hi all,
after playing cricket 2005 some more i decided enough was enough and took it back to the shop. the reasons are this:
(1) playing for two hours so that the computer a.i. can defend all your bowling soon becomes boring. the wickets i got were seemingly random, i didn't do anything different, the batsman just smacked it to the fielder or missed.
(2) batting wise - people saying cricket 2005 has more shots is a misconception. cricket 2005 may have more animations for shots, but there are only 16 main directions it seems, all of which are covered by super-human fielders. it feels like cricket being played on a very small pitch, there is rarely space to get the runs along the ground.
(3) the programming of the game is poor. it doesn't run smoothly and the clunky menus are annoying.
so i went and got brian lara instead...
(1) batting is great, and on test mode is difficult. its great that you can actually pick your spots to hit it to (e.g. inbetween 2 fielders) and the fielders themselves run at a realistic pace. you can choose any of the 360 degrees and sure enough pick out a gap if you time it well. it'd be nice to be able to control the shot strength using the analogue buttons on the ps2 (to allow you to hit shorter balls to areas inside the boundary not covered well). the front foot back foot thing is in my opinion a mute point...i mean, most times in EA's game its not like you have a real choice on which one to play, so it doesn't add much to the game.
(2) people whining about bowling speed should take a note. on test level bowling speed is unrestricted (i was easily hitting 140kph with harmison), on lower levels the bowling speed is capped to make it easier. the bowling on test level is excellent, i have never seen a game that has such a good representation of fast bowling - it feels like when england used to suffer the west indies attack! also, when i get a wicket it feels like i had some input in there...much more satisfying.
(3) the fielding has some good ideas but the throwing back to the wicket keeper issue is a weak point (as does the a.i.'s reluctance to make dodgy runs!)
(4) graphics wise i think e.a. has better looking stadia and pitches, both have p1ss poor players (plastic moulds in e.a. compared to cartooney in blc). blc has better cameras for bowling, batting and fielding, although it cuts quickly between these...which leads me onto
(5) gamers don't generally have 10 hours free to play a full test match, realising this the blc developers kept all the wasted time to a minimum, as such you can have a decent game of blc in under an hour. one thing i think they should add is the option of how much animation you cut out...e.g. i'd like to lengthen the time it takes for the third umpire decision.
(6) and false names aren't a problem, they weren't in sensible soccer (the original) and they weren't in pro evolution. i'd rather have a good game than real names.
to sum up : blc feels like the cricket i used to play in real life, cricket 2005 is too dull (on the ps2...) even if it is striving for realism (which i don't think it achieves...)
after playing cricket 2005 some more i decided enough was enough and took it back to the shop. the reasons are this:
(1) playing for two hours so that the computer a.i. can defend all your bowling soon becomes boring. the wickets i got were seemingly random, i didn't do anything different, the batsman just smacked it to the fielder or missed.
(2) batting wise - people saying cricket 2005 has more shots is a misconception. cricket 2005 may have more animations for shots, but there are only 16 main directions it seems, all of which are covered by super-human fielders. it feels like cricket being played on a very small pitch, there is rarely space to get the runs along the ground.
(3) the programming of the game is poor. it doesn't run smoothly and the clunky menus are annoying.
so i went and got brian lara instead...
(1) batting is great, and on test mode is difficult. its great that you can actually pick your spots to hit it to (e.g. inbetween 2 fielders) and the fielders themselves run at a realistic pace. you can choose any of the 360 degrees and sure enough pick out a gap if you time it well. it'd be nice to be able to control the shot strength using the analogue buttons on the ps2 (to allow you to hit shorter balls to areas inside the boundary not covered well). the front foot back foot thing is in my opinion a mute point...i mean, most times in EA's game its not like you have a real choice on which one to play, so it doesn't add much to the game.
(2) people whining about bowling speed should take a note. on test level bowling speed is unrestricted (i was easily hitting 140kph with harmison), on lower levels the bowling speed is capped to make it easier. the bowling on test level is excellent, i have never seen a game that has such a good representation of fast bowling - it feels like when england used to suffer the west indies attack! also, when i get a wicket it feels like i had some input in there...much more satisfying.
(3) the fielding has some good ideas but the throwing back to the wicket keeper issue is a weak point (as does the a.i.'s reluctance to make dodgy runs!)
(4) graphics wise i think e.a. has better looking stadia and pitches, both have p1ss poor players (plastic moulds in e.a. compared to cartooney in blc). blc has better cameras for bowling, batting and fielding, although it cuts quickly between these...which leads me onto
(5) gamers don't generally have 10 hours free to play a full test match, realising this the blc developers kept all the wasted time to a minimum, as such you can have a decent game of blc in under an hour. one thing i think they should add is the option of how much animation you cut out...e.g. i'd like to lengthen the time it takes for the third umpire decision.
(6) and false names aren't a problem, they weren't in sensible soccer (the original) and they weren't in pro evolution. i'd rather have a good game than real names.
to sum up : blc feels like the cricket i used to play in real life, cricket 2005 is too dull (on the ps2...) even if it is striving for realism (which i don't think it achieves...)
: 