Some of the more obvious observations of why this is far from the best version ever made (this assumes you are not a n00b who plays on easy, but on normal mode before any misguided person writes back needlessly and inaccurately):
* Ridiculous LBW code whereby LBW can occupy 8-10 of 10 dismissals in an innings, and regularly more than 6
* Ridiculous 'catch-up' code, whereby it is rare you actually crush a far lesser opposition, suffering to the obvious, unsophisticated code of 'catching up' on a match. Seen time and again, either playing against minnows and having them rolled for 120, you score 600, then they consistently get 400+ totals to save a test, or roll you in your 2nd innings. Another regular occurrence has been the ridiculous amounts of wickets you lose in the final session, even if you are only scheduled to bat for one session it is regular that you will be bowled out in the final session of a game which has probably happened less than three times in the history of first-class cricket , has happened to me 4 times in the last 2 seasons of an FC championship (Aust, so even less games for this to occur, I am Victoria, with a stacked batting line-up before anyone queries that)
* In older versions, if you were the better side, and you outplayed the opposition in the first innings by a lopsided amount (e.g. roll them for under 200, score over 400) you would NEVER lose, and that wasn’t rigid code, that was just what would happen in EVERY instance, now you have to ‘allow’ for the fact the game will, incorrectly and pointlessly, catch the game up for a more ‘intense’ (read as ‘dramatic and ridiculously inaccurate and unrealistic) finale, if you are the better side, and you have the better of the opposition (esp. minnows who should stay minnows), you should destroy them every time, none of this ‘catching up’ for the sake of a ‘richer’ game, just be realistic who cares about inaccurate catch-up mode, the reality is if a team would only win from a situation 1 in 1000 times, HAVE THE CODE REFLECT THIS, instead of 1 in 2 times, absolutely ridiculous.
* The catch-up code has taken the skill out of training and blooding and selection, where you used to be able to craft, train and refine a side for 4 years and then be absolutely solid in all formats, you consistently have to put-up with the evening out of a fixture. If my top 7 all bat over 50, and my bowlers all bowl under 28, and I’m playing the bits-and-pieces West Indies, who average about 25 in the top order with the bat, and over 30 with the ball, and I have them on the ropes (e.g. score 500, smoke them for 200) I WIN THE GAME, 999 in 1000. I lose these kinds of games far too often for it to be merely coincidental or unfortunate
* It is almost impossible to win a t20 or One Day game when batting first due to the absurd catch-up code, with bowlers going for 48 off their last 3 overs and etc. regularly to number 8, 9 and even 10 batsmen who can’t even see the ball in real life when at the crease
* An imbalanced concept of how your side's tail performs, irrespective of ability or depth, against that of the computers - i.e. if you have the computer 5-120 chasing 260+ in a test or ODI they regularly win with wickets to spare, whereas in your position you just fold up. EVERY TIME.
* Ridiculous '8-bar aggression' code where a player can bat 8-bar aggression and face 30 balls and get like a 31*, which never happens in any form of cricket in real-life
I've owned every single version of ICC, so don't bite back needlessly saying 'what would you know', the answer to that is 'more than you outright'. How is it that the code gets worse and worse with each new version?
2001, and even 2006 versions were great, IDC about the stupid graphics, not why you'd buy this game, get the engine right, get the player abilities right, and if a bowler bowls at 12 in second team, effing well have him bowl at 25 or under at FC EVERY TIME, or don't have second team stats that go so low as they are misrepresentative and blatantly inaccurate. Nobody who bowls at 12 in second team would bowl at anything over 25 and that's just obvious logic.
There is too much lottery and luck in this version for it to even come close to standing up against the earlier versions, where you are NOT rewarded for skill and knowledge of the game, but merely blind luck and some silly catching up/evening out theory, which rarely happens in reality.
I have clearly retreaded several issues here, I don’t care, it’s my thread and I’ll write what I want (as you will note, I’ve not sworn or said anything insulting, except to the game itself).
Oh and another thing, age should not be a total factor in specialized training. If I train a player for 400 days of off-side (or whatever the hell it is that is required) training, it won’t matter if they are 18 or 38, they’ll GET BETTER, change this.
Add records for one-day scores, partnerships for wicket, bowling records
Add a t20 championship table
Honestly, worst version I’ve played, completely unreliable, only thing you can bank on it seems is the fact that the outcome will not be realistic whatsoever.
End
* Ridiculous LBW code whereby LBW can occupy 8-10 of 10 dismissals in an innings, and regularly more than 6
* Ridiculous 'catch-up' code, whereby it is rare you actually crush a far lesser opposition, suffering to the obvious, unsophisticated code of 'catching up' on a match. Seen time and again, either playing against minnows and having them rolled for 120, you score 600, then they consistently get 400+ totals to save a test, or roll you in your 2nd innings. Another regular occurrence has been the ridiculous amounts of wickets you lose in the final session, even if you are only scheduled to bat for one session it is regular that you will be bowled out in the final session of a game which has probably happened less than three times in the history of first-class cricket , has happened to me 4 times in the last 2 seasons of an FC championship (Aust, so even less games for this to occur, I am Victoria, with a stacked batting line-up before anyone queries that)
* In older versions, if you were the better side, and you outplayed the opposition in the first innings by a lopsided amount (e.g. roll them for under 200, score over 400) you would NEVER lose, and that wasn’t rigid code, that was just what would happen in EVERY instance, now you have to ‘allow’ for the fact the game will, incorrectly and pointlessly, catch the game up for a more ‘intense’ (read as ‘dramatic and ridiculously inaccurate and unrealistic) finale, if you are the better side, and you have the better of the opposition (esp. minnows who should stay minnows), you should destroy them every time, none of this ‘catching up’ for the sake of a ‘richer’ game, just be realistic who cares about inaccurate catch-up mode, the reality is if a team would only win from a situation 1 in 1000 times, HAVE THE CODE REFLECT THIS, instead of 1 in 2 times, absolutely ridiculous.
* The catch-up code has taken the skill out of training and blooding and selection, where you used to be able to craft, train and refine a side for 4 years and then be absolutely solid in all formats, you consistently have to put-up with the evening out of a fixture. If my top 7 all bat over 50, and my bowlers all bowl under 28, and I’m playing the bits-and-pieces West Indies, who average about 25 in the top order with the bat, and over 30 with the ball, and I have them on the ropes (e.g. score 500, smoke them for 200) I WIN THE GAME, 999 in 1000. I lose these kinds of games far too often for it to be merely coincidental or unfortunate
* It is almost impossible to win a t20 or One Day game when batting first due to the absurd catch-up code, with bowlers going for 48 off their last 3 overs and etc. regularly to number 8, 9 and even 10 batsmen who can’t even see the ball in real life when at the crease
* An imbalanced concept of how your side's tail performs, irrespective of ability or depth, against that of the computers - i.e. if you have the computer 5-120 chasing 260+ in a test or ODI they regularly win with wickets to spare, whereas in your position you just fold up. EVERY TIME.
* Ridiculous '8-bar aggression' code where a player can bat 8-bar aggression and face 30 balls and get like a 31*, which never happens in any form of cricket in real-life
I've owned every single version of ICC, so don't bite back needlessly saying 'what would you know', the answer to that is 'more than you outright'. How is it that the code gets worse and worse with each new version?
2001, and even 2006 versions were great, IDC about the stupid graphics, not why you'd buy this game, get the engine right, get the player abilities right, and if a bowler bowls at 12 in second team, effing well have him bowl at 25 or under at FC EVERY TIME, or don't have second team stats that go so low as they are misrepresentative and blatantly inaccurate. Nobody who bowls at 12 in second team would bowl at anything over 25 and that's just obvious logic.
There is too much lottery and luck in this version for it to even come close to standing up against the earlier versions, where you are NOT rewarded for skill and knowledge of the game, but merely blind luck and some silly catching up/evening out theory, which rarely happens in reality.
I have clearly retreaded several issues here, I don’t care, it’s my thread and I’ll write what I want (as you will note, I’ve not sworn or said anything insulting, except to the game itself).
Oh and another thing, age should not be a total factor in specialized training. If I train a player for 400 days of off-side (or whatever the hell it is that is required) training, it won’t matter if they are 18 or 38, they’ll GET BETTER, change this.
Add records for one-day scores, partnerships for wicket, bowling records
Add a t20 championship table
Honestly, worst version I’ve played, completely unreliable, only thing you can bank on it seems is the fact that the outcome will not be realistic whatsoever.
End
Comment