Why realism in "action" cricket games is so hard to achieve

[scritty]

Just my opinions

Owning nearly 50 cricket games across 9 formats over 22 years, certain bugbears come out again and again. The unfullfilling nature of "arcade" cricket games is one constant. This dull as ditchwater thread is my take on it.

If your REALLY bad i'll write another on why I think the same genre needs a totall unique control method - and some suggestions for you to throw back at me wrapped in last Tuesdays socks

Cricket is all about numerous iterations of a similar process, (batting and bowling) with each iteration bringing with it a multitude of risk/reward possibilities.

Every ball is a possible wicket - likewise every ball is a possible '6'

This is the problem that cricket game makers face. An innings that goes on for 200 balls plus (to get a decent test ton) has had every possbililty played over and over. And as users we :

Take risk

Attempt the unlikely

Play as eleven players in succession (so that won't work for starters - we can't be Boycott one minute and Sehwag the next)

So all eleven players will have one skill against the quicks - our skill

One skill against spin - our skill

The fact is this skill is totally random (EA / Codies have NO idea which we are better at - if any)

So this has to be factored in an algorithm of realsim ......

Many many times in the average 200 ball innings.

For example :

Should you "never" be able to get out playing a straight bat defensive ?

Should you "always" score six with a well hit swipe through mid wicket ?

Should you "always" be out if you mis-hit the same shot in the air and a fielder is under it ?

How much is luck - how much is skill.


If the random seed comes down against you playing the same shot against the same ball you kept out last time, and this time you nick it to the keeper, do you feel robbed ? Are you happy that the game needs to do this ? Would a choice be better ? After all 9 times out of ten you are playing the CPU . It has no feelings. But you may WANT that realism..you may not.


Cricket is almost unique in the size of data set an average innings generates. Particularly considering the dataset is an iteration of very similar events (bowl / bat / bowl / bat / bowl ad nauseum)

Football is a fluid game where the ball is won and lost many many times during 90 minutes, the outcome is very variable, and can be as mundane as losing or gaining a few inches then reclaiming the ball. This outcome not going to break your heart or make your day really. So nth degree accuracy can be waived in favour of FUN. and the ILLUSION of realsim. (Check out Pro Evo 4 fansites where Inter Milan thrash Man U 13-0 in a five minute game on the hardest difficulty level - is this realistic ?

Golf (and Baseball) have more in common with cricket BUT with much smaller data sets. 3 strikes and your out, one hit and your home (and that's it till next time). Golf is a hole by hole event. 3 shots / 4 shots ? next hole.

Occaisionally you fluff it, Too often you hole-in one (Not difficult in Tiger Woods 2005 - one about every 3 rounds, chip in once or twice a round) - Is this realistic ?

Golf games are "turn based" you may have an opponent, but it always you against the course, and the course ain't going to moan if it feels short changed by you.


Cricket against a computer is always going to be a problem. because in real life Flintoff nicks the outswinger to Hayden at second slip 'cause he didn't read it. In cricket games it often HAS TO happen 'cause the random factor came out against you this time. To build in the infinite possibilities that really occur is not possible.

You can argue this with any sport (like I just have) but crickets iterative nature makes any defect in the logic glare out like a sore thumb.

"You should step to off stump and always smack the yorker for six over square leg with the slog leg-glance"

If this is so ..BORINGGGG

If this aint so NO FAIR !!!

So live with fun, it's your own ability that ruins the game.


Clarker

 

[Langeveldt]

Cracking post, wouldnt mind having a long chat with you about cricket games... I myself try and play as the real players would and accept whatever happens.. After all, I dont really care about the result, I want realism, and the feeling that I'm actually playing a replica of what "might" go on in real life.. In fact, I've logged a lot of stats of the games i've played with fascinating results.. (ok way to much time on my hands)

I've found (bugs aside) that BLIC is the best exponent of converting cricketing inputs into realistic outputs.. I like the "realistic yet quite random" arena that does not appear to be present in EA's Cricket 2005, where the outputs feel fairly contrived and predictable..

Skill also plays a massive factor, and deciding what skill level to play on.. I have never ever played a cricket game on anything other than Hard.. My highest score is 262 made by Rahul Dravid on a turner against Zimbabwe.. My demands and my "inputs" are clearly different than someone who is gutted because "I only hit 86 in a twenty20 game against Pakistan on easy, oh its sh** im taking it back, EA and codies should be ashamed of themself disgrace"

You see, different strokes, different folks..

 

[scritty]

"realistic yet quite random"

You've summed it in a nutshell, The outswinger against the CPU should
normally be defended successfully.
sometimes attacked successfully,
sometimes edged for runs,
sometimes edged to ground for nought,
sometimes missed.
sometimes nicked and dropped,
sometimes played on, sometimes ......


The feeling that you are playing for an edge -and these things happen in a realistic ratio to one another is damn hard.

I remember watching New Zealand V Australia about 2 years ago. I think it was one of the Marshalls opening - never heard of him before. McGrath and Gilly gave him a right good going over - an unknown batter against (arguably) the best bowling side in the world (Brett Lee and Macgill were next - I think Warney was still banned) Marshall looked all over the place, struck on the helmet, struck on the hand, 2 in the bread basket, on his *** a couple of times, and caught off a no-ball


He scored 100 +

How the juicy-fruit do you go about writing an algorithm for that. ?

Clarker

 

[Pedro Delgado]

One can throw that acusation at every game, that's just the way it is as Bruce Hornby and the Range had it.

 

[scritty]

One can throw that acusation at every game, that's just the way it is as Bruce Hornby and the Range had it.

Errm , and that's just the point I'm making.

The side issue being that as cricket repeats the same two actions over and over agin, primarily the game boils down to 2 people batman and bowler - excuse the pun "over and over" again.

The other 20 players bring out the drinks and try and fetch/catch the ball.

As the same action is repeated over and over, with a myriad of possible results, all depending on a split second reaction by the batsman - the alogrithm to decide the result of a particular shot against a particular ball (luck included) is exposed to a massive amount of scrutiny.

Primarily it comes down to timing and luck. The computer is not a capable of brining every element into play so "cops out" a bit by introducing "luck"

Does the ball hit the seam ?(luck, you have no control over your wrist position)

Does it hit a loose sod of eart ?

What's the wind direction ?

Now as I said above all this happens in other sports BUT the difference is the life or death (potential "6" potential "wicket") every time this algorithm is run.

In football to get the ball up the field you need to dribble, pass, tackle for at least several seconds, taking on challenges and looking for openings. If you are taking on the first defender and the "random" comes down just right for you - that isn't a goal...you have other defenders, your ability to find space, shoot and the ability of the goal keeper to save.

In computer cricket only one aglorithm is really important. The split second you make up your mind what shot to play and when, and the CPU's decision based on that ONE thing.

No second chance, no second defender, NO need to still dribble a further 40 yards and place a keeper beating shot - that's it - wicket or runs. One action - one reaction - that's your lot.

Every time you make that one snatch movement on the keyboard or joystick it's win or bust.

Potential "6",
Potential "Out"... (and of course every layer of grey in between)

If you lose a tackle in PES4 you are upset. BUT It doesn't cost you a goal every time.


Likewise every tackle won doesn't gain you a goal. It requires a relatively long series of player actions and reactions put together in a fluid manner to craft a goal.(or concede one )

As long as over a period of time the ratio to tackles won and lost seems reasonable you are probably happy.

Make one bad decision in a compy cricket game, and that blokes out

Work out one "winning formula" in a cricket game and it's "6" every time - or a wicket every ball. (How often have we seen that)

I am a firm believer that cricket needs to look for the development of Baseball and Golf games for it's future control methods. They are both MASSIVE sellers in the US, and are tier one productions by EA sports amongst others.

Yet neither have a control method that bears any relation what-so-ever to the actual sport (Tru -Swing... ?? do me a favour)

They are played for fun, and have excellent tried and tested control methods (Compare MVP with MLB - not really that much difference, Compare Tiger Woods 2005 with Mario Golf - again not really a great deal of difference) Cricket needs to go down this road.

PLayer set up is where (i believe) the main choices should be made NOT in the split second the ball is coming down.

Playing for real, if the ball is a half volley outside off stump, i'll try (ahem) to whack it through the covers. I know this before the ball is bowled. That's my mindset at that point in my innings. However, if they have two sweepers on the cover boundary and no slip or third man - i might try and slide it off the face (errm - nick it ) I know this before the ball is bowled. The rest is motor reaction.

At any point in time i've got about 5 offensive shots going through my mind - plus the fall back of defence. and the duck/avoid maneuvre

That's why Im suprised sometimes -

My five "slots" didn't include the hook shot - 'cause after 30 minutes batting the ball hadn't got above my ankles. My cheek bone bears testimony to my lack of awareness.

I change my attacking options quite a bit (maybe every ball, though more likely every couple of overs - or at a bowling change - or when I reckon the bowler is bowling a particular line - or is getting complacent - or because my team mates are slow hand-clapping me etc etc)

The point remains that I only have about 5 shots in my mind at any one time.

I reckon they could make a control method around that. (and a career mode as the batsman "develops" new shots based on performance points earned)


Now where's those stinky socks

Clarker

 

[bumpuss]

Very Long Posts

Questions?
Does cricket 2004/05 or BLIC have fielding control, ie can you control the fielders? Can you tell them to throw it at either end? Can you tell them to dive? Can you tell them to dive and miss the ball (misstimed dive or fumble)?.

How many edges to the keeper or slips do you get in a match? How many runouts?

Cricket 96 as i said before is the best arcade cricket game ever, simple yet it has all functions of cricket. Outswingers watch the ball swing varying bounce, play early chances are the ball go nowhere or carry to the slip, play late and you might caught at gully or hit through point for four. Be unorthodox and get behind an outswinger and leg glance to fine leg -- this game allows you to do anyshot on any ball - - skill there is no skill, its more style the way you play.

Quick thinking which end are u going to throw, oh wrong end noone backing up overthrows for four -- i have never seen this in any other cricket game aprt from cricket 96.


TO have a good realistsic arcade game its gotta be simple and that means sacrificing graphics for gameplay, i have played cricket 2002 the graphics are excellent but the gameplay is so boring!, i mean its so reptitive, cricket is not like that, every ball is exciting. Perhaps one thing that should be added is injuries.

 

[scritty]

YOu only control catching and throwing (and field placement)

This works reasonably well.

You CAN step to off to try and work a well pitched offside ball to leg (to exploit a gap), or even leg glance it.

The skill is in the timing. The more "appropriate" the shot the more chance of hitting the ball.

The good thing here is , that the CPU measures the appropriateness based on your position when the ball arrives, as opposed to some recent games that base it on the ball as it is bowled.

(I.e if you step well wide of leg stump, then try a cover drive to a delivery that would normally crash into middle stump - that's fine, as long as you moved, likewise stepping to off and leg glancing it is also an option (and obviously playing the straight drive of defensive shot is also fine) .

It plays ok. IMO the graphics are superior the EA Cricket, esspecially when moving. EA players seem to have arms and legs stuck on with a single pin (like "pin the tail on the donkey" games) They seem very disjointed in movement.

Sound is fine (though not stunning)

Replays, camera views and play options (such as bat through helmet cam - which was how I played the '99 game) totally absent.

For a game that hogs nearly 5 gig of hard drive, and is the descendant of Lara '99 (which had all these things) it really does beggar belief

Never get to see where a six lands (always cuts away while the ball is still in mid flight)

Also career mode still has you playing as all 11 players. my average england scorecard reads


Trescothick 120
Strauss 40
Clarke (me) 75
Vaughan 0
Pieterson 8
Flintoff 15
Jones 0
Giles 4
Hoggard 34
Jones 18

'Cause I get to 200 - and get bored and just try and slog a few, then when I get to 8 or 9 wickets down, refocus on getting at least 250.

I just want to bat as me !! I just want to bowl as me !!

Autoplay the rest

But there is no autoplay (ARRGGGHHHHH)


So big niggles in an otherwise good game

Come on Codies - Actua soccer had definable replays 10 years ago, and as for no autoplay, or different pitch views to play from. Stick them in a patch will you ??


Clarker
Harmison 0

 

[djwolf]

It's an interesting post with good points made. I'm always thinking of how cricket games could be made better and more realistic, admittedly it's a pretty tough job. In real cricket all kinds of strange things happen during the course of a match i.e a catch is taken after a rebound off a player's boot, a batsman gets a top edge which flies for six over the weeketkeeper or a batsman is run out after a deflection off the bowler's hand. So, should these types of things be included in cricket games? The problem is they could then happen too frequently which makes it unrealistic. It seems to be a case of including everything in the right balance and occuring roughly the correct number of times.

I feel that the more recent cricket games are mastering the field of presentation, sound and graphics but it's the overall realism of the gameplay itself that is the letdown (and silly niggly bugs). There are still not enough exciting factors such as inside edges, dropped slip catches or sudden sideways ball movement in cricket games to name a few.

It's also small things that can really enhance the realism i.e batsmen all behaving in their own individual manner, bowler's staring at the batsman or the crowd waving and reacting to match situations. No cricket game has yet to include such things. I also think the producers need to take a more in-depth look at the TV coverage of matches, this can give an idea of how cricket games should be. I think the instant random view replays in C2004/5 are excellent. Hawk eye in BLIC is a nice added feature. Confidence meters in C2004/5 are also a good idea as long as they actually work and not just for 'show' which I suspect they may be.

Going back to the point about randomness, I think there will always have to be an element of this in cricket games to give realistic scores, but to varying degrees depending on the pitch/ball conditions and skill of the players. Obviously the batsman's shot selection and timing should be made an important factor of the outcome of that delivery. As said, this is not an easy thing as so many variables are possible, for a start in most games there are around 8 possible shot selections and 4 delivery types.