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
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