Feedback from a non cricket fan - How 2010 can improve

[Jay-Producer]

Hi everyone, im new on here.

I know there is already a post about improving 2010 but felt If I responded it would get overlooked by all the other posts.

I'm not a cricket fan, I find the game to watch rather boring and don't have too much of an idea on the rules. I couldn't even answer the random question when registering so had to google it lol. Sometimes its good to get feedback from another angle however.

I'm a huge fan of management strategy games and have been playing them since the early 90s. So this is the reason for playing this game. Ive played ICC III and 2008 version. But did not purchase 2009 as there was little in the way of changes. As I'm a big fan of Football Manager and have played Championship Manager since its early days I understand how games should develop and what they should not do.

For example, FM (football manager) 2010 is so indepth that it takes the fun out of playing the game, therefore you will find a lot of people playing the very last Championship Manager that Sports Interactive made (before leaving to create FM) - CM3 with updated squads. What SI do well is listen to their customers on improvements and add them to the game which is one reason they have a HUGE following.

Here is the problem with Cricket Captain:

- Not indepth enough - its basic all round. No indepth history stats, no indepth history for the clubs or on finances etc. There of course needs to be a balance but ICC is way behind all other strategy games. I'm not saying no information is available on these, there just isn't enough of it on the history. If you look at the players careers it would be nice to have more information...looking at FM2010 will give an idea of what im talking about.

- Sponsorship - cant remember if this was included but if not it needs to be done. A fundamental part of finances.

- Stadium increases/development

- Youth facility development; the current system used is rubbish. This needs an overhaul.

- Affiliates - Although you have some type of youth system (although its poor) it would be nice to have affiliates to use so you can lend out your youngsters to get match practice with other clubs. Problem is the game is not indepth enough so not many clubs are available. Its not like in FM where you have thousands of football clubs to lend out your players to.

- Attributes for players - this is the biggest flaw in the game. Its so poor in this department. You have no idea on how good a player is, all you have is how many runs they make. Pathetic in my eyes. Form fluctuates and just because they hit a lot of runs one season doesn't mean they will do the same the next. There really needs to be individual atts for each player to illustrate how good they are - which these can then be improved with training. FM2010 does well with how they have played out the atts for each player - each player has 3 fundamental areas; mental/physical/technique, under each of these you will find multiple areas like pace, acceleration, agility, reflexes, strength, jumping, tackling, heading etc.

- Moral; simple really, you win your player form increases. This adds realism to the game.


I really feel the makers of this game need to do some research by looking at other management games to see how they can improve theirs. There is far too much for me to list, I could write a book on what needs to be improved. I certainly will not be buying this game again until I see dramatic improvements, particularly atts for players. As this is really the only cricket management game on the market they probably see no reason to do any major improvements.

[Imager36]

Hi everyone, im new on here.

I know there is already a post about improving 2010 but felt If I responded it would get overlooked by all the other posts.

I'm not a cricket fan, I find the game to watch rather boring and don't have too much of an idea on the rules. I couldn't even answer the random question when registering so had to google it lol. Sometimes its good to get feedback from another angle however.

I'm a huge fan of management strategy games and have been playing them since the early 90s. So this is the reason for playing this game. Ive played ICC III and 2008 version. But did not purchase 2009 as there was little in the way of changes. As I'm a big fan of Football Manager and have played Championship Manager since its early days I understand how games should develop and what they should not do.

For example, FM (football manager) 2010 is so indepth that it takes the fun out of playing the game, therefore you will find a lot of people playing the very last Championship Manager that Sports Interactive made (before leaving to create FM) - CM3 with updated squads. What SI do well is listen to their customers on improvements and add them to the game which is one reason they have a HUGE following.

Here is the problem with Cricket Captain:

- Not indepth enough - its basic all round. No indepth history stats, no indepth history for the clubs or on finances etc. There of course needs to be a balance but ICC is way behind all other strategy games. I'm not saying no information is available on these, there just isn't enough of it on the history. If you look at the players careers it would be nice to have more information...looking at FM2010 will give an idea of what im talking about.

- Sponsorship - cant remember if this was included but if not it needs to be done. A fundamental part of finances.

- Stadium increases/development

- Youth facility development; the current system used is rubbish. This needs an overhaul.

- Affiliates - Although you have some type of youth system (although its poor) it would be nice to have affiliates to use so you can lend out your youngsters to get match practice with other clubs. Problem is the game is not indepth enough so not many clubs are available. Its not like in FM where you have thousands of football clubs to lend out your players to.

- Attributes for players - this is the biggest flaw in the game. Its so poor in this department. You have no idea on how good a player is, all you have is how many runs they make. Pathetic in my eyes. Form fluctuates and just because they hit a lot of runs one season doesn't mean they will do the same the next. There really needs to be individual atts for each player to illustrate how good they are - which these can then be improved with training. FM2010 does well with how they have played out the atts for each player - each player has 3 fundamental areas; mental/physical/technique, under each of these you will find multiple areas like pace, acceleration, agility, reflexes, strength, jumping, tackling, heading etc.

- Moral; simple really, you win your player form increases. This adds realism to the game.


I really feel the makers of this game need to do some research by looking at other management games to see how they can improve theirs. There is far too much for me to list, I could write a book on what needs to be improved. I certainly will not be buying this game again until I see dramatic improvements, particularly atts for players. As this is really the only cricket management game on the market they probably see no reason to do any major improvements.

Wow, thanks for that! Let's get to work ironing out a few of those...

We've discussed including visible player attributes before on this forum, and there was a large amount of debating done, but the general consensus was that, in life, you don't have these stats to work with, and so why should you in game? These stats do exist, but we can't see them!

In terms of affiliates, this doesn't actually happen in cricket anyway, so I doubt that it would be implemented. An ability to see the 2nd XI results and have a table for 2nd XIs would be welcome, however, especially for the help of young talent. This system for getting this talent, as you said, does need an overhaul.

And, you are right about it not being indepth enough. I would like player histories like in FM (I actually quite like 2010!) and stats for each and every season of a player's career wold be very nice. The whole finance system needs an overhaul, so I won't comment on the stadium or sponsorship deals, for a moment at least.

As an aside, what was the question? (It was only recently added as a way to stop spambots )

[the_trademarc]

Yeah I think you make a few valid points, which can be implemented over time (not all in the one year).

I think the main concept that needs to be understood here is, cashflow.
While FM (not being a fan of Soccer, in-fact quite the opposite, another story), I've never played nor read anything about it, but from how people speak of it, it seems quite a complex, very complete sim.
How much does FM cost? And the fact that they have a producer/developer means they have more money and more scope to introduce and implement new attirbutes within the game.
If ICC was still part of Empire Interactive, they may have been able to be held accountable for a lack of improvement from 08 to 09. We all know what happened, so the fact they released a version this year, is good enough in my opinion, considering their position.

Also, think of the demand for the game. People all over the world, will buy a Soccer game. Would someone in Brazil consider buying ICC? Would they know what cricket is?
The point being, improvements can't be made without sufficient cash flow for R+D, testing, programming and development.
A game like FM would rake in millions per version, and would have a bigger global scope for advertising, promotion and sales.
ICC on the other hand (and I'm only assuming), would be making profits, of somewhere in 6-figures, if that. Their main exposure is in the UK. The only reason I know about it is because I've been a fan since 2000.

Improvements can be made, the game can be made better. But it needs fundings, reasonable amounts of it. Without it, the developers (i.e. Childish Things) have to consider what to implement, what to leave out, which areas need improvement and what not. They need to work to a budget-based pricing scheme (here is what we have, what can we do with it), as opposed to cost-based pricing (costs plus minimum profit, very high funding).

I'm sure if someone's happy to fork out $150 000 (75 000 pounds for those playing at home :P) for investment purposes for Childish Things, then we can expect some major improvements, but unless this happens regularly, we need to accept its limitations and lower our expectations.

And remember, unless we support the game financially by buying it, we won't be able to see the improvements expected. It's a very cheap game, and every copy sold will count.

[Imager36]

I agree with you there, FM is backed by two massive companies, made by Sports Interactive and produced by Sega, who are one of the biggest games companies in the world.

[str]

I am a HUGE fan of Footmball .

Have you played FIFA Manager 2008 from EA sports ? I think Fifa Manager 2008 is the role model for all sports game . It has excellent graphics like FIFA09 , Original stadium , Original player faces , You can design and extend your own stadium also club facilities , Sponsors , Player history , If you want you can found your own club in FIFA Manager .

I have all Football games like FIFA Manager 08 , FIFA Manager 09 , Football Manager 2009 and Championship Manager .

I personally think FIFA Manager 08 is the best of all football management games. It's better than Fifa Manager 09 .

Yes I agree with you about history , hall of fame and awards in ICC . But persoanally I don't like the training method in ICC games .

There was a very defensive player in my team . I trained him Batting technique>Aggressive shots for 3 seasons but he is still a Very defensive style batsman .

I don't like the attribute and morale thing for cricket . Cricket is a big game and players always play with high morale .

But we need growth sign- for example ★★★★★ for players like Jack Kallis , day/night matches . I want fielding attribute . Paul Collingwood is dropping catches in every match .

[Imager36]

Yeah, Fifa Manager makes EA (One of the biggest companies in the gaming industry, possibly the biggest if you don't include Nintendo) a very, very small profit each year. They get all the money from the FIFA games, and Fifa manager is released as a side issue. Considering how much money EA pump into things like FIFA manager, the profits are really marginal. They're good games, but no-one buys them. And Cricket has a narrower margin than football anyway in Britain, which is the main place for ICC.

[str]

For EA it's not about profit always it's about- "We are the best" .

I am waiting for the release of FIFA Manager 2010 .

[Sureshot]

Yeah I think you make a few valid points, which can be implemented over time (not all in the one year).

I think the main concept that needs to be understood here is, cashflow.
While FM (not being a fan of Soccer, in-fact quite the opposite, another story), I've never played nor read anything about it, but from how people speak of it, it seems quite a complex, very complete sim.
How much does FM cost? And the fact that they have a producer/developer means they have more money and more scope to introduce and implement new attirbutes within the game.
If ICC was still part of Empire Interactive, they may have been able to be held accountable for a lack of improvement from 08 to 09. We all know what happened, so the fact they released a version this year, is good enough in my opinion, considering their position.

Also, think of the demand for the game. People all over the world, will buy a Soccer game. Would someone in Brazil consider buying ICC? Would they know what cricket is?
The point being, improvements can't be made without sufficient cash flow for R+D, testing, programming and development.
A game like FM would rake in millions per version, and would have a bigger global scope for advertising, promotion and sales.
ICC on the other hand (and I'm only assuming), would be making profits, of somewhere in 6-figures, if that. Their main exposure is in the UK. The only reason I know about it is because I've been a fan since 2000.

Improvements can be made, the game can be made better. But it needs fundings, reasonable amounts of it. Without it, the developers (i.e. Childish Things) have to consider what to implement, what to leave out, which areas need improvement and what not. They need to work to a budget-based pricing scheme (here is what we have, what can we do with it), as opposed to cost-based pricing (costs plus minimum profit, very high funding).

I'm sure if someone's happy to fork out $150 000 (75 000 pounds for those playing at home :P) for investment purposes for Childish Things, then we can expect some major improvements, but unless this happens regularly, we need to accept its limitations and lower our expectations.

And remember, unless we support the game financially by buying it, we won't be able to see the improvements expected. It's a very cheap game, and every copy sold will count.

6-figure profits on a low budget game? I know of some fairly big games which don't make profits, you don't go in to gaming with an eye for making money, unless you go for one of the huge titles, like Modern Warfare 2, which grossed $550million in it's first 5 days. Even then, EA have made big losses in recent years, it's a hard industry. UK, Aus and we seem to have a following in South Africa too.

I certainly agree (I think the team does) that we can improve and we do have ideas, but I think to put us in the same boat as Football Manager is a bit bemusing. A friend is a top dog at Sega and I know that SI/FM will have 25-35 Full time staff at any one time, with lots of researchers, etc. Our team, I don't think, is bigger than about half a dozen, and I don't think any of us can be called full-time, though of course we'd love it if we could all do that.

It's been an interesting year for us, Chris now owns full rights to the game, and we definitely have new ideas, but of course there are limitations. I think 09 is a good game, the fact we even released this year is an achievement in itself, and I think the match engine is about the most realistic it has ever been (barring Phil Hughes perhaps...) and we will build on it for 2010.

Attributes? As has been mentioned this has been discussed on the forum and the consensus is that it's best how it currently is, which is the most realistic way. Sports team managers don't have attribute points for their players, picking players on their form is what sports management is all about.

Affiliates - Cricket doesn't have affiliates like football does. Generally, non 1st XI's will play in the 2nd/3rd XI and possibly go out to local clubs.

It is good to get the opinion of a management game fan, but not actually a cricket fan.

[the_trademarc]

6-figure profits on a low budget game? I know of some fairly big games which don't make profits, you don't go in to gaming with an eye for making money, unless you go for one of the huge titles, like Modern Warfare 2, which grossed $550million in it's first 5 days. Even then, EA have made big losses in recent years, it's a hard industry. UK, Aus and we seem to have a following in South Africa too.

I certainly agree (I think the team does) that we can improve and we do have ideas, but I think to put us in the same boat as Football Manager is a bit bemusing. A friend is a top dog at Sega and I know that SI/FM will have 25-35 Full time staff at any one time, with lots of researchers, etc. Our team, I don't think, is bigger than about half a dozen, and I don't think any of us can be called full-time, though of course we'd love it if we could all do that.

It's been an interesting year for us, Chris now owns full rights to the game, and we definitely have new ideas, but of course there are limitations. I think 09 is a good game, the fact we even released this year is an achievement in itself, and I think the match engine is about the most realistic it has ever been (barring Phil Hughes perhaps...) and we will build on it for 2010.

Attributes? As has been mentioned this has been discussed on the forum and the consensus is that it's best how it currently is, which is the most realistic way. Sports team managers don't have attribute points for their players, picking players on their form is what sports management is all about.

Affiliates - Cricket doesn't have affiliates like football does. Generally, non 1st XI's will play in the 2nd/3rd XI and possibly go out to local clubs.

It is good to get the opinion of a management game fan, but not actually a cricket fan.

Lol, maybe 6-figures was a bit ambitious, but the point I was trying to make, I hope, was clear.

Attributes and affiliates are not needed for ICC. I agree that more time and effort should be put into developing and improving the engine, as is the usual case.

P.S. Don't dumb down Phil Hughes too much :P. The guy is a natural talent, and will become the best batsmen in the world. Let's face it, he's definitely the most exciting thing to come from our shores since Ricky Ponting in 1995.

[Sureshot]

The curse of ICC strikes again!