Demo Comparison C2K5 v/s BLIC

[BenAD]

From playing each a few times, Im startnig to think that both are gonna be good fun single player, but where BLC is going to kill Cricket 2005, is in two player multiplayer fun, as its faster and batting is easy, so its going to be a slog fest...

BLC is going to appeal more to quick fun games with people who havent really played the game.

Overall I dont know which one wil be better though, I had fun playing both, maybe i just love playing cricket games lol

 

[0601731]

From playing each a few times, Im startnig to think that both are gonna be good fun single player, but where BLC is going to kill Cricket 2005, is in two player multiplayer fun, as its faster and batting is easy, so its going to be a slog fest...

BLC is going to appeal more to quick fun games with people who havent really played the game.

Overall I dont know which one wil be better though, I had fun playing both, maybe i just love playing cricket games lol

yes,it would have but without autoplay even that i gone.

 

[ajay2k5]

People think that a player holding the bat wrong is graphics? Or the animation of players etc..

To be honest it can be devided into 2 catorgories.

Graphics are the qaulity of how the players, pitch stadiums etc. are..

If the players are bulky it doesn't mean the graphics are poor, thats to do with poor modelling, if the bat is not held properly then thats down to poor animation, not Graphics.

BLIC has better animations and less modelling mistakes but the quality of the grahics are poorer than Cricket 2005's. Cricket 2005 looks alot more crisper and smoother than BLIC.

 

[barmyarmy]

I've now played both albeit briefly for BLIC. Here are some impressions:

Cricket 2005
+ superb graphics
- lack of variety in direction of batting strokes
- poor computer default fields
- slow gameplay

Demo rating = 60%

BLIC
+ smooth animation and fast
+ varied batting. The ball doesn't go in the same place everytime when you play a shot
+ Batting confidence and timing metres being linked (great idea)
+ special deliveries
+ Hawkeye: I was given not out to a ball hitting the stumps as it pitched outside leg. That would never happen with EA.
- graphics. These really are pretty poor
- very hard to control swing to left and right when bowling

Demo Rating = 75%

 

[brad352]

I've now played both albeit briefly for BLIC. Here are some impressions:

Cricket 2005
- lack of variety in direction of batting strokes

With a controller? Probably the same situation as Cricket 2004 ( : ), try the keyboard

 

[whiteninness]

on a good PC, the BLC graphics are very smooth, i like em a lot

and yeh dats a good thing u pointed out B A...

in cricket 2004 and still in 2005 every shot sent the ball the same way every time while there is much more variety in BLC

 

[barmyarmy]

With a controller? Probably the same situation as Cricket 2004 ( : ), try the keyboard

I'm not going to play on the keyboard...

 

[Billy Grimwood]

I don't understand why everyone's coming out with claims that people are biased against EA. I didn't join this forum to be some sort of brand war, I joined it because I wanted to play the best cricket game.

Having played both demos I've come to the conclusion that the BLC one is better. Cricket 2005 is, seemingly, just Cricket 2004 with new clothes. Most of the bugs are still there and, although it looks good when static and a couple of the batting animations are good, the fielders move poorly and the ball physics are awful. There is little satisfaction to be gained from batting with it as, on top of the ropey physics, I've found it nearly impossible to hit a clean four what the fielders being supermen. I can however hit nearly every ball that's on a length for 6 whereas at least on BLC I have, mainly against Australia, been restricted to scores of around 35/5. I have posted high scores but I've also lost a lot of wickets which doesn't matter in a 6 over game but means I have been playing risky shots I wouldn't play in a full 50 over game.

BLC is nowhere near perfect and has lots of faults but I must admit I am somewhat bemused by how many people are flocking to Cricket 2005. Each to their own of course but based on the demo it's, in my opinion, a highly flawed, unenjoyable game.

 

[whiteninness]

well said

 

[Ledme]

I don't understand why everyone's coming out with claims that people are biased against EA. I didn't join this forum to be some sort of brand war, I joined it because I wanted to play the best cricket game.

Having played both demos I've come to the conclusion that the BLC one is better. Cricket 2005 is, seemingly, just Cricket 2004 with new clothes. Most of the bugs are still there and, although it looks good when static and a couple of the batting animations are good, the fielders move poorley and the ball physics are awful. There is little satisfaction to be gained from batting with it as, on top of the ropey physics, I've found it nearly impossible to hit a clean four what the fielders being supermen. I can however hit nearly every ball that's on a length for 6 whereas at least on BLC I have, mainly against Australia, been restricted to scores of around 35/5. I have posted high scores but I've also lost a lot of wickets which doesn't matter in a 6 over game but means I have been playing risky shots I wouldn't play in a full 50 over game.

BLC is nowhere near perfect and has lots of faults but I must admit I am somewhat bemused by how many people are flocking to Cricket 2005. Each to their own of course but based on the demo it's, in my opinion, a highly flawed, unenjoyable game.

Finally, someone with some sense.

 

[barmyarmy]

Just to comment on what you said, the anti-EA vibe has been coming from the senior members (me included) who were so fed up with the last two EA efforts we wanted to try something different. That said some people have been taking the whole thing too far. Like you say just judge each game on its merits and pick the one that's best for you.

 

[Top Score]

This is what confuses me. From EA Cricket 2004, as I have never played Cricket 2002, everyone wanted a true simulation type game where is it would be tough to bat and tough to bowl.

Now from what I read on these forums everyone likes BLIC because it has faster gameplay, easier to hit the ball for six and will appeal to people who are casual gamers.

EA finally somewhat produced a sim which is paced at what would be somehow a cricket game should be paced at and a level of sim based around real crikcet and everyone is complaining. :confused:

 

[Billy Grimwood]

This is what confuses me. From EA Cricket 2004, as I have never played Cricket 2002, everyone wanted a true simulation type game where is it would be tough to bat and tough to bowl.

Now from what I read on these forums everyone likes BLIC because it has faster gameplay, easier to hit the ball for six and will appeal to people who are casual gamers.

EA finally somewhat produced a sim which is paced at what would be somehow a cricket game should be paced at and a level of sim based around real crikcet and everyone is complaining. :confused:

It's not really a sim, I find the batting easier on Cricket 2005 than on BLC. I'm not sure how the pacing is different either. Sure there are momentsin Cricket 2005 where fielders stand around not moving while the game sorts out what it's going to do next but I wouldn't call that "pacing".

Also, I hope you're aware that in real life it's very difficult for a part time spinner to york a top class batsman without going for any runs.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I'd give both a 70. its like comparing a bowler to a batsman-you can't compare them. They are in different leagues.
BLIC is like a new batsman-seems to good to be true and it is, with no county or domestic teams, fake names, and a few hinderances in batting and bowling, but it is still good with nice graphics, new game modes and fun bowling.
EA is like an experienced average bowler-keeps delivering but not satisfactorily. Lot of bugs and crappy AI, but the Patchers are always to the fore to help fix it up. It has large amounts of game modes and can be played for a long time, but seems virtually unplayable at times.
Like some players are batsmen and some are bowlers, some here like EA and some like BLIC. Lets leave it at that.

 

[Top Score]

It's not really a sim, I find the batting easier on Cricket 2005 than on BLC. I'm not sure how the pacing is different either. Sure there are momentsin Cricket 2005 where fielders stand around not moving while the game sorts out what it's going to do next but I wouldn't call that "pacing".

Also, I hope you're aware that in real life it's very difficult for a part time spinner to york a top class batsman without going for any runs.

Umm top class batsmen??? who are these top class batsmen you talk about??? If you are talking about Pietersen pfft plus u have Gough, Ali and Harmison in the demo. Yes they are really world class batsmen, heck stand aside Sachin Tendulkar and Matthew Hayden :rtfl