jkartik
Chairman of Selectors
even the players faces in cricket 2005 are much much better than BLIC.
in BLIC the players look as if someone has smashed their faces
in BLIC the players look as if someone has smashed their faces
jk16_4 said:even the players faces in cricket 2005 are much much better than BLIC.
in BLIC the players look as if someone has smashed their faces
There is no contest here. BLIC has altered names in the non-official tournaments that you can easily change with the player editor. EA has a game that frustrates you SO much that you end up throwing your computer monitor out the window.barmyarmy said:p*ss poor AI and loads of bugs...
CaptainOZ said:There is no contest here. BLIC has altered names in the non-official tournaments that you can easily change with the player editor. EA has a game that frustrates you SO much that you end up throwing your computer monitor out the window.
I know which one I'd prefer.
I think most people were saying this until this new release of information where it mentioned highlights at the end of innings etc. and everyone has gone crazy saying it will be excellent, what is the point in seeing highlights of stupid run outs like the were in c2004 and highlighst of you ripping through the poor a.i. This is turning into rant but oh well. What people fail to realise is E.A have got some great features and implemented some good graphics but these are all redundant without the basics such as gameplay and a.i etc which by the look of the videos it is still missing but BLIC has in abundance.sachin said:Yeah i agree heartily with you skateboarder2.And at least they will have different commentary and some proper bowling actions.
jk16_4 said:what the use in editing if the commentator's are not going to chant their
real names.
Asjad said:actually its the other way round, in EA cricket 2005, players don't even look like cricket players, are hard to recognize and are virtual gurilas