Does anyone else feel like every time it hurts their want to play the game?

[Chief]

I liked AC09 - I liked IC10 more. It was substantially improved. I always wonder why some people consider it "just a patched AC09" - It was soooo much better and a big leap forwards.

And with cosmetic changes/updates, especially in a cricket game, is poor move for business. Please check how Codemasters faired when they decided to walk on the same path by releasing an "Improved" Ashes 2009 in 2010. Though it was not for PC but how well they did?

This is the bit I was questioning. Just wondered how "poor move for business" was reached. (spoilers: this comment can't be justified, but I'm curious as to how someone might try).

 

[cricket_online]

I liked AC09 - I liked IC10 more. It was substantially improved. I always wonder why some people consider it "just a patched AC09" - It was soooo much better and a big leap forwards.

I played IC2010 but didn't find it that much an improvement or as engaging as AC09. Also one of the reasons for AC09's success was its stellar online gameplay. Unfortunately IC2010 didn't support online gameplay and so I, and a few others I know of, went back to AC09. IC 2010 had the "behind the basman" batting angle but everything else wasn't that much of an improvement. If I had to rate all the Codemasters games my ranking would be... 1. AC09, 2. BLIC 2005, 3. IC 2010, 4. BLIC 2007. Not including BLIC 99 as not sure whether Codemasters developed it. If they did then BLIC 99 takes the no. 1 spot.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

One thing I prefer about AC09 is the catching QTE, it was satisfying to take those diving catches... In DBC17 I'm yet to even miss one since learning how it works.

Overall though I found AC09 a rather bland, uninspired game. The mechanics/controls were mostly the same old, it wasn't realistic nor did it offer a particularly deep experience in other ways...

DBC despite it's faults does have depth and potential... The outcomes feel like a natural result of a complex physics model simulating bat on ball contact, which other cricket games have not felt like at all.

E. g. In AC09 if you aim a grounded shot into a gap between two fielders, even ones fairly close together, if you timed the shot in the middle of the perfect zone it's going to zoom off like a bullet perfectly in that direction to the boundary. No feeling of a physics model there, just "if timing is perfect, send the ball in that direction".

I feel like in this complexity is where a lot of the gameplay problems can crop up too... In a more simplistic system where you just send the ball at various velocity in whatever direction the user holds the stick, you wouldn't end up without a cover drive. I'd rather go through these teething problems though in fine tuning a heavily physics-based simulation than have a safe, simplistic game without many moving parts.

 

[grkrama]

I liked AC09 - I liked IC10 more. It was substantially improved. I always wonder why some people consider it "just a patched AC09" - It was soooo much better and a big leap forwards.

only if you didntplay that beta patch they released on PC and not console. otherwise very similar. even then a BIG leap is too much , may be better or betterly would be good.

 

[Chief]

Granted - Only a fraction ever saw that beta patch though. It was pretty much PlanetCricket exclusive. I'd say no more than 0.2% of total Ashes 09 players (not counting the separate Wii version).

The business model was Revolution/Evolution - 1 game that moved things a lot, the next a year later just improving what was there. Then a bigger gap until repeating the process. It was the only way to make Cricket work commercially on the mix of platforms available at the time.

 

[asprin]

In fact, there's no way of getting official numbers on ANY digital sales.

That's surprising. I would have thought digital-only sales would be much easier to track. Steam must be having that number, right?

 

[whiteninness]

Sadly I agree with this. The scoring areas are increased but the control is reduced. So often it feels the game is just playing the animatiom/shot and outcome it wants and the input is irrelevant.

It really impacts your ability to play long innings.

 

[Chief]

That's surprising. I would have thought digital-only sales would be much easier to track. Steam must be having that number, right?

Oh they're easy to *track* - But only the publisher has access to them by default.

 

[asprin]

Oh they're easy to *track* - But only the publisher has access to them by default.

My bad. Realized you were talking from a non-publisher's point of view.

 

[Chief]

My bad. Realized you were talking from a non-publisher's point of view.

It's the one good thing about having retailers still (just) in the equation - At least you can get sales numbers from them!

 

[cricket_online]

It really impacts your ability to play long innings.

This. You can nail the shots say 3 or 4 times but on the 5th or 6th try the batsman does something you didn't expect. In a game such as cricket where you have to face 200 deliveries in Tests you can't afford to mess up at such a rate.

 

[whiteninness]

When you have the analogue sticks facing upwards to a yorker just outside off from a spinner and your player does a pull shot and gets hit on the toe...

...yeah.

 

[grkrama]

ICPLAS

 

[Spoobir]

I've never experienced any of the stuff people are talking RE playing the wrong shots. Are you sure your thumbs are going where you think they are?

 

[whiteninness]

Quite confident. I took a few overs out of the game where I stopped playing seriously and just tested the stick position and corresponding shot.

There are still many deadzones and an extreme sensitivity between say a cover drive and a weird back away cut shot.