First Review of Cricket 2005 from OXM UK.

Discussion in 'General Gaming Chat' started by Boomslangnz, Jun 11, 2005.

  1. Boomslangnz

    Boomslangnz Guest

    I cant tell you what was said as i dont have the mag Ive just been told the score and it got 6.7

    Perhaps someone in the UK can get the mag.

    Looks like another shitty release.
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. ak47

    ak47 Guest

    copy of first review

    Official PS2 Magazine Review

    By Ben Richardson

    If you don't immediately know what bowling a googly, standing at silly mid off or playing from the Pavilion end mean, then Cricket 2005 will punish you itrs rock hard, requires serious commitment and offers almost no explanation of how the sport works. At the same time, it's also a great cricket sim.

    You have Just two jobs - bowling and batting. You can control the outfield players, if you're feeling brave, but the disorientating camera and flawed controls will likely persuade you otherwise. Bowling involves guiding a target to where you want to bounce the ball, stopping the power gauge at the required time and then adding spin. To stand any chance of getting a batsman out you must pay close attention to how he reacts, in order to seek out weak spots and exploit them, but the controls are too unresponsive to make this really practical. And if you don't know the tactics behind taking wickets (see "One Off The Wrist'), then you're bowling blind. We'd played three entire matches before persuading the umpire to 'give the finger'. It's that hard.


    Batting is almost as tricky to judge. Holding a direction and either X or (circle) performs a stroke, with different shots suited to different deliveries. Spending time in the practice nets is essential for success, because until you learn how to react to the pitch, spin and speed of each type of delivery, Cricket [2005] is very frustrating. Then there’s running. Pressing (circle) and (down arrow) springs your player down the pitch to score runs but you can only view this through a tiny picture-in-picture image because the camera follows the ball after you hit it. The restricted view means it's tough judging when to turn and run back, regardless of how far you hit the ball it's just bad design (why not minimise the fielding camera instead?) and it threatens to ruin what's otherwise an addictive and tactically demanding game.

    Cricket is an impenetrable sport at the best of times, and this game is unlikely to rope in any new converts (wait for the inevitable Cricket
    Street for that). However, if you can put up with its shortcomings, then Cricket 2005 makes for a solid version of the sport. Could be worth waiting for Codemasters' Brian Lara game to lace its pads before deciding.

    Verdict

    Graphics – 07 – Decent mainly, but arse picture in picture
    Sounds – 07 – Slightly repetitive, but some entertainment
    Gameplay – 07 – Deep tactics, unresponsive controls
    Lifespan – 07 – One match could easily last two hours
    Overall – 7/10 – Cricket 2005 is not for casual, half hour sessions, its also sodding difficult. But persevere and you’ll find it’s a well judged simulation
     
  4. ak47

    ak47 Guest

    my favourite comment

    offers almost no explanation of how the sport works. At the same time, it's also a great cricket sim.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    on fire EA
    on fire PS2 mag

    ur both lovers in bed and we know it!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  5. woosaah

    woosaah Guest

    yeah thats great, i don't go by what any of the reviewers say about cricket games as they often dont' even know how to play cricket.

    there isn't a game of cricket that i don't love so no matter how crap it is i will buy it.

    wait i hateded cricket 2000 on pc, the graphics were pretty good (for the time) but when i play my first game on hard (first game ever) notice the ball doesn't bounce and bowl out west indies for literlally 0 yes 0!!! kinda defeats the purpose, especially since i could score easily.

    sorry i just remembered that game and had to put it in [​IMG]
     
  6. Los Lover

    Los Lover Guest

    God EA are just so fricking utterly predictable....I am so glad I have avoided pre-ordering this game and showing discipline. Even with all our apparent "negativity" - it actually looks even worse than we said..lol!!! what a bunch of c**** EA actually are.

    You want money and that's all you care about? well f*** you - this time you're getting half as much bitch.

    sucked in....

    take that review and minus 1 - 1.5 of every score if you are hardcore gamer I bet - which makes that review utterly attrocious - a prettier, worse-playing cricket 2004 - unbelievable.

    only good thing is that he said it was hard - which means it might present some sort of challenge finally -

    my highest score on ea's previous version was 445 by Steve Waugh and 387 by Astle

    highest team score in test - 1011....yeah hard game. [​IMG]

    but the main point EA is this - as reveiw states - your game is =

    T - O - O...


    S...............L.....................O.............................W.

    we don't feel immersed -so we don't want to spend three hours playing one 22/22 game dickheads!! what rejects.
     
  7. Los Lover

    Los Lover Guest

    sorry read: 20/20 not 22/22 lol!!
     
  8. kaftka

    kaftka Guest

    ....Or Twenty:20 or whatever the hell they say it.

    Oh, and Los, you played it long enough to get over 1000?


    Dude.
     
  9. Los Lover

    Los Lover Guest

    it didn't take that long - I can tell you....let's just say the sweep slog (of many) is a very forgiving stroke (at just about any length!!) and I own sports games anyway.

    but kaftka....oh man - you have now tri-quotated or..something..oh **** I dunno.

    I'll just have to take that one on the chin - I did say it lol!

    [​IMG]
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page