The ball comes off the rim and the board at weird angles. Why? Well, simply put, rebounding doesn't work. In many ways it's almost a game killer, since even the most patient gamer is likely to be driven momentarily mad by it on occasion. However, I did count around 164 yawns per game, so keep in mind that there's some trade off here for statistical accuracy. In the short season I just wrapped up with my redrafted LA Lakers, I never once scored more than 113 points. You can now play a full 48 minute game and end up with final tallies that are dead-on duplicates of what you'll see on ESPN Sportscenter. This dreary pace seems to have been implemented to keep scoring down. Hang back on killers like Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson and they'll usually just sit there, idly dribbling and waiting for the shot clock to tick down to five or six seconds before attempting to score. Situational play also doesn't seem to get in the way of the computer's preset game plan. Needless to say, witnessing something like this can destroy all of the preceding fun. I've seen the computer lazily in-bound the ball, then wander up the court and not even get a shot off in the dying seconds of a two-point game. The lineup, the score, the time remaining on the clock-none of this seems to matter a whit. You'll want to scream after a few games of seeing your adversaries do nothing but walk the ball up court, over and over again, in all circumstances. These are isolated incidents, but similar ones happen consistently through each and every game.Īll CPU-controlled teams employ a standard, dishwater dull offensive scheme that emphasizes ball control. The computer's Shaquille O'Neal once vanished from a tight contest with seven minutes to go and never returned. Thankfully, the CPU is just as hard on itself. My starting point guard Steve Nash once took a foul five minutes into the first quarter and didn't return until the third. Substitutions make no sense at all - be sure and turn off auto-substitution immediately. The PC drops the ball in virtually every area. There's just an awkwardness to all motion that makes it difficult to really get into the action and really feel like you're taking part in a basketball game.įrom showtime with the Answer to hitting the playground with Vince and Julius.Ĭomputer AI seems dumbed down. It's as easy as it ever was to unintentionally go out of bounds or simply lose control of your player and the ball for a moment or two. This year's game takes us almost back to square one. Last year's game introduced some refinements to this ongoing problem. The NBA Live series has always featured slightly wonky player movement more akin to boots on ice than sneakers on parquet. Gameplay issues, many of which were rectified or seemingly on the way to being rectified last year, strike the gamer like a Karl Malone forearm to the face right after the tip-off. Last year's title was arguably the best ever, though, a fact that magnifies the shortcomings of the new game and makes one think that some sort of opportunity has been squandered here.Okay, It's Just Getting Older Even though the NBA Live brand name has been around for going on a decade now, it's never quite captured basketball as well as it could, or as well as some of the early efforts promised. Both veterans of the long-running series and newcomers will pick out more and more irritating flaws as the number of games played begins to mount. NBA Live 2001 just isn't a rewarding game. Tallying the differences between NBA Live 2001 and NBA Live 2000 are as easy as picking out the elements that distinguish a Backstreet Boys single from one by N'Sync.Īnd just as good a use of your valuable time. You'll have to look close before you'll be able to tell one from the other, and even then the disparities are often subtle. This is a pretty good trick, actually, as for all intents and purposes, it's the exact same game as its predecessor. Read Full Review It's Not Just Getting Older.įor reasons known only to the design team at EA Sports, NBA Live 2001 is not as good as its predecessor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |