NBA Live 15 - 20 Things You Need To Know About the Game

[Rockie_Fresh88]

Quote: Originally Posted by jyoung

All the way up to the day of its release, NBA Live 14 was marketed as an "amazing" and "revolutionary" basketball game. EA only started backing off their unrealistically lofty view of NBA Live 14 once all of the negative feedback started coming in from people who had actually played the final product. EA At E3: "Powered by the EA SPORTS IGNITE engine, NBA LIVE 14 will deliver the ultimate on-the-court control. Utilizing its new BounceTek technology, NBA LIVE 14 will introduce a revolutionary new physics-based dribbling system." In reality: BounceTek looked awkward and controlled clunkily due to poor animation blending. Ball warping and "yo-yo dribbling" were also still in the game, despite EA's claims that Live 14 would be "releasing the ball to physics." The game even had trouble consistently detecting when the ball was being dribbled on the out-of-bounds line. EA At E3: "NBA LIVE players will evolve throughout the season with updates from every NBA game within one hour of a game’s final buzzer. Gamers will now have a new experience every time they pick-up the controller." In reality: Only 16 of the 30 NBA teams and 32 of the 428 players had been updated at all as of February 24, 2014. Ratings were barely being adjusted, and injuries and trades weren't being processed until weeks after they happened in real life. Many players were wearing the wrong accessories, and some even had the wrong skin color (Nate Wolters). EA at E3: "I can't reveal our entire feature set, or show you just how good 5-on-5 gameplay is starting to play and just how amazing our visuals are coming together this early in the summer. But that will come." In reality: The visuals were the worst of any retail game on the PS4, and the gameplay was full of bugs and exploits. The online play was also the worst of any game on the PS4, with lag that even the Dreamcast's 56K modem would be ashamed of.

Lmaoo yeah that's some overhyping . I still enjoyed it but then again I didn't pay 60$ for it either .

[Live2K]

Lol what company markets their product with bad info? Did 2k tell gamers that VC sucks and game modes don't work? EA was very clear in that they wanted people to play the game first. That this was a foundation with a commitment going forward. Apparently there was such a demand that they released the game.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Live2K

Lol what company markets their product with bad info? Did 2k tell gamers that VC sucks and game modes don't work? EA was very clear in that they wanted people to play the game first. That this was a foundation with a commitment going forward. Apparently there was such a demand that they released the game.

That doesn't even address the point people are making. U don't have to market the bad things about ur game. U should be truthful about what ur game is and what u plan to do. The game wasn't revolutionary and the bouncetek tech was buggy. They didn't provide any of the promised updates they said they would.

[The 24th Letter]

Quote: Originally Posted by Live2K

Lol what company markets their product with bad info? Did 2k tell gamers that VC sucks and game modes don't work? EA was very clear in that they wanted people to play the game first. That this was a foundation with a commitment going forward. Apparently there was such a demand that they released the game.

Let's not side step now, lol....The point of any of that being brought up was to disprove the idea that the NBA Live team promoted the game as a product that wasn't ready....they didn't...

[23]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Huh? It was totally marketed as a revolutionary game. JYoung listed the E3 comments and there was no "this is Year 1 and we know we wont have the best game" talk. **** the Live website says this: Players perform more like their real-life counterparts than ever before, informed by 70+ stats and tendencies, updated not monthly, weekly or daily, but within 1-hr of every NBA game. With fresh content and challenges on a daily basis, NBA LIVE 14 delivers the pulse of the NBA…24/7/365.. And we know that didnt happen. **** even if you want to give them a pass on not being a complete or solid video game, how can you give them a pass for not coming through on promised features? Look I was the first one on OS who had the game and I bought it expecting the game to be subpar especially when EA didnt release many videos before release. I took one for the team and was eager to play another NBA game. Also, having a demo doesnt excuse releasing a subpar game especially when EA promised patches to greatly improve the game and only one came. Finally, I'm not saying that anyone cant be happy or encouraged about the game. I just question anyone using the words of a Live dev as reason to get excited when they openly admit releasing a subpar game and not living up to promises they made last year. Now if I see gameplay videos that show the improvements, I can completely see the excitement.

I totally forgot about that.. here is the thread just in case.

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...g-1am-est.html

It just makes me think how exciting that time was because the new systems had just released and we were actually able to stream games almost immediately.

[CMH]

Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different.

I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year.

Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet.

You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous.

What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses.

The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

[The 24th Letter]

Quote: Originally Posted by CMH

Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different. I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year. Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet. You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous. What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses. The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

Jyoung. who posted the press releases, was frequent in this forum all year sharing his experiences in UT and other modes...

I've contributed to the video/ picture thread and played frequently up until the news that there was no patch to approach gameplay,,,

It's the same story with a lot of us..

So you can take the "oh, you guys just want to bash Live" stance if you want, but fact is, we played the game longer than yourself being that you returned it quickly..

The game had some things going for it...which I am sure is the reason air of us...("bashers" I guess?) played it as long as we did. Just not going to turn a blind eye of the obvious...and not sure why anyone unbiased would.

All good though...

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by CMH

Yes, the game was marketed to the masses in press releases as a revolutionary game. I don't think any of us would have expected any different. I should have been clearer in saying that the team that came to us on the forums knew there were issues and spoke about wanting to improve the product. There were interviews where the Live producers stated they knew they were not NBA 2K and did not expect to be NBA 2K in their first year. Is that contradictory to the press releases? Of course. And my point is that if you read the press releases and expected the game to be revolutionary, you have yourself to blame because the producers stated they weren't there yet. You guys have short memories is all this really is. But to come back with press releases like you expected the marketers to flat out say "This game sucks so don't buy it," is flat out ridiculous. What I've learned is one simple thing: there's no adult conversation to be had here about Live because the immediate reaction is to slam it. And that's fine but I know the cards are stacked against someone like me trying to actually take the unbiased approach. I played both titles and thought both had their strengths and weaknesses. I also returned both titles rather quickly after purchase for the weaknesses. The major difference here is I speak from a position in the middle while most of you guys speak from a position of dubiousness. That's fine, but I can't have a conversation with you guys if that's going to be the case.

Thats offensive and a huge assumption. A bias accusation doesnt even make sense. We are quoting back what devs said. This is what they said at E3. Those werent all press release lines. How is it showing bias by quoting what a Live dev said?

Speaking personally, my track record shows that I'm not biased. I bought Live before anyone else did and I held onto it longer than I shouldve. Even rented it again after seeing guys like WTF rave about how much the game improved. I just didnt enjoy the game. On the flip side, I was one of the first guys bashing 2k for its crappy GM mode, the lack of dynasty options, overuse of VC and how buggy the game was.

I like competition but I call it like I see it. Neither game made me happy last year and I havent seen any gameplay videos from either game so I cant speak to that. What I have is one game showing me improvements to features I care about and another one saying that they arent adding anything to Dynasty mode. What the Live devs have said is that they greatly improved the gameplay......but with Gameplay its show dont tell.

Finally, this has been a very "adult" conversation. People like 24th and JYoung have supported every argument they've made. Just because people dont agree with you doesnt mean they are biased.