Don Bradman Cricket 17 General Discussion

[blockerdave]

There's no reason why the console version couldn't have options to make it like the PC experience - I'm saying that the default settings should be flipped to favour the more mainstream player. Hide the more complicated things away in options.

I still think that the key reasons for why this one did so badly lie with the publisher, but I think the game experience could be made more casual.

Why separate, rather than specific modes per FM?

 

[Chief]

Why separate, rather than specific modes per FM?

Because I think you want to make absolutely sure they play the right one. The other should be hidden away because I am a patronising sort of guy.

 

[relaxedanderson]

Huge change of subject...

Tonight I was out drinking with a woman who looked exactly like the default female player on DB17, only with blonder hair.

I told her she looked just like the base player on a cricket video game and she was so impressed that we are now married with three kids.

 

[passwordistaco]

All my logos were randomly deleted so I had to redownload all the teams and the game plays a lot better which is weird. I remember @blockerdave doing something similar where he deleted all of his logos and found it an improvement

 

[mattk]

Sorry but I can't agree with @Chief. From a business sense if they were developing a core version and a mainstream version they'd be better to completely drop the core version. Having both within the same game is the best for consumers and Big Ant as developers. Splitting it into two would involve duplicating a lot of work for minimal benefit.

 

[grkrama]

Agreed, but I don't think it's as nuanced as all that - Batting is a simple "timing-based one-button aim then hit mechanic" for casuals,

beg to differ on this, what about the people who want a bit of footwork with timing on the arcadey side and a bit of less nuance on the sim side. this over simplified understanding of the audience for the sport is what has made the previous titles be unpopular even if they had some sales due to monopoly. Even a casual player of cricket game requires more than timing based one button aim n hit.

 

[Chief]

beg to differ on this, what about the people who want a bit of footwork with timing on the arcadey side and a bit of less nuance on the sim side. this over simplified understanding of the audience for the sport is what has made the previous titles be unpopular even if they had some sales due to monopoly. Even a casual player of cricket game requires more than timing based one button aim n hit.

The 100m people who have played Stick Cricket respectfully disagree.

 

[hammadahmed88]

Hello all,
Is there a way to change the name of the tournaments around the world, and have that change reflected in career mode. So, instead of playing the "India Challenge Cup" or whatever it's called, we can actually be a part of the IPL. Or to change the "One day world championship" to the World Cup or T20 World Cup? I feel like it's a stupid question and I'm missing something simple but any help would be appreciated here. Thanks.

 

[grkrama]

The 100m people who have played Stick Cricket respectfully disagree.

again its on mobile, with a free version, also its a modern phenomenon to show numbers [ can you link me the 100m btw] but player activity time and returning players would be were the thrill lies, if you really think 5 min fun game can be a viable option for a full fledged cricket.hmm i dont know, this is just a argument for sake of argument. Im also one of those '100million' but it has its place 5 min fun on the mobile.

 

[Fantazm]

What an odd subject of conversation.

How about they just keep the one game as there is now? Ideally there'd be some actual explanation to the sliders though and attention brought to them in game.

 

[Chief]

again its on mobile, with a free version, also its a modern phenomenon to show numbers [ can you link me the 100m btw] but player activity time and returning players would be were the thrill lies, if you really think 5 min fun game can be a viable option for a full fledged cricket.hmm i dont know, this is just a argument for sake of argument. Im also one of those '100million' but it has its place 5 min fun on the mobile.

It was hugely popular as a browser game for years and years before it went to mobile. I don't think I've EVER managed a play-session that didn't last at least over half an hour. The 100m figure is here: Sports Games for Sports Fans | Corporate | Stick Sports and you can see the rough android numbers on the store (currently 5-10m installs on its own). BA's own one-touch cricket game has already over 1m players.

I only know rough numbers but, on console, Lara 99 did over 1m units. 2005 saw Lara do over 500k and EA 2005 do at least 250k. In 2007 both did around 250k. Ashes 09 did over 600k (at least 250k of those sales were on the MOST casual version on the Wii). IC10 did similar units on PS3/360 as AC09.

This isn't an argument for the sake of an argument - I'm explaining why I am right and you're not. Which is my favourite conversation of all.

 

[grkrama]

What an odd subject of conversation.

I would say the subject is good because there is some polarising views about the game, but that solution of two games doesnt seem the best or the one needed by the game and its audience.

The best would be to see why there is polarity is it due to game bugs, issues, lack of feedback etc and make the solution accordingly.

It was hugely popular as a browser game for years and years before it went to mobile. I don't think I've EVER managed a play-session that didn't last at least over half an hour. The 100m figure is here: Sports Games for Sports Fans | Corporate | Stick Sports and you can see the rough android numbers on the store (currently 5-10m installs on its own). BA's own one-touch cricket game has already over 1m players.

I only know rough numbers but, on console, Lara 99 did over 1m units. 2005 saw Lara do over 500k and EA 2005 do at least 250k. In 2007 both did around 250k. Ashes 09 did over 600k (at least 250k of those sales were on the MOST casual version on the Wii). IC10 did similar units on PS3/360 as AC09.

This isn't an argument for the sake of an argument - I'm explaining why I am right and you're not. Which is my favourite conversation of all.

browser mobile doesnt make much difference in depth of gameplay it can offer. since you want to get into numbers, how many of that is subcontinent players who try it because its free. replay value and duration spent again are the key things.Release DBC 17 for free heck 14 for free i will personally get you a 200m people in 6 months.

Now Lara 99 wasnt what you call a casual game especially for its time, it still has some stuff that even BA hasnt caught up to.

Cody EA , AC all tapped into that market cause of monopoly and lack of games in that segment. But none can claim to have satisfied their audience to a good extent bar blc 99, not critics not hardcore gamers but the casuals who pick up the game for a weekend to play. they sold cause that audience was starved for anything.

there is no right or wrong in the solution suggested by me and you, there is only practicality, and which solution solves the problem in the best possible way. yours is claiming to cater and create a new audience from free mobile browser games audience. Mine offers to refine and cater to the audience that have bought the games and made it successful for the past two iterations and making it accessible to them.

 

[Chief]

Cody EA , AC all tapped into that market cause of monopoly and lack of games in that segment. But none can claim to have satisfied their audience to a good extent bar blc 99, not critics not hardcore gamers but the casuals who pick up the game for a weekend to play. they sold cause that audience was starved for anything.

there is no right or wrong in the solution suggested by me and you, there is only practicality, and which solution solves the problem in the best possible way. yours is claiming to cater and create a new audience from free mobile browser games audience. Mine offers to refine and cater to the audience that have bought the games and made it successful for the past two iterations and making it accessible to them.

I don't understand your first point - You're saying that they sold because there was no alternative - But that was when there were 2 competing games and both sold well... So surely by that logic DBC would be huge by comparison now it has a monopoly?

My point is not to change anything about your core game. It's to simplify the console out-of-the-box experience, and have the simulation as the secondary (rather than only) game-mode.

 

[mattk]

I don't understand your first point - You're saying that they sold because there was no alternative - But that was when there were 2 competing games and both sold well... So surely by that logic DBC would be huge by comparison now it has a monopoly?

My point is not to change anything about your core game. It's to simplify the console out-of-the-box experience, and have the simulation as the secondary (rather than only) game-mode.

You'll need to explain this further to me. To me what you're suggesting seems to already exist in the game through the different difficulty levels. Rookie through to legend.

Rookie where you don't need to worry about footwork, or at least you didn't in DBC 14, I haven't played rookie in 17. Through to legend which is more like a simulation where you need to have the exact right input to achieve your desired result.

 

[blockerdave]

Anyone else finding the AI can't chase on T20s

I'm bowling on legend hardest with default sliders, the last 3 innings chasing the AI has scored 26 (South Africa WC92 vs West Indies WC92 chasing 144), 99 (India WC92 vs Zimbabwe WC92 chasing 101) and 18 (West Indies WC92 vs Pakistan WC92 chasing 131)

It's effectively killed the format/competition for me: if I bat first then I win.