Tuesday , Nov , 30 , 1999 C.Y. Ellis


General/Summary: I've stayed away from this game since the PS2 has come along mainly because EA, until recently, has done a poor job of making great games. In that time fortunately the folks at Sega have provided more than enough competition and isn't that free market economy on display...there is nothing greater than competition to produce quality games.

This year we finally have TWO quality games to choose from. While I know this is a review of NBA Live it is hard to deny any comparisons between Live and the 2K series. Having played both games and I will state for the record that I'm a big 2K fan. This years Live has certainly gained some credibility with me. The obvious statements have been made about the differences between these games. The biggest and most common comparison is Live is arcade while 2K is sim. This simply is not true.

The differences in these games are NBA style of basketball circa 1983 versus current NBA style. Anyone who thinks Live is arcade like dosen't have a sense of NBA history. In the late '70's and through the mid-80's NBA games routinely finished with both teams socoring well over a hundred points. I remember in 1983 the game between Detroit and Denver that finished with both teams scoring over 175 points each!!! Back then the NBA was about open and offensive play. Sure defence is important but 20 years ago no one really cared. It was about running the court and getting the easy baskets on the other end.

Todays NBA is all about defence. Players are bigger, faster, stronger and they even play harder but all of that leads to much less scoring. In a nut shell that is the difference between Live and 2K. Live is open, fast and defence is secondary in strategy. In 2K it is much more half court, run your plays to perfection and play good hard defence. Which is better? Thats up to you. If you prefer old-school NBA to modern NBA then Live is your game. IT IS NOT AN ARCADE TITLE.

Read More