NBA Live 16 Hands-On Preview

[Guapo516]

Quote: Originally Posted by JKSportsGamer1984

I hope 2K adds the dribble handoff. It looks good.

2k had dribble handoffs since at least 14

[Izzy Snow]

Thanks for this nicely written and honest preview. I've stressed many times that the graphics needed the least amount of work. It's the post-game, animations, commentary, and modes that needed the most attention. Based on what I saw so far from E3, two of these have been addressed which are modes and animations (which still needs work). But again, if the post-game is the same, and I know they said they still haven't added animations for post-game, then right now, I honestly cannot take their word for it as they've promised and NOT delivered on past promises before. As for the commentary, I hate to be pessimistic, but I think it'll be the same and that's not a good thing. Even Sean O'Brien basically has said they need their commentary to be like 2K's current one and right now their commentary is on PS2 level and I'm not even trolling.

[Tonyattia]

Quote: Originally Posted by nick_sr

This might be the last year tho lol Westbrook and adidas live run are going to help sales but they need to bring it!!!!!

There isn't a manual control that calls some one over for one though. It's just if your close they have hand off animations. This is a separate control on live like a pick and roll


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigsmallwood]

Great write-up! I'm hopeful for a great NBA Live 16....time will tell

[CaseIH]

I would love if Live actually can finally be competition for NBA2k, but unfortunately I highly doubt that happens. The game does seem to be improving atleast some, so maybe there is hope. If EA really started to push a true sim where Association mode was where all the time was put into to make that there specialty, and get a realistic simulation they will get my full attention. As 2k seems to be going the gimic mode route for the casual gamer, not that the simulation of Association mode is bad in NBA2k, as it still plays a great game, but it no longer seems to be where there concentration is at anymore. It use to be the other way around, and NBA2k was for the hard core basketball fan, but that don't seem to be no longer the case sadly, so if EA starts to focus on realism of Association mode, they will have me back.

[chisportsfan23]

Quote: Originally Posted by CaseIH

I would love if Live actually can finally be competition for NBA2k, but unfortunately I highly doubt that happens. The game does seem to be improving atleast some, so maybe there is hope. If EA really started to push a true sim where Association mode was where all the time was put into to make that there specialty, and get a realistic simulation they will get my full attention. As 2k seems to be going the gimic mode route for the casual gamer, not that the simulation of Association mode is bad in NBA2k, as it still plays a great game, but it no longer seems to be where there concentration is at anymore. It use to be the other way around, and NBA2k was for the hard core basketball fan, but that don't seem to be no longer the case sadly, so if EA starts to focus on realism of Association mode, they will have me back.

Truthfully, and I'm looking at this without any bias, Live is in some ways better than 2k.

Let's break it down

Facial Scans/ Overall accuracy of player appearance

Live 15: It seems to me that live has more accurate facial scans than 2k. Yes some obvious ones aren't present or look off. But imo, just playing games back to back i feel 2k focuses on big name players more and Live covers a wider range of players. Player's that come to mind here are Deandre Jordan, Jamal Crawford, Jared Dudley, Nerlens Noel to name a few that Live has done better than 2k. Skin tones here are another advantage in Live than 2k. Best example here is Lebron James. James in a lot of ways looks better in Live 15 than 2k15. James is far too light in 2k15 and they widened his jaw a bit too much in 15, i felt James looked far better in 2k14 than 15.

2k15: 2k struggles in this category for one simple reason, they tend to over do it in the detail. Players that come to mind are Kemba Walker, Embiid, they have this weird discoloration in their face as a way to look detailed and accurate, but imo it just looks off. Also, 2k doesn't face scan everyone. And when they don't it's obvious. Players that don't get faced scanned tend to look flat faced. Good example here is Deron Williams, Crawford, and Dudley.

In this category it's closer than people act like it is.

Overall Jersey color and accuracy

Live 15: This area is a strength of Live and more so in Live 16. Yes, the jerseys are loose in 15. But let's talk about two things here. Fluidity with player movement and colors. Let's look a few examples here, Cavs alternate blue AND yellow. Bucks, alternate red. Come to mind, that actually look more accurate on Live 15 than 2k15. If you look particularly at the Cavs blue alts. on both games. While yes, 2k is much more vivid, it's not particularly accurate. Live 15 presents a darker deep blue that's more real life than 2k.

2k15: As i mentioned, 2k presents more vivid colors. But not always entirely accurate. Sometimes colors need to be darker, and 2k's lighting doesn't allow for a realistic representation of some jerseys. A clear advantage in both 2015 games is the jersey fit in 2k, but that appears to be disappearing as it looks like Live 16 fixes this.

Obviously as it stands 2k is still superior than Live, but the advantages are dwindling down at a terrific pace. As far as gameplay is concerned 2k wins. Animations, 2k wins. But imo 2k can easily suffer from TOO MANY animations. What's interesting here is that 2k appears to be taking it easy on internal things with every new release, focusing more on getting MJ on a cover, or getting a big name to help widen their reach with publicity. While Live and the team behind it comes across as a team with a chip on their shoulder after so many awful basketball games. It's a great time to be a nba video game fan that's for sure.

[sarlndr]

I got the digital copy of Live last year day one. I'll put off getting the game this year until it's been out for at least a month. We've all heard this talk from EA before and I'm not saying that I don't believe what they say but i take it with a grain of salt. I actually hope that Live 16 shows a marked improvement over last years game. If not I'll give 2k a shot. I haven't played a 2k game in 4 years.

@chisportsfan23: I have to agree with 2k's color palate being off. It was that way in their MLB games as well. Especially with blues and reds. EA has has a problem with their darker colors looking washed out.

[CaseIH]

Quote: Originally Posted by chisportsfan23

Truthfully, and I'm looking at this without any bias, Live is in some ways better than 2k. Let's break it down Facial Scans/ Overall accuracy of player appearance Live 15: It seems to me that live has more accurate facial scans than 2k. Yes some obvious ones aren't present or look off. But imo, just playing games back to back i feel 2k focuses on big name players more and Live covers a wider range of players. Player's that come to mind here are Deandre Jordan, Jamal Crawford, Jared Dudley, Nerlens Noel to name a few that Live has done better than 2k. Skin tones here are another advantage in Live than 2k. Best example here is Lebron James. James in a lot of ways looks better in Live 15 than 2k15. James is far too light in 2k15 and they widened his jaw a bit too much in 15, i felt James looked far better in 2k14 than 15. 2k15: 2k struggles in this category for one simple reason, they tend to over do it in the detail. Players that come to mind are Kemba Walker, Embiid, they have this weird discoloration in their face as a way to look detailed and accurate, but imo it just looks off. Also, 2k doesn't face scan everyone. And when they don't it's obvious. Players that don't get faced scanned tend to look flat faced. Good example here is Deron Williams, Crawford, and Dudley. In this category it's closer than people act like it is. Overall Jersey color and accuracy Live 15: This area is a strength of Live and more so in Live 16. Yes, the jerseys are loose in 15. But let's talk about two things here. Fluidity with player movement and colors. Let's look a few examples here, Cavs alternate blue AND yellow. Bucks, alternate red. Come to mind, that actually look more accurate on Live 15 than 2k15. If you look particularly at the Cavs blue alts. on both games. While yes, 2k is much more vivid, it's not particularly accurate. Live 15 presents a darker deep blue that's more real life than 2k. 2k15: As i mentioned, 2k presents more vivid colors. But not always entirely accurate. Sometimes colors need to be darker, and 2k's lighting doesn't allow for a realistic representation of some jerseys. A clear advantage in both 2015 games is the jersey fit in 2k, but that appears to be disappearing as it looks like Live 16 fixes this. Obviously as it stands 2k is still superior than Live, but the advantages are dwindling down at a terrific pace. As far as gameplay is concerned 2k wins. Animations, 2k wins. But imo 2k can easily suffer from TOO MANY animations. What's interesting here is that 2k appears to be taking it easy on internal things with every new release, focusing more on getting MJ on a cover, or getting a big name to help widen their reach with publicity. While Live and the team behind it comes across as a team with a chip on their shoulder after so many awful basketball games. It's a great time to be a nba video game fan that's for sure.

Personally graphics is the last thing I worry about when it comes to games, now days all sports games are solid in that area. I want gameplay and a realistic simulation of the sport Im playing, and that's the area where EA has always lacked by a large margin with basketball. I have no reason at all to favor either 1 of these companies, they both have been shady and untruthful over the years, so I will gladly buy the best game made.