 |
|
|
[Affiliate Program]
|
Feedback received (my comments are in italics) Send feedback about Cricket 2000 (Playstation). Andrew Huntingdon said on 18 October 2000Below is an unapologetic rant I sent to EA Sports about Cricket 2000. Obviously they couldn't handle the criticism and never sent a reply. Dear Sir/Madam Hi there! I purchased a copy of Cricket 2000 last week and was wondering if you could do me a huge favour and pass my comments onto your commissioning/marketing/development team. I was astounded by how poor the game was in the most basic of ways and thought I'd outline some of the most glaring problems in the hope that they don't produce such poor quality again. Thanks. 1. Stadia The stadia selected are not well chosen. Where are the truly great grounds such as Adelaide, the MCG, Eden Gardens Calcutta, Madras, Antigua etc... Instead you have totally invented inaccurate renditions of English grounds. Had the designer ever actually seen pictures of any of these grounds? One of the key aspects of cricket is that national/international grounds have particular characteristics which affect the game and the team you choose. For example, Worcester is a slow, low scoring wicket with no bounce and where seam bowlers will have an advantage. The Oval on the other hand is a pacey, even track with lots of runs in it. None of these aspects are incorporated into the gameplay. 2. Teams Where do you get your player stats? Michael Bevan, the greatest one day batsman in the World is not even in the Aussie starting line up on batting ability! Also, Bevan and Mark Waugh regularly contribute to limited overs bowling and yet have very poor bowling stats. Also, Shoaib Acktar - according to your stats, he's rubbish! Hmmm..... the Rawlpindi Express firing in with all the pace and lethality of a blind apathetic donkey. I realise that Mike Atherton often isn't in the EWCB one day sqauds, but it's a bit harsh to exclude a man who has been (except for injury and occasional resting) a major contributor to English cricket - I'd pick him. Add Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose to that! 3. Fielding Positions Why can't I change the fielding positions? The fields which are set up in the game may look pretty, and conform to a few conventions, but are completely ineffectual in the context of the gameplay you have designed. It is essential that I can go into the suggested fields and alter and save them according to my bowlers, my tactics and the way the batsmen play - in the same way that you can for football formations in ISS Pro evolution. 4. Fielding Gameplay Fielders in the game do not dive. Diving for the ball sometimes happens in cricket apparently. Also, the fielder who stands behind leg on a 45 degree angle to the stumps can not make catches. He appears to catch the ball, but it never registers. When fielding the ball, the fielders always throw the ball directly at the stumps, the bowler or the keeper. They never miss! Regardless whether it's Graeme Hick or Alan Mullally, they both throw and catch with the same ability, speed, and consistency. When the wicket keeper receives the ball in the case of a possible run out, he stands like a stuffed guppy fish until the batsman gets in. After the batsman has recovered his composure, had a fag etc. the keeper wakes up and suddenly throws the stumps down for no reason. Nice! The bowler also makes no effort to run people out - displaying a similar symptom of brain dysfunction. At no point was I told that fielding restrictions were in place and for how many overs they would last. This is not very helpful. I went to the fielding choices at one stage to find that I could adopt a more defensive field. Wondering if this would help stem the flow of runs (Caddick/Gough giving away 50 in 3 overs), I found that the batsmen were so in awe of my captaincy that they proceeded to hit only 5 runs from 2 overs of Hussain and Hick??!!!!!!!!!?????????? Who programmed this codswallop??????? 5. Bowling Gameplay In cricket, bowlers can bowl either round or over the wicket. This is a fairly basic and crucial part of the game which is not featured in your game. The second time I played the game, I chose to open the bowling with Glen McGrath and Shane Warne against Zimbabwe in a ten over match. Bearing in mind that I knew what I was doing by then and had previously bowled West Indies out for 78, how did the Zimbabwe openers hit 69 off my first three overs? Absolute and utter rubbish! It simply didn't matter where I held the ball, what line, length or accuracy level I used, I still got hit for cover driven sixes (a shot you see every day off McGrath and Warne!!) Not to worry though, I scored at between 18 and 26 an over during my 10 overs - very realistic! OK, so I'm bowling on a hard wicket, I'm Glen McGrath, I'm really fired up, aim the delivery as short as possible, get the accuracy spot on, and yet instead of seeing the batsman end up in hospital with a collection of broken ribs, a fractured jaw or play a masterful hook to the boundary, he responds with a fairly steady forward defensive shot!!!. Why can't you bowl short deliveries? I know they are no balled if over shoulder height in one day cricket but they are an essential part of the game. Balls left alone due to being unplayable do not exist. The batsmen go for everything, are able to play any shot to any delivery (Wasim Akram kept getting swept for four from outside off stump!!! Swept??? At 90mph??? GET A LIFE!! This does not happen!!) The only time the ball was left alone was when the balls were called wide or went through the stumps. There was little visual evidence of spin, seam, speed or swing, and certainly no perceivable relationship between the bowler's ability, line, length, accuracy and the end result. Rubbish!! 6. Umpiring I went through an interesting stage of having my bowling called wide when delivering the ball between bat and pad - is this an new one day rule? Admittedly the batsman was standing outside leg stump but this actually doesn't matter in cricket, only in made up, badly produced computer games. LBWs - yeah right! Tell me a story!! No replays for run outs is really, really poor. I was looking forward to the close red/green light decisions but they weren't there. Also, no replays for any dismissals. Oh well. 7. Batting Gameplay Good grief! Just hit the six button and as long as you hit the accuracy level at the top, you can get boundaries from any shot to any delivery. Complete nonsense! 8. Commentary Richie and Dave must have been out of their tiny minds to have put their voices in the hands of your programmers. Glorious pulled/swept/hooked (difficult to tell) six brings adulation from Richie. Same adulation repeated for mishit forward defensive shot next ball. I was also a bit miffed when Richie was disappointed with England's 108 off five overs! 9. Bugs Plenty. The commentary and sound effects cut out and cut in randomly. The batsmen would just stop mid run and then start again. Also the fielder on the 45. 10. Conclusion Why, when so many people are so keen to have a decent cricket game, did you program this?? It's worse than the Brian Lara game. If it is just that you don't really care about cricket because the market's not significant, then don't produce anything at all. Why spend money on getting Richie and Dave to do the commentary when you could have paid a decent programmer to devise better gameplay. If this really is the best you can do, then please, please, please don't do any more cricket sims - leave it to someone else. (By the way, I had to take the game back - I was the 8th person to do so that weekend! Well done!!)
Ian said on 12 April 2000 My 11-year-old brother has been waiting for quite some time for Cricket 2000 to come out. Now that it has we have hired it out overnight to see if it is a decent buy, and after about 5 hours of playing it, we have both reached the conclusion that one can get more enjoyment out of Cricket 97. Here are some reasons for anyone reading this not to buy it.
So if you feel my advice is worth listening to, but you still want a cricket game for PSX, go for BLC. It has faults, but overall it is a much better game.
Mat Clark said in the forum on 20 January 2000 Sent this email to Krisalis concerning Cricket 2000. I know they probably won't read it so I'll post it here to see what you think. Hi Krisalis, Being an avid cricket game fan I was pleased to hear that you are developing Cricket 2000 for the playstation. I've just finished my own cricket game called 'Arcade Cricket' which took up much of my spare time for the last 6 months. Thus do not doubt my fervency on this matter. So the point is I have a few suggestions to make mainly about Brian Lara Cricket, what it did wrong and how to avoid these problems. Bowling The bowling in BLC is dull as dishwater. This was due to it being too easy even
on the hardest difficulty level.Now I know there's a good case for an 'arcade mode' where
the controls are quick and easy to pick up but if you are going to make things mind
numbingly simple for the lesser player please, please, please, include a 'simulation mode'
with challenging controls which require a fair deal of practice to master. Now you might say that such a mode gives away the games secrets and reduces the longevity of the game but from my experiences with BLC I'd say a game with unchallenging controls and an eccentric interpretation of how to play cricket (a leg glance being the only safe way to play a Yorker?) is going back to the shop for a refund which really is going to cut down the longevity. Now you may say to this that you have modelled the game perfectly so the eccentric point does not count but you have to remember that the people buying the game are all going to have there own idea's about how to best play cricket and if their version does not closely match yours then their going to get mightily pissed off when things they think should work don't. So the point is give them nets couching so they can learn your interpretation of how to play cricket and don't get REAL MAD. Now for some simulation mode specifics. The worth of a delivery is determined by three factors: Now to get the real feel of bowling you should take into account the fact that the faster you try to bowl the more difficult it should be to place the ball where you want. You could also add seam movement into this equation forcing the player to make a tactical judgement of how quick and seamy he thinks he can bowl while still maintaining a good line and length. Should he try to bowl consistently or should he try to bowl the batsmen out with a wonder delivery. Beginning to sound a bit like real cricket this is'ent it. Now here's the one thing that BLC got REALLY BADLY WRONG. The batsmen should not know where the ball will pitch until the ball has left the bowlers hand. This is very important because it means the batmen only has a short period of time to pick the best shot for that delivery. Here in lies the real skill of batting. The ability to make judgements and keep a cool head under extreme pressure. Oh I can just taste the FUN! I could go on to describe method's of controlling batsmen and bowler but I've so many idea's it would take too long. So I must just mention..... Fielding The one thing I think everybody on every cricket game forum I've read is agreed upon is how bad BLC's fielding is. The problem is the running to pick the ball up is not the interesting part of fielding. The actual throwing the ball to the keeper or bowlers end is where the fun is. If the batsmen's being a bit cheeky a well executed throw could get a wicket and wickets are like GOLD! I would suggest the player making a trade off again between speed and accuracy. One button to throw it in low and hard which makes accuracy difficult. Another button to gently lob it back. A bouncing arrow like those found in the FIFA games could be used to determine accuracy. It would bounce quickly for a hard throw and slowly for a gentle. An inaccurate throw would result in overthrow runs being available to the batsmen. Anyway I've gone on long enough. If you've read this far thanks. I hope this is at least a bit helpful and good luck with the game. |
Revised:
Saturday, 16 March 2013. |
