The Curious Case of Charles Barkley, and NBA 2K12

[magicman30]

Maybe we as the proud patrons of the greatest basketball game ever NBA 2K11 have to do the unthinkable in order to voice our displeasure in not having Sir Charles in the game .... THREATEN TO NOT BUY THE GAME by FLOODING THEIR FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & 2K FORUMS UNTIL THEY DO SO! see if they & Barkleys camp are able to come up with a compromise then!

[Shade8780]

Quote: Originally Posted by magicman30

Maybe we as the proud patrons of the greatest basketball game ever NBA 2K11 have to do the unthinkable in order to voice our displeasure in not having Sir Charles in the game .... THREATEN TO NOT BUY THE GAME by FLOODING THEIR FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & 2K FORUMS UNTIL THEY DO SO! see if they & Barkleys camp are able to come up with a compromise then!

......no

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by SouthBeach

In theory, 2K COULD make a "generic" player with all of the attributes that they likely would have assigned to "Charles Barkley" without using his likeness; similar to Roster Player in NBA Live '97/'98 etc...right? I doubt 2K would go about implementing Charles Barkley that way though. Just a thought.

I don't know for sure, but I think imitating a player's likeness without their consent has become a little more serious since the 90's. A few years ago I think there was a lawsuit brought about in part by Ed O'Bannon, who felt his likeness was being used by college basketball games without his consent, even though it was a nameless guy who happened to have all his attributes on the '95 UCLA squad. If nothing else, I always figured such a lawsuit scared developers from making any generics even vaguely resemble real players.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/sp...1colleges.html

[23]

Quote: Originally Posted by magicman30

Maybe we as the proud patrons of the greatest basketball game ever NBA 2K11 have to do the unthinkable in order to voice our displeasure in not having Sir Charles in the game .... THREATEN TO NOT BUY THE GAME by FLOODING THEIR FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & 2K FORUMS UNTIL THEY DO SO! see if they & Barkleys camp are able to come up with a compromise then!

Yeah NO

That's just silly

This is not 2ks fault

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[eko718]

Quote: Originally Posted by LAKERSFAN89

97-98 lakers arent the focus its about john stockton whatever great moment he had against them

Stockton had great moments against many teams. There was nothing so significant that he did against this 97-98 Laker squad. They didn't have to include the Lakers, but it seems they wanted to get that Shaq, Kobe combo in there. they could have chosen any other team to play against the Jazz. If they did want the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, there are many other alternatives that would have made more sense significance wise, and in regards to having most/all the players for that team. The 2001-2002 Kings are unlockable with pre-orders. One quite significant series was when those Kings took the 2001-2002 Lakers to 7 games in the Western conference finals. Why not give the Kings a dancing partner in the 2001-2002 Lakers, while simultaneously providing one of the great historical Laker teams with Kobe and Shaq at their peak? Most of those players are in the game, so the team would be well fleshed out and no true significant players would be missing. Nick Van Exel is quite significant to the 97-98 Laker. Kobe didn't even start that year.

[J_Posse]

Quote: Originally Posted by eko718

Agreed. I feel the same way about the article. Those team selections are curious and other team ommisions are also curious...ie: 97-98 Lakers sans Van Exel when any of the 2000-03 Lakers championship teams could have been included instead, not lacking for any / lacking for less significant players.

Van Exel is far from a legend of the NBA and should've been honored to be included. Instead, he probably asked for too much money or disliked the idea of playing a secondary role in the game. It doesn't matter because a version of him is (possibly) still hidden on the disc and could be uncovered by roster editors. We'll see.........

Maybe Van Exel (and Rick Fox) wouldn't come to terms with VC/2K. Anyway, that "Legend Challenge" is for John Stockton, so why would they include one of the Lakers championship teams of the 2000's?

[J_Posse]

Quote: Originally Posted by eko718

Stockton had great moments against many teams. There was nothing so significant that he did against this 97-98 Laker squad. They didn't have to include the Lakers, but it seems they wanted to get that Shaq, Kobe combo in there. they could have chosen any other team to play against the Jazz. If they did want the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, there are many other alternatives that would have made more sense significance wise, and in regards to having most/all the players for that team. The 2001-2002 Kings are unlockable with pre-orders. One quite significant series was when those Kings took the 2001-2002 Lakers to 7 games in the Western conference finals. Why not give the Kings a dancing partner in the 2001-2002 Lakers, while simultaneously providing one of the great historical Laker teams with Kobe and Shaq at their peak? Most of those players are in the game, so the team would be well fleshed out and no true significant players would be missing. Nick Van Exel is quite significant to the 97-98 Laker. Kobe didn't even start that year.

You seem to be missing the point, but it isn't about the Lakers. They used the 1998 Jazz/Lakers because they already had many of the players agreed to previously, that is the same team from Malone's challenge, and that is the team that lost to Chicago for the second time in the Finals. Giving us the '98 Spurs (young Tim Duncan) and Lakers (young Kobe/prime Shaq) is a bonus going against the Jazz. They easily could've gone with the Rockets (sans Barkley) or the Sonics (already included), but they threw current fans of Duncan and Bryant a bone. Thanks for the love shown to two of the greatest ever, VC.

[gccosph]

Won't miss him.