International Cricket 2010 Review
A certified cricket coach writes.
Version tested: Xbox 360
Sports sims give me big problems. A very large question looms into view: Why?
Role-playing games exist because a lot of people want to transport themselves to a post-apocalyptic landscape, shoot malevolent zombies, go on insane quests for medieval bling which will grant them special powers, or just lose themselves in the land of Whojamaflipponia. Strategy games are there for all those people who never got to have their hands on real power (although it is questionable whether anyone playing Sim City or Tropico would actually want to be Boris Johnson) and we do not need to be rocket scientists to understand why Tomb Raider was so particularly successful with 16-year-old boys who had recently discovered the auto-erotic experience.
In short, most games give you a place to go and an experience that you can't get any other way without great difficulty and/or expense. But sports games are a simulation of something we can actually do for real, for quite a lot less than the cost of most computer games, and get more enjoyment out of it. Of course, not everybody is going to face Brett Lee in a torrid 20/20 floodlit game at Lord's, but trying to deal with Mr Lee's yorkers and inswingers by thumb and forefinger dexterity, on the Xbox screen, comes a long way short of actually playing the game (as I do) at the elevated level of the Dulwich Cricket Club 6th XI.
This latest incarnation of the cricket sim does nothing to dispel my belief that Cricket remains a truly wonderful game to play and watch. However, International Cricket 2010 does not even get you half way there and, in fact, left me (a Level 2 cricket coach) with a worrying feeling that anyone who has never "wielded the willow" or "turned their arm over" on the green sward would be unlikely to try after dabbling with this pale imitation of the real thing.
For the beginner, a lengthy and frustrating time with the game's tutorial awaits you. Wading straight into a game will leave you confronted with a whole lot of unlikely bright green circles on the pitch and some bewildering HUDs which change considerably whether you are batting or bowling and then change again if you are bowling slow or fast, seam or swing, leg spin or off spin.

Wielding the willow in International Cricket 2010.
That said, the tutorial is nothing if not comprehensive: for the batsman, all the conventional shots are available for you to try. You are urged to check for gaps in the field and keep them in mind as the bowler approaches. The aforementioned green circle appears as the bowler begins his run, just on or past a good length (if you are practising the front foot drive) and short of a length if you are essaying the pull shot or the back foot drive.
The green circle tells you where the ball will pitch: if only these green circles were available when Dulwich 6th XI bat. Imagine batting against a bowler who draws a green circle on the pitch so you know where he intends to bowl every ball before he's bowled it!
The bowling is all about timing your instant of delivery so you can avoid bowling no balls and bowl at the stumps. A delicately poised pointer operated by the joystick tells the player if he is going to bowl a good length ball on the stumps and a meter tells him (or her) the optimum moment to let go of the ball: too late, and it's a no ball, too early and it's a short wide ball! Swinging the ball necessitates you controlling the seam's direction, never easy in Cricket, but virtually impossible in IC 2010. Slow bowling is sub-divided into off-spin and its attendant variations (including the "doosra") and leg-spin.
Fielding, the activity you spend most time doing in a real game of Cricket, is dealt with in a more truncated fashion: you are told that when a catch goes up, a circle will appear on the screen which will change from red to amber to green: click when the circle turns green and you hold the catch. Sounds easy enough till you realise that the amount of time the circle is green is shorter than a size S T-shirt from Primark. This runs entirely contrary to the cricket coach's primary mantra: "Watch the Ball". Do that, and you will not hold a single catch in IC 2010.
The tutorials are "locked". You must complete one stage to move on to the next. Your reward for completing the batting tutorial (i.e. batting for five overs without losing your wicket and demonstrating to the AI you have reached a level of "confidence") is access to the advanced batting tutorial and a chance to play in new stadia, unlocked by your progress.
Learning curves are steep and daunting, but then again, learning to play Cricket itself can be as easy as climbing a thorn tree with an armload of eels. It is a capricious game with no respect for reputations: ask the great Sir Don Bradman, who needed one run to retire with an average of 100 in his last Test Match and found himself bowled out for a duck by a man from Birmingham.
Armed with everything you have learnt from these demanding tutorials, you move on to the matches themselves: all the options are there. One Day Internationals, 20/20, Test Matches and a Codemasters invention: a tournament called "Round Robins".
A packed Lord's saw your correspondent, playing as England, lose to Australia in a 20/20 floodlit game. Jonathan Agnew and Shane Warne provided the often inappropriate commentary. Inevitable, I suppose, in a computer game.
OK, so I am an old git who has not got his head round the 20/20 format yet (even on the Xbox), so let's give the five-day game a whirl. As a friend once said to me: "The difference between 20/20 and a five-day Test Match is the difference between a passionate five-day love affair in a country hotel with good food, fine wine and great sex, and a quickie in a darker corner of the pub car park at chucking out time after six pints of Old Jake's Bumburning Bitter."

What's next? The national lacrosse team sponsored by Favorite Fried Chicken and Ribs?
I am offered an unlikely number of home and away teams: Do I really want Bermuda to play Canada for five days? The stadia on offer are perhaps a little less comprehensive; Codemasters just couldn't see their way clear to realising Toronto Cricket Ground for the great unwashed. This is a pity, as it would have been great to see the sightscreen moved around by tethered elks or moose and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police patrolling the boundary.
I finally opt for India to play Bangladesh in Kolkata for five days. I am asked if I wish to "edit" the team. This proves a mighty difficult task. Tendulkar has been replaced by a new player called Tenhukkar, Sehwag by Sehwak and so on. Clearly, Sachin and the boys knew what their names were worth and it was too much for Codemasters. Somehow, our poor impoverished English and Australian cricketers managed to agree a price with Codemasters and allow their real names to be used.
India get off to a fine start but, again, the same old ennui that I experienced in the 20/20 game finally gnaws away at my resolve: I want to be out there playing the real thing, not literally "twiddling my thumbs".
Of course, there is an argument that, in the winter months or when rain stops play, International Cricket 2010 might fill a gap for the real addict. But it resembles the real thing as much as Howzthat!: a once-popular game played with two tiny hexagonal metal bars with runs scored and 'Howzthat!' engraved on one bar, and methods of dismissal or 'not out' on the other. Great fun, and considerably more portable than IC 2010 and the Xbox, but, ultimately, just not Cricket!
5 / 10
Jim Barclay is a Level 2 cricket coach and recreational gamer. Occasional capitalisation of the word Cricket is the author's own.
You may also like...
-
Retrospective: Star Wars Episode I Racer
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Game of the Week: Catherine
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
App of the Day: Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
-
Face-Off: The Darkness 2
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
EA evaluating FIFA Street features for FIFA 13
-
Catherine Review
-
App of the Day: Sir Benfro's Brilliant Balloon
-
Grand Slam Tennis 2 Review
-
The Darkness 2 Review
-
Catherine launch trailer is looking saucy
-
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Vita Review
-
Sony admits "dropping the ball" with Demon's Souls
-
One Piece: Unlimited Cruise SP Review
-
CD Projekt: Witcher 2 intro cinematic "the most expensive asset we ever created"
-
Metal Gear Solid: The "Lost" HD Remasters
-
King Arthur 2 Review
-
Epic's Sweeney on graphics tech: "the limit really is in sight"
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 now live for Xbox 360
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 performance tip: make a new manual save









Comments (74) Latest comment 2 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Clearly, Sachin and the boys knew what their names were worth and it was too much for Codemasters."
Agree these fkers get too much money.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Answer: so that we can beat Algeria at football.
Cricket games have always seemed too robotic for my liking. I still think a Kinect version could be great as long as you have a super long living room for the bowling run up.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
...
/runs away without giving reasons as this is the internet.
edit: kind of what Notallowedhere says (below).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'm sure that IC2010 might not be the best game in the world but aren't sports games supposed to be complimentry to the sport rather than act as an alternative? A bit of fun when there is none of the real action to watch on TV? When rain light stops play or when your 2 year old daughter has finally gone to bed?
Maybe i'm missing the point with these reviews.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Its greatly improved from last years effort which was drivel, the review doesn't really stress the big single player selling point of the camera that puts you right in the middle of the action, is incredibly immersive and puts you more 'in the game' than most other sports sims. Sadly this cam is lost in local 2P mode and you revert to the more sterile broadcast cams.
Its not perfect but I think 5 is a bit harsh, feels more like a 6-7 to me providing you actually like cricket and realise that even a 20:20 game will see you bowling/fielding for about an hour !
Comment below viewing threshold Show
They offer too many teams to play with? No sale!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
im bout to puke right now
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The reviewer, by his own admission in the opening paragraph, clearly states that he doesn't 'get' sports games as a genre.
Am I the only person here that thinks that this might not be the best person to review a sports game? Just because he's played a little bit of cricket doesn't make him the most appropriate person to review this game. Would you have given the review of Modern Warfare 2 to somebody that has been paintballing a couple of times but doesn't really understand why anybody bothers playing FPS games?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think it's really important and useful - and, in this case, entertaining - to get different perspectives in reviewing every once in a while.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Is it really irrelevant when, say, Rock Band 3 offers a guitar with strings and a two-octave keyboard, and has a stated aim to actually teach you how to play? When motion control sports games aim to replicate spin in ten-pin bowling or have you jogging on the spot? I don't think so.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
GTA4 gets 5 out of 10 from me.
For fucks sake.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As an editorial piece about the way games are percieved to people outside the industry, or how sportsmen feel about virtual representations of their respective sports, perhaps. But not as a replacement for a proper review.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Coming soon: bereaved mother of soldier killed in Helmand Province reviews Medal of Honour.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You appear to be suggesting that this review was intentionally given to somebody that was predisposed to disliking the game before they'd even seen it for the specific purpose of provoking a debate on "different perspectives in reviewing".
Surely provovking such debate should be done in an editorial piece and not when writing what is supposed to be a review of a specific product?
**bah NGCes you beat me to it
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
There is one bit when he describes anything resembling the 'feel' of the sport when he discusses the fielding, the rest of the time he draws direct comparisons with real world and the game world, which seems a bit, well, pointless as others have expressed more succinctly above me.
If he talked about the feeling of needing 6 runs of the final over with one wicket remaining or the pressure of having not scored for 5 overs as the fielders crowding around him and the differences between them in game i don't think you'd be able to disagree of his critique on the 'feel' of the game. Instead we get comments about green circles appearing on the pitch, powerbars and not liking the 20/20 version of the sport, which is like marking FiFa down as names appear above people heads, you get a powerbar when taking a freekick and it has the World Cup mode...
Just wondering whether a more useful reviewer (to me at least) might be someone who has played previous cricket games, can advise on whether this is an improvement over others, rather than an occasional gamer that plays Cricket and doesn't like cricket games?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Generally people who review Fifa etc are people who like football and playing footy sims. You don't get Arsene Wenger doing a review complaining that PES 2009s shot strength bar is unrealistic and the radar map on the bottom detracts from the technical skills that he has from managing Arsenal.
This review just seems to miss the point of the game, which is exemplified by the reviewer starting off with asking why anyboday would play any cricket sim in the first place. Starting with such biases and preconceptions will never lead to a fair review.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I commissioned Jim because he a) likes games and b) likes cricket. I didn't know he'd be "predisposed to dislike it", and didn't necessarily think he would be - but when he raised the argument in his review, I didn't think it was appropriate to censor him.
I did work with him to make sure it was backed up by proper criticism of the game, and cross-checked his opinions with some EG staff (more gamers' gamers) who have played this and other cricket games. They supported them.
I might also point out that as someone who a) likes games and b) likes cricket, Jim is surely an important part of Codemasters' target audience for the game, therefore if anything a more appropriate reviewer than a professional games journalist who doesn't care about the sport.
@Notallowedhere
I can't imagine anything more important than fluid and intuitive controls and interface when it comes to capturing the feel of a sport in a game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I should have added: c) can write.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Sports games are not designed to replace the real thing; they are a representation of the sport that you can play in the safety and comfort of your own (or someone else's) home.
Should we start criticising televised sports because they encourage us to watch rather than participate in them?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Intuative controls = Feel of a game, is a pretty simplistic view on sports games. After all controlling bodily movements using a controller is about as far as intuative control as it gets. If thats all 'feel' is based upon then hopefully one of the controller inputs might have a solution as we're miles away at present. My question thenbased upon this is are review's marked up based upon what the game is? Or marked down on what the game reviewer wants the game to be in his utopian vision?
Without wasting more of your time on what is a pub converstaion, even if the score is totally justified i just didn't think the review was up to the normal standards.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Having played both I reckon it's an improvement, but not much of one.
Aside from the new camera angle (which I didn't like), the ability to dictate how much power you put into a shot and some slightly improved AI (they don't get run out as much) it's largely the same game.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"I am offered an unlikely number of home and away teams: Do I really want Bermuda to play Canada for five days?"
They offer too many teams to play with? No sale!
Neither of those two are a Test playing nation, and so would be rather unlikely to be playing five day cricket at all.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Your last comment is so absolutely spot-on. Although i praise Eurogamer for trying a new 'angle' on reviews; I hope they can admit that in this particular case, it just hasnt worked at all
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Strange chap..
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
@ Oli:
Erm, yes it is. Because that's not what International Cricket 2010 is about. Rock Band 3 has stated it's aim to teach me how to play a real instrument, so IC 2010 is to be rubbished because it doesn't try to teach me how to play real cricket? What? Red Dead Redemption didn't teach me how to be a real cowboy. What of it? That's not what it's trying to do. It's not what I want it to do. We're completely abandoning the idea of video games as fantasy fulfillment just because RB3 has a real keyboard?
Honestly, a review that starts with "I don't really understand the point of video games" does start on a fairly rocky foundation. Would it help if we gave a few pointers as to why someone might occasion play a video game instead of the real thing?
1. When I get back from the pub, most of the cricket grounds are closed.
2. I may want to play more than one game a week.
3. I'd rather bowl every ball than field at deep mid wicket for hours.
4. I'd rather face every ball than spend hours waiting in the pavilion.
5. I'd rather pretend to be good at cricket than really be shit at cricket.
6. I quite like cricket, but not enough to centre every weekend of my summer around it.
7. I quite like cricket, but not enough to play it for a whole day at a stretch.
Basically, all the same reasons I play any video game based on a real world activity.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Anyway, thanks all for your comments. I commissioned Jim to write this review because I thought it would turn up a fun read and an interesting perspective - and I believe it did exactly that.
But I'm sorry if you feel it didn't offer what you need from a review, and I've taken all your feedback on board.
Normal service will be resumed with our review of Tiger Woods 11 this afternoon. (And before you ask - yes, if I'd happened to know a golf coach/gamer instead of a cricket coach/gamer, yes it could quite easily have gone the other way!)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Awwwww, toddlers getting grumpy. Put on your pyjamas and pout like princes.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Once again, everyone seems to have got in first to say pretty much everything I would have. PlugMonkey in particular has covered your specific question to me very well, probably in more detail than I'd have done if I'm honest. I understand your reasoning for offering Mr. Barclay the review, and you're right that it could produce an interesting piece of editorial, but by lacking point d) "has an appreciation of the sports simulation genre" you're not really being fair on the game when it comes to providing this site's review.
If the review of the next Call of Duty opened with "FPS games give me big problems. A very large question looms into view: Why?" there'd be an uproar. This game isn't going to have the same number of fans and followers to provoke such a response, but that doesn't mean it's valid to offer it a review under less favourable conditions than other games. I don't doubt that the final score is accurate and that the criticisms of its mechanics and structure are valid, but starting with, and continuing to focus on, the idea that this isn't the same as cricket and that you should find 21 friends and a big field and go do the real thing instead unfortunately undermines any good points that may be raised.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Cricket games on the other hand don't seem to achieve this - they might be quite good fun for what they are, but an occasional gamer who buys a cricket game because he likes playing cricket in real life may be disappointed.
I cannot decide if this is because of the nature of cricket itself, or because very few cricket games are released so there is little evolution/competition.
Perhaps we need a "Sensible World of Cricket" to start the ball rolling (pun unintended).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Brings back memories of the "Egon Superb" Madden 07 review.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think you should just stick with a) and b). When I was reading the review, my first thought wasn't along the lines of whether it was right to pick a coach to review the game, or if comparing the physical act of playing on a field and gaming is relevant, it was that, compared to the usual standard of writing on EG, this is definitely very sub-par. It almost reads like a reader review, and not a very good one at that.
Regarding the other argument, I have more sympathy with Oli; 'a gamer who likes cricket' pretty much ticks the boxes for choosing the guy to review the game. To be honest with the more niche sporting titles there's generally two outcomes from a review 1) "I love this game and it's nothing like playing it", and 2) "I don't understand this sport, what am I doing playing it".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you look up now, somewhere at a height of approximately 30,000 ft, is the point of this conversation.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
You are rephrasing the question as an existential one: "why does [a genre of game] exist?". This is not what the opening of this article is asking. MJ got it exactly right when s/he said:
"I think the review in, its own way, does get to the main problem with this and other cricket games, which is it does not feel like a fair representation of cricket. Okay, Fifa and pro evo are not the same as playing football on a Sunday morning (or I would guess playing in the World Cup), but it captures the spirit and the feel of it."
This review does not ask why video games of cricket exist. It asks why video games of cricket exist WHEN they represent the real sport so poorly, in a way that we can all agree other sports games do not fail.
To be even-handed, a more equivalent example for FPS games would instead be: "FPS games that are copies of previous FPS games give me big problems. A very large question looms into view: Why?" If a review is not allowed to criticise bad games, then I do not understand why we have reviews at all - so I do not understand this uproar.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The review is right on the money. This game series is built on a fundametally broken concept. You always know where the ball is going to pitch. ISS/ Fifa etc. are fun games because you can apply your real life football fantasy in video game form. The footy equivalent of a Codies cricket game would see you getting a marker to show you where a shot would go before you have to save the ball. It's just a broken concept, and the whole game is built around it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
This is at best an opinion piece, worthy of posting on a blog, but completely embarrasing as a 'review' for a 'respected' site like Eurogamer. Eurogamer should be ashamed. How about a second opinion on this sports game from someone who doesn't start out a review explaining how they don't like sports games?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you would prefer the review to be from someone who liked sports (you mean 'cricket', by the way) games, then it would still be an opinion - just one that perhaps would be more in line with yours.
And if you would prefer the reviewer to pretend they had no opinions at all, we'd have the illusion of objectivity - not actual objectivity. Let's face it: if you are saying that a cricket game should be reviewed as a game rather than as an enjoyable simulation of cricket, then you will still lose. Because cricket games played as games are at least as objectively poor as cricket games played as enjoyable simulations of cricket.
I really don't understand why it's so hard to grasp that most people find this stuff rubbish, and if you want to read someone like you reviewing stuff like this instead, you'll need to turn to a proper niche title like "People Who Like Cricket Games Review Cricket Games Monthly". Except it wouldn't even be monthly. And the advertising would be all Codemasters. And there would be 5 readers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Now, both of these films are of questionable quality, and probably deserve average to low reviews, but that's not my point. My point is the choice of reviewer is fundamentally flawed.
I thought this game was -ok-, probably around a 7. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. My issue wasn't that he didn't like the game or that his opinion differed. It's that he was a bad choice to review the game. An older cricket coach casual gamer who finds sports games pointless... as I said, interesting as an opinion piece, but as a professional, objective review of this game, a bit of a failure in my opinion, especially coming from Eurogamer who, as I said, purport to be a trusted, well respected review site.
Hence my asking for a second opinion.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I recall you did some features with professionals asking them how well / bad a game fared against the real thing.
Wasn't it a musician with Rock Band or something and some Army guy about some shooter?
In general I'm interested in reading about those views once in a while especially about things I myself have no idea.
For example I would like to see someone like Button doing some laps with the upcoming F1 from Codemasters and telling us how close Spa or some other track is compared to the real-life track.
As they claim to use tons of measured data + GPS points the tracks should be pretty close I suspect but confirmation from someone that is familar with them would be really nice.
Maybe you can keep those things as features but leave the actual reviews to game reviewers.
As a marathon runner I think I wouldn't be the right person to write a review of a Wii fitness game (the running potion) or a Summer Athletic one (1500 m track etc.). Of course the experience is totally different incl. the side-effects like a bumping heart, sweating and gasping for air and finally the moment you cross the finish line and all pain is gone.
No game can provide that and so my review would be most likely unfair.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Is a professional, objective review a bit like pornography, in the sense that a judge would define it as "I know it when I see it"?
Because you can't ask for what you can't specify. I suggest that you attempt to contact the Eurogamer editorial team about what makes a professional reviewer, and what makes objectivity.
You might, for example, claim that experience in writing is important. This of course stops new entrants to the field.
You may say that some prior experience with what is being reviewed is important. This of course means that reviews can never capture the feeling of the newbie, and will always be tainted by the cynicism of the experienced.
I have a feeling that you won't be able to formulate anything but the most perfunctory list, but still won't take that as a sign that your demands are impossible to meet.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think people are really overreacting when they feel Eurogamer has some kind of arbitrary "standard" to uphold to. Eurogamer has plenty of excellent, good and poor reviews and they are different depending on who you ask.
Some of you guys should really get off your high horses in my opinion.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
/wins Eurogamer Puzzle Quest
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I disagree, reading the two paragraphs that follow the one I quoted I'd say that's exactly what he's asking. How else is "But sports games are a simulation of something we can actually do for real, for quite a lot less than the cost of most computer games, and get more enjoyment out of it" supposed to be interpreted? I also don't see any sign of cricket being singled out as particularly inappropriate.
Let's face it: if you are saying that a cricket game should be reviewed as a game rather than as an enjoyable simulation of cricket, then you will still lose. Because cricket games played as games are at least as objectively poor as cricket games played as enjoyable simulations of cricket.
That's missing the point of the highest order. I doubt many people are attempting to defend the quality of the game, I'm certainly not, and whether the game is any good or not isn't really relevant to what I'm arguing. I think most people would agree that if people don't see a reason to play a particular type of game it's very unlikely they'll be swayed to buy it by a review. As such, it's more helpful for a review to come from the angle of someone who can see such reasons (be they simulation of the unattainable, wish fulfillment, feeling involved in something you couldn't normally do, whatever) as they can then help those who may be considering it to decide whether it's actually worth it. In parts this review does get across why this game doesn't succeed on any of those grounds, but I'd say those parts are lost amongst discussion of whether they should have bothered to make the game in the first place.
For what it's worth, the MetaCritic score was 58 so Jim's opinion isn't miles away from others.
That's even more shaky ground than anything Stompy said. I could spend an entire review explaining how this game is the greatest sports game ever made then give it a five because I don't like playing sports games. According to you that makes my review reasonable because I'm in line with other scores, but I don't think anyone would claim it was any good as a review. Really, it's just showing up the flaws of score-summarising sites like Metacritic. As I said before, releasing a review like this on a more high profile title would get a serious negative response, so what makes it right to do that to a smaller, more niche title?
Edit: I should probably point out that not only does a review score that matches the majority not validate a review, but a review score that goes against the grain doesn't invalidate a review either. After all, as people on both sides are saying, reviews are just individual opinions.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Oh. And for what it's worth, I am a huge fan of cricket and have played just about every cricket game ever made, starting with 'Test Match' on the humble speccy. The best console cricket game for me (although the PC version bested it) was Super International Cricket on the SNES. It had a lot of issues but it played more like a tennis game, in that you didn't know where the bowler was going to bowl it, yet you had to rely on timing to place and hit the ball. Why nobody has gone back to that system is baffling, it was totally in the right direction.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I had always just assumed they wern't a "local" thing, so I learned something today.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The reviewer definitely understands the possible reasons for playing cricket sims. However, as an experienced cricketer, he also sees that this games does not fulfil them. I really can't see how this is a problem at all. Therefore I can only read the comments that express anger at this review as something similar to "Why let a bad game be reviewed as a bad game by somebody who expressed that they thought bad games of this type were bad?"
Giving this game to someone who enjoyed it would have been far less 'objective', because such a person would be extremely rare and not at all representative of the readership. And certainly not representative of people who actually enjoy real cricket.
In parts this review does get across why this game doesn't succeed on any of those grounds, but I'd say those parts are lost amongst discussion of whether they should have bothered to make the game in the first place.
When you have a series of game so poor compared to other sports series, that in comparison emulate their sport so badly, and have learnt so little from being so poor in the past, then I think the reviewers main concern is a fair one. Indeed, rather than ask "Is this a good game?", when the previous games like it were not, and this is hardly changed, the question must be "Why do they keep punishing us with mediocrity?"
I can imagine the same furore over a FF review that said "Same as always, rubbish battles, not even Final - what's up with that?" Yet I would think that to be a totally fair review. You do not have to like the game, or even at heart believe that it should exist, to review it. I suggest you read some back issues of the best games magazines - Your Sinclair, Amiga Power, Crash (which I am aware is good on hearsay, I have read the first two) - to see that games reviewers that demand good games and constant improvement are the most honest and best kind.
In this sense, I nominate the author of this review as a good reviewer, and I would like to hear from him again.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
...on the 360.
The score is 73 on the PS3. Acknowledging that wouldn't back up your argument though, would it?
EDIT: Sorry, I'm not sure what it is about facts that you don't like, but giving them negative feedback doesn't make them go away. Nor does it make you any less wrong.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
An older cricket coach casual gamer who finds sports games pointless... as I said, interesting as an opinion piece, but as a professional, objective review of this game, a bit of a failure in my opinion, especially coming from Eurogamer who, as I said, purport to be a trusted, well respected review site.
I've just realised the hilarity of your comment. You go on to say:
Hence my asking for a second opinion.
Unfortunate wording.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you handed Street Fighter to a karate instructor and their review said that the game doesn't feel like a real fight and gave it 5/10, there would be an uproar of complaints.
I think this would have been an awesome feature piece. With numerous coaches on games of their discipline but as a review it was unfair, biased and upsetting to see Eurogamer make such a huge mistake.
The end score isn't the issue, it's the review that is.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What is it that a non-games reviewer can't do? You clearly do not believe that non-reviewers can't play games.
Is it that they can't write games reviews? But we all do that all the time, some of us even self-publishing online. And many of our reviews, even though it is not our job, are helpful to somebody.
And then, of course, we have to consider what 'qualifies' anyone to be a games reviewer in the first place. There is no standard professional basis in examinations.
Overall, it's hard to decipher what you mean. Perhaps it is as simple as "I am used to Eurogamer's normal reviewers"; even though they would surely find the game poor for the same reasons.
"If you handed Street Fighter to a karate instructor and their review said that the game doesn't feel like a real fight and gave it 5/10, there would be an uproar of complaints."
That's because Street Fighter is not a simulator, not even of street fighting.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I believe it was unfair to Codemasters who, at the end of the day, have been cheated out of a quality EG review. Even if the score was the same, they were cheated out of a Eurogamer review. It is also unfair to fans of EG who were waiting for the EG review to make up their mind on their purchase and have been told by a cricket coach to go outside and play cricket for real rather than how the game really works compared to other such products.
It was unfair for Codemasters to be experimented on. Eurogamer pride themselves on being unbiased and fair to all publishers, whatever their product. On this occasion, I personally don’t feel they have been.
I'm not even a fan of Cricket games, so it's not like I'm some disgruntled fan who doesn't like the score.
Also I was using Street Fighter as an extreme example to make a point.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I do not see why being 'qualified' (which you have not explained in reference to a games reviewer, making the word meaningless) mutually excludes the reviewer not "really getting why people play sports games". Therefore, being 'qualified' is not going to defend shit sports games from getting shit marks because they are so shit they are pointless, especially as simulations of the sport.
You should be arguing that people don't actually play sports games to simulate the sport at all accurately, therefore making the reviewer's argument invalid. However, you have not managed to do this. You have only managed to slander him as a 'n00b'. I do hope people like you stop reading Eurogamer 'in disgust', as some have threatened in this comments thread, because I would prefer it if you left.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
It can't be controversial to state that what Jim wrote was a review. A review you disagree with, but a review nonetheless.
Whether it is 'quality' is something, yet again, you will have to define for us. As far as I know your criteria for 'quality review' could be "an odd number of screenshots".
Comment below viewing threshold Show
More likely Codies didn't consider the other teams as important for their target audience (the game will only be sold in developed countries, where console coverage is high), thus went without them.
Comment below viewing threshold Show