Consider yourselves warned: this is from videogames.co.nz
Many have tried their hand at creating a cricket video game but most have failed. The more memorable attempts included Shane Warne's Cricket and Cricket 96 on the PC but even those were fairly poor attempts at bringing a relatively simple game into the hands of gamers. The problem you see is money. No-one wants to put in a truckload of cash behind a game that doesn't have a big enough following to rack up big sales and as a result we are left with a handful of half-assed attempts at videogames. Of course EA are always keen to see any sport made into a videogame so it was always likely that they would try their hand at Cricket. So how do you make money off a title that has a tiny target market? You cut corners. Make the development process as cheap as humanly possible and market it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Cricket 2002 was the result of this process and two years later not much has changed.
Cricket 2004 is being developed by HB Studios (developers of the Rugby 2004) and it seems gamers are doomed for another average Cricket title. I played this extensively at EA Play 2003 earlier in the year and it already looked disappointing. Sure it was the early alpha version but the core gameplay was pathetic, the controls were unresponsive and it was generally a chore to play. A few months on it seems HB Studios have come a few steps forward but this game still lacks in pretty much every area apart from it's deep license and flashy presentation. You always know a game is sports going to struggle when it's main features are 'all international and club players', 'accurately modeled stadia' and 'flexible play allows the player to be fully involved in the selection of batsmen and bowlers'.
One would think taking the sport of cricket and extrapolating it out into a virtual game would be relatively easy but presumably, it isn't. In a cricket game there should be a huge emphasis on timing a batsman's shot, a fielder's dive or a bowler's delivery but in Cricket 2004 you can pretty much hit your shot at any time as the ball comes down the pitch and the game will adjust the timing for you. So instead of timing the ball, the focus is on matching the right shot for the right delivery and since you can only play five different shots (forward, off-side, on-side, back-foot off-side and back-foot on-side) it is pretty much a lottery each time the ball comes down the pitch. Throw into the mix very limited bowling options, hard to control fielders and you have a game that is just not cricket. According to the press sheet this game has been in development for 18 months and it's hard to tell what HB Studios have been doing in that time. The gameplay has gone backwards.
One small, shining ray of hope is the visuals which have undergone a mild transformation. Players are actually starting to look like their real world counterparts although, to be honest, the only reason I could pick Stephen Flemming from Chris McMillan was because of the height difference, their faces just didn't resemble the actual players. The new motion captures are nice and bowlers look a lot better as they roll in for a delivery with less jerk and more flow. Like Rugby 2004 the commentary is awful and the sound-effects are average, much like the rest of the game.
It's sad that thousands of dedicated Cricket fans are going to walk into their local games store and hand over a large wad of cash for this game, just like all those Rugby fans did for Rugby 2004. Hopefully some learned the lesson, just because you like Rugby doesn't mean you'll like Rugby 2004. Same goes for Cricket 2004. Do not be fooled by the advertising and try before you buy. Rent it or even go to your local store and ask to have a play and see for yourself. Who knows maybe you'll like it but please, try it first, even if it is just for me. We will have a full review once this game is released just in case HB Studios pull out the miracle of all miracles and make this game somewhat playable.
:
