Deep analysis of the Ashes cricket game

[blockerdave]

Codemasters commissioned the previous game and so owned the code. It wasn't 505s or trickstars to sell or use.

It's not hard

 

[MattW]

so its likely codemaster provided transmission and trickstar with the base stuff required to build the game carried on from blic05&07 so once that partnership has ended ,these guys were lost in water to build the base systems required , or if it was built by them from ground up why would they let codies control it unless it was part of some deal (which would be stupid to do esp in sports genre) etc, isnt the systems owned by devs and licenses owned by publishers the norm,,

Put it simply, if Codemasters didn't own the code, it would have died with Transmission (or be liquidated) and there probably wouldn't have been IC2010 at all.

A main reasoning is that there was a Wii release that shared some elements (commentary, some of the stadiums, a basic look and feel, producer) with the main current gen release that was developed by a different company - Transmission having ownership of any element of the game would complicate that.

 

[grkrama]

what im more interested is in who developed it in the first place, as it is whoever develops a system doesnt part with it only licenses it out mostly.

So what im trying to get is these transmission /trickstar guys( doesnt both the company comprise of the same guys atleast at the early part,before people left )

they have never developed a system on the whole only built the game using tools and systems provided codies carried from prev titles.(like wb montreal did arkham origins)

IF that is not the case and if it was totally developed by these guys they were totally unwise to let codies have ownership of the system and/or they were cash strapped.

But i believe the former is more probable as with the later scenario ,the brains behind the system should have the know how's to build a new one, with the time and budget they had .

So if we go by that theory that codies owned (most likely going my matt's input) as well as had developed the core code ,and these guys have only worked on them and dont have the know how to build or get a similar system,under what guarantee did these guys take on this
project ? and how would a publisher not be aware of these facts about the dev team to whom they are pumping cash in.

 

[MattW]

My understanding is that AC09's engine was built internally - not 'from scratch', but it's not like they were provided a cricket game engine by Codemasters.

There's a five year gap between when AC09's development would have started and AC13 - the people aren't going to be the same, the best of the talent probably would have left when Transmission collapsed.

 

[Chief]

Are you aware if any changes were made after the event?

I'm sure there were. But I don't know what.

----------

My understanding is that AC09's engine was built internally - not 'from scratch', but it's not like they were provided a cricket game engine by Codemasters.

It's been publicly said before that it was built from scratch, although there was access to the previous assets for scrutiny. We also started by making the PSP version of Lara, so the team became familiar with the old engine before building a new one.
The Wii version was built on that same, older engine, but sharing some art assets and design from the Ashes 09 next-gen development.
I couldn't tell you details about the Ashes 09 or IC10 deals, but as has been widely reported here previously, it's fairly commonplace for some developers to develop games solely as work for hire, project-to-project, for publishers... particularly when a publisher has an established franchise. In these cases, the publisher usually retain all IP and assets.

 

[Dutch]

Having followed the discussion a bit I would like to take issue with Ross's comment about Colin not being he best person to go to the "launch".

The fact is and should be stated above all else is that Colin was invited there along with many others in the presumption that he was going to see a game being launched that would then be released six weeks or so later. He was not going there as an investigative journalist with the intention of grinding out a whole conspiracy that was obviously in hindsight very real but at the time know one could have expected the utter dishonesty going on under the surface. Everyone has been hoodwinked.

It is not a question of whether Colin didn't do a proper job it is a question of why were we all constantly lied to?

We should not lay any blame anywhere but firmly at the people who are responsible and we all know who they are.

If have nothing but the utter respect for Colin and the fact that he was willing to travel down to London from Edinburgh just to be lied to. Atrocious behaviour of all those concerned and that is way the real crux of the matter lies not with Colin's handling of anything.

 

[BigAntStudios]

Put it simply, if Codemasters didn't own the code, it would have died with Transmission (or be liquidated) and there probably wouldn't have been IC2010 at all.

A main reasoning is that there was a Wii release that shared some elements (commentary, some of the stadiums, a basic look and feel, producer) with the main current gen release that was developed by a different company - Transmission having ownership of any element of the game would complicate that.

Many things were purchased from the liquidator, Wicked Witch, another developer, purchased the AFL Commentary files and equipment.

Not sure of the actual arrangement of code ownership but if it had been owned by Transmission and then subsequently the liquidator then there is no doubt that Trickstar would have purchased it. There are titles they are working on (see Screen Australia Grant) that were previously at Transmission.

 

[BigAntStudios]

Having followed the discussion a bit I would like to take issue with Ross's comment about Colin not being he best person to go to the "launch".

The fact is and should be stated above all else is that Colin was invited there along with many others in the presumption that he was going to see a game being launched that would then be released six weeks or so later. He was not going there as an investigative journalist with the intention of grinding out a whole conspiracy that was obviously in hindsight very real but at the time know one could have expected the utter dishonesty going on under the surface. Everyone has been hoodwinked.

It is not a question of whether Colin didn't do a proper job it is a question of why were we all constantly lied to?

We should not lay any blame anywhere but firmly at the people who are responsible and we all know who they are.

If have nothing but the utter respect for Colin and the fact that he was willing to travel down to London from Edinburgh just to be lied to. Atrocious behaviour of all those concerned and that is way the real crux of the matter lies not with Colin's handling of anything.

No one deserves to be treated as he has by those that were involved in the Ashes 2013 project, I certainly agree with you on that.

You don't need to be an investigative journalist, there was a few clues that you should keep your eyes and ears open. When the game was shown a little while later in Melbourne even politicians in the room asked if it was a mobile game. My recollection was that on the day he said he was not an expert and could not really tell much of the graphics, so I questioned his professional judgement in that regard. I can agree that I was not there at Lords, and so perhaps my judgement is harsh as their deception may have been very well contrived.

However, Colin has never actually said he has been lied too or duped though. He and I had many words over the idea that he cannot actually admit that he has been lied to by people he presumably trusts and still to this day treats what they say as "fact". Hence I asked the question of emotional attachment, I did not state it, merely questioned it.

Indeed, my questions are only raised at all because Colin has never actually stood up and called out the "atrocious behaviour" and "utter dishonesty" of the Lords incident as you and *everyone* else have done. For me this does not make any sense at all and I believe I do have the right to ask the question as to why, a question that has yet to have been answered.

So Dutch, we will have to disagree on one thing, I don't believe you can be the "best guy to go to the launch" if you cannot be objective enough to call it out for what it was.

Despite this one issue though, and even though it may not seem so from the posts on this subject, I also generally have a good regard for Colin and all that he does here.

 

[barmyarmy]

I think my comments have made clear what I think of the way Trickstar went about this process and treated their customers. If they're not then I'll repeat that I am highly unimpressed with the lies we were told about game progress, the appalling amount of game-breaking bugs in the final version and the shoddy way in which people who gave their time freely and willingly were treated.
However I don't believe that I have to single out individuals in that. If I wish to do that then I will do so privately.

Where Ross and I disagree is over the assertion that I should have seen the signs at the Lord's event. I'm not going to repeat myself there so it looks like something we are just going to have to disagree on.

I would reciprocate the "generally good regard" that Ross has for me and hope that once Don Bradman Cricket 14 releases this game can be forgotten as it deserves to be.

 

[Chief]

Clearly the game should never have been released: that's been admitted as per the press release issued when it was cancelled and hopefully everyone will be refunded properly and we can move on.

Hopefully there are good things ahead.

 

[silverthorne]

@barmyarmy:

Can you update your thoughts to remove the erroneous facts that you claim -

1) Ashes 2013 derives from Ashes 2013, and
2) stop insisting Ashes 2009 was used to develop Ashes 2013.


The development team at TrickStar had no access to the source-code of Ashes 2009. This is confirmed by @Chief and by deep analysis of the Ashes 2013.

----------

The hypothesis given in post #6 is correct where None of that is in Ashes Cricket 2013.

Let me explain what is wrong.


In the older games AC 2009, the game logic in an encrypted DLL which the game would call extensively.


The company that did the game - presumably - CodeMasters - they took a whole load of time to make the logic for that.


As time passed, the encryption for the DLL began to fail - Windows Vista, Windows 7 implemented NX (no-execute) and other security features to prevent you from getting infected by viruses, trojan horses, and other malware.


In other words, the game AC 2009, would be like AC 2013 if not for that encrypted DLL.


For more than 4 long years (2009 to 2013), the developers at Transmission (now TrickStar) there have attempted or tried to replace that DLL to no avail.


What that encrypted DLL does, is that it starts up, loads a circular plane at 180 degrees (simulating the playing field), simulate the logic for the batting, wickets, computer players around the field.


They did not do directly. They used some white-papers the scientists publish about game AI and game logics and coded the implementation of the algorithm inside it - navigation logic, crowd logic where one computer player would sense and then move around the other computer player instead of going through it.


None of that is in Ashes Cricket 2013. For open-sourcing it, it would serve nothing but embarrass them further. I do not think they would that, vindicating what I wrote earlier.

----------

The rights to the code and art remained with Codemasters.

TrickStar decided to develop Ashes 2013 using Unity, yeah they said they created an engine from scratch, but that was bogus as you all now know.

The management made very, very foolish mistake. They sold away their destiny by selling away the sources.

Ashes 2013 was developed in Unity, is 40% correct. The 60% is vendor demos embedded within the project. I love the space ship, greek walls, medieval gear and FPS (first person shooter game) embedded inside it

 

[silverthorne]

I think I would extend that to anyone involved in the project that was in the developer videos too. It was ALL bogus.

The help you guys offered in 2009 was repaid back by Transmission selling away their destiny when they went bankrupt. All the knowledge was sold away.


The new people, they tried to make a good cricket game. It became the worst game in 2013

----------

think of the way Trickstar went about this process and treated their customers. If they're not then I'll repeat that I am highly unimpressed with the lies we were told about game progress, the appalling amount of game-breaking bugs in the final version and the shoddy way in which people who gave their time freely and willingly were treated.

If you see TrickStar's management bio, they was responsible for the closing down of Midway Newcastle, EA Sports Vancouver, Sony Computing Entertainment Europe and many other indy companies.

 

[Frostyvegi]

The version that I saw did not have the same fielding errors as those presented in the final release. They cut down the animations and places the balls could go so as to minimise the issues. Players were always square to the ball by the time it came to them which negated many of the errors. The ball off the bat was also very restricted, also minimising the issues

It's probably to far gone to start comparing exactly what you both remember seeing specifically in detail like, did the batsman ever miss, were the fielders viewable from bat contact to receiving the ball in the field, etc. It was probably not pre-recorded, as Chief claims, but more 'canned' to appear like gameplay and animations were smooth, stick cricket style.

 

[blockerdave]

Clearly the game should never have been released: that's been admitted as per the press release issued when it was cancelled and hopefully everyone will be refunded properly and we can move on.

Hopefully there are good things ahead.

Why are you hiding behind the press release? How can you expect to be taken seriously with anything else you might do in this space in the future?

Non disclosure agreements aside you should be able to man up and apologise for the misleading information you gave without any mealy mouthed "if you were offended" or "per the press release" bullshit.

Until you do you should not expect anything you say to be taken seriously.

 

[silverthorne]

@Chief,

You were right to bail out before ***** hits the fan.


A company that puts the retirement and holiday plans of the directors first, than business continuity, welfare of employees is not good place to be at.