ESPN NBA 2k5 - I'm impressed!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

Okay, I put off buying a basketball game this year because I wasn't
impressed with either game last year. ESPN was just too "stiff" - I.e.
just didn't feel right. EA's Live, was just ridiculously arcadey (fast-
break city).

Well, because ESPN was only $20 and I had the basketball itch, I decided
to use some of my store credit and pick it up. Boy, am I glad I did. I
have the Xbox version and it looks fantastic in 480p widescreen. You can
immediately tell just by looking at the players who they are. The models
are fantastic and the textures are great as well. Not only that, but the
mannerisms for each player seem to be dead-on (I'm not a huge follower
of the NBA, but I do watch games).

More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never played
a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was actually
playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions have
had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default settings.
DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available slider
settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.

As to online play, I haven't really tried it yet, so I can't say how
much fun the game would be online.

Lastly, the 5.1 DD sound is outstanding. It's just like sitting in a
real arena. The sounds of the crowd, the heckling, the squeak of the
sneakers the rumble of the backboard after a dunk, EVERYTHING is dead-
on.

This is the best $20 I have spent on a game in a long time and is
definitely more worth the money than ESPN NFL 2k5 was. If you like NBA
basketball at all, I highly recommend this game.

--
Rob Berryhill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

>
> More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never played
> a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was actually
> playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions have
> had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
> however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default settings.
> DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available slider
> settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.
>

I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments) the
problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a game per
team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.

This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.


Alanb

 

[dementia]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
>
> >
> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never played
> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was actually
> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions have
> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default settings.
> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available slider
> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.
> >
>
> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments) the
> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a game
per
> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
>
> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.

Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
ESPN's graphics are top notch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

In article <5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
>
>
>"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
>news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
>>
>> >
>> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never played
>> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was actually
>> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions have
>> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
>> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default settings.
>> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available slider
>> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments) the
>> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a game
>per
>> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
>>
>> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.
>
>Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
>ESPN's graphics are top notch.
>

ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.

 

[dementia]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BXVcd.4955$SW3.3898@fed1read01...
> In article <5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
> >
> >
> >"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> >news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never
played
> >> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was
actually
> >> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions
have
> >> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
> >> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default
settings.
> >> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available
slider
> >> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments)
the
> >> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a
game
> >per
> >> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
> >>
> >> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.
> >
> >Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
> >ESPN's graphics are top notch.
> >
>
> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.

hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
that has much better graphics and presentation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message
news:t5udnQO1qoF3qOncRVn-qg@suscom.com...
>
> "MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:BXVcd.4955$SW3.3898@fed1read01...
>> In article <5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
>> >news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never
> played
>> >> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was
> actually
>> >> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions
> have
>> >> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
>> >> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default
> settings.
>> >> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available
> slider
>> >> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply
>> >> > amazing.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments)
> the
>> >> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a
> game
>> >per
>> >> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
>> >>
>> >> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.
>> >
>> >Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
>> >ESPN's graphics are top notch.
>> >
>>
>> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
>
> hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
> I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
> that has much better graphics and presentation.
>
>

Where have you seen Live for $50? I picked it up for $35 at Best Buy and it
is no more than 39.99 anywhere else.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message news:<5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>...

> Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
> ESPN's graphics are top notch.

Espn still has much better gameplay if you want to play a more
realistic game of basketball The only problem with ESPN is that it is
getting a little stale and it needs more than just roster updates to
differentiate the newest version from the previous ones.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

>> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
>
> hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
> I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
> that has much better graphics and presentation.
>
>

Live 2005 goes for 35-39 bucks. For the twenty extra bucks, I think Live
2005 is still the better buy.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"brun132001" <brun132001@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> Espn still has much better gameplay if you want to play a more
> realistic game of basketball The only problem with ESPN is that it is
> getting a little stale and it needs more than just roster updates to
> differentiate the newest version from the previous ones.

They can also fix the piss poor way to shoot free throws as well.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[dementia]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NMednWNewdFH3uncRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>
> "dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message
> news:t5udnQO1qoF3qOncRVn-qg@suscom.com...
> >
> > "MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:BXVcd.4955$SW3.3898@fed1read01...
> >> In article <5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never
> > played
> >> >> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was
> > actually
> >> >> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions
> > have
> >> >> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA
2k5,
> >> >> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default
> > settings.
> >> >> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available
> > slider
> >> >> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply
> >> >> > amazing.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider
adjustments)
> > the
> >> >> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a
> > game
> >> >per
> >> >> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
> >> >>
> >> >> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.
> >> >
> >> >Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
> >> >ESPN's graphics are top notch.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
> >
> > hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
> > I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20
game
> > that has much better graphics and presentation.
> >
> >
>
> Where have you seen Live for $50?

"ass"umed.
I borrowed my nephews version, I never looked it up while shopping.
I just saw the 3 for 2 deal advertised for EA titles, so I am going to pick
it up this week.

> I picked it up for $35 at Best Buy and it
> is no more than 39.99 anywhere else.
>
>

 

[dementia]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"brun132001" <brun132001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6042241d.0410182120.210aff13@posting.google.com...
> "dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message
news:<5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>...
>
> > Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
> > ESPN's graphics are top notch.
>
> Espn still has much better gameplay if you want to play a more
> realistic game of basketball

Like most ESPN games, I strongly dislike the AI.
The only place I see ESPN topping EA is with graphics and presentation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

>
> hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
> I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
> that has much better graphics and presentation.

There isnt anything slightly about it. I played about 5 games of ESPN
and just couldnt get into it, I wanted to becasue it looks great!
Just wasnt any fun, I started up Live and fell in love. THis
game(with the proper sliders from Op SPorts) makes this game as
reaslistic as it gets. Im very addicted at this point, thats too bad
becasue in a week ill be moving on to GTA SA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Miles Noe" <davis25@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bd85e77.0410191135.1caa66fb@posting.google.com...
>>
>> hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
>> I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
>> that has much better graphics and presentation.
>
> There isnt anything slightly about it. I played about 5 games of ESPN
> and just couldnt get into it, I wanted to becasue it looks great!
> Just wasnt any fun, I started up Live and fell in love. THis
> game(with the proper sliders from Op SPorts) makes this game as
> reaslistic as it gets. Im very addicted at this point, thats too bad
> becasue in a week ill be moving on to GTA SA!

GTA:SA is the reason I didn't buy Live on release in the first place, I
knew I would just get side tracked so I will just wait and pick it up for a
reasonable price.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

In article <t5udnQO1qoF3qOncRVn-qg@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
>
>
>"MS#1Fanboy-JoJo" <jojo@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:BXVcd.4955$SW3.3898@fed1read01...
>> In article <5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>, bkr.me@u says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
>> >news:wdwcd.255307$MQ5.83308@attbi_s52...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > More importantly, the GAMEPLAY is simply fantastic. I have never
>played
>> >> > a basketball game before that made me feel so much like I was
>actually
>> >> > playing a simulation of the NBA game. Almost all prior renditions
>have
>> >> > had way too many fastbreaks and way too much scoring. ESPN NBA 2k5,
>> >> > however, is realistic on all accounts, even with the default
>settings.
>> >> > DL updated rosters from OperationSports.com and use the available
>slider
>> >> > settings there and you will find the experience to be simply amazing.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't know, I haven't been able to fix (through slider adjustments)
>the
>> >> problem of fouls. Any basketball game that has two or four fouls a
>game
>> >per
>> >> team (and that's stretching it) can't be called a basketball game.
>> >>
>> >> This year I actually prefer Live 2005 over ESPN NBA 2K5.
>> >
>> >Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
>> >ESPN's graphics are top notch.
>> >
>>
>> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
>
>hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
>I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
>that has much better graphics and presentation.
>
>
I sure hope some of these quality corporations take Segas and Codemasters lead
and start coming out with $20 and $30 games too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message news:<puCdnZ2BiKSpZ-ncRVn-rg@suscom.com>...
> "brun132001" <brun132001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6042241d.0410182120.210aff13@posting.google.com...
> > "dementia" <bkr.me@u> wrote in message
> news:<5aCdnRsycdyzlOncRVn-pw@suscom.com>...
> >
> > > Live edges out ESPN in everyway, cept GRAPHICS.
> > > ESPN's graphics are top notch.
> >
> > Espn still has much better gameplay if you want to play a more
> > realistic game of basketball
>
> Like most ESPN games, I strongly dislike the AI.
> The only place I see ESPN topping EA is with graphics and presentation.

I haven't tried this year's NBA live yet, but it had much more
primitive AI in the last few years compared to ESPN. For a long time,
the shot fake was way too effective for players with high offensive
awareness ratings. You can pretty much get a layup everytime if you
fake with an all star level player. Also, in last year's version, you
can score almost everytime by using the jump hop.
ESPN is more frustrating to learn for NBA Live fans, because you can't
going to get a layup every time in ESPN. However, ESPN is the better
game once you learn how to play it, ESPN's gameplay is simply much
deeper than NBA Live's. EGM and Game informer both praise NBA live's
improvements and pointed out ESPN's lack of improvements but they
still say that gameplay in ESPN is better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"John Lemings" <lmngs@msn.com> wrote in message news:<4174c043_4@127.0.0.1>...
> "brun132001" <brun132001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Espn still has much better gameplay if you want to play a more
> > realistic game of basketball The only problem with ESPN is that it is
> > getting a little stale and it needs more than just roster updates to
> > differentiate the newest version from the previous ones.
>
> They can also fix the piss poor way to shoot free throws as well.
>


Yeah, last year's free throw method was pretty terrible. It was hard
to be accurate even with 90% shooters. The method that was used in
previous editions was way too easy, but last year's method was the
exact opposite. I hope they change the free throws shooting method.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message news:<h4Zcd.281776$3l3.106027@attbi_s03>...
> >> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
> >
> > hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
> > I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
> > that has much better graphics and presentation.
> >
> >
>
> Live 2005 goes for 35-39 bucks. For the twenty extra bucks, I think Live
> 2005 is still the better buy.
>
> Alanb

Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live that
is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool but
they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game of
basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've read
suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
gameplay.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

In article <h4Zcd.281776$3l3.106027@attbi_s03>, master@oforion.net says...
>
>>> ESPN edges out Live in the area of price too.
>>
>> hence the reason I own ESPN and not LIVE.
>> I can't see paying $50 for a game that is slightly better over a $20 game
>> that has much better graphics and presentation.
>>
>>
>
>Live 2005 goes for 35-39 bucks. For the twenty extra bucks, I think Live
>2005 is still the better buy.
>
>Alanb
>
>
Maybe so but I picked up ESPN at Fry's Electronics for $13.50 on the day of
release. Live still might be worth the extra for real basketball freaks but
thats not JoJo.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live that
> is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
> I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool but
> they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game of
> basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've read
> suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
> gameplay.

I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and still like
Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact that so
little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix that huge
problem.

Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really tweaked the
sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a choice
between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few fouls.

Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more sliders
that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.

To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more slams and
quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.

All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I got Live
2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably should go
back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.

Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I get
toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.

The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to adjust how
easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be the case
with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a better
free-throw shooter.

Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so than
ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.

Alanb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
than
> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.



But, worth the $30 more?

--

* Novus_
~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~


"Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
news:Hsjdd.287830$3l3.7430@attbi_s03...
>
> > Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live that
> > is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
> > I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool but
> > they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game of
> > basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've read
> > suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
> > gameplay.
>
> I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and still
like
> Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact that so
> little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix that
huge
> problem.
>
> Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really tweaked the
> sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a choice
> between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few fouls.
>
> Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more sliders
> that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.
>
> To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more slams and
> quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.
>
> All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I got
Live
> 2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably should
go
> back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.
>
> Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I get
> toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.
>
> The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to adjust how
> easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be the
case
> with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a better
> free-throw shooter.
>
> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
than
> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
>
> Alanb
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tp7c0F22jm7uU1@uni-berlin.de...
>> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
> than
>> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
>
>
>
> But, worth the $30 more?

Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.

>
> --
>
> * Novus_
> ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
>
>
> "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> news:Hsjdd.287830$3l3.7430@attbi_s03...
>>
>> > Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live that
>> > is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
>> > I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool but
>> > they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game of
>> > basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've read
>> > suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
>> > gameplay.
>>
>> I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and still
> like
>> Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact that so
>> little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix that
> huge
>> problem.
>>
>> Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really tweaked the
>> sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a choice
>> between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few fouls.
>>
>> Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more sliders
>> that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.
>>
>> To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more slams
>> and
>> quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.
>>
>> All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I got
> Live
>> 2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably should
> go
>> back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.
>>
>> Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I get
>> toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.
>>
>> The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to adjust how
>> easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be the
> case
>> with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a better
>> free-throw shooter.
>>
>> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
> than
>> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
>>
>> Alanb
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> > But, worth the $30 more?
>
> Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.


Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?

--

* Novus_
~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~


"Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UKCdncpFB_njMercRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>
> "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2tp7c0F22jm7uU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
> > than
> >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> >
> >
> >
> > But, worth the $30 more?
>
> Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > * Novus_
> > ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
> >
> >
> > "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> > news:Hsjdd.287830$3l3.7430@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >> > Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live
that
> >> > is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
> >> > I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool
but
> >> > they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game of
> >> > basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've
read
> >> > suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
> >> > gameplay.
> >>
> >> I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and still
> > like
> >> Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact that
so
> >> little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix that
> > huge
> >> problem.
> >>
> >> Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really tweaked
the
> >> sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a choice
> >> between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few fouls.
> >>
> >> Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more
sliders
> >> that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.
> >>
> >> To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more slams
> >> and
> >> quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.
> >>
> >> All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I got
> > Live
> >> 2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably
should
> > go
> >> back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.
> >>
> >> Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I get
> >> toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.
> >>
> >> The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to adjust
how
> >> easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be the
> > case
> >> with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a better
> >> free-throw shooter.
> >>
> >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more so
> > than
> >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> >>
> >> Alanb
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

> > > But, worth the $30 more?
> >
> > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
>
>
> Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?


Found the answer. $40 at Wal-Mart.


Okay, so is NBA Live worth $20 more?

--

* Novus_
~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~


"Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tsmf7F22oi4eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > But, worth the $30 more?
> >
> > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
>
>
> Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?
>
> --
>
> * Novus_
> ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
>
>
> "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:UKCdncpFB_njMercRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2tp7c0F22jm7uU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more
so
> > > than
> > >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, worth the $30 more?
> >
> > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > * Novus_
> > > ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
> > >
> > >
> > > "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Hsjdd.287830$3l3.7430@attbi_s03...
> > >>
> > >> > Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live
> that
> > >> > is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From what
> > >> > I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are cool
> but
> > >> > they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game
of
> > >> > basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've
> read
> > >> > suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards to
> > >> > gameplay.
> > >>
> > >> I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and
still
> > > like
> > >> Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact
that
> so
> > >> little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix
that
> > > huge
> > >> problem.
> > >>
> > >> Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really tweaked
> the
> > >> sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a choice
> > >> between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few
fouls.
> > >>
> > >> Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more
> sliders
> > >> that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.
> > >>
> > >> To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more
slams
> > >> and
> > >> quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.
> > >>
> > >> All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I
got
> > > Live
> > >> 2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably
> should
> > > go
> > >> back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.
> > >>
> > >> Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I
get
> > >> toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.
> > >>
> > >> The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to adjust
> how
> > >> easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be
the
> > > case
> > >> with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a better
> > >> free-throw shooter.
> > >>
> > >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more
so
> > > than
> > >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> > >>
> > >> Alanb
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

If having the better game is worth 20 dollars more to you, then yes. If you
can live with mediocrity, pocket the 20 bucks.


"Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2tsmi5F2003quU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > But, worth the $30 more?
> > >
> > > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?
>
>
> Found the answer. $40 at Wal-Mart.
>
>
> Okay, so is NBA Live worth $20 more?
>
> --
>
> * Novus_
> ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
>
>
> "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2tsmf7F22oi4eU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > But, worth the $30 more?
> > >
> > > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?
> >
> > --
> >
> > * Novus_
> > ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
> >
> >
> > "Mattinglyfan" <Estoscacahuates@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:UKCdncpFB_njMercRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2tp7c0F22jm7uU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more
> so
> > > > than
> > > >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But, worth the $30 more?
> > >
> > > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > * Novus_
> > > > ~ Novus_0@hotmail.com ~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Alan Bernardo" <master@oforion.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:Hsjdd.287830$3l3.7430@attbi_s03...
> > > >>
> > > >> > Why? What do you like more about Live? Is there anything in Live
> > that
> > > >> > is better than ESPN, other than the all star activities? From
what
> > > >> > I've read, I think the 3pt and slam dunk contests in Live are
cool
> > but
> > > >> > they are mere diversions. Live would have to offer a better game
> of
> > > >> > basketball before I'll prefer it over ESPN, and most reviews I've
> > read
> > > >> > suggest that Live still has some catching up to do with regards
to
> > > >> > gameplay.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've never even tried the 3 point and slam dunk competitions and
> still
> > > > like
> > > >> Live better. The big killer for me with ESPN NBA 2K5 is the fact
> that
> > so
> > > >> little fouls are called, and slider adjustments do nothing to fix
> that
> > > > huge
> > > >> problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> Live suffers from too many block shots, but I haven't really
tweaked
> > the
> > > >> sliders enough to see if I can remedy that problem. Give me a
choice
> > > >> between the two and I'll take the excessive blocks over too few
> fouls.
> > > >>
> > > >> Another thing that I like about Live is that there are a lot more
> > sliders
> > > >> that can be adjusted when compared to ESPN's game.
> > > >>
> > > >> To me, ESPN plays a bit too slow for basketball. There are more
> slams
> > > >> and
> > > >> quick breaks in Live, similar to what happens in the real game.
> > > >>
> > > >> All I can say is that I had ESPN's 2K5 at least two weeks before I
> got
> > > > Live
> > > >> 2005. Once I got Live, I haven't touched ESPN's game. I probably
> > should
> > > > go
> > > >> back to 2K5, to get a true comparison, but I just can't do it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Finally, Live seems to be a lot harder. Using All-Star in Live, I
> get
> > > >> toasted most of the time; I can't say the same for ESPN.
> > > >>
> > > >> The foul shot routine in Live is also better, with sliders to
adjust
> > how
> > > >> easy or hard you can make the foul shots. Also-- and this might be
> the
> > > > case
> > > >> with ESPN, too-- it's easier to make foul shots in Live with a
better
> > > >> free-throw shooter.
> > > >>
> > > >> Off the top of my head, this is why I like and enjoy Live 2005 more
> so
> > > > than
> > > >> ESPN's 2K5. Live is the better game, IMHO.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alanb
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports (More info?)

"Novus_" <Novus_NOSPAM0@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2tsmi5F2003quU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > But, worth the $30 more?
> > >
> > > Its not $30 more so that question is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > Okay, how much is NBA Live 2005 then?
>
>
> Found the answer. $40 at Wal-Mart.
>
>
> Okay, so is NBA Live worth $20 more?

Any intelligent basketball fan knows the answer to this question. The
answer is no...just like Madden wasn't worth $30 more than ESPN, but
then again there aren't many intelligent Madden fan.