Sports

edited March 2007 in Games
Which sports do you feel work/don't work on your micro and why

Work:

Tennis
I think it's because you can see the whole playing area on the screen at once there's nowhere to hide, if your out of position not only can you see it but your opponent can to.

Don't work:

Boxing
While cartoon boxing's O.K. the fact that your dissapointed if you don't knock-out your opponent in the first round makes it all so very un-realistic

Cricket
Again Realism I want to hit every ball for 6
Post edited by chop983 on

Comments

  • edited February 2007
    I think the problem with cricket is that if you have a realistic game it's going to take you five days to play and will most likely end in a draw; as a result games tend to end up as quick slogging sessions. Then again, with Twenty20, real cricket could be seen as heading that way too.
  • edited February 2007
    Matt_B wrote: »
    I think the problem with cricket is that if you have a realistic game it's going to take you five days to play and will most likely end in a draw;

    Plus you'll probably fall asleep at the computer playing the 'exciting' game of cricket ;)
  • edited February 2007
    psj3809 wrote: »
    Plus you'll probably fall asleep at the computer playing the 'exciting' game of cricket ;)

    That's the polite version of what I would've said about Cricket.
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited February 2007
    Boxing games on the Speccy may be naff, but admit Rocco, and Frank Bruno's Boxing are good fun Albeit Punch-Out clones.

    Wheras Barry McGuigans (No idea if I spelled that right, don't care really), aims at realism and kinda worked back then though. It has all the management crap, and be able to fight the opponent yourself...ness of a modern Boxing game.

    The only thing different really with all these games is lesser opponent AI, and graphics. I defy you to tell me a modern boxing game improves on the principles of one of the Speccy boxing games.
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited February 2007
    Darts..I mean no game yet has managed darts. Wavery darts..dont work. When I play darts..they dont waver about..yet they miss the inteded target most often...its a Conundrum allright.

    Football...its a mile a minute, its unpredictable. Never been emulated properly for me. Strangely AM football does work..its so pedantic and predictable.

    Ice Hockey..now I have played this sport..and generally computer versions are good..but its the net...its too small or too big, the posts like 2 pixels wide yet seemingly like 300 year old oak trees for hitting.

    Motor racing...its simple...you fly off the road...or clip a wall....its generally all over...I'd like to see a version where you need to get your legs amptutated or something..they never figure that in...you crushed your feet...2miilion in surgeons bills.
    I stole it off a space ship.
  • edited February 2007
    The only thing different really with all these games is lesser opponent AI, and graphics. I defy you to tell me a modern boxing game improves on the principles of one of the Speccy boxing games.

    Fight Night Round 3 because

    a - You have to judge your footwork (as opposed to letting the speccy do it for you in BM's Boxing)

    b - the parry and block system works brilliantly as it lets you cover up high and low or attempt to react to specific shots leading to excellent countering opportunities and means you have to pick your shots. you can also lean out of the way of shots and it makes you feel like you've got pro skills as opposed to be being a bum.

    c - intuitive controls for punching with varied shot selections leading to devastating combos and high-risk haymakers.

    d - training sub-games as opposed to just saying 'roadwork for 16 weeks'.
  • edited February 2007
    Bluce_Ree wrote: »
    Fight Night Round 3 because

    a - You have to judge your footwork (as opposed to letting the speccy do it for you in BM's Boxing)

    b - the parry and block system works brilliantly as it lets you cover up high and low or attempt to react to specific shots leading to excellent countering opportunities and means you have to pick your shots. you can also lean out of the way of shots and it makes you feel like you've got pro skills as opposed to be being a bum.

    c - intuitive controls for punching with varied shot selections leading to devastating combos and high-risk haymakers.

    d - training sub-games as opposed to just saying 'roadwork for 16 weeks'.


    What system is this for? sounds a bit good to be true.

    Anyway I'm just glad you didn't say something like "Legend of Success Joe", or "Final Blow", or even worse (The Modern version of) "Rocky".
    Every night is curry night!
  • edited February 2007
    What system is this for? sounds a bit good to be true.

    Anyway I'm just glad you didn't say something like "Legend of Success Joe", or "Final Blow", or even worse (The Modern version of) "Rocky".

    360, PS2 and I think the old Xbox as well. I'm pretty sure there is a psp version but i'd avoid that one...

    is a great game.
  • edited March 2007
    Golf worked rather well.
    I wanna tell you a story 'bout a woman I know...
  • edited March 2007
    Snooker/Pool works quite well. It's just a case of lining up your shot, selecting some power and letting the limited physics do its thing.


    Doesn't work well: Ten Pin bowling. Simulated bowling is never going to be great fun, aside from in Super Monkey Ball or whatever it is, but that's on the Gamecube and not on a simple ZX Spectrum. 10th Frame was rubbish as there was always a way of guaranteeing a strike.
  • edited March 2007
    karingal wrote: »
    Golf worked rather well.

    So well in fact that most modern Golf games still use the Leaderboard swing-o-meter
Sign In or Register to comment.