Deep analysis of the Ashes cricket game

[BigAntStudios]

@Dutch There has been much ducking and weaving, and tenuous arguments as to knowledge have been made, however Chief has never said he didn't know the state of affairs, he just hasn't admitted that he did.

There is one issue that cannot be so easily evaded. It was said at the time of my proposed run down Bourke Street and the Lord's event that the only person spreading rumours of the game being in trouble was myself. This is inversely a statement that the game was not in trouble and would be released in June.

As to Lords, Barmy might not agree with me but history shows he was totally the wrong guy to go to that event. It is clear that the misreporting of the event and inability to see through it was essential for the 505/Trickstar representatives to keep the charade going. It worked.

Perhaps there was too much emotional attachment involved, or they were just very good with their deception, or a combination of both. On that I can only guess.

 

[silverthorne]

Here's my hunch:

It could be a pirated version of DBC14 put under the guises of an alpha version of Ashes 2013, played during the Lords event.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

@
As to Lords, Barmy might not agree with me but history shows he was totally the wrong guy to go to that event.

@

Bit harsh and what do you mean by ''history shows''?

 

[BigAntStudios]

The game was not ready enough at any point to be demonstrated, let alone way back then at the Lords event.

Without Lords being "successful" in hiding the true state of affairs, as in them not being reported, the charade could not continue.

From the posts of the time Barmy was clearly personally emotionally attached to the game and its representatives. Barmy said at the time in his posts that he was not an expert, particularly when it came to game quality such as graphics, etc. this is a paraphrase but I believe they were near enough his words.


Edit: I would concede that the word "totally" might be removed, but I would still hold the view that he was the wrong guy to send.

 

[MattW]

The presentation and the subsequent interview - the quality of the audio should explain why these were transcribed rather than uploaded at the time.
PlanetCricket - Your home for Cricket Games and Discussion ? Ashes Cricket 2013 ? Lord?s Presentation
PlanetCricket - Your home for Cricket Games and Discussion ? Ashes Cricket 2013 ? Mike Fegan Interview at Lord?s

The little player doesn't seem to work, so just download the file.

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Perry Mason Intro - YouTube

 

[barmyarmy]

There is one issue that cannot be so easily evaded. It was said at the time of my proposed run down Bourke Street and the Lord's event that the only person spreading rumours of the game being in trouble was myself. This is inversely a statement that the game was not in trouble and would be released in June.

This is untrue. Planetcricket were also saying that the game was going to be delayed but we wanted a second source other than you.

As to Lords, Barmy might not agree with me but history shows he was totally the wrong guy to go to that event. It is clear that the misreporting of the event and inability to see through it was essential for the 505/Trickstar representatives to keep the charade going. It worked.

If you are going to question both my integrity and objectivity you had better be prepared to back it up with evidence.

Perhaps there was too much emotional attachment involved, or they were just very good with their deception, or a combination of both. On that I can only guess.

I didn't see anything at Lord's that concerned me or made me think that the game would be unreleasable a month later. Nor did any of the other 30 journalists who were present.
The information I have is that the fielding system, which is the most obvious manifestation of a broken game, was changed after Lord's.

----------

The game was not ready enough at any point to be demonstrated, let alone way back then at the Lords event.

Without Lords being "successful" in hiding the true state of affairs, as in them not being reported, the charade could not continue.

From the posts of the time Barmy was clearly personally emotionally attached to the game and its representatives. Barmy said at the time in his posts that he was not an expert, particularly when it came to game quality such as graphics, etc. this is a paraphrase but I believe they were near enough his words.


Edit: I would concede that the word "totally" might be removed, but I would still hold the view that he was the wrong guy to send.

"Attachment" to a game has never stopped me in the past from criticising it if there was an issue with it so why you suddenly think it would affect my judgement now is unclear. I made the caveat about graphics and if you care to read my report on the Lord's day I mostly withheld personal judgement and stuck to reporting what had been said.
I consider it highly offensive that you are prepared to say publicly that I was the wrong person to report on an event because I was unable to be objective in my opinion. This to be mind shows a profound ignorance of me personally and what I have done and written in the time that I've been involved in this site. It also suggests to me that you haven't really read what I actually wrote on this occasion either. You've selectively read what you wanted to see.

 

[silverthorne]

Here is possible theory:


There were two versions of Ashes 2013.

- An older improved Ashes 2009 or International Cricket 2010 version upgraded to Ashes 2013. 'IC2013'

- A complete rewrite in Unity rebranded Ashes 2013. 'UAC2013'


There were two sets of people. The older ones who were maintaining IC2013 and left. The newbies were maintaining UAC2013. When the older people left, the newer people continued work on UAC2013.


Sounds legit.

 

[BigAntStudios]

@barmyarmy

Wow!

Talk about selective reading!

The below was in answer to Dutch, in answer to the questions he raised regarding Chief's knowledge. The bolded quote was in relation to Chief maintaining in a post that I was the only one talking of issues. Your talk of PC knowing of issues or not is quite irrelevant in context and this has *nothing* to do with you.

@Dutch There has been much ducking and weaving, and tenuous arguments as to knowledge have been made, however Chief has never said he didn't know the state of affairs, he just hasn't admitted that he did.

There is one issue that cannot be so easily evaded. It was said at the time of my proposed run down Bourke Street and the Lord's event that the only person spreading rumours of the game being in trouble was myself. This is inversely a statement that the game was not in trouble and would be released in June.

This was for you:

@As to Lords, Barmy might not agree with me but history shows he was totally the wrong guy to go to that event. It is clear that the misreporting of the event and inability to see through it was essential for the 505/Trickstar representatives to keep the charade going. It worked.

Perhaps there was too much emotional attachment involved, or they were just very good with their deception, or a combination of both. On that I can only guess.

@

I said you were duped and were not the right guy for the job - I stand by those comments, you were absolutely taken for a ride because you did not have the expertise to spot the con.

I seriously can't believe that even now you think you weren't taken, seriously?!?

As to your personal attachment, I said "perhaps" and that I was clearly making a guess.

 

[barmyarmy]

None of the journalists including specialist video game ones saw anything of concern; I know because I talked to them and we discussed the possible delay etc.
Why would it be in my interest to gloss over major problems if I'd seen them? Our angle going into the event and something I questioned Mike Fegan about when I was there was that the game wasn't ready.
Trickstar showed us a gameplay demonstration that raised no obvious issues and reiterated that the game was ready and would release on time. I did not express an opinion as to the veracity of that; instead I reported on what they said and suggested that we adopt a wait and see approach.

As I've also said several times I would in hindsight have done things slightly differently. For example I would have sat closer and watched the screen more intently rather than trying to listen to Jamie and live tweet the event simultaneously.

A more credible version of events is that the PC version was ready and playable in May (at least in part) and it was only after more time was given by 505 to get the console versions working that bugs such as the over-throws and runouts were introduced. We know for a fact that the entire fielding system was over-hauled in July.
It is also ridiculous to suggest that a room full of cricket and video game journalists would have somehow failed to notice that the fielders were throwing the ball to the boundary every ball and that suicidal singles were being taken. I'm sure the game wasn't perfect but what we saw clearly worked; unlike the released product.

 

[BigAntStudios]

None of the journalists including specialist video game ones saw anything of concern; I know because I talked to them and we discussed the possible delay etc.
Why would it be in my interest to gloss over major problems if I'd seen them? Our angle going into the event and something I questioned Mike Fegan about when I was there was that the game wasn't ready.
Trickstar showed us a gameplay demonstration that raised no obvious issues and reiterated that the game was ready and would release on time. I did not express an opinion as to the veracity of that; instead I reported on what they said and suggested that we adopt a wait and see approach.

As I've also said several times I would in hindsight have done things slightly differently. For example I would have sat closer and watched the screen more intently rather than trying to listen to Jamie and live tweet the event simultaneously.

A more credible version of events is that the PC version was ready and playable in May (at least in part) and it was only after more time was given by 505 to get the console versions working that bugs such as the over-throws and runouts were introduced. We know for a fact that the entire fielding system was over-hauled in July.
It is also ridiculous to suggest that a room full of cricket and video game journalists would have somehow failed to notice that the fielders were throwing the ball to the boundary every ball and that suicidal singles were being taken. I'm sure the game wasn't perfect but what we saw clearly worked; unlike the released product.

In my opinion this is actually not very credible at all. The bottom line is that I also saw the game in public not long after you did, it was certainly not as good then as the version released in November. I should add that it was shown to a room full of professional developers and they saw through it immediately - Fegan and Co. departed at the earliest opportunity once they knew it wasn't working for them like it did at Lords.

The game was produced on the PC and ported to the Console, the released game was PC. Separate branches of code for the individual versions are maintained and do not contaminate each other in the way you are putting forward.

It is not a fact that the fielding was overhauled - we have no idea as to whether this is true.

The breakdown of the files that were shipped tells the real truth of the story, especially when you take the dates of the files into account.

You were duped, the idea that some journalists were also duped does not really mean much at all.

 

[barmyarmy]

In my opinion this is actually not very credible at all. The bottom line is that I also saw the game in public not long after you did, it was certainly not as good then as the version released in November. I should add that it was shown to a room full of professional developers and they saw through it immediately - Fegan and Co. departed at the earliest opportunity once they knew it wasn't working for them like it did at Lords.

After the original release date I believe. Did you see a broken fielding system at that event? That was the most obvious issue to pick up.

The game was produced on the PC and ported to the Console, the released game was PC. Separate branches of code for the individual versions are maintained and do not contaminate each other in the way you are putting forward.

That's not what I said. The PC version was changed and so I assume the console versions were too but seeing as no-one has seen a working version of them who knows?

It is not a fact that the fielding was overhauled - we have no idea as to whether this is true.

Well I have it on good authority that it was. If it wasn't we go back to my original question why weren't the glaringly obvious fielding bugs in the released version present in May?

I don't argue with you that a room full of game developers, including the main rival, were going to be better placed to analyse potential problems in a demo you saw but you do it for a living and I don't. Your original insinuation however wasn't that I was unsuitable because I'm not a professional in the industry; it was because I was unable to report objectively on a project that I was allegedly too close to. You have at least modified your position on that to be slightly less insulting.

I guess the question is what should I, and everyone else including video game professionals, have spotted at Lord's to tell us that something was wrong?

 

[BigAntStudios]

After the original release date I believe. Did you see a broken fielding system at that event? That was the most obvious issue to pick up.



That's not what I said. The PC version was changed and so I assume the console versions were too but seeing as no-one has seen a working version of them who knows?



Well I have it on good authority that it was. If it wasn't we go back to my original question why weren't the glaringly obvious fielding bugs in the released version present in May?

I don't argue with you that a room full of game developers, including the main rival, were going to be better placed to analyse potential problems in a demo you saw but you do it for a living and I don't. Your original insinuation however wasn't that I was unsuitable because I'm not a professional in the industry; it was because I was unable to report objectively on a project that I was allegedly too close to. You have at least modified your position on that to be slightly less insulting.

I guess the question is what should I, and everyone else including video game professionals, have spotted at Lord's to tell us that something was wrong?

Nope, my original post says perhaps, always did.

@
Perhaps there was too much emotional attachment involved, or they were just very good with their deception, or a combination of both. On that I can only guess.

@

I take it that your good authority worked on the game, if that's the case then I don't think you can claim the fielding rework as fact.

I believe the reason you didn't see the flaws at Lords is because you didn't play the game and they only played it in a fashion that attempted to hide the issues. Regardless, I believe anyone with graphics/games knowledge would have spotted the issues. I admit that this may be a harsh assessment but I saw the game too and the failings were obvious if you were looking for them, as I posted here at the time.

 

[MattW]

I believe the reason you didn't see the flaws at Lords is because you didn't play the game and they only played it in a fashion that attempted to hide the issues. Regardless, I believe anyone with graphics/games knowledge would have spotted the issues. I admit that this may be a harsh assessment but I saw the game too and the failings were obvious if you were looking for them, as I posted here at the time.

I'm genuinely unsure how you could play the game to hide the issues - the ball warping to the keeper's hand would come up every time they miss the ball, and the awful chasing of the ball would occur with almost every shot.

I do think that the product being shown at Lord's was different than what we got released. One explanation unlike 'rewriting the fielding' that we can attach some truth to, we know they tried to move the game to a new version of Unity at the last minute in the hope that would solve all their problems on consoles.

A 'functional' game with memory leaks and worse graphics on one version of Unity in May, having the Unity version shift (hence 'recompiling' as the solution to everything) becoming a fundamentally broken game that was slightly more fluid graphically (the animations aren't as bad as the Vine) and still ate RAM because they never got around to optimising it.

 

[blockerdave]

A reminder that Chief doesn't work for 505 or Trickstar and hasn't done so since May last year.

Well before May 2013 it would have been obvious to anyone involved the game was a crock.

His hiding behind the 505 apology is also a pretty big clue...

Quite how or why the game ended up so bad is not something I am qualified to speculate on. I am qualified enough to say that you would know a software development project was way off track well before a month before the possible release date. Anything @Chief said regarding the supposed qualities of the game were a flat out lie. Trying to call them aspirations now when they were presented as "in the game" then is an insulting lie. Like @Dutch, I am surprised to find myself 100% behind @CaptainOZ here

I believe the reason you didn't see the flaws at Lords is because you didn't play the game and they only played it in a fashion that attempted to hide the issues. Regardless, I believe anyone with graphics/games knowledge would have spotted the issues. I admit that this may be a harsh assessment but I saw the game too and the failings were obvious if you were looking for them, as I posted here at the time.

I know @barmyarmy has categorically ruled this out, but i can't believe that whatever was shown in May was a game, it must have been an animated cartoon, and they just talked over it and threw in the few "oh he hasn't done what we hoped" bits to make it seem played.

There is no credible reason for having a playable game in May and unplayable game in November. Nor is it credible to have decided to revamp a working fielding system late in the day when there were other things to fix. especially as it's an automatic fielding system and it wasn't like they decided to put in a manual one.

@BigAntStudios - in the game/presentation you saw (in June?) did it have the HUD/overlay similar to the Lords presentation and Broad's tweet, or the released game?

And yet it is the year 2014 and there is still NO evidence whatsoever for god, gods, spirits, angels, ghosts, miracles or anything supernatural.
For my own selfish curiosity, Dutch, can you confirm that you are not a theist? I'd have a great deal more respect for you if you didn't have silly supernatural beliefs.

Religious people believe that the universe is pervaded by a mysterious entity and force, which they call God.

Scientists know that the universe is pervaded by a mysterious entity and force, which they call Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

Agnosticism is the only rational response, and neither atheism or theism is a position more worthy of respect than the other.

----------

I'm genuinely unsure how you could play the game to hide the issues - the ball warping to the keeper's hand would come up every time they miss the ball, and the awful chasing of the ball would occur with almost every shot.

I do think that the product being shown at Lord's was different than what we got released. One explanation unlike 'rewriting the fielding' that we can attach some truth to, we know they tried to move the game to a new version of Unity at the last minute in the hope that would solve all their problems on consoles.

A 'functional' game with memory leaks and worse graphics on one version of Unity in May, having the Unity version shift (hence 'recompiling' as the solution to everything) becoming a fundamentally broken game that was slightly more fluid graphically (the animations aren't as bad as the Vine) and still ate RAM because they never got around to optimising it.

moving it to a new version of unity wouldn't suddenly cause those problems.

the may/november disparity for me has only 2 possible explanations, not totally sure which is more likely:
1)either they were "playing" an animation and using occasional verbal cues to make it seem like it was a legit game being played
2)or they had cut together a very small, contained game, possibly using old codemasters-owned code (i am sure they still have the code, even if not the right to use it) and hoped the real game could be fixed

there is no way there is a real relationship between what was shown in may and the game released. none whatsoever. not a single chance.