why dont they use cricket 97 and add graphics?

[johnsma2]

First off I dont mind cricket 2004, but i have 2 say most fun game is cricket 97. Why dont they use that game play and add stadiums and player graphics to that? it played great i reckon.

 

[michaelwest]

Yeah, Cricket '97 was a fun game. I agree that they should of just used that game and added the nicer graphics and updated things like tournaments, stadiums, players etc.

But I guess what happened with the Cricket games after Cricket '97 is that they wanted to create a new feel to Cricket games and that's where they went wrong.

In my opinion I think that they didn't need to create the new feel for Cricket games, but instead they just needed to work with the games like Cricket '97, that didn't have too bad gameplay, and just add to that. That is kinda the way things happen with the Fifa, Madden, NBA etc. games and those games are nearly bug free plus have good gameplay and graphics.

 

[whiteninness]

cricket 97 was great

it also has a record book that works :P

i was tempted to install it after 2002 was bugging up

yeh BLC 99, c2k2 and c2k4 are much better games BUT

97 at its time was much better than 2004 is at its time (now)

i luved the simple player editor/creater and team editor/creator

i much prefered it to this create a player thing and then paste it over another

 

[squiz]

what was cricket 97 like, ive only player Shane Warne/Brian Lara Cricket '99, Cricket 2002, and Cricket 2004. i like the late cut six thing in 99 hehe.

 

[tutsipoppy2]

yea cricket 97 was the best game in term of gameplay. the bowers used to swing the ball. WIND also played an important part in the swinging of the ball. i also luved the player editor and team creator.

true....if they had updates the graphics...added stadiums, game modes,etc.

if they could so it in the future game....i bet it will be the best ever.!!!

 

[crick4life]

To tell you what Cricket 97 should be the game we should look at modding.

The timing meter C2K4 now boasts of was already present in Cricket'97. The batsman had a lot of attributes that use to work as well as for bowlers. The game was quick and fielding was very enjoyable. The bowling changes were awesome as well. Over and above, it was a truly multiplayer and can be played over the net. The only issue with that game was that the scores werent too realistic, this could easily be fixed.

I am just starting to think we should look at some potential changes to Cricket 97 or BLC and give up on these stupid bug ridden cricket games. IMO by far BLC also is way too better compared to C2K2/C2K4.

 

[johnsma2]

I totally agree, I think the batting is ok in cricket 2004, but bowling is ridiculous.

 

[killa_stiky2002]

Belive me when I say Cricket 97 was the best game. I never played the full version but that demo has a record for most instances played so that tells a story.

I think the best cricket game would be:

-Overal originality of C97
-Quality (I'm not talking about sound quality) of commentry of BLC99
-Originality of gameplay of both C97 and BLC99
-Graphics and Stadium of C2004

I always thought...well C97 and BLC99 were great games but technology was limitted so I'm waiting for new versions. But it seems the technology wasn't used in the right way. It was used in a very lazy way. Too many shortcuts. But sometimes I do feel the quality of the games which followed BLC99 were indirectly, but severely reduced by the rise in the level of piracy and the downloading pirates themselve (hey what IS the noun for people committing piracy?):confused:

 

[vetts]

That would be pirates...

 

[Auwais]

Originally posted by vetts
That would be pirates...

Maybe it was named after those ship sailing, treasure finding hags?

Well in a way...

And I do not know anything about c97 because I've never played it and (until now) known what the quality of the game was.

 

[Scatter]

iirc C97 had a major issue with the batting though. all you had to do was bat/charge halfway down the pitch and play a six shot every ball to score a mountain of runs...

 

[voy1d]

Originally posted by Scatter
iirc C97 had a major issue with the batting though. all you had to do was bat/charge halfway down the pitch and play a six shot every ball to score a mountain of runs...

I think you mean that was Cricket 96. Getting 2000/4 was a bit of a un realistic way of life, add to that to get wickets, you get a spinner turning the ball away from the computer, bowl a half tracker and have all your men behind point/in slips and you'll bowl a team out for 0!

 

[killa_stiky2002]

Kool but by the way I nearly did that in 2002. But tail enders managed to whack 14 runs off me Ntini style

 

[scritty]

The only issue with that game was that the scores werent too realistic, this could easily be fixed.

Yup, that was the main problem, step down and hit a 6 nearly every ball, but it could be fixed. Gameplay was ahead of 2004 (and 2002 BLC etc) Franchise lost it's way BIG TIME with '99 and 2000, but could be on the way back.

Cheers

Clarker

 

[joedoe21]

Originally posted by johnsma2
I totally agree, I think the batting is ok in cricket 2004, but bowling is ridiculous.

What's wrong with the bowling in Cricket 2004? I have hired the game out twice (and have ordered it off dvdcraze.com) and absolutely love the bowling. I feel it's very realistic, and you really have to earn your wickets.

I was playing a one-dayer on a green pitch and kept bowling just outside the off stump. The batter was soooo close to getting an edge dozens of times. So I changed the pace of one of the balls (right on the 'sweet spot') and placed the marker so it would hit the off stump if the batter missed, and *clunk* clean bowled! I think I enjoy bowling more than batting in this game, it's more rewarding in my opinion.