International Cricket Captain 2006 Comments by Sam Kieldsen

"Part of it is the fact that cricket isn't as tactically rich or physically dynamic a sport as football..."

Ooh, I bet that'll get a few people up in arms...

Part of it is the fact that cricket isn't as tactically rich... as football

Ouch.

*ducks under bouncer*

This is developed by my friend's boyfriend. Say what you like about it, it's a labour of love.

Ok, OKAAAY...I admit it..there are some games that are best left on a PC

...thank god...

It's not actually a bad game if you are a cricket nut, but it doesn't appear to have had its graphics engine updated since 1999 and is badly showing its age.

In fact, apart from updated stats I can't identify any real changes since the first edition.

/heads back to Brian Lara.

This thing hasn't changed in 10 years... it was good back then... but it's still exactly the same.

Nice idea let down by not knowing why you just lost, which is the biggest crime of any management game.

As long as you learn from your mistakes, people don;t mind losing. I found with previous versions of this i sometimes won and sometimes lost with no idea why. In the end it got turned off.

If you're a 'cricket nut' then no doubt you already have a previous iteration of this. If you do, DON'T GET THIS. It doesn't matter how much you love cricket, this is a disgrace. Aside from updated players, this is the exact same game as ICC 2 from years and years ago.

If this is a 'labour of love', I'm glad I'm not your friend, cos she's getting a poor deal in the bedroom.

Agreed it hasn't changed.

To make a great cricket management game, they have to take you a level of abstraction away from the captaincy. If you're bowling, you control a man controlling another man who has to wait for another man to make a mistake to succeed. Unless you really know what you're doing (the real captains and coaches spend days working out plans against opposition batsmen) this can either be frustrating, or so simplistic it's dull (he's a back foot player so pitch it up, bring in the fielders for unsettled batsmen, etc).

A great cricket management game will have to make the game almost play itself, while you control training, higher-level tactics, contracts, negotiations, etc. But then it loses what makes it cricket -- ie the cricket!

Maybe I'm being defeatist -- I haven't played Michael Vaughan's Cricket Manager from a few years ago, and the same guy has been working on a sequel for ages.

Hey - this doesn't sound like a budget title to me - rather like a shareware game. How can it get 5/10? Anyone heard of New Star Soccer 3? THAT's how you make a retro style game that's good. (It's also a management game - you manage your alter ego - including girlfriends and stuff :-D).

Perhaps as early as 2050, we might have a good cricket computer game.

And hey EG, what's up with that 'not as tactically rich as footy' stuff? Surely I expected YOU guys to know better. Yes, I agree with the 'less physically dynamic' part, but consider: Footy games last all of 90 minutes, while a typical one dayer lasts more like 9 HOURS. Isn't there supposed to be some difference between the two?

afray - that sequel developed by Oli Norwell and Glenn Stiemens (me :)) is out now, either retail (Marcus Trescothick's Cricket Coach) or digitally (Cricket Coach Pro). The digital version is coming along well, with some useful additions since the retail one came out in May... http://www.cricketcoachgame.com (if that is allowed on here, is the weblink).

"Say what you like about it, it's a labour of love. "


Most games are.. Doesnt stop some of them being crap though.

@Smelly: Yes, couldn't agree more. And that's the tragedy of it all.

Stiemens: Had no idea! Get out there and pimp this thing: Been waiting to give it a go, but thought it was still in development!

I'm downloading it now!

A secret kept far too well. I'll be downloading this.

Had a blast at lunchtime.

Only major gripe was having to press through each day individually. Rather get scores at the end of the matches rather than each day, and let the game run through until I get news or scores.

The match seemed good although I only got to bat with England (Tres 170, fred 90* overnight, 370-8) v Sri Lanka. The batting options were identical to the ICC options, bar the lack of a "farm the strike" option for the tail-enders. Having said that, it seems like Fred was trying to do that anyway, so maybe it's automatic.

The match display was much nicer, and I liked the overhead match view. Shame I can't really see the lbw calls -- it'd be fun to be thinking "ooh that's got to be out" or "miles away!" before the umpire raises his text finger!

If I enjoy this test match it's a good possibility I'll be buying this direct.

Had another thought about the structure of cricket management games.

As you might expect, there is a large amount of randomness in sports management games. Because you're not controlling the players directly, they have to simulate them using random numbers. Over a large number of events, you'll see patterns emerge that back up your suspicions about players: This guy scores a lot, or this guy is particularly bad.

But watch a single event and you get very little information for your preconceptions. The match I just played in the Cricket Coach Pro demo had Vaughan get out for 3. He's not rated badly as a player in the stats, I had him on defensive, so why did he get out? Randomness.

The problem, and another reason why cricket management games have it so tough compared to football sims, is that these random events are so much more decisive in cricket. In football, over a match, you can see many events that can tell you about a player. While watching Vaughan's innings of 5 balls I learnt next to nothing about his technique, form, status. I don't have time to learn about the player, so I can't make informed decisions, so I'm lost when it comes to why he was dismissed.

The random number generator can change a match by dishing up just one freak random number during a 20-over spell that removes a well-set batsman. In football you are much less likely to get that, so it's easier to construct a less frustrating experience.

While we're directly comparing genres here, football sims also allow you to blast through matches in 10-15 minutes while still maintaining some tactical control. In cricket sims you're looking at hours to play a match to maintain the same control. It's much more off-putting.

I think it's possible to make an exceptionally good cricket managment game, but not with realistic rules. You have to shorten matches, possibly through shorter overs. You have to simplify the stats (possibly to only ~3 per bat/bowl/field) so it's easier to understand how a bowler compares to a batsman, and how one can play well against the other. And you have to back it up with a superb meta-game of transfers/man management/training. But that won't sell to the purists, and the purists are the only people who are looking to these games in the first place! :-/

Sorry for the long post.

"The match I just played in the Cricket Coach Pro demo had Vaughan get out for 3. He's not rated badly as a player in the stats, I had him on defensive, so why did he get out? Randomness."

Clearly you haven't watched Michael Vaughan bat for the last 2 years :p

ba boom, tish.