[ Up ]

[Home/News]

User Reviews
Previews

[Affiliate Program]
[Competition]
[For Sale]
[Trade]

Review by Sean Gaynor

Well.....where can I start.  Well I could start by saying all the reviews on your sites are SHOCKERS! Everyone is pointing out all the games bad points.  The game has many good points as well.  For one, the graphics (well in Shane Warne Cricket, I cant speak for BLC) ARE NOT WORSE THAN SWC (OR BLC).  The gameplay is quite good, and on every single game you are bound to get statistical errors.  At least this game has up to date squads! (Unlike SWC)

I think this game has been crucified to easily and is a good game.  I would give it a 8/10, and it only misses out on the extra 2 points, as it is not quite fast enough to be a real arcade winner.

Review by Mohammad Gholam.

As we all know that when World Cup 99'came out, everyone wanted to rush out and buy it because of the ads we saw on TV, well once we got it we realised how slack EA Sports had really been in making such a 'wonderful' game. There were poor reviews about it all over the web, in fact I only saw 3 good ones that didn't hate the game and I read about 30 reviews. I just recently tried out the new cricket 2000 which is 'supposed' to be the greatest cricket game alive, on PSX, but luckily I hired the game because it is the worst cricket game on the market!!!

Firstly the controls took long enough to adjust into and then how to play shots, but that's the same with every game I guess. I decided to try out a friendly match against my friend.  And as we kept playing we found the game full of stupid errors. My main problem was the how the wides were judges. If you bowled it outside the pitch it wouldn't be called a wide, but whereas if it was close to the stumps but went through bat and pad, it would be called  a wide!!**?? That is idiotic.

Once we'd played the game for about an hour the commentary started getting repetitive, although it starting repeating itself within 15 min into the game. But what is worse is how the commentary was judged, I bowled a full toss and one of the commentators said I pitched it too short??!! What is going on?

No one wants a game with poor graphics, well sorry cricket 2000 fans, but these graphics are very poor, worser than World Cup 99. All the body shape, face etc is just so poorly done, I think EA Sports rushed it too quickly.

Also, when you go and buy a game do you want it to be challenging? Well when you bat with this 'new' style you'll be hitting every ball for six. Batting and Bowling is tooooo easy. For example batting you do not need to time it, there is a little bat at the top left hand corner is which you press on to hit the ball far. Also in bowling, they might as well have put the cricket 97 way of bowling, because all you have to do is hold on to the arrow keys and that's it, how exciting!!

In this game, I think the way you field is the worst, because it is automatic and every time is goes to one of the infielders you cannot runs because they hit the stumps always no matter what. Also sometimes they throw at the wrong end etc. Silly mistakes again from EA Sports.

In World Cup 99 I am not sure whether the square leg umpire gave decisions on run outs/stumpings, because on cricket 2000 only one umpire operates, so what is the point in having a square leg ump. if he is not going to be used??

On real cricket games, the wicketkeeper stands a reasonable distance back from fast bowlers, but on this game, I personally think they stand to close, you can even get stumped from a fast bowler!

Everybody loves the crowd, but on this game the ball doesn't carry to the crowd, it stop a forcefield of some kind and drops to the ground, now wouldn't it be just a weeeeee bit more exciting if the ball actually kept going like in a real game?

All in all I would give Cricket 2000 a 3/20. The only good thing about this game is that you can generate scores when you can't be bothered to play. The other two points are for looking good in the start and having a wicked starting, but the starting is always great with EA Sports cricket games, unfortunately they can't get their recently made game to be great as well. If u want to buy a descent cricket game I suggest go with Brian Lara/Shane Warne Cricket(same game). Ever since Cricket 97 ATE EA Sports have been very slack with their games, and to get back to the top they need to do a lot of hard work. Some features on Cricket 96/97/97 ATE are much better that World Cup 99 and Cricket 2000. Think carefully before you go on the market to buy a cricket game, I suggest hire it out first.

Review by Matt.

OK, where do I start?  Gross disappointment is how I feel.  But, it could have been worse.  If I'd bought this awful game, I'd still feel the need to have to play it to make it my money's worth.  After conflicting reviews, I was sceptical, so I though a rent and a good honest workout was the key to finding out about this game.

Each year, it seems that I get the impression that since a different team is working on a cricket game, it is somehow going to be better, and each year I am disappointed.  Whether it be a PC or console cricket game, I wish someone would implement the little things that each game seems to lack.  I haven't played Cricket '97 for so long, so I can't remember what its problem was - I know it was close to a good cricket simulation, but not quite.  More recently, BLC '99 also came close - but it had silly, presumably easily-fixable problems - batsmen running between the wickets at the same pace, computer bowlers with no variation (and pacemen repeatedly bowling bouncers), problematic run-cancel system and buggy LBW decisions are things that immediately come to mind.

Now, to Cricket 2000.  This one falls well short of the mark - they can get the graphics, motion-capture and atmosphere going pretty well - but the model it revolves around is pathetic.  Why do batting strokes no longer come down to timing, correct-positioning of the batsmen, or correct shot selection?  If you stand near the ball, choose nearly any shot you like, and just make sure to stop the power/accuracy bar in the top-left corner of the screen near the top.  That's it.  The animation of ball connecting with bat is far too quick, and the camera moves to the outfield before you can say "Boo", meaning you can't even appreciate your good stroke.  Plus, there's no replay to be found.  Before I get to bowling, I need to point out that on one occasion the camera changed to face the bowler on his approach, making facing that particular ball impossible.  Further, balls that the batsman missed that went between bat and pad were invariably judged to be wides, regardless of where the batsman was positioned.

Bowling has never been more dull.  I dug out Allan Border Cricket (Ian Botham Cricket?) recently, and its bowling model is out-dated, but its superb compared to EA's impression of bowling.  Its pathetically explained in the manual, but as far as I can figure the same bar which controls accuracy, also controls the pace of the ball.  The manual describes a "perfect" ball when the bar hits the line 3/4 of the way up - but if you want to bowl a slower ball, you have to stop the bar way short.  Does this mean I can't ball an accurate slower ball?  Speaking of the slower ball, it appears the only way of stopping the run flow when bowling, is to bowl slow bouncers which the computer batsman will defend.  The amount of seam/spin, you have no control over, and like I mentioned previously, the animation of the ball being delivered and hit is so quick, you can't tell if it turned or swung anyway.  Line and length don't matter - you can bowl at different spots on the pitch to try to find the right length, but it will still be dealt with the same way - 4!  Plus, a leg-glance for 6 is the computer's speciality!  I think when I did bowl the batsman, it was a bug in the game code!

Anyway, this game is far too slow to be an "arcade cricket experience", whatever that is, and not even close to a simulation.  The 3-4 hours I spent with this game was drudgery and painful at best.  I can't even recommend a two-player game.  At least BLC '99 had some lifespan with that feature.  Avoid Cricket 2000 at all costs, and bring on BLC2!

Review by Ravindra Krishnamurthy.

I have been an ardent follower of all the PC games that hit the market. I find it hard to resist myself from buying any new games that hit the stands. Since I bought Cricket World Cup'99 and a crap game called World Cricket, I have become more sensible. I rented a copy of Cricket 2000 from the nearest Video store yesterday and am currently not playing it. That sums it all up. Well, EA again have tried to do better job as compared to their Cricket World Cup'99 but in vain. The game starts with some clips of the past world cup and gives you a impression of EA's initial presentation. Once you are in the menu you would think they might have produced a better product this time around. I do not want to build up any more climax and list below my opinion :

1. Team selection from the menu is poor, any kind of team you select Australia will start bowling with Ponting and Lehmann (maybe EA thinks Australian bowlers can win the game let alone their world class bowler) on a green top. The kind of surface that Richie and David Gower narrate hardly makes any difference as the pitch looks the same on any kind of surface. England opened their bowling with Naseer Hussain and Graeme Hick, persisted with them till they could bowl their full quota. It is the same with all the countries when you play a 50 over game. It is simply ridiculous and my decision of renting it as opposed to buying it I thought made sense.

In shades the game proves that AI is present by placing a fielder whenever you try to attempt to play a shot at a particular direction.  At least in a P.C. version they could bring up a patch to set this right but how about a Playstation. If someone does not mind playing bowlers as batsman and batsman as bowlers they are suggested to give a try.

AI - scores 10 %.

2. I certainly feel Richie Benaud and David Gower would be better off commenting on TV and not attempt any affiliation with EA. They would do a lot of damage to their image as commentators if they continue to play their role in the EA cricket games. Gower comes on to say always "He is on strike now" to any old or a new batsman, which makes no sense. You could never hear to a players' name throughout the commentary. Richie Benaud it seems cannot differentiate a spinner with a fast bowler and each time you get beaten he utters "Thats real pace". Not only does he repeat the same words again, he would jumble the same and say it again. Go through the following commentary :

Richie : "This mediocre example of batting is a compliment",  "It is a compliment that this is a mediocre example of  batting"

Commentary : scores 0 % out of 100 % (There is no exaggeration in this, please test it yourself).

3. Graphics : The only bright spot is the stadiums. They are really designed well and are wide unlike Shane Warne's cricket game. The players look as though they lack even a piece of a bone or a joint in their body. You will see the players tilting all the time and they simply seem to appear as a screen shot of Gladestone Small when it comes to their neck. The shoes are bigger than their heads. The shadow seems to have a hole in the chest. 

Graphics  :  30 %.

4. Game Play : I started playing in the hard mode straight away and plundered around 220 runs losing 1 wicket against the bowling of Lehmann, Ponting and others. All other seem to bowl but for McGrath, Fleming and  Shane Warne. Much before the delivery you will have to choose where you want to play your shot and press the shot button once the timing bar on the left moves to its top. The game plays the shot based on the timing bar that you've kicked off before the ball is delivered. You simply cannot notice the pace or off spin or leg spin. Once you've pressed the button to determine your timing sit back, relax and watch the game play your supposed shot. You can keep the score realistic if you never want to play the power shot. It also sends wrong signals to kids who are budding cricketers to assume that only shots played in the air can go for boundaries, cause the EA team simply feel that you cannot drive the ball and cannot make it to the boundary.

Game Play and realism : 30 %.

I might list a lot more flaws in it, but it would make no sense as the once mentioned above are good enough for the potential buyers to think about it. My sweet suggestion is, wait till the PC version is released and hope the above mentioned flaws are fixed at least to you half worth of money you would be spending on this game.

Revised: Saturday, 16 March 2013.
Copyright © 1998-2013 by CricketGames.com. All rights reserved. No part of these pages may not be copied without the permission of CricketGames.com.