Review This game is fully scripted no real physics at all!!!

[Allrounder18]

Ok this is some sort of mini review popping the dream of all the gamers thinking that Transmission has finally made a solid base code for future iterations ,first let me tell you The game has NO PHYSICS system implemented from OUTFIELD to SHOT POWER to INACCURATE THROWS to EDGES to BOWLING SPEED (even it is divided in to two parts one off the hand and one off the wicket) to STUMPS SHATTERING to BALL MOVEMENTS all things are tightly scripted You will ask how I came to know all this? Let me answer I have been following the game closely from a programming point of view for about 3 weeks now and let me come up to detail one by one.
OUTFIELD and SHOT POWER
OK some of you guys have seen the ball going to the boundary suddenly stops and roll back towards fielder there seems to be seven scripts used defining the outfield speed two scripts with different height and speed of the ball for 6s two for scripts (one rocketing to the boundary for four and one just touching the ropes) for 4 and three scripts for POOR SHOT range from 1 to 3 runs.

INACCURATE THROWS
When the fielder misses the ball and the ball is not closer to the fielder a script involving the use of magnetic field triggers and ball suddenly pops up to the near fielder rebelling all the physics laws.

EDGES
Ok this must have been noted by 70% of the gamers that all in all there are not more than 20/30 types of all edges with exact ending location of the ball.

BOWLING SPEED
This is also come as a surprise to me and my doubts about dual bowling speed (one off the hand and one off the wicket) when I saw the hawkeye in which the ball hitting the pitch have smooth animations but after pitching it suddenly goes crazy with double speed although while playing the game its kind of unnoticeable unless you change the action to BLIC 07 WASIM AKRAM (or wat ever it is) action.

STUMPS PHYSICS
Hehe we all know there is no such thing in this game instead a ONE script stump shattering animation.

BOWLING MOVEMENT
Lots of you guys have wondered that BLIC 07 had immaculate movement both in the air and off the pitch but here its almost none the reason is the tightly scrip AI batting system and once the ball started moving (due to STRONG WIND) AI gets in all sort of trouble I miss the old BLIC 07 bowling movements atleast there were not hard coded.

In the end I would like to challenge Transmission to prove me wrong regarding my assessment.


The game itself isnt a bad game at all beside few bugs and half baked online feature its quite competent both on and offline but it just doesn't feel like cricket at all.

 

[lazy_chesnut]

I don't know what your 'programming point of view' is but a lot of what you have written seems to me to be total nonsense (not only the poor English making it nonsensical, but the content itself).

Let me tackle your points one by one. No I'm not from Transmission Games, but I'm fairly confident what I write here is correct and is definitely more accurate than your 'assessment'.

OUTFIELD and SHOT POWER
What you described there is basically lots of different shot powers depending on how well you time the ball. I can't see anything wrong with that. As for the ball going backwards into the fielder's hands, that is most likely done just so that the pick-up point in the animation fits in with the location of the ball. It's quite common to do such a thing in games (adjust an item's location to match with an animation) but it is an error that the ball can ever go backwards, so I agree with you on this.

INACCURATE THROWS
I can't for the life figure out what you're on about here.

EDGES
If it's so obvious that there are 20-30 spots the ball can be edged to, how come you can't tell us the exact number? Also, I think it would be terribly hard to pick out 20-30 locations from memory, unless you memory-hack the game to tell you where each ball lands when you edge it. Total piffle, I would say.

BOWLING SPEED
The representation of the ball's speed in hawkeye in no way has to reflect the speed of the ball in the actual game. I agree it looks a bit silly in hawkeye, but this doesn't happen in-game at all. In fact, I would say the reverse is true, as in real cricket, the ball slows as it hits the pitch. Also, if you were right about this, then bouncers would be stupidly fast.

STUMP PHYSICS
Almost correct. This has been acknowledged by Transmission as the only piece of code which made it into the current game from BLIC2007, and it is not physics-based. However, there is far more than one animation.

BOWLING MOVEMENT
Again, I don't really understand your ramblings here. I think you're referring to a lack of swing, perhaps. Yes the swing is a bit odd in that it only seems to take effect just before the ball lands, or even just after, but that isn't what you said. Also, it would be nicer if the pitch-point changed as the ball swung, but again, that's not the point you raised.

lazy_chesnut added 6 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

I would just like to add that I am aware that there are quite a few problems with this game, but there is no point in going down the 'oh it's all scripted' route, as it helps no-one and is probably factually incorrect. Also, I would say that 100% of games have some 'scripted' elements in them, else we would all need supercomputers to run them.

lazy_chesnut added 14 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...

Sorry, just have to add a bit more having re-read your post.

The game has NO PHYSICS system implemented

If this were the case, the ball would not obey gravity, it would not bounce off the pitch, and it would not slow up in the outfield.

popping the dream of all the gamers thinking that Transmission has finally made a solid base code for future iterations

You can wax lyrical all you like about how much you 'know' about the code base, but anybody who has played BLIC 2007 and AC09 and has a decent programming background can tell that the code base for AC09 is far, far more solid than in BLIC 2007.

Proof of this is the ability of the fielders to react to 'new', out-of-the-ordinary circumstances in-game. For example, fielders attempt to back-up the bowler and 'keeper when a throw is coming in, but sometimes they will not get there. In this case, if the ball is missed, the ball becomes 'live' again and a new fielder will chase the ball, another fielder backs up the new throw, and the batsmen might take an extra run. This would never have happened in BLIC 2007 in this level of detail.

Also, try hitting the ball at the non-striking batsman. It will bounce off him, and the fielder best placed to get the ball will field it. This didn't happen in 2007.

Consider the ability to play the ball into your own body. In 2007, once the ball had hit the bat, the collisions seemed to be turned off, so the ball could pass through the body of the batsman, but in AC09, you can get a bottom edge onto your foot and onto the stumps.

Finally, consider that you can now loft the ball playing a 'ground stroke' which is poorly timed. The fielders are much better programmed to react to this than in 2007, where everything was either definitely lofted or definitely along the ground.

I don't know why I even bothered replying to your post in the first place, as it was horrendously misinformed.

At least I got to exercise my fingers.

 

[ksduded]

I agree that the game is scripted. The method that they have adopted for batting does not rely on physics but timings and shot selection. You are not moving the bat in a particular way but choosing which animation you want the computer to play.

There are a load of algorithms going on during strokeplay, but they are not dependent on physics.

As for Tom's observation about supercomputers... I don't think using a physics engine requires super computers. There are already packaged physics engine to utilize (Havok comes to mind). And we only require it for the bat and the ball..... the rest can be scripted animations for batsman/bowlers/fielders etc.

I will be my own devil's advocate on this... but using a physics engine might hamper the gameplay.... as I am pretty certain it will become unbelievably hard to time and maybe for some this is a blessing... but for the mainstream audience it just won't look cricket (more like gilee danda - joke is for Pak/Ind fans)

 

[lazy_chesnut]

You're right about the devil's advocate thing! If you had the batting purely physics-based, then you would need as much control as you have over your own body, and be as good as an international cricketer.

My point about supercomputers was that if EVERYTHING was just a physics model, you really would need one. You would have IK all over the place for everything from ball hitting batsmen to the bat twisting in the batsman's hands, as well as wind affecting the roll of the ball, hills on the pitch, etc. Some things realistically cannot be made physics-based and have to be approximated. Simple as that.

 

[Allrounder18]

lazy_chesnut
I don't know what your 'programming point of view' is but a lot of what you have written seems to me to be total nonsense (not only the poor English making it nonsensical, but the content itself).

Let me tackle your points one by one. No I'm not from Transmission Games, but I'm fairly confident what I write here is correct and is definitely more accurate than your 'assessment'.

OUTFIELD and SHOT POWER
What you described there is basically lots of different shot powers depending on how well you time the ball. I can't see anything wrong with that. As for the ball going backwards into the fielder's hands, that is most likely done just so that the pick-up point in the animation fits in with the location of the ball. It's quite common to do such a thing in games (adjust an item's location to match with an animation) but it is an error that the ball can ever go backwards, so I agree with you on this.

INACCURATE THROWS
I can't for the life figure out what you're on about here.

Havent you come accross a moment when fielder misses the and no fielder being close to the ball but suddenly ball pops up to the nearest fielder(and the little mishap while picking the ball animation triggers)? I agree beside this moment the ground fielding is good and fielders do react to the situation.
EDGES
If it's so obvious that there are 20-30 spots the ball can be edged to, how come you can't tell us the exact number? Also, I think it would be terribly hard to pick out 20-30 locations from memory, unless you memory-hack the game to tell you where each ball lands when you edge it. Total piffle, I would say.
Oh common cannt you see after the edge the ball more then often goes to the same location?

BOWLING SPEED
The representation of the ball's speed in hawkeye in no way has to reflect the speed of the ball in the actual game. I agree it looks a bit silly in hawkeye, but this doesn't happen in-game at all. In fact, I would say the reverse is true, as in real cricket, the ball slows as it hits the pitch. Also, if you were right about this, then bouncers would be stupidly fast.
It actually a reverse the ball comes off the hand quickly and then slowed down too much so that batting animation can trigger properly (tightly script I would say) When the batsmen leave the ball ,the ball on its way to the keeper seems to have similar kind of speeds (just look at the way keeper reacts to them)
STUMP PHYSICS
Almost correct. This has been acknowledged by Transmission as the only piece of code which made it into the current game from BLIC2007, and it is not physics-based. However, there is far more than one animation.

BOWLING MOVEMENT
Again, I don't really understand your ramblings here. I think you're referring to a lack of swing, perhaps. Yes the swing is a bit odd in that it only seems to take effect just before the ball lands, or even just after, but that isn't what you said. Also, it would be nicer if the pitch-point changed as the ball swung, but again, that's not the point you raised.
The swing starts after batsmen has either left the ball or have played the shot (which result in no movement) again this has been tightly script so that the batting animation can work properly. (BLIC 07 had better movements and was not scripted by any means)

Allrounder18 added 4 Minutes and 26 Seconds later...

I agree that the game is scripted. The method that they have adopted for batting does not rely on physics but timings and shot selection. You are not moving the bat in a particular way but choosing which animation you want the computer to play.

Spot on and any one can observe that after playing on drive and cover drives.

 

[pcfan123]

This game is not as bad as allrounder is making it seem, then again its not as good as tom is saying either.

 

[lazy_chesnut]

My post mentions nothing of the quality of the game. But even the best sports games are 'scripted' as Allrounder would say. For example, when you go shoot the ball in a football game, there is no physics interaction between the ball and the foot of the striker. It is a case of playing an animation (and maybe doing some IK so the foot appears to touch the ball) and then sending the ball on its mission until it hits the keeper, a post, another player, the net, etc.

A physics-based implementation of this would involve setting masses for the ball and the foot/leg, as well as coefficients of restitution for the ball and foot, and measuring and adapting the speed of the animation before applying this force to the ball. This just simply isn't how games work, and in all likelihood in my lifetime, never will.

I defy you to come up with an example of a game which uses computed physics to the degree that Allrounder is, in effect, decrying AC09 for not doing. I agree that the stumps should (and most likely in future releases, will) acts as rigid bodies, but lots of the other stuff is complaining that this game does something using method X, even though method X is pretty much the only way it can be achieved given current technology.

 

[Dutch]

My post mentions nothing of the quality of the game. But even the best sports games are 'scripted' as Allrounder would say. For example, when you go shoot the ball in a football game, there is no physics interaction between the ball and the foot of the striker. It is a case of playing an animation (and maybe doing some IK so the foot appears to touch the ball) and then sending the ball on its mission until it hits the keeper, a post, another player, the net, etc.

A physics-based implementation of this would involve setting masses for the ball and the foot/leg, as well as coefficients of restitution for the ball and foot, and measuring and adapting the speed of the animation before applying this force to the ball. This just simply isn't how games work, and in all likelihood in my lifetime, never will.

I defy you to come up with an example of a game which uses computed physics to the degree that Allrounder is, in effect, decrying AC09 for not doing. I agree that the stumps should (and most likely in future releases, will) acts as rigid bodies, but lots of the other stuff is complaining that this game does something using method X, even though method X is pretty much the only way it can be achieved given current technology.

Not wishing to get involved in a discussion based on things I have no idea about but X-plane springs to mind as a "game" which has approached this very well. The physics are so well done that in fact plane designers use it to compute various things before going into the actual design phase. (See the X-plane website!) It is actually quite amazing how much of the physics they have got in there and how that has an actual real effect on what is happening to the plane.

 

[lazy_chesnut]

That's actually quite different. Car physics and plane physics have been accurately modelled in games for quite some time now, the reason being that they have a less complicated control interface. By this I mean that you set up the variables for things like friction, downforce/aero, angular momentum, etc. (sometimes even the gearboxes can be modelled with variable torque, etc.) and then you basically say stop, go, turn left, turn right.

In a simulation involving human interaction with inanimate objects, such as with cricket and football, this is much, much more complicated as you have to provide ways for the user to control the limbs, hands, etc., if that is what is being used in turn to control the ball. Applying this to a driving/flying simulation would mean you might want to simulate what happens to the car/plane if you bounce up and down in your seat!

In short, when you have a simplified interface for manipulating the 'controls' in a game, you pretty much HAVE to simplify the complexity of the model of its physical workings.

 

[Dutch]

That's actually quite different. Car physics and plane physics have been accurately modelled in games for quite some time now, the reason being that they have a less complicated control interface. By this I mean that you set up the variables for things like friction, downforce/aero, angular momentum, etc. (sometimes even the gearboxes can be modelled with variable torque, etc.) and then you basically say stop, go, turn left, turn right.

In a simulation involving human interaction with inanimate objects, such as with cricket and football, this is much, much more complicated as you have to provide ways for the user to control the limbs, hands, etc., if that is what is being used in turn to control the ball. Applying this to a driving/flying simulation would mean you might want to simulate what happens to the car/plane if you bounce up and down in your seat!

In short, when you have a simplified interface for manipulating the 'controls' in a game, you pretty much HAVE to simplify the complexity of the model of its physical workings.

Agreed, but the points being made are also about the coming together of physics when two lifeless objects make contact with each other: ball/air, ball/ground etcetera. In X-plane the wind speed/angle, runway gradient and temperature and many more things has an has an actual realistic effect on the behaviour of the plane and therefore on how the "pilot" must handle the plane; surely then the ability to accurately determine the bounce of a ball on a given surface or the resistance through different "types" of air or the effect of hitting a piece of wood at certain speeds and angles is no different to this? That has nothing to do with the human interaction involved but is pure physics.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I don't know what your 'programming point of view' is but a lot of what you have written seems to me to be total nonsense (not only the poor English making it nonsensical, but the content itself).

Let me tackle your points one by one. No I'm not from Transmission Games, but I'm fairly confident what I write here is correct and is definitely more accurate than your 'assessment'.

OUTFIELD and SHOT POWER
What you described there is basically lots of different shot powers depending on how well you time the ball. I can't see anything wrong with that. As for the ball going backwards into the fielder's hands, that is most likely done just so that the pick-up point in the animation fits in with the location of the ball. It's quite common to do such a thing in games (adjust an item's location to match with an animation) but it is an error that the ball can ever go backwards, so I agree with you on this.

INACCURATE THROWS
I can't for the life figure out what you're on about here.

EDGES
If it's so obvious that there are 20-30 spots the ball can be edged to, how come you can't tell us the exact number? Also, I think it would be terribly hard to pick out 20-30 locations from memory, unless you memory-hack the game to tell you where each ball lands when you edge it. Total piffle, I would say.

BOWLING SPEED
The representation of the ball's speed in hawkeye in no way has to reflect the speed of the ball in the actual game. I agree it looks a bit silly in hawkeye, but this doesn't happen in-game at all. In fact, I would say the reverse is true, as in real cricket, the ball slows as it hits the pitch. Also, if you were right about this, then bouncers would be stupidly fast.

STUMP PHYSICS
Almost correct. This has been acknowledged by Transmission as the only piece of code which made it into the current game from BLIC2007, and it is not physics-based. However, there is far more than one animation.

BOWLING MOVEMENT
Again, I don't really understand your ramblings here. I think you're referring to a lack of swing, perhaps. Yes the swing is a bit odd in that it only seems to take effect just before the ball lands, or even just after, but that isn't what you said. Also, it would be nicer if the pitch-point changed as the ball swung, but again, that's not the point you raised.

lazy_chesnut added 6 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

I would just like to add that I am aware that there are quite a few problems with this game, but there is no point in going down the 'oh it's all scripted' route, as it helps no-one and is probably factually incorrect. Also, I would say that 100% of games have some 'scripted' elements in them, else we would all need supercomputers to run them.

lazy_chesnut added 14 Minutes and 40 Seconds later...

Sorry, just have to add a bit more having re-read your post.



If this were the case, the ball would not obey gravity, it would not bounce off the pitch, and it would not slow up in the outfield.


You can wax lyrical all you like about how much you 'know' about the code base, but anybody who has played BLIC 2007 and AC09 and has a decent programming background can tell that the code base for AC09 is far, far more solid than in BLIC 2007.

Proof of this is the ability of the fielders to react to 'new', out-of-the-ordinary circumstances in-game. For example, fielders attempt to back-up the bowler and 'keeper when a throw is coming in, but sometimes they will not get there. In this case, if the ball is missed, the ball becomes 'live' again and a new fielder will chase the ball, another fielder backs up the new throw, and the batsmen might take an extra run. This would never have happened in BLIC 2007 in this level of detail.

Also, try hitting the ball at the non-striking batsman. It will bounce off him, and the fielder best placed to get the ball will field it. This didn't happen in 2007.

Consider the ability to play the ball into your own body. In 2007, once the ball had hit the bat, the collisions seemed to be turned off, so the ball could pass through the body of the batsman, but in AC09, you can get a bottom edge onto your foot and onto the stumps.

Finally, consider that you can now loft the ball playing a 'ground stroke' which is poorly timed. The fielders are much better programmed to react to this than in 2007, where everything was either definitely lofted or definitely along the ground.

I don't know why I even bothered replying to your post in the first place, as it was horrendously misinformed.

At least I got to exercise my fingers.

I'm with you, Lazy - it's a nonsensical post. I value your point of view on programming more than his, simply by virtue of the improvements you were able to make with BLIC 2007!

I mean, the bit where he's going on about Hawkeye, for example, where the ball speeds up after it's pitched. It just looks to me as if someone at Transmission thought 'people aren't going to want to watch slow motion Hawkeye replays after each and every over, so we'd better speed them up', only they forgot to speed up the whole thing.

As for the outfields? They're too slow, simple as that. Nothing to do with scripted. And the edges? They're messed up, sure, but there's nothing scripted about them!

 

[CaptainOZ]

I'm with you, Lazy - it's a nonsensical post.

There's an obvious comradary and in some instances a conflict of interest coming from a few guys like Tom, Steve ect. They either know each other outside the website, have a million posts, or are chummy with the likes of Jamie Firth and co. from companies like Transmission. Here's a tip: members like Allrounder are entitled to their opinion. But when it clashes with your stuffy British club mentality, they get labelled nonsensical, total piffle, or 'daft' (didn't that phrase expire in the 1940's?). Name-calling is childish unless both parties are of the understanding that it's done in good humour.

As for the bloke who criticised Allrounder's English, maybe you shouldn't have exercised your fingers. He might not have English as his native language but he is allowed to comment on the game as long as he's not abusive towards other members. After all, it is my opinion that our friends from the subcontinent will be the ones who finally make a decent cricket game one day.

 

[Dutch]

I'm with you, Lazy - it's a nonsensical post. I value your point of view on programming more than his, simply by virtue of the improvements you were able to make with BLIC 2007!

I mean, the bit where he's going on about Hawkeye, for example, where the ball speeds up after it's pitched. It just looks to me as if someone at Transmission thought 'people aren't going to want to watch slow motion Hawkeye replays after each and every over, so we'd better speed them up', only they forgot to speed up the whole thing.

As for the outfields? They're too slow, simple as that. Nothing to do with scripted. And the edges? They're messed up, sure, but there's nothing scripted about them!

I agree that it is not scripted but surely the point is that if the game is based on physics programming they didn't get it quite right (yet)? The bounce of the ball is wrong and the way in the ball behaves is not accurate.

Now I know this is not my realm but if you as a company blow a trumpet stating that things are based on real accurate physics (See Q and A sessions!) then you would expect it to be so in the game you are actually playing in front of you at this moment. The behaviour of the ball is based on a wrong line and length. Cricket balls just don't do what they do when they are bowled like this in the game. We all know that, we all play the game or have done and we know what cricket balls do, we know how they behave.

For me this game does not provide the variation, the deviations, the surprises that real cricket does. In real life a ball does amazing things going through the air, coming off the pitch, that little piece of dirt, sand , grass, just there in that spot. The little bit of shine right there, the sweat on it, the moisture it picks up as it travels through the air, the variations in wind, cloud cover, sunshine. We know that, we see it and we play against or with it in real life. It's what makes this game so wonderful, so unpredictable.

Of course people will now say: well, go and play real cricket or words to that effect (probably less polite than that knowing some people in these forums!). The point is however that the reason I bought this game was based on the facts given in interviews.

I was lead to believe that bowling would be an "intuitive" experience. However the fact is that unless I place the ball in spot a, b or c at speed d I will get hammered. Literally, there are three given spots where you can place the ball to trouble the batsmen. These spots are not accurate descriptions of the "corridors of uncertainty" in real cricket. That does at least smell of script to me.

I have tried very, very hard to vary things with bowling, apply captaincy skills to field settings etcetera but the game just doesn't reward it...in fact it punishes you for applying cricketing skills and knowledge.

Maybe the wrong knowledge yes but I am not stupid. I know how to set a field and bowl to it. I know how to set a trap, I know how to vary bowling. Believe me, I know! And even if you don't believe me, I know!

Once you realise that you can enjoy this game but you have to dumb down one half of your brain, the cricketing half, and let the "gaming" half have it's moment of pleasure.

Once again we go round and round in circles. And once again the "Holy Bail" is once again but a glimmering light shining through a distant mist........

 

[pedro]

i would have to say some of what lazy and allrounder have said is correct:

allrounders comments about a lot of it being scripted are true - such as shot power. why is it that there are certain shots which fly to the boundary without slowing down yet others (which are also perfectly timed) appear to hit 4 inch thinck rough a couple metres from the boundary. it definitely appears as tho there are scripts and depending on which script it decides to go with, you might get a four or 1-3.

also, why is it that what the batsman does affects what the ball does? i realise the ball or batsman must move so that animations line up and it appears as tho the ball hits the bat but it should not be the ball which changes its path. i've had a ball full about half a metre outside off all of a sudden swing in to hit my batsman on the pads in front of the stumps as he tries to cover drive (yet when hawkeye replays it, the swing apparently never occured and it continues on its original path outside off). this happens occasionally when i mistime the shot, and is particularly annoying when it ends up bowling me.

in terms of what lazy has said, i think youve gone a bit overboard. obviusoly physics cannot be implemented in every facet becuase until we're able to control exaclty where the bat moves thru the air, and how fast and so on, there must be some element of script. however, things like shot power and the way the ball rolls along the outfield, to the way the ball bounces off the wicket, should be controlled 100% by a physics engine and 0% by script. the power of the shot should be directly related to the timing bar (unless there is another method anyone can think of of being able to implement a power bar as well as a timing bar).

also, lazy u say that the representation of the speed of the ball in hawkeye is not true of what the ball actually did (as i also mentioned) but what the hell is the point of having hawkeye if its not acurate, particularly becuase of the incorrect lbw decisions it will give.

 

[Dabi]

i would have to say some of what lazy and allrounder have said is correct:

allrounders comments about a lot of it being scripted are true - such as shot power. why is it that there are certain shots which fly to the boundary without slowing down yet others (which are also perfectly timed) appear to hit 4 inch thinck rough a couple metres from the boundary. it definitely appears as tho there are scripts and depending on which script it decides to go with, you might get a four or 1-3.

also, why is it that what the batsman does affects what the ball does? i realise the ball or batsman must move so that animations line up and it appears as tho the ball hits the bat but it should not be the ball which changes its path. i've had a ball full about half a metre outside off all of a sudden swing in to hit my batsman on the pads in front of the stumps as he tries to cover drive (yet when hawkeye replays it, the swing apparently never occured and it continues on its original path outside off). this happens occasionally when i mistime the shot, and is particularly annoying when it ends up bowling me.

in terms of what lazy has said, i think youve gone a bit overboard. obviusoly physics cannot be implemented in every facet becuase until we're able to control exaclty where the bat moves thru the air, and how fast and so on, there must be some element of script. however, things like shot power and the way the ball rolls along the outfield, to the way the ball bounces off the wicket, should be controlled 100% by a physics engine and 0% by script. the power of the shot should be directly related to the timing bar (unless there is another method anyone can think of of being able to implement a power bar as well as a timing bar).

also, lazy u say that the representation of the speed of the ball in hawkeye is not true of what the ball actually did (as i also mentioned) but what the hell is the point of having hawkeye if its not acurate, particularly becuase of the incorrect lbw decisions it will give.

Although my knowledge is limited, you're right in most regards, especially the ball changing it's trajectory to facilitate the shot. There have been many times when you bowl an inswinger say around offstump, if the batsman goes for the cover drive, the cursor moves ever so slightly to the offside, making the batsman play the shot.

Dabi added 3 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

I agree that it is not scripted but surely the point is that if the game is based on physics programming they didn't get it quite right (yet)? The bounce of the ball is wrong and the way in the ball behaves is not accurate.

Now I know this is not my realm but if you as a company blow a trumpet stating that things are based on real accurate physics (See Q and A sessions!) then you would expect it to be so in the game you are actually playing in front of you at this moment. The behaviour of the ball is based on a wrong line and length. Cricket balls just don't do what they do when they are bowled like this in the game. We all know that, we all play the game or have done and we know what cricket balls do, we know how they behave.

For me this game does not provide the variation, the deviations, the surprises that real cricket does. In real life a ball does amazing things going through the air, coming off the pitch, that little piece of dirt, sand , grass, just there in that spot. The little bit of shine right there, the sweat on it, the moisture it picks up as it travels through the air, the variations in wind, cloud cover, sunshine. We know that, we see it and we play against or with it in real life. It's what makes this game so wonderful, so unpredictable.

Of course people will now say: well, go and play real cricket or words to that effect (probably less polite than that knowing some people in these forums!). The point is however that the reason I bought this game was based on the facts given in interviews.

I was lead to believe that bowling would be an "intuitive" experience. However the fact is that unless I place the ball in spot a, b or c at speed d I will get hammered. Literally, there are three given spots where you can place the ball to trouble the batsmen. These spots are not accurate descriptions of the "corridors of uncertainty" in real cricket. That does at least smell of script to me.

I have tried very, very hard to vary things with bowling, apply captaincy skills to field settings etcetera but the game just doesn't reward it...in fact it punishes you for applying cricketing skills and knowledge.

Maybe the wrong knowledge yes but I am not stupid. I know how to set a field and bowl to it. I know how to set a trap, I know how to vary bowling. Believe me, I know! And even if you don't believe me, I know!

Once you realise that you can enjoy this game but you have to dumb down one half of your brain, the cricketing half, and let the "gaming" half have it's moment of pleasure.

Once again we go round and round in circles. And once again the "Holy Bail" is once again but a glimmering light shining through a distant mist........

Well said. Although I do agree to an extent with lazy, not everything can be physics based, but it does feel that a lot of it is scripted, although like I said that's what I feel as I have literally no knowledge about such things. You're right though, one has to play the game like a 'gamer' rather than a cricketer and that is sad. I guess we might get something closer to our vision of the game in the next version because I do like the direction these guys have taken the game, it's just that it's not quite there yet!