Review A promising game spoilt - its unplayable in my opinion

[Supershtuffthat]

20/20's are good. Test matches are pathetic. the amount of runouts you get is detirmined by the size of the ground - Lords is massive (for some reason) and the Ai always stuffs up. But on grounds like Edgbaston they dont.

Transmission - seriously what the hell.

 

[angryangy]

Honestly, if the game had a perfect Test match simulation, almost everyone would play it once or twice, get bored of it and just play short ones.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Honestly, if the game had a perfect Test match simulation, almost everyone would play it once or twice, get bored of it and just play short ones.

You're right - it's a fine line between realism and fun with cricket games. Personally, I think that if they'd just tweak the runrates a little and sort out the bowling lengths, that'd improve it no end.

It's daft that you can't save tests online though and some sort of custom tournament maker would be a nice surprise in a patch, but I doubt it'll happen. It has happened before with games though - in the Total War series, they've been known to add new 'sub features' and in FPS, maps have often been attached to patches. A custom tournament editor would add so much longevity to the game, as would the option to save online.

 

[kneecaps]

For the above mentioned issues I agree on them all. Why implement bowling and batting with so many different shots to play and a choice of pretty much any line and length when you need so few.

Only around 4 'light green' spots are worth bowling and batting as long as you press the button at the right moment you ARE going to go for 4 or 6....

Makes no sense...why did the designers implement such control over the batting, shots in any direction, front foot, back foot or advance, attack, defend loft...when the control is almost pointless.

Same for bowling, many different deliverys, choice of many lines and length..but you only need the few 'light greens'. Take the cutters....I know that if I'm bowling swing for a bit then through a cutter in the AI will in most cases take it for a 6. It's all so sterile and mechanical .

 

[dissapointed]

For the above mentioned issues I agree on them all. Why implement bowling and batting with so many different shots to play and a choice of pretty much any line and length when you need so few.

Only around 4 'light green' spots are worth bowling and batting as long as you press the button at the right moment you ARE going to go for 4 or 6....

Makes no sense...why did the designers implement such control over the batting, shots in any direction, front foot, back foot or advance, attack, defend loft...when the control is almost pointless.

Same for bowling, many different deliverys, choice of many lines and length..but you only need the few 'light greens'. Take the cutters....I know that if I'm bowling swing for a bit then through a cutter in the AI will in most cases take it for a 6. It's all so sterile and mechanical .

well said. there are a few guys like masterblaster, who say these issues for his 12 year old nephew dissapeared "when i showed him how to bowl properly." I'm sorry MB, but you mean "bowl what the game INCORRECTLY considers properly," which #is sterile, mechanical and repetitive, as well as unrealistic so far as how you can never put the ball in what WOULD, or better yet COULD be a decent spot unless its a PRE-DETERMINED yellow zone.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

Surely before the game was released the game was tested by the makers themselves. For example some guy tested a test match on hard.

So he's playing along and in the 3rd over the AI begin to start slogging every ball for 4's and 6's. By the time the 10th over comes along the AI are 70/3.

Now the guy who is testing the game is sitting there thinking, ''70/3 in the 10th over of a test match wooooaahhh our consumers are gonna love this kind of gameplay lets release ASAP!''

Thats my opinion on things, some idiot has tested it and hasn't got a fooking clue about cricket.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[SpitfiresKent]

May i ask what is TAOC?

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[zimrahil]

I'm Sick of Hearing all these threads complaining about how unrealistic it is, if you want a realistic game go out and join you local club!

The most boring repetitive remark ever seen on the internet in response to people who comment about lack of realism in video sports games :doh

 

[CaptainOZ]

Surely before the game was released the game was tested by the makers themselves. For example some guy tested a test match on hard.

So he's playing along and in the 3rd over the AI begin to start slogging every ball for 4's and 6's. By the time the 10th over comes along the AI are 70/3.

Now the guy who is testing the game is sitting there thinking, ''70/3 in the 10th over of a test match wooooaahhh our consumers are gonna love this kind of gameplay lets release ASAP!''

Thats my opinion on things, some idiot has tested it and hasn't got a fooking clue about cricket.

This is a good post. I was criticised recently for "hating" this game on multiple threads. I'm entitled to my opinion even if it bugs you, and yes I do "hate" the game and what's been done with it!

Let me take Spitfire's post to another level. How do those guys at Transmission or Codemasters or whatever get to keep their jobs? I mean, if you were in an elevated position within the company and knew anything about cricket, wouldn't you sack the guy who allowed the AI runout bug? Wouldn't you sack the so-called programmers who failed to fix the bowling speeds and flat-out lied about it?

I know we are in an economic crisis and all, and this is a sensitive topic, but how these bozos get to keep their jobs is incomprehensible.

The most unfortunate part of it all is that they have gained anough sales to justify (in their minds) calling the product a success. Therefore, it is possible that they won't learn from their mistakes, keep selling faulty products and enough poor saps keep buying them.

Healthy competition. Healthy competition. Healthy competition. That's what we need. Once a a rival company releases a quality cricket game, causing the sales of games like AC09 to plummet, will we see action on two fronts: we get what we want (and deserve) and companies that produce the likes of AC09 start to take notice (not that we'll care by that stage).

Sorry Hmarka, I know I'm ticking you off! Please know that it's done in the spirit of lively discussion and not just flaming or hating.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Surely before the game was released the game was tested by the makers themselves. For example some guy tested a test match on hard.

So he's playing along and in the 3rd over the AI begin to start slogging every ball for 4's and 6's. By the time the 10th over comes along the AI are 70/3.

Now the guy who is testing the game is sitting there thinking, ''70/3 in the 10th over of a test match wooooaahhh our consumers are gonna love this kind of gameplay lets release ASAP!''

Thats my opinion on things, some idiot has tested it and hasn't got a fooking clue about cricket.

As I said before, there was an article in PC Gamer about this. Companies are often aware of bugs, but release the game anyway, usually with the intention to patch the game down the line at some point. I'm not saying it's right, it's not but thanks to high speed broadband, devs have become very lazy since they know they can patch games afterwards.

Now, if Transmission don't release a comprehensive patch, then they're out of order in my view. I am enjoying the game, but there are far too many little niggles for my enjoyment to be complete.

 

[Dabi]

You know, people keep talking about the AI slogging and such, I think that's a little wrong. I can keep the AI down to less than 1.5 runs per over and have done so in test matches over a period of 30-40 overs. The problem with that approach is that, I can hardly seem to take a wicket, while the other method gets them around 130-140 in 30 overs and all out.

 

[Dutch]

You know, people keep talking about the AI slogging and such, I think that's a little wrong. I can keep the AI down to less than 1.5 runs per over and have done so in test matches over a period of 30-40 overs. The problem with that approach is that, I can hardly seem to take a wicket, while the other method gets them around 130-140 in 30 overs and all out.

Ah that is interesting and I would be keen to hear what your tactics are if you would be willing to share!

 

[chaitanyaraghav]

You know, people keep talking about the AI slogging and such, I think that's a little wrong. I can keep the AI down to less than 1.5 runs per over and have done so in test matches over a period of 30-40 overs. The problem with that approach is that, I can hardly seem to take a wicket, while the other method gets them around 130-140 in 30 overs and all out.

please do post what tactics you use!