a cricket gaming fan should act like one....

[Ritwik]

Well, it is like this:

Jeremy Wellard and his team were working at Codemasters and they developed BLC. Later, some of the members of this team, led by Jeremy Wellard set up HB Studios in Nova Scotia and were contracted by EA to develop their next generation of Cricket games, after the joke that was CWC 99. Now to answer your question:

1. We don't know how many people who worked on BLC and specifically, its game engine resigned from Codemasters to join HB.
2. The publisher's role is important to a large extent because the publishers decide how much financing goes into a product, when it is to be released etc. Looking at the quality of their Cricket games and their promotion, it becomes clear that EA have not put in a ton of money into their cricket enterprise, and it is possible that the games have been rushed to meet deadlines.

And finally, I was just trying to explain there the psychology of the people who appear to be biased against EA Sports. As the publisher is the most visible part of a game's promotion and presentation, they're expected to recieve all the compliments as well as the brickbats regarding a game, something which can be called perception ( or if you feel charitable, you may say that EA are in an image trap ). As BLC 99 was a good game, recieved well by the general fans of the sport, its Publisher (and developer) Codemasters are percieved by the general fan to be better than EA Sports, a company which has failed to deliver on its promises time and again. Hope that clears up any issues.

 

[SaiSrini]

I was just wondering one thing. BLC99 was a success and apparently it was developed by HB Studios. C2k2 and C2k4 were developed by HB Studios and weren't exactly successes. So...? EA Sports just produces and markets the game--HB develops it. This is obviously not the same team making the game or is it? So how can you expect the same success. I'm a little confused...

I think even though its developed by HB studios, they make what they are asked to make rite?? I think the bosses of EA Sports or Codemasters give their inputs on how to make the game and they get down and discuss with HB studios on how to implement the game. Sorry, I could be wrong too but this is what I think.

I think the final product comes out according to the inputs & thinking of Codemasters or EA Sports, etc. HB studios might be just the developers.

 

[zimrahil]

Something else to consider

As well all know by now, HB Studios produced BLC 98 and all of EA's cricket games.

In BLC 98 there was
-correctly implemented rain
-no line up bug
-no run out bug (well not to the extent of 2004)
-no yorker issue (Ea Cricket 2002)
-scorecards shown correctly when all 10 wickets are down
-cpu pacing files (fine for their time as never had been seen/used before but looking back they are very poor as no consideration of match situation taken into account)
-unrealistic default fields that cpu uses when human bats


In the various EA carnations
-rain not implented at all in 2002, and was bugged in 2004
-line up bug appeared in 2002 and 2004
-run out bug - can easily bowl out Australia in a test playing as Bangladesh for under 20 runs!
-cpu always got bowled by bowling yorkers in 2002
-scorecards in 2004 showed all 11 batsmen out
-exactly the same pacing files used upto 2004. I.e. no improvement in this important aspect of gameplay in 7 years
-as above still have EXACTLY the same unrealistic default fields used by cpu after 7 years of producing cricket games


All the above was off the top of my head, there are certainly more examples.

My point is that how can a games developer incorporate bugs into games that were not in their original release, and not improve some of the most important gameplay elements of cricket in 7 years. The game engine is undoubtedly the same one used since BLC, so what's the reason.

Can someone please enlighten me ?

 

[sarmad]

I Think that EA has disappointed us on number of occassions than codemasters. They must have done this fifa,NBA engine stuff from 2002. They really concentrated on other sports but cricket was ignored. It is good that they are finally getting to the basics and are in the competition..or we can say thanx to BLIC. So it is better that we should wait for both games, enjoy their reviews and playing them...and then finally coming up with the conclusions about both the games.

 

[zimrahil]

So it is better that we should wait for both games, enjoy their reviews and playing them...and then finally coming up with the conclusions about both the games.

I see what you are trying to say, but if we wait first for both games, what do we talk about for the next 3/4 months ?

 

[Top Score]

I was just wondering one thing. BLC99 was a success and apparently it was developed by HB Studios. C2k2 and C2k4 were developed by HB Studios and weren't exactly successes. So...? EA Sports just produces and markets the game--HB develops it. This is obviously not the same team making the game or is it? So how can you expect the same success. I'm a little confused...

Jeremy Wellard was the producer of BLC 99 when he worked for Codemasters. Soon after that he left Codies and set-up his own studios in Canada, named HB-Studios.

There could be some of the original guys left from the days of BLC but not too many I would assume.

 

[Hero]

I think there were some more talented guys in the team when they make BLC and after that they scattered.

Second reason can be the limited budget.

However,this time Ea spending enough money to raise it's standards.I will say that this is all due to competition.

 

[Hicksy551993]

why is everyone so sure Codemasters wont release a buggy game?

V8 Supercars Race Driver 1 & 2 are two of the most buggiest games i have ever played... getting to 320km/h at Bathurst in a v8 supercar? i dont think so

 

[SaiSrini]

why is everyone so sure Codemasters wont release a buggy game?

V8 Supercars Race Driver 1 & 2 are two of the most buggiest games i have ever played... getting to 320km/h at Bathurst in a v8 supercar? i dont think so

ok man, i dont think you and some people really dont read through the forums or threads well..

it has been explained and pointed out so much why some of us are confident abt Codemasters delivering what they say!!! Reading through the threads would do some good.

 

[sarwan]

if ea hadnt released cwc99,2000,2002,2004.how could the present cricket generation immerse itself in the game??why didnt the codies hire a fresh batch of designers??why did the designers leave codies??now dont forget it was a monopoly by ea from blc times to till date.obviously if there is no competition how can the game improve at a rapid pace??i am sure ea will do it in future.really hope so.but i still think 2 games in a year doesnt work out.the cricketing world(particularly gaming)is too small.for the next 10 years atleast i dont see a big future for legal (non pirated )gaming in the sub continent.taxes just too much.codies and ea should concentrate on uk,aus ,nz,sa and us(immigrants).i am not a ea man or a codies man.

 

[zimrahil]

Something else to consider

As well all know by now, HB Studios produced BLC 98 and all of EA's cricket games.

In BLC 98 there was
-correctly implemented rain
-no line up bug
-no run out bug (well not to the extent of 2004)
-no yorker issue (Ea Cricket 2002)
-scorecards shown correctly when all 10 wickets are down
-cpu pacing files (fine for their time as never had been seen/used before but looking back they are very poor as no consideration of match situation taken into account)
-unrealistic default fields that cpu uses when human bats


In the various EA carnations
-rain not implented at all in 2002, and was bugged in 2004
-line up bug appeared in 2002 and 2004
-run out bug - can easily bowl out Australia in a test playing as Bangladesh for under 20 runs!
-cpu always got bowled by bowling yorkers in 2002
-scorecards in 2004 showed all 11 batsmen out
-exactly the same pacing files used upto 2004. I.e. no improvement in this important aspect of gameplay in 7 years
-as above still have EXACTLY the same unrealistic default fields used by cpu after 7 years of producing cricket games


All the above was off the top of my head, there are certainly more examples.

My point is that how can a games developer incorporate bugs into games that were not in their original release, and not improve some of the most important gameplay elements of cricket in 7 years. The game engine is undoubtedly the same one used since BLC, so what's the reason.

Can someone please enlighten me ?

Still awaiting a reasoned well thought out response (particularly interested in those who are so 'blown away' by the handful of screenshots produced by EA, which has led many to state on the basis of these they will buy the game now)

 

[sohum]

ok man, i dont think you and some people really dont read through the forums or threads well..

it has been explained and pointed out so much why some of us are confident abt Codemasters delivering what they say!!! Reading through the threads would do some good.

Why, though? All I can find is that (a) they have been giving us facts of the day and (b) they produced BLC99 which was a success. But it seems BLC99 developers are now EA developers. Who is developing BLIC2005 by the way? Not producing/publishing but developing?

Secondly, we do not know when the screenshots for EA Cricket 2005 were taken. They were released last week but they could have been primitive screenshots. EA has a history in bad gameplay but they may be forced to pull up their socks. Why? Because (a) they have competition and (b) they have a new engine. A new engine should mean different gameplay because the game engine will be doing different thing in different ways. So how am I going to decide if EA is not up to its old tricks? Simple.

If EA releases a demo, I will be confident that they will release a good product. If they don't release a demo and just jump us with a product, I think its curtains for EA. I am not totally trustworthy of Codies either. BLC99 was a good game but there were many things that were ****ing off about the game. That's why I've not touched it for ages. I think EA should next time hire an Indian game developing company to make their game and give them 2 years to develop a product. It will be perfect.

I read above something about squads not being accurate--its the time that they enter the information into the database. Also depends on what informaiton they were officially licensed to have. That's why the database may be inaccurate but it can always be changed with player editors.

 

[sarwan]

a new engine.......silky smooth gameplay.

 

[Ritwik]

a new engine.......silky smooth gameplay.

Thats just so fantastically wrong that I don't know where to even begin refuting it !

I'll take a crack at this mammoth problem later in the evening.

 

[kmk1284]

a new engine.......silky smooth gameplay.

if the word in the middle is
a new engine TRANSLATES TO] silky smooth gameplay
then your being way too optimistic