The Difference: 2K vs. Live

Everybody who knows me knows that I spend too much time playing video games. Way too much time, actually, considering I am in grad school and trying to finish up. Let’s set aside the fact that I spend too much time playing these games, and focus on the fact that I have a lot of fun. I’m eternally grateful that I was born in an era with video games, as opposed to an era without them. I can’t even imagine a world without Xbox, Dreamcast, and Nintendo.

So without further ado, I’d like to share some of my thoughts on the two prime basketball series out there: Visual Concept’s NBA2K series and EA’s Live series.

He’s my cred with the two series: I picked up the NBA2k (the original) when I got my Dreamcast back in the day (like…2000?). That game pretty much re-introduced me to video games after a couple of years not really caring that much about any video game other than Goldeneye (great social game). I currently own 2k and 2k1 for the Dreamcast, and 2k3 and 2k5 for the Xbox. As for EA’s Live series, I had a lot of fun with Live-95 back on the Super Nintendo, had Live 99 for the N64, have Live01 for the computer, and I just bought Live 06 (which is prompting these thoughts).

The reality is that EA is the dominant player in all the sports games. The EA Madden series is unbelievable popular, EA Hockey is fantastic, and EA, in general, is the 800 pound gorilla of video games. Sega, once a titanic player as well, is now sliding downwards. Visual Concepts, the actual company that makes these games, is fantastic, however, and can’t be dismissed.

The obvious difference between these games is the visuals. The 2k series looks realistic. The players are recognizable (except Shaq, who everyone portrays as slim for some reason), the motion is fluid, and the lighting is just right. Compared to the 2k series (even from the Dreamcast console), the Live series is absolutely horrible. The menus are boring, the players are horrible, and the whole lighting feels washed out. You aren’t getting a realistic feeling from watching a game on Live 06, as you can from watching 2k5.

The second thing that’s obvious is the gameplay. Both franchises have their problems. The Live06 (like it’s predecessors) simply does not believe in the concept of a post game. The games are played at breakneck pace, with lots of opportunity to slash the lane, hit open threes, and just generally keep moving. I think this is a ‘sorta’ problem, because in real life most games aren’t played with a whole lot of post game, because their aren’t any post players worth crap (unless you play for Miami, San Antonio, Philly with Webber, Memphis with Gasol, and, on good days, Detroit with Rasheed). I mean, the whole point of my post about the Bulls is that they are going to win 30-odd games without anything resembling a post player. Still, the top level of the NBA is played with a post game, and Live doesn’t have it at all. I’ve been playing as the Clippers (with Elton Brand) and I’ve played as the Spurs (TIMMY). You really have to work hard to get the post guys to be important. I just played a game where Brand scored 46 points, but almost all of it was because I’d drive my point into the lane and lay it off, or because he picked up 7 offensive rebounds, or on fast breaks. I think I managed to play the post up game about 4 times in the whole game.

The 2k5 remedies this lack of post game tremendously. Offensive players can pull of hook shots, jump hooks, up-and-unders, spinning fade aways, and do it all with their back to the basket. It actually looks like basketball. This isn’t always the best way to play the game (try that crap with Tyson Chandler and you’ll never score at all), but when you’ve got the right guy (say, Gasol) against a crummy opponent (say, Olawakandi), you’re going to get points. You can also post your guards up (something which never, ever happens in Live) when they are being guarded by smaller guards, something that happens in the NBA all the time.

I don’t want you to think that the post game is the only way to win in 2k5 though. In fact I’m pretty sure it isn’t even the best way to win. The fast breaking, 3-point shooting, wide open game is probably more effective. And there are certainly more players out there who play that 2 guard game (I think I had Q-Rich averaging 22 a game in 2k5 without really trying). The point is that if you’re after a realistically paced NBA game you can’t get it with Live 06 (or at least I haven’t been able to yet).

The next thing to think about is difficulty. This is an area that has continually frustrated me with the 2k series. 2k was decent at this, I didn’t start demolishing the competition until I’d played it for quite awhile. 2k1 was the game where the post play was so dominant that winning was just a matter of dropping it into the post every time down. 2k2 never happened. 2k3 and 2k5 have really sucked in the difficulty department. In 2k3 I found that the only way I could get good competition was to crank the sliders up all the way for the computer. That means every single shot the computer took went in (except half-court heaves), unless I blocked it. I played and entire 82 game season plus playoffs with the opponent sliders at maximum and went 72-10, and never lost in the playoffs. Did I mention I did this with only one guy on my team with a rating over 73? 2k5 is definitely a step in the right direction on this front, but not a huge step. The computer just isn’t very good, I’ve found that even just passing around on offense will always eventually yield a good shot, whether you’re really trying or not.

Now, Live 99 and Live 01 were much better at this, and Live 06 is as well. Beating the computer is not just as easy as picking up the controller. I’ve been very successful, but I’ve had to work at every game I’ve won. I even got blown out in a game, something that hasn’t happened on in basketball game in a long time (NCAA2k5, also fantastic). Maybe I just haven’t gotten the hang of the controls yet (they are definitely different) but I’m not guaranteed a win even thought I’ve got a good team.

So far the games are pretty even. The real difference in the past has been my favorite part of the game: Franchise mode. 2k1 introduced the idea, 2k3 took it to another level (although, again, it was a little easy). Live 01 had a decent franchise mode, but certain cities were just screwed. You could never get a free agent to play in Utah, for example, no matter how much you paid. That’s actually relatively realistic, but made things very difficult. Live 01 also had position-by-position pricing. So at one point I had a franchise with 2 point guards, one with an 81 rating and one with a 71 rating. The Backup PG became a free agent and was asking for a ridiculous amount of money. The reason? There were only 4 point guards in the league with a rating of 71 or above. As a result my backup was a hot commodity. That became a really interesting dynamic, not just in that case, but whenever you start to stockpile talent at a single position. The 2k series has always been really bad about valuing rating above positional value. Other teams will spend 40-50 million dollars on a guy like Steve Nash when they’ve already got Jason Kidd. And they won’t let go of those guys for anything but equal value, even if a less talented player at a key position would greatly improve the team.

Now 2k5 tried to change everything by re-doing the franchise into ‘The Association’ mode. I like the idea. The things they added: Weekly team training, hiring assistant coaches, trainers, and scouts, that whole ‘coaching’ mode. I like the idea, but the problem is that those were all superficial changes, nothing about the other teams’ AI changed. And some of the changes were downright bad. Trade menus don’t show the length of contracts (and there is nowhere to get that information), trade menus don’t access player profiles. The free agent listing isn’t sortable by anything (it is just arrange by position and rating). The whole ‘team chemistry’ idea is just about worthless. The ‘training’ session costs are too high, and players are injured all the time. Basically the 2k5 franchise was painful and easy. Not fun. The gameplay is good, and if you turn off team chemistry and training sessions things become slightly more interesting, but overall I was extremely disappointed.

I bought Live 06 hoping it would be better. In some ways it is: The difficulty is much higher. Each team has specific needs to be addressed. You can’t trade Elton Brand to a team already loaded with big-name bigs, and the Nets aren’t going to sign Steve Nash. The contract negotiations with players take time (you can’t just re-sign a guy in a day unless you’re willing to pay too much). You still have to hire assistant coaches, scouts and trainers, but you have to actually assign them tasks: Who to train, who to scout, who to heal. Other teams also value youth. The Magic aren’t going to trade a young Dwight Howards with a 77 rating for an aging Chris Webber with a 85 rating. Money matters too. You’re not trading an overpaid 77 for an underpaid one unless you’re willing to offer more. Live 06 has problems too though. You can’t trade in the days leading up to the draft, you can’t make trades during the signing period (no sign and trades), the contracts are through the roof (only one team in the whole league I’m in is below the salary cap), so you’ll almost never be able to sign a free agent outright. Another problem is player development: It takes a lot of time. In real life guys like Dwayne Wade and Lebron went from decent to top of the league players in three years. I’ve been in my current league for 4 years now, and I think there is only one ‘drafted’ player with a rating above 80. Maybe I’ve just had bad drafts (that does happen).

What the hell is my conclusion? I’d say my conclusion is that the NBA market is ripe for a new competitor. A few years ago Microsoft had an NBA entry (Inside Drive). The graphics on that were fantastic, the gameplay was unbelievable realistic, almost too realistic, and they had the most amazing player development system any basketball game has ever employed (you had to build guys up by playing them). If they could attach a good franchise mode to that game (and the existing one wasn’t terrible), they could come back with a fantastic product.

---and that’s all the thoughts I’ve got. Still working on putting some quality writing into these posts.

Edit: Can we get a ruling on the stupid, stupid seeding by the NBA? If the playoffs started right now the T-Wolves would get to play the Clipps, while the Mavs (at the 4! seed) would have to play Memphis. The Mavs and Grizz have the 3rd and 4th best records...IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE! How can a .500 ball club get a higher seed than them? That's just asinine!

Edit-2: I think I figured out how to add a picture in here....let's see if it works.