By Alec Meer on January 7th, 2009 at 8:50 pm.
I’ve just burned a little too much time on a very silly game about a very English sport – but it’s a fine opportunity for a little good-natured competition between RPSites. It’s pretty much what you’d get if you shoved cricket into Sumo Tori Dreams – that same comedy-physics sense of drunken, incapable men unwisely attempting physical activity. Only in this case there is actual skill involved too.
I’m currently watching Twitter-friends warring over high scores: the number to beat is 255, apparently. Can you do better? Yeah, you – you with the face. I certainly can’t.
Yes, this is probably the first and only time we ever post about cricket.
07/01/2009 at 20:56 Feet says:
17
I’m just as rubbish at this in real life you know.
07/01/2009 at 21:00 Dominic White says:
Not too keen on this. While it has some of the same feel of uncontrollability as, say, QWOP, it feels unintentional – a lack of precision in the controls, rather than a hilarious, deliberately wonky challenge.
Likewise, Sumotori dreams puts the player into the hilarious situation of having tenuous control over a near uncontrollable entity, and thus everything goes wrong in the best possible way.
07/01/2009 at 21:11 Feet says:
I think it actually gets a lot right as a batting simulation, the top spin back spin, long and short bowls and so forth, the positioning of the feet of the batsman. And if they bowled this fast in real cricket I’d bloody well watch it!
07/01/2009 at 21:15 nabeel says:
Nice, I lol’d.
07/01/2009 at 21:15 Schmung says:
Yeah, the speed of the bowling is the major challenge. I managed a meagre 55 on my first attempt.
07/01/2009 at 21:19 born2expire says:
wahoo!
07/01/2009 at 21:22 Riotpoll says:
If you hit the ball back too slowly the next one it bowlx at you can knock it away, and into the bit that makes you get caught.
07/01/2009 at 21:27 Pags says:
Why can’t I play this using the Q, W, O and P keys?
Also, 134. Wahooooooo.
07/01/2009 at 21:31 rob says:
Is 255 the number to beat or are scores stored in 8-bit unsigned integers?
07/01/2009 at 21:41 Larington says:
101 seems to be my limit.
07/01/2009 at 21:45 Zerrick says:
50 at my first go, 89 after my fourth.
I actually learned more about cricket then I ever knew about this complicated form of baseball (that still is the only thing I know about it).
07/01/2009 at 21:47 Marcin says:
Which part is the actual score? I know nothing about these hit-ball-with-bat sports.
07/01/2009 at 21:50 Benzido says:
It should be like QWOP – I made this one just before I made QWOP! You can try the original version at http://www.foddy.net/Cricket.html – but it’s not as pretty as this licensed version.
07/01/2009 at 22:05 alset says:
@benzido
thanks a lot, that “game over” stuff was getting on my nerves
07/01/2009 at 22:20 Benzido says:
By the way, the ACTUAL number to beat is around 4500 ;)
07/01/2009 at 22:27 The Poisoned Sponge says:
For some reason the game has a split second pause just before I’m suppose to hit the ball, which is crippling my scores considerably. And the bloody ‘wahay!’ whenever you get out grates on my nerves.
07/01/2009 at 22:33 Pags says:
Basts! I managed to knock a ball into the six only to have it slice another oncoming ball which appeared onscreen after I’d hit the first ball. Sliced ball ends up flying into the yellow&black zone and I lose a wicket. I say again, basts!
07/01/2009 at 22:52 Pete says:
Haha this is great, as far as I can tell the controls are actually pretty good (in an intentionally difficult fashion). Seems to promote some pretty solid technique, too! On the downside, I made 21 on my first attempt…
07/01/2009 at 22:56 Thomas Lawrence says:
Hilarious! I love the way I can have several balls on screen at once, creating at least one ludicrous scenario in which I hit one ball for four, and on the way it bounced into the oncoming delivery, which ALSO went for four.
07/01/2009 at 23:10 Radiant says:
Why are PC games writers so pathologically opposed to sport?
On one hand you boast about highscore competitions yet on the other it’s like a fear.
Of what? Physicality? Beer? Crowds? Forgetting your PE kit and playing hockey in your chuddies?
Pro Evo, Championship Manager and Brian Lara’s cricket are huge pc games. It just seems like such a shame to largely ignore the genre.
07/01/2009 at 23:10 Radiant says:
Especially if it’s because you throw like a girl.
07/01/2009 at 23:12 Thomas Lawrence says:
@Zerrick: Cricket is actually a simplified version of baseball, in my view. A lot of the apparent complexity of cricket is very superficial, stemming largely form the fact that roughly eighty percent of the terms used to describe the game are at least slightly silly.
Some justification here. Most of the steps converting baseball into cricket are simplifications.
07/01/2009 at 23:16 Ginger Yellow says:
I can beat that (although not the high scores – I haven’t topped 40 yet). I managed to hit a four which knocked the next ball for six.
07/01/2009 at 23:17 Ginger Yellow says:
That comment was addressed to Thomas Lawrence (and all the other multi-ball players).
07/01/2009 at 23:20 Thomas Lawrence says:
@Ginger Yellow: Having now played a bit more, balls hitting other balls is a relatively common occurrence. Haven’t yet hit a double-six, though.
07/01/2009 at 23:27 Pete says:
@ Thomas Lawrence
While I agree that cricket followers enjoy overstating the complexity and inexplicability of the game, I’d hardly call cricket simplified baseball. If we’re going to start summarizing eachother’s bat-to-ball sport, I’m pretty sure I could make baseball look incredibly simplistic. Like most great ball sports, cricket’s depth comes not from the number or complexity of the rules, but their interaction with player skill, and I’m sure the same goes for baseball. But come on, it’s pretty much a matter of: throw ball; hit ball; run around bases. (Plus a few simple rules regarding scoring and getting out.)
07/01/2009 at 23:30 Rei Onryou says:
I don’t know how real cricket works, but my best score on this was 114. In my defence, the game is not suited to a track pad.
07/01/2009 at 23:33 Rob says:
101, which I’ll take, 255 is just a bit too much to beat.
@Thomas Lawrence
Baseball’s complexity appears to stem largely from a superfluity of statistics; I’m unconvinced that’s better.
07/01/2009 at 23:44 Alec Meer says:
Christ, you lot will argue about anything.
08/01/2009 at 00:02 Kua says:
Bugger – I can’t go to bed until i’ve played this now and am begrudgingly satisfied i can’t beat the current high score. Meer, you bast, you big bad bast.
08/01/2009 at 00:13 Dan says:
I got around 135.
At one point though I did do an amusing ball juggle, and managed to hit the same ball three times.
Anyone figured out how to reverse-sweep yet?
08/01/2009 at 00:15 MarkN says:
@Thomas Lawrence re: “Cricket is actually a simplified version of baseball, in my view.”
Say that again when you’ve managed to fully explain LBW to a layman, and then I might believe you.
08/01/2009 at 00:17 john t says:
Christ, you lot will argue about anything.
We will not.
08/01/2009 at 00:18 Kunal says:
@ThomasLawrence
Have to disagree. Cricket is a more complex sport than baseball _precisely_ because of the relaxation of constraints such as allowing the bowler to pitch the ball wherever he likes, and allowing the batsman to hit the ball where he wants.
At some point, an addition of rules/constraints will reduce the complexity of a game (think how heavily constrained a linear game like doom 3 is, versus the emergent possibilities of a game like spore)
08/01/2009 at 00:24 Kua says:
156. Howzat Pags? Rawr.
08/01/2009 at 00:26 Kua says:
“Anyone figured out how to reverse-sweep yet?”
You just hit it with the back of your bat hehe. Not sure its more effective than the standard hit though.
There’s some extremely sus bowling going on here too… I’ll get that West Indian umpire on the case. The one who’s too cool for school.
08/01/2009 at 00:41 Pags says:
Motherfucker.
08/01/2009 at 01:18 Mo says:
I got 149 on my third go, and then couldn’t top that for the rest of my 15min session. I got into a good groove, but just the one time.
08/01/2009 at 01:50 noony says:
This and QWOP need to be combined, so you have to flail spastically between the wickets to earn runs. Could also make for some comically cack-handed bowling too.
08/01/2009 at 03:55 Pete says:
Couldn’t stay away from it, my new best score is 163.
08/01/2009 at 04:17 Muzman says:
I was on my way to a respectable score until I noticed the English flags and felt compelled to make a complete ball up of the whole thing.
Ha Haa! Hahahaa ahah
But seriously (well…) I got my first six when the ’1′ run I was about to score bounced off the next ball into the air. I wish real cricket was more like that. Just use a machine or something.
08/01/2009 at 05:51 karthik says:
“Yes, this is probably the first and only time we ever post about cricket”
Awww.
08/01/2009 at 06:24 jonfitt says:
102 on my second go. Got into a rhythm for a while.
08/01/2009 at 08:29 weegosan says:
I got 80 from my first 2 wickets and then collapsed for 96. Even in computer games the English can choke like legends.
08/01/2009 at 08:59 phuzz says:
All this is giving me is flashbacks to that cricket game on the Amiga, alas the name escapes me.
Anyway, I thought baseball was just a simplified version of rounders?
08/01/2009 at 09:18 JJ says:
Fun! Reminds me of the deflect the balls part of one of my favourite games of all time IK+. http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/screenshots/full/ik_plus_04.png
08/01/2009 at 09:26 Schmung says:
I managed 114 last night, but I’ not sure how I’ll fare with the performance restricting cheapo-mouse on the office PC. Still plenty of time to find out..
08/01/2009 at 09:30 Pod says:
phuzz: Brian Lara cricket? Or the other one which I can’t remember?
This game would be 10000x better if the mouse was locked to the window somehow :( Still, it’s lots of fun.
08/01/2009 at 09:30 Scuzzeh says:
I played the original on the QWOP website so have become a bit too good at this.
08/01/2009 at 09:32 JJ says:
Hmm, sorry, that link didnt work. Try http://www.lemonamiga.com/?game_id=566 picture # 4
08/01/2009 at 10:16 ShardPhoenix says:
This is pretty addictive. My high score so far is 137. It would be better if the pace of incoming balls was a bit slower though (maybe only bowl a new one after the previous one has left the screen), and if balls were removed after a couple of seconds of not moving/moving slowly. Also, sometimes the controls seem to get “stuck” a bit leaving me to get bowled.
08/01/2009 at 13:10 Schmung says:
I seem to be stuck around 135ish. The finickity nature of the mouse and the fact that it starts with out any sort of pause see, to be hampering me a bit. Sure I can crack 150 at any rate.
08/01/2009 at 13:36 Srejv says:
Isn’t this by the same dude who made that ragdoll 100 meter race game which you’ve covered before? I think he had a very similar game on his website. Or maybe I’m just confused…
08/01/2009 at 13:59 Hypocee says:
I’ll just add here, as I did at length on QWOP, that foddy.net/Benzido’s third game Too Many Ninjas! is also awesome. JJ, it’ll really remind you of the IK+ ball thing because that’s basically what it is.
08/01/2009 at 14:10 Fitzmogwai says:
126 on my first innings. Hurrah! However, I’m in the office so I shan’t be spending any more time playing this. I’m not important enough to have a corner desk where no-one can see what’s on my monitor. So – work!
However, this has incentivised me to reinstall Rag Doll Kung Fu when I get home tonight and maximise the ROI of my KPI metrics. Or something.
Brain melts
08/01/2009 at 15:16 Vandelay says:
@phuzz I remember playing Graham Gooch: World Class Cricket on the Amiga, is that the one you are thinking of?
Pretty shit at this game, but managed to break the 100 mark eventually, which will do me.
QWOP though is another story. After seeing comments on it I decided to hunt it out and I ended up spending about 30 mins on it last night and not getting any further than 11 meters, with most of the time falling straight down the second I started. I can already hear it calling me back for more of the same.
Are there any good cricket games around at the moment? Not much of a fan myself, but I am sure my brother would love a cricket game.
08/01/2009 at 15:48 Yann Best says:
This actually makes me sad. It’s a sport you can get drunk to /for days on end/. Cricket = best.
Also, that Sports Explained site is amusingly limited in its grasp of cricket. “There are no balls. The pitcher is even allowed to bounce the ball on the ground before it reaches the batter.” – or, to be more accurate, the bowler (pitcher) is /supposed/ to bounce the ball on the ground – full-tosses can be penalised by the umpire as a ‘no-ball’ (i.e. free points for the batsmen). Said site also fails to explain the difference between a boundary for 4 (ball rolls out of bounds) or boundary for 6 (ball flies out of bounds without hitting the ground). Tch.
08/01/2009 at 16:39 Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
193.
WoS PWNZ J00.
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/pics/193.jpg
08/01/2009 at 18:12 Dan Harris says:
Hmm. Got 152 first pop. It’s too loose for me to put any time into it though. Why are you bobbing around like a jelly man?
08/01/2009 at 18:30 cyrenic says:
That did nothing but make Cricket even more confusing to my weak American mind.
08/01/2009 at 19:45 Acosta says:
Holy shit, this game is a time destroyer. As clunky as it is, I find some kind of fascination in its physic nature and the “feeling” of hitting the ball. Scoring a 6 is really satisfying.
205 so far, would like to appear in top 10 but the frontier of 200 is a tough one.
08/01/2009 at 19:47 Ian says:
I spent far too much time on this ages ago.
Still do from time to time.
08/01/2009 at 20:07 uppi17 says:
Well I got 220 http://flickr.com/photos/uppi17/3179773989/
And how does Yes, this is probably the first and only time we ever post about cricket. match up with Related stories: Anyone for Cricket Demo? (trad.)?
09/01/2009 at 03:31 Hypocee says:
We’ve established a couple of times before that the lobes of the RPS hivebrain don’t necessarily read each other’s posts. Especially if one of them’s Alec.
09/01/2009 at 10:13 Schmung says:
nargh, 169 is my best. This is infuriating.
09/01/2009 at 11:57 NoseBleed says:
882 at a 3.23 run rate which adds up to a lovely 2848.
Screen shot available upon request.
09/01/2009 at 12:35 Bobsy says:
There should be a Wii cricket game. There probably is. I don’t know.
09/01/2009 at 19:59 uppi17 says:
@Nosebleed I think you’re on about the unlimited version on foddy.net. This one is limited to ten overs, therefore the most you can get is 360 (6 every ball, 6 balls per over, 10 overs).
11/01/2009 at 22:24 Greg says:
253! SO CLOSE.
17/01/2009 at 19:50 Greg says:
260. I am going to stop playing this now. This was my game of the year, I think.
27/03/2009 at 09:32 Tom Penfold says:
Our office has got a bit obsessed by it.
I am top score with 1075 (runs not with run rate).
2nd: binks: 639
3rd Raj: 623
4th Ad: 576.
Screenshots exist