Don Bradman 14

[GuyFromLancs]

So basically like BLC 99, except cricket games stayed at about the same level?

I think BL99 worked better given its own relative limitations than most (if not all) the cricket games that came after.

 

[Riggins]

Me and some mates still play Ricky Ponting Cricket 07 on the old xbox. Always Pakistan vs. Australia, Damp conditions on a green track. Test difficulty. Leap and Ahkti are both absolutely unplayable and the Macgrith vs Shame backups are impossible to score off but don't take many wickets. 30 runs for the team is a great total and matches are an absolute blast.


Akti gets it up to 169 kph if you get it perfect and the un-readable slower balls clocks around 65kph. Difficult to adjust to say the least.

 

[andyc]

Me and some mates still play Ricky Ponting Cricket 07 on the old xbox. Always Pakistan vs. Australia, Damp conditions on a green track. Test difficulty. Leap and Ahkti are both absolutely unplayable and the Macgrith vs Shame backups are impossible to score off but don't take many wickets. 30 runs for the team is a great total and matches are an absolute blast.


Akti gets it up to 169 kph if you get it perfect and the un-readable slower balls clocks around 65kph. Difficult to adjust to say the least.

I played a lot of RPIC 05, sounds like I didn't miss many changes for 07 then.

 

[Langeveldt]

The EA games always used to struggle working out what was a "good ball", I think. You could get a delivery that was perfect in terms of line and length and belt it away for 6, but at other times leg stump half-volleys would be unplayable. A lot of the time you suspected that the game was coded by people who didn't really understand the sport.

Similarly, it wouldn't really make a difference whether a ball was good or not, since a forward defensive shot would keep out literally everything and only result in an edge once in a million deliveries.

I've never bowled an EA batsman with a good length ball from a quick bowler. Which for me makes their games useless

 

[Langeveldt]

I think BL99 worked better given its own relative limitations than most (if not all) the cricket games that came after.

One massive flaw with BL99 which makes the game absolutely unplayable for me is that all the batsman are exactly the same.. Just as easy to get a 50 with McGrath as Tendulkar..

Such basic stuff

 

[Maximas]

Me and some mates still play Ricky Ponting Cricket 07 on the old xbox. Always Pakistan vs. Australia, Damp conditions on a green track. Test difficulty. Leap and Ahkti are both absolutely unplayable and the Macgrith vs Shame backups are impossible to score off but don't take many wickets. 30 runs for the team is a great total and matches are an absolute blast.


Akti gets it up to 169 kph if you get it perfect and the un-readable slower balls clocks around 65kph. Difficult to adjust to say the least.

I used to like using the faster ball for off spinners, Murali could get it up to 120kph iirc, meanwhile some fast bowlers in the game maxed out around the same mark

 

[nightprowler10]

Was that the game where Craig White would trod up to the crease and bowl a 100 mph blinder?

 

[sledger]

I've never bowled an EA batsman with a good length ball from a quick bowler. Which for me makes their games useless

Yeah, precisely. You could only ever get a batsman out clean bowled if you bowled a yorker/full toss. Stupid.

I remember on EAC 2000 if you were bowling with a spinner you could actually bowl so slowly that the ball would stop on the pitch. The game would then just remain static, unless you were playing a 2 player game, in which case the only way you could get it going again was to get the batsmen to attempt a run.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

One massive flaw with BL99 which makes the game absolutely unplayable for me is that all the batsman are exactly the same.. Just as easy to get a 50 with McGrath as Tendulkar..

Such basic stuff

Are you 100% on that?

Each batsman had the prefixes 'agressive, moderate or defensive' and 'upper, middle and lower' order, together with a batting average accurate to about 1998.

Did all this mean nothing? The bowlers certainly had different abilities

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah, precisely. You could only ever get a batsman out clean bowled if you bowled a yorker/full toss. Stupid.

I remember on EAC 2000 if you were bowling with a spinner you could actually bowl so slowly that the ball would stop on the pitch. The game would then just remain pstatic, unless you were playing a 2 player game, in which case the only way you could get it going again was to get the batsmen to attempt a run.

That is mental! How easy could they have written a piece of code that gave a no-ball if no conclusion was reached in say 10 seconds.

It beggars belief stuff like that can pass quality control

 

[sledger]

That is mental! How easy could they have written a piece of code that gave a no-ball if no conclusion was reached in say 10 seconds.

It beggars belief stuff like that can pass quality control

To be fair, it didn't happen every time you tried to bowl slowly with a spinner, but it would happen on occasion with really poor bowlers. But still, yeah, these sorts of issues would never have seen daylight if the game had been properly tested.

Just ties back to my earlier point about these games being coded by people who don't really understand the sport.

 

[andyc]

Was that the game where Craig White would trod up to the crease and bowl a 100 mph blinder?

Think that was RP/BLIC 2005.

 

[Top_Cat]

Biggest aspect missing from cricket games since the NES/SNES versions has been fun. Mind you, cricket games fans seems to be the only ones who insist their game be a perfect simulator. Fans of other sports games don't seem too bothered if the game compromises some aspects of accuracy for fun, as they all do.

 

[benchmark00]

Biggest aspect missing from cricket games since the NES/SNES versions has been fun. Mind you, cricket games fans seems to be the only ones who insist their game be a perfect simulator. Fans of other sports games don't seem too bothered if the game compromises some aspects of accuracy for fun, as they all do.

What do you mean?

 

[uvelocity]

everybody knows lakers v celtics and the nba finals was the best bball game ever made

 

[Langeveldt]

Biggest aspect missing from cricket games since the NES/SNES versions has been fun. Mind you, cricket games fans seems to be the only ones who insist their game be a perfect simulator. Fans of other sports games don't seem too bothered if the game compromises some aspects of accuracy for fun, as they all do.

Not buying that.. When you compare the lastest NFL and Baseball releases and compare them to Ashes cricket 2013 where often the bowler bowls in the wrong direction? I think we are well within our rights to demand some realism and authenticity.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Biggest aspect missing from cricket games since the NES/SNES versions has been fun. Mind you, cricket games fans seems to be the only ones who insist their game be a perfect simulator. Fans of other sports games don't seem too bothered if the game compromises some aspects of accuracy for fun, as they all do.

This former Wimbledon Champion agrees

 

[sledger]

Not buying that.. When you compare the lastest NFL and Baseball releases and compare them to Ashes cricket 2013 where often the bowler bowls in the wrong direction? I think we are well within our rights to demand some realism and authenticity.

Yeah, I think the majority of titles released these days are considered to be "sports sims" rather than "games". As you allude to, most of the recent EA NFL or FIFA titles are marketed on the basis that they're uber realistic.

I don't think there is anything unique about cricket fans poring for greater realism in cricket games, it's just that cricket games are, or at least have been, particularly bad at delivering it.

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, if all you want is a laugh and enjoyable game you play something like Stick Cricket. Games you spend £40 on for the console you expect to at least be somewhat realistic and accurate...

 

[nightprowler10]

Biggest aspect missing from cricket games since the NES/SNES versions has been fun. Mind you, cricket games fans seems to be the only ones who insist their game be a perfect simulator. Fans of other sports games don't seem too bothered if the game compromises some aspects of accuracy for fun, as they all do.

Nah, EA's NBA Live games were fun but eventually went off the market because they didn't feel like basketball after a decade of mediocrity. 2K sports on the other hand sell millions of copies of their NBA games because they try to make the playmaking and defense as realistic as possible. They hardly ever succeed but their marketing is based on the fact that their gameplay is realistic. They even pride themselves on nailing the realism on their classic games from the 60s till today.