BLC V Cricket 2005

[Ramz]

^^LOll!! will do man.. it took me ages to kit C2004 up with Patches and Kits etc... i aint going to let that get to waste.

 

[whiteninness]

BLC 2005 > Cricket 2004 + all the patches and kits in the world

 

[warrior4ever]

lol, mate- have u even played the demo??!!! iv played the late cut -it gets twitchy on analogue ps2 controls but its reel good fun - county level difficulty's boring - so play it multiplayer but it luks reel good. guys, i also need a bit of advice - iv gt a bit of cash to spare - so is cric. 2005 reely worth it- its "sim-like" so im REELY lukin forward 2 that as well as BLIC. cheerz

first of all answer to ur question, Don't waste ur money!

then about comparison b/w the 2 games, well i've played both, full versions, against the A.I and multipay......
CK2005 has the worst physics of any cricket game I've ever played, here are some points..

no1. lbw's don't make any sense at all, u can get away with a perfectly pitched yorker on middle stumps even if ur standing outside off stumps, all u have to is attempt an advance shot with the right arrow key, lemme know if anybody disagrees..
no2. a batsman can play a complete wide ball pitched on the extreme off side+complete bouncer..
no3.many of the bugs from ck2004 are still there which shows how much EA researches about this particular sport, for e.g throws at the wrong end of a run out, repetitive commentry, wrong wide balls stuff like that..

I would rate 1.Blic 2.ck2004 3.ck2005

 

[Mahesh Babu]

My order,

1.BLIC 2005 ( tho the CPU AI is horrible may be patching will do it)
2.BLC99 (the game is still enjoyable with patches tho no wides,noballs)
3.Cricekt 2005 (Horrible experience and boring again)
4.Cricket 2004 (Boring tho i liked the game for sometime but the same faces for all players does make the game look ugly)