-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Cricket 2005 v BLIC 2005
- Thread starter James
- Start date
cric_manic
First Class Debutant
I mite just buy both
tonyredmonduk
Cricket Spectator
EA fail to deliver........ AGAIN!!
Having convinced myself that EA would finally produce a cricket game of a high standard after, what I felt was a v good game in EAC2004, I can report that this game, in my opinion is quite simply awful. here is why:
1. Batting is a farce its almost impossible to nudge the ball around for ones and twos. Its all or nothing, this size of the outfields are a joke as well miles too small.
2. Bowling is also just like all the previous games, ALL the quicks have the slingy action of fidel Edwards v unrealistic! and murali has such an orthodox action Jim Laker and Robert Croft would be pround of it!
3. The AI in the game is no better than 2004, stupid field settings. Generated one day matches give v unrealistic scores, for example Aus 244/all out Pakistan 203/4 from 50 overs???? No account is made of a batsmans actual style ie Adam Gilchrist 45runs from 86 ball in an ODI! The fielders are miles too quick they throw at warp speed 10. If anybody manages to run a 3 on this game I would love to hear about it!
4. The comentary is an insult to anyones intelligence! God bless Ritchie B, great man, great player, great pundit but in this game you just want rip your own arm off and beat him and his side kick around the head with it just to shut him up!
5. The LBW decisions are a farce, the comp always appeals for balls which are going a mile dowm the legside and sometimes they get given. All the flaws and bugs which you have all seen in the demo, which you all assumed would not feature in the game?? THEY DO!
6. The replays are far to quick and you have to **** about with every button on your pad for 5 mins before you watch a blur of white and green which gives you a migrane!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not waste your money on this heap of S**T. Im not someone who always has a go at EA and I felt EA 2004 was a good cricket sim and miles better than 2002. And therefore, I was hoping this would be much better than 2004 in which case it would have been a belter. But its not! You have been warned
Having convinced myself that EA would finally produce a cricket game of a high standard after, what I felt was a v good game in EAC2004, I can report that this game, in my opinion is quite simply awful. here is why:
1. Batting is a farce its almost impossible to nudge the ball around for ones and twos. Its all or nothing, this size of the outfields are a joke as well miles too small.
2. Bowling is also just like all the previous games, ALL the quicks have the slingy action of fidel Edwards v unrealistic! and murali has such an orthodox action Jim Laker and Robert Croft would be pround of it!
3. The AI in the game is no better than 2004, stupid field settings. Generated one day matches give v unrealistic scores, for example Aus 244/all out Pakistan 203/4 from 50 overs???? No account is made of a batsmans actual style ie Adam Gilchrist 45runs from 86 ball in an ODI! The fielders are miles too quick they throw at warp speed 10. If anybody manages to run a 3 on this game I would love to hear about it!
4. The comentary is an insult to anyones intelligence! God bless Ritchie B, great man, great player, great pundit but in this game you just want rip your own arm off and beat him and his side kick around the head with it just to shut him up!
5. The LBW decisions are a farce, the comp always appeals for balls which are going a mile dowm the legside and sometimes they get given. All the flaws and bugs which you have all seen in the demo, which you all assumed would not feature in the game?? THEY DO!
6. The replays are far to quick and you have to **** about with every button on your pad for 5 mins before you watch a blur of white and green which gives you a migrane!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not waste your money on this heap of S**T. Im not someone who always has a go at EA and I felt EA 2004 was a good cricket sim and miles better than 2002. And therefore, I was hoping this would be much better than 2004 in which case it would have been a belter. But its not! You have been warned
Hazza
U19 Cricketer
BLC all the way!
Im just going to pre-order BLC. From what i've seen from the demos and videos, the graphics are good and the batsmen have slight variations in their movement depending on who they are (for example, Steve Harmison takes a half stride to Brett Lee, whereas Strauss gets three-quaters to a full length stride). Furthermore, I am sure there are different actions for different bowlers. From the video, Ntini bowles wide of the crease with a bustly, quick action, and James Franklin bowles with a much more technically- correct action. I also like the idea of the batsmen using their own bats (Like Fleming wielding his Gunn and Moore)
Lastly, I have found that the average review score for C2k5 is about 62%, and BLC 82+%
Im just going to pre-order BLC. From what i've seen from the demos and videos, the graphics are good and the batsmen have slight variations in their movement depending on who they are (for example, Steve Harmison takes a half stride to Brett Lee, whereas Strauss gets three-quaters to a full length stride). Furthermore, I am sure there are different actions for different bowlers. From the video, Ntini bowles wide of the crease with a bustly, quick action, and James Franklin bowles with a much more technically- correct action. I also like the idea of the batsmen using their own bats (Like Fleming wielding his Gunn and Moore)
Lastly, I have found that the average review score for C2k5 is about 62%, and BLC 82+%
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just downloaded BLIC 2005 demo and here's my take on it;
Batting is great fun. On the demo the difficulty is set onto 'County' so it's pretty easy to hit the ball around but the shots looks great whether lofted or hit along the ground and I think it's neat to be able to control the 'defensive' strokes to the point where you can actually look for the quick single! Good Lord, what an innovation!!!
Shots hit along the ground actually DO go somewhere! But yeah, most importantly, shots all 'round the wicket are actually useful, not just one or two of them. And being able to deliberately hit the ball behind square on either side of the wicket was another thing this has over EA. I mean, there are gaps galore in EA behind square on the off and on sides but if the shots can't be played there, it's somewhat pointless.
Hitting the ball in the air is very easy on the demo (for the above mentioned reason) but you can tell that were the difficulty ramped up a bit, you'd mis-time a lot more balls in the air so you'll have to be judicious, just like any cricket game should.
I was SHOCKED to discover that I didn't miss the lack of choice between back-foot/front-foot play. I thought it was an amazing innovation in EA Cricket 2002 but again, when it doesn't matter whether you play the shot off the front/back foot (the ball still just dribbles straight to the fielders), the diversity between back/front foot becomes completely redundant. BLIC have dispensed with what has turn-out to be a useless feature and the game is better for it. It's fantastic to be able to score runs off the lofted, attacking AND defensive shots, like there are actually three levels of power. Much better control than EA which is either 'smack it or block it' with no room for the subtle cricket shots, like the run down to third-man (yes EA has one but like the leg-side dribble, errrr I mean glance, it goes nowhere) or the little nurdle for 2 around the corner (which EA doesn't have) or the tap between the fielders on the leg-side for 2 (or THREE!!!!!! MY GOD!!!), etc. The shots look more realistic too, other than the back-foot leg-side shots (I basically played a paddle which landed in the second-tier of the grandstand, although I'm sure that's a function of the difficulty level).
It really affects the fun level of a game when you supposedly have all of these shots but only a couple are useful. You SHOULD be able to straight drive down the ground, flick the ball off the hip through and behind square, guide the ball down to third man, cut and late-cut for 4 because this happens in the real game. In EA, these are all treated as defensive shots (or, like the cut, you NEVER get the chance to play them) so what's the point? In BLIC, you actually can play these shots and get runs. In my opinion, having less shots but being able to play them all far outweights have a bunch of shots which are useless.
Bowling; EA lifted it's game significantly in this and is tough to compete with. The ball physics seem to be more accurate in EA Cricket (the fast bowlers in EA cricket make the ball really shoot through to the 'keeper' whereas not so in BLIC) but they're definitely only slightly off in BLIC. And with the faster bowlers, the difference is marginal anyway. Bowling yorkers seems pointless on BLIC but then again, I think this is difficulty level more than anything else.
Bowling variation is about as much as both games as each other but in different ways. You get more different types of delivery in EA but in BLIC you control swing and actually get drift. Either way, they're both good in this regard although, again, the physics of bounce seems more accurate in EA.
Fielding; BLIC will likely win hands down. Fielding EA is awkward and stupid and there's no errors except those which the CPU randomly throws in. BLIC, on the other hand, seems to have really done some good work here; there's actually the pontential to drop a catch or miss a run-out if you don't get the fielding meter right. What I'm saying is, there's actually some scope to work at and get better at fielding here. It's actually pretty minor but it's enough to affect whether you catch or drop a ball. Great stuff. Again, prize for looking after the 'little' things.
Presentation; the menus are better-looking, less awkward to use and the little things like graphics when a new bowler comes on or when a batsman hits a 4/6 are better in BLIC. It just feels more complete and that's the demo! EA looks as if they built the game engine (i.e. batting, bowling, fielding) and the menus and graphics between balls/overs/innings was more of an afterthought. The music in EA is great but they really need some work on their presentation. The crowd noise actually being in-synch with the events on the field, the noises/cheers/hollers from the fielders when batsmen are dismissed, the fact that the bat labels match the batsmen who are using them, the fact that different bowlers have different bowling actions, etc. all of them make a difference. I never thought they would but as far as atmosphere and 'fun' go, they really do. BLIC, as well as producing a great game engine, have put effort into the subtle details.
Part of presentation is the graphical detail and in this EA looks superb. The most realistic-looking players and grounds, leaving BLIC in the shade. Player movements are smoother and graphical detail simly amazing. But that said, BLIC still looks amazing.
Even taking into account those above, the big difference between EA and BLIC is this; FUN. BLIC has succeeded in producing a game which will be enormous fun to both the nerds (like me) and those who just want to have a hit. I really mean it when I say I haven't had so much fun batting since Super International Cricket on my SNES and that was 1995 for crying out loud! BLIC seems to have been designed by genuine cricket lovers whereas EA Cricket seems to have been designed by a project group for EA who had to cater to 'that niche market for the weird game played in that country down unda'. the SNES and NES cricket games, I used to dominate but I played them TO DEATH. Why? Because they were fun. Getting 1500 runs in an innings in those games was fun to do regularly but getting 100 runs is a chore in EA. Basically the replay value for EA is little; once I eventually summon up enough patience to score a 100 and take a 5-fer, I'm sure I'll barely play it again where BLIC seems to have that je ne se quais which means even if one batsman scores 300 in a ODI, I'll still be eager to play the game.
Because I'm bored I'll use a guitar example (I appreciate not everyone will get this!); imagine buying an electric guitar with a built-in MIDI port, a built-in tuner, gold-plated machine-heads and built-in machinery which enables you to hook up with a MIDI processor to play a thousand simulated guitar sounds. But the trade-off is that due to all of these extra features, the body-wood vibration is dead and then you notice that the neck wood has been made of an inferior maple to keep the cost of the guitar down due to all of the electronic additions. Then you notice that the neck and body are bolted together using a factory machine on the production-line which means it wasn't adjusted and conditioned properly, again to save money because of all of the extra features. Due to the electronic equipment deadening the wood, the sustain is very short. The guitar plays very average but with all the extra features, you have so many sounds at your disposal. Those guitarists who've tried to Line6 guitars will know exactly what I'm on about.
Then you see another guitar which looks less elaborate but has been hand-made; the head-stock was hand-crafted so the cut isn't perfect but it looks nice enough. The neck has been made with extremely high-quality wood with excellent Rosewood for the fretboard and feels very comfortable and easy to play. The body has no extras on it and an extremely thin protective lacquer which ensures than the sustain is superb. The bridge is a simple design which ensures that the action is outstanding and plays fast and clean. The guitar obviously doesn't have the capability to sound like a million guitars like its MIDI-based cousin, it just sounds like itself. But it plays so magnificently that inspiration seems endless and YOU make IT sound like a million different guitars as a result. Those who own decent Fenders will know what I'm talking about here.
For mine, EA is the Line6 guitar and BLIC is the Fender (duh). EA is heavy on features but light on the base things which make a cricket game great and is just frustrating. BLIC has fewer features (but still plenty so maybe the analogy doesn't hold THAT well) but does the core things so very well. THAT, for mine, is the difference.
Two short statements which, if you've ignored the review, sum up my feelings on the two games;
1) The BLIC designers seem to 'know' cricket whereas the EA designers don't appear to know cricket as well.
2) If I'd played the demo of EA Cricket 2005 beforehand, I'm unsure if I would have bought the game. If it had been the only cricket game out this year then yes but with BLIC coming out, I think I would have waited for that. Having played the demo, I CAN'T WAIT for BLIC to come out!
Batting is great fun. On the demo the difficulty is set onto 'County' so it's pretty easy to hit the ball around but the shots looks great whether lofted or hit along the ground and I think it's neat to be able to control the 'defensive' strokes to the point where you can actually look for the quick single! Good Lord, what an innovation!!!
Shots hit along the ground actually DO go somewhere! But yeah, most importantly, shots all 'round the wicket are actually useful, not just one or two of them. And being able to deliberately hit the ball behind square on either side of the wicket was another thing this has over EA. I mean, there are gaps galore in EA behind square on the off and on sides but if the shots can't be played there, it's somewhat pointless. Hitting the ball in the air is very easy on the demo (for the above mentioned reason) but you can tell that were the difficulty ramped up a bit, you'd mis-time a lot more balls in the air so you'll have to be judicious, just like any cricket game should.
I was SHOCKED to discover that I didn't miss the lack of choice between back-foot/front-foot play. I thought it was an amazing innovation in EA Cricket 2002 but again, when it doesn't matter whether you play the shot off the front/back foot (the ball still just dribbles straight to the fielders), the diversity between back/front foot becomes completely redundant. BLIC have dispensed with what has turn-out to be a useless feature and the game is better for it. It's fantastic to be able to score runs off the lofted, attacking AND defensive shots, like there are actually three levels of power. Much better control than EA which is either 'smack it or block it' with no room for the subtle cricket shots, like the run down to third-man (yes EA has one but like the leg-side dribble, errrr I mean glance, it goes nowhere) or the little nurdle for 2 around the corner (which EA doesn't have) or the tap between the fielders on the leg-side for 2 (or THREE!!!!!! MY GOD!!!), etc. The shots look more realistic too, other than the back-foot leg-side shots (I basically played a paddle which landed in the second-tier of the grandstand, although I'm sure that's a function of the difficulty level).
It really affects the fun level of a game when you supposedly have all of these shots but only a couple are useful. You SHOULD be able to straight drive down the ground, flick the ball off the hip through and behind square, guide the ball down to third man, cut and late-cut for 4 because this happens in the real game. In EA, these are all treated as defensive shots (or, like the cut, you NEVER get the chance to play them) so what's the point? In BLIC, you actually can play these shots and get runs. In my opinion, having less shots but being able to play them all far outweights have a bunch of shots which are useless.
Bowling; EA lifted it's game significantly in this and is tough to compete with. The ball physics seem to be more accurate in EA Cricket (the fast bowlers in EA cricket make the ball really shoot through to the 'keeper' whereas not so in BLIC) but they're definitely only slightly off in BLIC. And with the faster bowlers, the difference is marginal anyway. Bowling yorkers seems pointless on BLIC but then again, I think this is difficulty level more than anything else.
Bowling variation is about as much as both games as each other but in different ways. You get more different types of delivery in EA but in BLIC you control swing and actually get drift. Either way, they're both good in this regard although, again, the physics of bounce seems more accurate in EA.
Fielding; BLIC will likely win hands down. Fielding EA is awkward and stupid and there's no errors except those which the CPU randomly throws in. BLIC, on the other hand, seems to have really done some good work here; there's actually the pontential to drop a catch or miss a run-out if you don't get the fielding meter right. What I'm saying is, there's actually some scope to work at and get better at fielding here. It's actually pretty minor but it's enough to affect whether you catch or drop a ball. Great stuff. Again, prize for looking after the 'little' things.
Presentation; the menus are better-looking, less awkward to use and the little things like graphics when a new bowler comes on or when a batsman hits a 4/6 are better in BLIC. It just feels more complete and that's the demo! EA looks as if they built the game engine (i.e. batting, bowling, fielding) and the menus and graphics between balls/overs/innings was more of an afterthought. The music in EA is great but they really need some work on their presentation. The crowd noise actually being in-synch with the events on the field, the noises/cheers/hollers from the fielders when batsmen are dismissed, the fact that the bat labels match the batsmen who are using them, the fact that different bowlers have different bowling actions, etc. all of them make a difference. I never thought they would but as far as atmosphere and 'fun' go, they really do. BLIC, as well as producing a great game engine, have put effort into the subtle details.
Part of presentation is the graphical detail and in this EA looks superb. The most realistic-looking players and grounds, leaving BLIC in the shade. Player movements are smoother and graphical detail simly amazing. But that said, BLIC still looks amazing.
Even taking into account those above, the big difference between EA and BLIC is this; FUN. BLIC has succeeded in producing a game which will be enormous fun to both the nerds (like me) and those who just want to have a hit. I really mean it when I say I haven't had so much fun batting since Super International Cricket on my SNES and that was 1995 for crying out loud! BLIC seems to have been designed by genuine cricket lovers whereas EA Cricket seems to have been designed by a project group for EA who had to cater to 'that niche market for the weird game played in that country down unda'. the SNES and NES cricket games, I used to dominate but I played them TO DEATH. Why? Because they were fun. Getting 1500 runs in an innings in those games was fun to do regularly but getting 100 runs is a chore in EA. Basically the replay value for EA is little; once I eventually summon up enough patience to score a 100 and take a 5-fer, I'm sure I'll barely play it again where BLIC seems to have that je ne se quais which means even if one batsman scores 300 in a ODI, I'll still be eager to play the game.
Because I'm bored I'll use a guitar example (I appreciate not everyone will get this!); imagine buying an electric guitar with a built-in MIDI port, a built-in tuner, gold-plated machine-heads and built-in machinery which enables you to hook up with a MIDI processor to play a thousand simulated guitar sounds. But the trade-off is that due to all of these extra features, the body-wood vibration is dead and then you notice that the neck wood has been made of an inferior maple to keep the cost of the guitar down due to all of the electronic additions. Then you notice that the neck and body are bolted together using a factory machine on the production-line which means it wasn't adjusted and conditioned properly, again to save money because of all of the extra features. Due to the electronic equipment deadening the wood, the sustain is very short. The guitar plays very average but with all the extra features, you have so many sounds at your disposal. Those guitarists who've tried to Line6 guitars will know exactly what I'm on about.
Then you see another guitar which looks less elaborate but has been hand-made; the head-stock was hand-crafted so the cut isn't perfect but it looks nice enough. The neck has been made with extremely high-quality wood with excellent Rosewood for the fretboard and feels very comfortable and easy to play. The body has no extras on it and an extremely thin protective lacquer which ensures than the sustain is superb. The bridge is a simple design which ensures that the action is outstanding and plays fast and clean. The guitar obviously doesn't have the capability to sound like a million guitars like its MIDI-based cousin, it just sounds like itself. But it plays so magnificently that inspiration seems endless and YOU make IT sound like a million different guitars as a result. Those who own decent Fenders will know what I'm talking about here.
For mine, EA is the Line6 guitar and BLIC is the Fender (duh). EA is heavy on features but light on the base things which make a cricket game great and is just frustrating. BLIC has fewer features (but still plenty so maybe the analogy doesn't hold THAT well) but does the core things so very well. THAT, for mine, is the difference.
Two short statements which, if you've ignored the review, sum up my feelings on the two games;
1) The BLIC designers seem to 'know' cricket whereas the EA designers don't appear to know cricket as well.
2) If I'd played the demo of EA Cricket 2005 beforehand, I'm unsure if I would have bought the game. If it had been the only cricket game out this year then yes but with BLIC coming out, I think I would have waited for that. Having played the demo, I CAN'T WAIT for BLIC to come out!
Last edited:
King_Ponting
International Regular
Yes i agree with that review. I think that EA already had nodels and templates available from their nba and fifa games. I think that Codmasters actually took note of what gamers wanted and EA did not and the difference shows.
Although T_C im pretty sure that BLIC is out now but we have to wait a bit beforeRPIC comes to us down under
Although T_C im pretty sure that BLIC is out now but we have to wait a bit beforeRPIC comes to us down under
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Release date is 21st July according to the website. I haven't played EA's game but it sounds like it's an utterly typical EA sports title, virtually identical to previous editions, made by people with no real interest in the sport with the graphics coming first and the most important part - the gameplay, last.
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's possibly the worst conjugation I've ever seen. It translates as - well, it doesn't - but the closest thing it comes to is "I don't embank him"Top_Cat said:
You wanted "je ne sais quoi" - literally "I don't know what".
Somerset_Rule
Cricket Spectator
Excellent review. I wholey agree. In Cricket 2005 there are only about 3 or 4 shots that actualy get u runs and most of them are pathetic and you have no control over them. They just roll slowly straight to cover, mid off, square leg etc.
I cant wait for BLIC.
Also if you pre order BLIC will they send it to you on the 21st?
I cant wait for BLIC.
Also if you pre order BLIC will they send it to you on the 21st?
Neil Pickup
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Depends on the shop/site/store.Somerset_Rule said: