me put it this way; I have my own Xbox 360 controller, but I don’t have an Xbox 360. That’s how much I play.

No, I don’t have a “strong disliking” for any particular system. I actually like the Xbox 360 quite a bit and I really do want one. But I know if I get one, I’ll end up spending a hell of a lot more time on my couch, in front of the TV playing on it than I should.

What I said was that I don’t like console gaming. I don’t like that I can’t fix things that need to be fixed. I don’t like being stuck with certain parameters that I can’t change. Before Xbox Live, game updates just didn’t happen on consoles, and that was a big reason why I didn’t like it, although nowadays that’s changed somewhat. I absolutely refuse to play over the internet with consoles. Consoles are easy to set up, they’re easy to keep running, and they’re easy to connect to other games with. It’s not -that- much more difficult to set up a PC to do the same thing, but lazy or stupid kids can’t or won’t do it, so that helps filter ‘em out. Just by way of that alone, I’m already dealing with a slightly more intelligent player base by gaming on a PC than by gaming on a console.. It’s not much, but it’s something.

Originally Posted by LJJ

I can tell you this:
Those proffesional reviewers, those guys who get payed to play videogames and write their opinions about them. All of them think 2k7 is a lot better. And read their reviews. It's not just because of the features, the graphics, the settings you can change, etcetera.
It's also about the core gameplay.

Those professional reviewers get paid to put out hype stories on certain games over certain other games. And, your mileage will ALWAYS vary. You can go ahead and trust the reviewers for what to play, watch and listen to, I just don’t fit into that lowest common denominator scene. I just don’t trust a review that says “J. Random Game is awesome! 5 stars!” while a few pages afterwards, they’re rating “Barbie’s Dress Up Parade” with 4 stars.

I don’t care what other people think is better. -YOU- shouldn’t care what other people think is better. You should care about what -you- think is the best way to entertain yourself. And what you think is the best way to entertain yourself is NOT what everyone else thinks is the best way to entertain themselves.

Originally Posted by EricForman

“I don't play consoles, because I'm not a couch potato...I play PCs"

So by your very own logic, you would be considered a "computer chair potato" then...

WTF?

Once again, education time. This place is pretty f*cking sad when it comes to reading comprehension. This is like the Louisiana public school system around here.

When you quote people, you should quote what they actually said, not try and paraphrase it so as you completely miss the point of what was said.

So first of all, I never said “I don’t play consoles.” I don’t think I need to clarify why this isn’t correct, as it’s already done so quite loquaciously above. I do play consoles. I have a console. What I said was “I personally do not like console gaming. I don’t like sitting on my couch in front of the TV all of the time, I’m just not a couch potato.”

Do you see how much difference there is between a half-assed assumption of what was said versus what was actually said? Staggering, isn’t it? It’s like two completely different statements! Why yes, that’s because they are.

Did I said that console gamers are couch potatoes? No. Well then, what is a couch potato? A couch potato is someone who sits on the couch in front of the TV for large lengths of time. Gee, didn’t I say that right before I said, “I’m just not a couch potato.” Why yes I did, I thought that sounded familiar. So that would be my “very own” logic.

Did I say anything negative about being a couch potato, like being a couch potato is a bad thing? Did I offend couch potato sensibilities? Not that I saw. Just that I’m not one. It’s not my style.

So am I a computer-chair potato? Definitely. I spend at least eight hours a day in my computer chair here at work, and at least an hour or two a night at home in one there. I also do a lot of side work on my computer; graphic, audio and a tiny smidgen of video production, so I spend more time there than I’d like as it is. On the other hand, I haven’t sat on my couch in a couple weeks, and rarely even go into the front room. I don’t watch television, and I rarely have free time to enjoy movies during the week. Almost every weekend I’m out of town doing a gig or side work.

That’s WTF.

[Sean77]

Originally Posted by RapsFan

I actually found Live to be very slow compared to 2K. There were no fastbreaks in Live at all, so unrealistic.

Again, I just can't see how anyone could handle playing Live'07 and not be so pissed off you were charged over $50 for such a piece of **** game. That alone should be enough to at least try 2K.

My only advice to those who were like I used to be..stubborn....try both. Rent both before buying and give 2K a chance to get used to the new controls and then make your decision.

Co-sign on Live 07, clearly the worst in the series. Year in and out it's always been about Live for me, I played NBA2K5 on up, but all I liked about it was the 24/7 mode(though at 20 or 30 dollars it had me thinking about buying it). I stopped at Live 06, figured I'd give NBA2K7 a try, and it was great for a while. That led me to College Hoops 2K7, and that made me forget about Live 07 AND NBA2K7! If it wasn't for the fact I'll be daddy in December/January, I'd get NBA 2K8 fo sho.

Just last week I rented Live 07, and I couldn't stand it. The flow of the game just stunk. On a fastbreak your AI teammates will go downcourt but won't cut to the basket to save their lives. They'll just hover at the line. What's that about? And the Superstar Freestyle additions are useless. Then they gave individual controls for layups, shooting, and dunks? This game was just too complicated. All they had to do was keep it the way they did with Live 06. And please bring back those graphics engine Live 2004 had, don't know why they changed it on 2005.

...I'm done venting. NBA2K8 will probably be better since Live has been smoking the homegrown since '05. The Freestyle addition in '06 was its last saving grace.

[bdreason]

Sega Sports OWNS EA in every sport game they make.

EA has one thing going for it; Fight Night.

[abuC]

Originally Posted by bdreason

Sega Sports OWNS EA in every sport game they make.

EA has one thing going for it; Fight Night.

Sega hasnt owned Visual Concepts in awhile, it's been 2k sports for some time now.


And, they have a boxing game in developement too.