Anil Dharani said:
Firstly, you need to work on timing coz I, for one, didn't find any problems with the shots on the on-side and if you time the ball well, you can also get the ball pass the fielders on the offside easily. Since when did the balls bowled, not to short and not to full, were unrealistic? I play as it is to be played. I dont go out and do slogging all the time and even if I do, I lose wickets so I had to play my self in first to do it. And lastly, those reviewers aren't hardcore cricket players, that is the reasons for the revuiews being harsh about C2k5 coz BLIC is simply "Pick up and play" material.
P.S : Mind you, that was all my opinion.
So you personally know all these reviewers, and know for a fact that they are not "hardcore cricket players'??..............didn't think so........this seems to be the standard answer given by defenders of cricket 2005 "cricket 2005 is for real cricket lovers/hardcore cricket fans".........
I am one of the amateur reviewers on this site, and for a start I have never played BLC so my thoughts on EA sports are totally unbiased. I also consider myself a "hardcore" cricket player, however I can also look at the bigger picture and see that a cricket game also has to be FUN, and hence can not be totally hardcore in nature as this would lessen the amount of buyers, and perhaps not make it viable for developers to make such games. Hence cricket video games have to appeal to a broad range of people. If you like to play ball for ball 5 day tests or 50 over aside (600 odd balls a match) one dayers then you are in the minority, and perhaps should go down the park to get your cricket fix.
This doesn't mean that games can not appeal to hardcore and casual however. Look at the PES series for instance, it is so good people who couldn't care less about soccer are playing it due to its amazing gameplay.
It also doesn't require hardcore soccer fans to play 90 minutes "real time" games to get their "realistic" soccer gaming fix........
However back to cricket 2005............It is definitely not arcade enough for casual gamers, but for cricket fans (regardless of what many say on here) it isn't much of a sim either. This is where it falls down - it doesn't fit eithers requirements, though some people are so desperate to have anything relatively like real cricket in video game form they will continue to convince themselves that it is a really good game.
So a sim would have more dropped catches then catches made?, the keeper catching a ball at silly mid on?, left arm slow/spin bowlers able to bowl out teams in 3-4 overs due to the computer batsmen unable to play a standard delivery from one of these bowlers?, commentators constantly commenting on things that havn't even occured in the game being played?, batsmen being restricted (artificially by the game programmers) from playing certain shots?, computer opponents not bothering to chase totals/blocking in final overs with wickets up their sleave?, wides being given off the pads or when passing between the batsman and his wicket?,the list goes on and on............(as well documented in this forum).
The fact is HB studios is one of the worst game developers in the world. They never listen to what the general punters want from their games, and always seem to produce half finished games with very basic bugs that they couldn't be bothered to fix prior to release. The biggest change between cricket 2004 and 2005 has been in the graphics, which was gifted to HB by EA sports via the FIFA technology, otherwise they have only made this version harder to play by reducing the play options availiable to the player (reduced shots early on in an innings for instance) and allowing unfair advantage (prescripted actions) to the computer AI on higher levels.
Mind you I don't totally blame HB studios. They are there to make a quick buck (it sure isn't to make high quality games), and whilst consumers continue to buy, and accept, their half assed/unfinished efforts, then all the power to them.
