Codemasters shifts focus in favour of Racing

[puddleduck]

Hmm, then I would expect them to have had a far better grasp of basic things like field settings

I'm assuming none of them ever captained a side then heh

Oh, and out of curiosity, who are those three? Because I'll assume there was almost certainly other people with more power than them to deny them the opportunity to refine the game to the levels they may have wanted?

----------

I'll assume they had nothing to do with coding a vast portion of the netcode and/or other online functionality, as well as laying out the key aspects of the game.

Cricket is the perfect game for a single player career mode. It astounds me no one has used it as a game mode yet.

 

[zimrahil]

Hmm, then I would expect them to have had a far better grasp of basic things like field settings

Yes I cannot think of any cricket action game (going back to BLC 99) that has had realistic field placings - it is quite astounding really as it requires no elaborate coding, just a fundamental understanding of cricket

 

[sami ullah khan]

None of the cricket games I have played had that late cut to third man for a single shot. The animation for most shots is appalling. Cricket 2004 had best variety of shots. If EA had used that game as base for Cricket 2005 and Cricket 2007, things would have been very different.

 

[MattW]

None of the cricket games I have played had that late cut to third man for a single shot. The animation for most shots is appalling. Cricket 2004 had best variety of shots. If EA had used that game as base for Cricket 2005 and Cricket 2007, things would have been very different.

They did though - such that some files from Cricket 2004 made it unchanged into Cricket 07, just they seemed to pick the wrong things to keep compared to what they threw away.

 

[sami ullah khan]

I remember that I wished and prayed for bowler to bowl outside off stump in Cricket 2005. An Off Drive used to be such a rarity in that game.

 

[Sureshot]

@ Sureshot. Icc struggles beacause it hasn't moved on significantly in 7 years of development. I actually still think 2005 is the best one released, which is fairly telling.

I wasn't talking about ICC at all, but anyways, as for the development, well for most of that period the development decisions weren't on us, it's only been 2010 and on that we've made the decisions, and we've progressed in that time, Mac, iPhone, Aus domestic amongst others. May not be at the rate people want, but that's really down to those not understanding how development works or what goes in to it, that's no backhand comment, that's just how it is. We'd love to have done more, but it's simply not been possible. Some have this idea that all devs do is twiddle their thumbs and struggle to remember how to breathe, it's just not like that.

The big budget cricket games died because they alienated and ignored their customer base.

Developers love blaming everyone but themselves

To an extent, however, the sales just weren't there and the potential sales aren't there, the market for it is tiny. All this comparisons with FIFA and PES is a joke, they sell in the multi-Millions, IC10 wasn't anywhere near that.

Also:

Cricket is just a very hard game to simulate.

Is very true, football is simple, that's what makes it so good. Cricket is also enjoyable (obviously ), but does have a very deep tactical side and the strategy is the difficult bit to replicate in games. The Match Engine in ICC is what brings people back, whilst not completely perfect, it's pretty damn good and you only get that through years of development and constant work, this is essentially why you won't get all the leagues in the world added at once, as you'll just get a unrealistic mess, that benefits no one and damages everyone.

This does sound like I'm playing our own trumpet, I'm proud of what we've done, particularly since Empire went bust, the effort by all and the drive from Chris has been strong. We're going in the right direction as an independent dev.

It's a shame the Codies experience ended as it did, I think Andy was in a difficult position from his perspective and the guys at TG, as Colin said, genuinely cared about the game, besides it's their jobs on the line, people often seem to forget that. IC10 is good, but it could have been so much more. In the end money talks, that's not greed, that's business, the sales just aren't there for the big dev supported cricket sims.

Of course that all said, it's still massively disappointing that we don't have some really good IC11 or awaiting a IC12 that had loads of work done with all the feedback they had from a good base with IC10.

---------

Woohoo, I remembered to breathe!

 

[Gone4aDuck]

Well im still going to keep my fingers crossed for an IC2013 ashes game! Might be a fools hope. But thats still hope! A patched ic2010 with maybe a new fielding layout will do me fine. I would just be happy to see the series being thought of. Even if it was only a small amount!!

 

[puddleduck]

Thing is Sureshot, to me that's not progress at all. I fully understand the development process, and I appreciate that financially Chris went down the route of attempting to increase the platforms he could appeal to.

To me however, it's basically still the same game... except I could play it on my iphone if I wanted. Funnily enough I think that's its platform. It's a phone game and it doesn't hold my attention anymore. I may be wrong about recent developments, but as a stat driven cricket game it still fails to provide an adequate database of history.

I happened to think the initial forays into new graphics were terrible, and the game suffered from the addition of more cricket into the calendar. I appreciate that he wasn't developing a game specifically for me, but he certainly lost me as a customer within a few iterations quite quickly.

People keep saying how difficult cricket is to code. Except in both Lara 2005 and Cricket 2010 the core game was fine. It could have been touched up, but it was the aspects of the game that were just not cricket that held them back. They play like games designed by people who don't play cricket. That's the main factor. The elements that would appeal to cricketers aren't there. They very much come across as attempts to make money from a gap in the market rather than actually a love of the game or even just a labour of love.

I love this idea that football is simple to code. Cricket is actually relatively easy compared to football. A cricket game occurs statically, over individual balls. I fail to see how having to code 22 players, and a ref to work independently and cohesively is any harder than essentially having to have a maximum of 2 players and then a fielder going through their AI routines...

Too many people say the sales aren't there, whilst not actually making a product that's really worth buying. You sometimes have to take the hit to build the customer base and get customers on your side. Plenty of small developers have made big money from doing just that.

Codies essentially released 3 bug-filled games that they didn't support, and then I'm supposed to be surprised no-one buys the third one?

If I remember correctly 2005 actually sold relatively well, but they would have lost a lot of their customers over the next two appalling releases.

As I said, developers make excuses all the time, which is their right and I appreciate they often have a publisher to satisfy. Rarely will they hold their hands up and say, "do you know what, we could have done that a lot better, and we ballsed that up" because as you say, their jobs are on the line.

I keep making the point, and only Zim seems to have accepted it. ICC 2010 with correct default fields would actually be a cracking game. Unfortunately the AI field selection is woeful (really, no one playing it who loves cricket could tell that ) because the default fields it has to pick from are terrible. If it played with actual fields, I could genuinely bat for series after series in batsman camera.

Anyway, I appreciate that you both have attachments to who you are defending but as a consumer I'm basically saying where they failed me and where they lost my custom.

----------

A final point, it's all very well suggesting FIFA and PRO have million pound budgets, but a lot of that is spent buying licenses... Don't release a game, charge full price, and then try and tell me that I should accept the fact it's not very good because it's hard to make a game. If they want me to pay money for it, make it worth paying for....

Edit/ I also happen to fund a lot of small developers by buying their games when I can, and normally grab whatever Indie humble bundle is floating around. I don't DL games, and I try not to buy 2nd hand. If a developer shows they're working for the people buying the game, and work with their customers to release what they customers want, then it goes a long way towards increasing sales. If they consistently alienate them, it goes a long way to shutting down studios...

 

[zimrahil]

I keep making the point, and only Zim seems to have accepted it. ICC 2010 with correct default fields would actually be a cracking game. Unfortunately the AI field selection is woeful (really, no one playing it who loves cricket could tell that ) because the default fields it has to pick from are terrible. If it played with actual fields, I could genuinely bat for series after series in batsman camera.

.

I take it you have PS3, not 360 as I have already produced some default fields for ODI, and currently working on fields for tests. ODI games are, as you suspected far more enjoyable now. You still have to work within the confines of the core gameplay and place fielders in places that are easy to score off (especially spinners) so not always 100% realistic placings but the experience as a whole is greatly enhanced.

also working on rosters: one for tests/ODI and separate roster for 5/10/20/25 over games. Need 2 rosters to cater for the way AI plays in shorter and longer forms of game however getting reasonable gameplay experience even if AI does play unrealistically at times

 

[puddleduck]

Yeah PS3. It's depressing that 2 years after the game is out you're still working far harder than you should have to

It's why I just don't accept the same usual tired excuses from Codies. Get the basics right first! It's just obvious playing it that decent field settings would have improved the game immeasureably.

 

[Gone4aDuck]

Its not just positions tho! The whole mechanics of fielding is wrong. No diving in the outfield. The ball trickling past a fielder at the rope whilst his hands are on his hips is one of my major headaches on this.

 

[zimrahil]

Its not just positions tho! The whole mechanics of fielding is wrong. No diving in the outfield. The ball trickling past a fielder at the rope whilst his hands are on his hips is one of my major headaches on this.

I agree but there is diving in the outfield - only seen it a handful of times though in 2 years

 

[Sureshot]

Thing is Sureshot, to me that's not progress at all.

Of course it's all going to be relative to what you and other customers want, you'll never meet everyone's demands and relative to the behind the scenes stuff, which obviously can't go in to detail on. You can say the same with FM in many respects, a game which I've largely fallen out of love with due to the press conferences. Some will love that aspect, I can't stand it. Always difficult to balance who you make features for.

I happened to think the initial forays into new graphics were terrible, and the game suffered from the addition of more cricket into the calendar. I appreciate that he wasn't developing a game specifically for me, but he certainly lost me as a customer within a few iterations quite quickly.

Yup, the 3D is limited, that is true. You've also touched on the more cricket/rule changes, that has a big impact on what we can do. Australia is always fun, every year we have to make changes to fit the rule changes, and then they only keep those changes for a year.

I love this idea that football is simple to code. Cricket is actually relatively easy compared to football. A cricket game occurs statically, over individual balls. I fail to see how having to code 22 players, and a ref to work independently and cohesively is any harder than essentially having to have a maximum of 2 players and then a fielder going through their AI routines...

Well, I meant more that football is a simple game, rather than simple to code. But then it's also simpler to code as the larger customer bases means you can through more resources at it. My point was more in relation to it's difficulty in terms of content addition.

Too many people say the sales aren't there, whilst not actually making a product that's really worth buying. You sometimes have to take the hit to build the customer base and get customers on your side. Plenty of small developers have made big money from doing just that.

They may have done, however, we also live in an era were investors are tough to satisfy and with the variable of sales, it's difficult, really difficult and getting investors to take risks is tough in the modern era of global recessions.

A final point, it's all very well suggesting FIFA and PRO have million pound budgets, but a lot of that is spent buying licenses... Don't release a game, charge full price, and then try and tell me that I should accept the fact it's not very good because it's hard to make a game. If they want me to pay money for it, make it worth paying for....

They also have millions of potential customers, that's always going to be the main difference between football and cricket games. Though your latter point is very valid.

I also happen to fund a lot of small developers by buying their games when I can, and normally grab whatever Indie humble bundle is floating around. I don't DL games, and I try not to buy 2nd hand. If a developer shows they're working for the people buying the game, and work with their customers to release what they customers want, then it goes a long way towards increasing sales. If they consistently alienate them, it goes a long way to shutting down studios...

That's great, it really is. It's a tough industry, even with the massive expansion seen over the last decade or so. As we've seen with Bethesda, who make very buggy games, but they have a big fanbase because they make great games. Fallout is a big favourite of mine, even though I have to save every 5 minutes before it crashes/ I get killed by some annoying animal that I can't shoot...

Good points and good chattin'.

------------

Zim and I have chatted before about snooker games, which is in a very similar situation to cricket games. Though I'm not sure how Dark Energy missed putting spots on the table for Real 11...Trumps on a 147 here...

 

[puddleduck]

As always cheers for the well thought out response Sureshot dude

I do appreciate the work he's done on the phone versions, sorting out the coding to get the cloud system working must have been mammoth work, I may not be the target audience at the moment, but then if I had a phone that could play games I would probably get it for that as being able to play ICC on the bus or train is actually ideal.

I think to some extent I'm also a jaded, miserable old bugger now who did sink a lot of hours into 2005

Also fallout, would that be New Vegas on the Ps3? I never got to complete that game as on three playthroughs it went tits up everytime (not to mention the eventual slowdown to a crawl) Actually enjoyed it much more than Skyrim though, and more than Fallout 3. Had that bit of fun that was missing from the others. Zaney world and just enough crazy in amongst the desolation

 

[zimrahil]

Zim and I have chatted before about snooker games, which is in a very similar situation to cricket games. Though I'm not sure how Dark Energy missed putting spots on the table for Real 11...Trumps on a 147 here...

Indeed, though unlike Trickstar, Dark Energy did not (imo) listen to their customer base at all, and showed no real understanding of what makes a good snooker game. They actually went backwards gameplay wise from 2004/05