Reply With Quote
Video games huh? They should just rate the players by ringcount:
Kobe: (5)
Duncan: (4)
Wade: (3)
and a bunch of whatevers with (2).
Video games huh? They should just rate the players by ringcount:
Kobe: (5)
Duncan: (4)
Wade: (3)
and a bunch of whatevers with (2).
So Derek Fisher is as good as Kobe on the game...got it.
uva lot more interesting than your other posts.
I miss the player ratings of old-school NBA live games, where only few players were above 80 and most below 70. Like a player with an overall rating of 65 could be a solid starter or a 6th man on a playoff team. Games were much more realistic and much funnier to play back then imho
Which is why I still have my NBA Live games on my hdd from years back, only the true stars have good ratings and scrubs are scrubs. How the is Harden rated above Curry? lol.
my favorite NBA game ever as far as gameplay was NBA Live 2004 (with Vince on the cover). except i was irate when i saw the player/team ratings. the spurs who were the reigning champs when the game came out had a team rating of 84, remarkably average. the Nets, who we had JUST beaten in the finals, were rated 86. the lakers had just picked up malone/payton were rated 93. Duncan was the only player on the Spurs rated above 70 (was at 91). i still remember the ratings because i go to a buddy's house and we still play the out of that game all the time. Duncan coming off an MVP/Finals MVP season where he outplayed Shaq in the playoffs en route to dethroning the 3 time champs was rated 91 whereas Kobe, Garnett, Shaq, and TMAC were all rated higher than him
Coming from a guy that uses that same overused formula and fails to emulate a ST legend. Swing and miss per usual
I still play NBA Live 05 on my homie's old PS2 from time to time and rapist (who totally collapsed in the Finals) was rated higher than Duncan, KG has an insane 97 or 98 rating in that game. Some superstar ratings are screwed but at least rookies and role players aren't ranked in the 80s, tbh.my favorite NBA game ever as far as gameplay was NBA Live 2004 (with Vince on the cover). except i was irate when i saw the player/team ratings. the spurs who were the reigning champs when the game came out had a team rating of 84, remarkably average. the Nets, who we had JUST beaten in the finals, were rated 86. the lakers had just picked up malone/payton were rated 93. Duncan was the only player on the Spurs rated above 70 (was at 91). i still remember the ratings because i go to a buddy's house and we still play the out of that game all the time. Duncan coming off an MVP/Finals MVP season where he outplayed Shaq in the playoffs en route to dethroning the 3 time champs was rated 91 whereas Kobe, Garnett, Shaq, and TMAC were all rated higher than him
Coming from a guy who responds to every single one of my posts.
Spurs won ships by teamwork, which wasn't displayed in the team's rating imho. Spurs overall rating was lower than many teams (mavs for example, and the Kings as well) in old version NBA live games but if you play the dynasty mode you should find the spurs could easily win nearly 70 games in the regular season, which the likes of Kings and mavs could hardly manage without making any scrubs-for-treasure trades.
Last edited by Rogue; 09-17-2013 at 09:06 AM.
Yea every single one right. I spend my life here frantically using the search tool. Gotta make sure every post you make was quoted by me. For once you are finally entertaining. But still a swing and miss per usual
D Rose 92. Lol.
we need to get another spurstalk league going this year
Kirby at 93. Does it factor the achilles?
And people believe there is no bias
Can't wait for the spurs ratings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
