Why should I buy ICC 2009?

[gooch]

I have been playing ICC 2008 and earlier versions for a number of years. It's a great idea, and I admit that it can be addictive. OK, the graphics aren't great and contain glaring errors that haven't been put right in years, but I can live with that, I've got a good imagination. So, it's a management game, right? You start out with a fairly poor squad and build it up, improving over time through coaching and acquiring new players. Trouble is, with cricket this can take forever and unlike other management games you can't speed the process up, by skipping without undue penalty. I like to think that having paid good money for a game I should be able to play it how I like (it's for my enjoyment, after all) so if I want to I can cheat myself but in this game I can't see player data in an editor and there's no easy mode (only darned hard and nigh on impossible mode!). Yes, but it's also a strategy game, right, you select the right aggression for your batsmen and bowlers and the right type of bowlers for the conditions and you'll see the benefits in performance on the field. Er, sorry, I see very little evidence of this - frankly, the game seems to have a mind of its own with some ridiculous scores and performances which bear little resemblance to the real game. Obviously I'm not very good at this game, although I'm an experienced gamer and I think I do know my cricket, so I've come to the forum for some tips and advice. What's this? I've found loads of threads on bugs, fixes and patches, quite a lot of grumbles about improvements needed for the future and very little consistent agreement about how to approach the game (and based on what I've read I'm not doing much wrong). As I said at the start, I really like this game and I want to play it, so please, please, please give me more reason for doing so.

[GrahamB]

Because it's the best version so far. :)

[Cyril Washbrook]

The game engine is in my view, contrary to your comments, the most realistic ever. A few people have posted up ridiculous scores and stats sheets, but it's a sure bet that the vast majority (if not all) of those screenshots come from the easy mode. The normal mode is both challenging and realistic. There's been a clear improvement in the shorter forms of the game in terms of coming up with a good spread of team totals. There's the additional challenge of having players going in and out to play in international leagues or returning from test matches, in terms of weighing up decisions about whether to change the line-up to accommodate returning players.

Perhaps most conspicuously of all is the improvement in international gameplay. In ICC 2008, I played a bit as Australia, and found that I was having 600-700 scored against me on a regular basis. I'd be racking up large totals too, but all that meant was that matches would peter out to draws regardless of what the pitch was looking like. In ICC 2009, there appears to have been a manifest improvement in the calibration of the match engine for internationals.

I'd also question the statement that there's "very little consistent agreement" among players with regard to how to approach the game. Firstly, I think there are quite a lot of points of agreement among experienced players in particular - for example, the idea that you shouldn't put your batsmen on very defensive at the start of an innings. But secondly, even where there are disagreements or different ways of going about things, that's what a game should do. There shouldn't be a single way of going about playing the game. People love comparing ICC to Football Manager, and while I disapprove of such comparisons, I think there are some valid comparisons. The SI Games forum has a huge section devoted to tactics, with literally hundreds of threads filled with different ideas about how to play the game. You'd be hard-pressed to find "consistent agreement" as to which formation or which tactical settings provide the best performance. The front-end of ICC isn't nearly as complex as FM, but the same system applies: there shouldn't be one way of playing the game.

[Sureshot]

You will get more accurate results in the "nigh on impossible" mode. I only ever play in that mode, then again, I can take losing quite well, spurs me on to create a better team.

I'm not a fan of the skip match feature at all, why skip a match? I don't see the point in it, at all. Even in games against poor teams, or tour games, I can still learn things. Only things I've used it for in 2009 has been for testing the game, which has proved a god send both to my sanity and Chris' bank balance!

You will need to find your own way of playing the game, it works differently for different people. I don't tend to tinker too much until I start thinking, "This batsman/bowler has me under his skin, what can I do?" Changing of tactics, definitely does impact on the match engine, too.

Suggestions? Spinners work well in T20 cricket, they are a lot less effective in the game as whole as they were in 2008, something we have proudly improved. Finding the right team can take a long time, I generally don't "get in" to saves until I'm about 6-7 seasons in, it's the same with Football Manager for me. But the end reward is fantastic, as this is my team.

[Meph.]

Why have spinner been knocked down a notch? if the pitch spins then the spinner has to be the most effective bowler.. regardless.

[GrahamB]

Why have spinner been knocked down a notch? if the pitch spins then the spinner has to be the most effective bowler.. regardless.

It was necessary.

[Meph.]

why?
last version i played was 07 what was so different with 08?

[GrahamB]

why?
last version i played was 07 what was so different with 08?

Spinners were probably okay if you were playing as a county side, but if you were playing as an international side, you didn't stand a chance against a decent spin attack.

[kaz]

about the spinners someone like jaggernaugt is a wicked player in the game but in real life aint all that.

[Cyril Washbrook]

Spinners were probably okay if you were playing as a county side, but if you were playing as an international side, you didn't stand a chance against a decent spin attack.
Additionally, the game seemed to churn out amazing world-class spinners at a rate of a dime a dozen, such that you got cases like bowlers taking 1200-1500 FC wickets at a low average without ever getting an international look-in.

[zeduck]

Playing Sri Lanka/India/sometimes Bangladesh on 2008 was much more harder than all the other teams, due to the Spinners. So, good call to tone them down a little ;)