How do feel about the Realism/Fun Gaming balance?

How do you feel about FM09s current balance between realistic feel, and being a fun gaming experience?

Personally, I think the game is losing some of it's fun as it becomes more realistic

*Awaits the Realism = Fun Police*

I feel the realism is the fun aspect of the game

i feel the game doesnt have enough relism...i think its fun tho

I feel the amount of tactical work that has to go into the game has reduced a bit of the fun IMO. While I like the tacical side of the game I resent the fact I have to do so many tweaks according to how my opposition play. What happened to them tweaking their tactics to adapt to how I play? Too much emphasis on hard-core tactics, this only needs to be marginally reduced, I obviously dont know how SI could do this but I feel the game should be a bit more "general" with tactics. Just my opinion, seems harder to play now. The assistant manager help is useful but theres too much info and it's usually the same sort of info and still offers no hel in regard to formations etc. It needs more work I think.

i think its a lot better since the .2 patch

I feel the amount of tactical work that has to go into the game has reduced a bit of the fun IMO. While I like the tacical side of the game I resent the fact I have to do so many tweaks according to how my opposition play. What happened to them tweaking their tactics to adapt to how I play? Too much emphasis on hard-core tactics, this only needs to be marginally reduced, I obviously dont know how SI could do this but I feel the game should be a bit more "general" with tactics. Just my opinion, seems harder to play now. The assistant manager help is useful but theres too much info and it's usually the same sort of info and still offers no hel in regard to formations etc. It needs more work I think.

Sums up my opinion tbh. FM09 with FM08 tactical relevance would be nice.

I think any simulation has to derive a large part of the fun *from* the realism.

In terms of fun, the big challenge for FM10 and future versions it to really improve the interface to make certain parts of the game more enjoyable and less of a chore.

In terms of realism, I'd say the AI managers still have some way to go (their squad building, particularly) before they offer a *serious* long-term challenge to the user.

In terms of amount of players, teams, leagues, competitions etc etc, the game is realistic.

In in terms of frustration level; a game that makes me want to smash my laptop and punch my dog in the face isn't fun.

In terms of amount of players, teams, leagues, competitions etc etc, the game is realistic.

In in terms of frustration level; a game that makes me want to smash my laptop and punch my dog in the face isn't fun.

I get that same feeling from watching my "real-life" team play, though, and I still keep going back for more. There's a sadistic edge to football that makes it so addictive!

I get that same feeling from watching my "real-life" team play, though, and I still keep going back for more. There's a sadistic edge to football that makes it so addictive!

Geordie fan?

I think a lot of the features and the realism side is fun, but I want a game that is beatable without anything left down to random chance, this is the main section of "fun" that is missing for me. If I have the highest morale in the squad, a team that plays great football together in a specially designed tactics that's taken days to tweak with the best players in the world - I honestly expect to win every match. It's not realistic, but it's not fun to me to lose when there's nothing I can do about it.

I think a lot of the features and the realism side is fun, but I want a game that is beatable without anything left down to random chance, this is the main section of "fun" that is missing for me. If I have the highest morale in the squad, a team that plays great football together in a specially designed tactics that's taken days to tweak with the best players in the world - I honestly expect to win every match. It's not realistic, but it's not fun to me to lose when there's nothing I can do about it.

Pretty much whs

I think any simulation has to derive a large part of the fun *from* the realism.

In terms of fun, the big challenge for FM10 and future versions it to really improve the interface to make certain parts of the game more enjoyable and less of a chore.

In terms of realism, I'd say the AI managers still have some way to go (their squad building, particularly) before they offer a *serious* long-term challenge to the user.

I agree largely with this comment.

I believe the game's realism can be improved further without detracting from the fun. There have been suggestions in the past for AI managers to be improved upon, giving them personalities and tendencies mirroring that of real-life. I cannot imagine people would complain unduly if SI were to make this happen as I think most would really like to see the Fergusons, Wengers, Benitezs, Mourinhos, etc all behaving as they would normally be expected to behave.

If AI clubs can do proper squad building, as what was advertised by SI when they announced the revamping of the transfer system for FM 2009, this could probably lessen the burden of solely relying on tactics, media comments and team-talks to provide the difficulty challenge to the gamers. It seems that AI clubs are still just buying players because they can, rather then because they see a need/use in that player, resulting in players that move for huge transfer fees, but only play a handful of games in a season.

Moreover, there are certain regulations that are missing from the game, which should be a priority for inclusion in the future I feel. Such as, the UEFA squad registration regulation where you may register one new winter-window signing for European competition even if he had played in another European competition with his previous club this season.

This isn't a moan just my opinion in response to the OP.

I voted for not realistic or fun - to clarify I would say it's not fun because of the amount of time that you need to spend coming up with a good tactic to then have your team implement your good tactics and not score. It's not realistic because of the amount of CCC's your good tactic creates only to have wclass strikers consistenly miss sitters.

I enjoy the tactical side of the game immensly but for me the fun side of the game comes from seeing your tactics successfully used on the pitch. I wouldn't say that I am amazing at FM but I have won everything with Bristol City but I just get the feeling that most of my success was more of a mathematical exercise rather than down to any flowing beautiful football that my tactics have created.

In FM08 just as irl, I would get a thrill when I saw my striker break clear with just the keeper to beat, there was always the anticipation of will he won't he put it away? But in this version I get more of sense that the ai is calculating a realistic outcome to the match and is trying not to let a game finish 8-0 so strikers regularly miss rather than score - which leads to the question - how much do the tactics I have created actually influence the outcome of a game in the light of a need for a realistic scoreline?

And no I don't want to win every game 8-0! but the 2 criteria posted, fun and realism come hand in hand for me - fun = strategy/tactics, realism = seeing the tactics implemented in as accurate a model of real football as possible and I just don't think they do in this version.

I would like to see less ccc's but wclass strikers banging them in when one-on-one, this i would find fun and as enjoyable as watching the real game. the tactics then would be about creating the ccc's, getting your front men in position to score whilst keeping a creative/solid midfield supplying them with a good defense backing things up.

And as Wee Aja said, when I lose I would like to learn why in a clear and concise way, so that I can do something about it (if at all) because there is little feedback on that score it just makes things seem random.

Hopefully 9.3.0 will go some ways to address this but I can't see me putting in the amount of hours like I used to anymore, the payoff just aint that great.

The game is realistic, but not enough fun

I feel the amount of tactical work that has to go into the game has reduced a bit of the fun IMO. While I like the tacical side of the game I resent the fact I have to do so many tweaks according to how my opposition play. What happened to them tweaking their tactics to adapt to how I play? Too much emphasis on hard-core tactics, this only needs to be marginally reduced, I obviously dont know how SI could do this but I feel the game should be a bit more "general" with tactics. Just my opinion, seems harder to play now. The assistant manager help is useful but theres too much info and it's usually the same sort of info and still offers no hel in regard to formations etc. It needs more work I think.

imo the tactical part of this game has two major issues. the first one is that it has no resemblance to real life. real life football knowledge doesn't help. all we're doing is trying to crack the right combination of sliders for our winning formula. constant inconsistancy of ME also doesn't help in that matter (playing a lot of TTB on 910 was useless, compared to 920, crossing has never been effective, free roles...). the other thing is AI's tactical incompetence which needed to be balanced somehow .

tactical interface is crying for rewriting. slider system is to complicated both for humans and especially AI. while most of the sliders should be simplified, we also need to be able to give our players more specific instructions without using slider combination.

I've had to go for option 1 as I feel the game is losing some of the fun as it strives to become more realistic.

I voted the first option, only because I compare it to FM2007. I do not have as much fun as I used to have and that is because of the increasing amount of time I spend trying to perfect tactics and training.

In Football Manager 2007, making the team play how you wanted to play was easy; I could see the changes I made tactically being represented on the pitch alot more than I do now.

I don't think it's as much fun as it should be.

I also don't think it's very realistic either, in spite of the claims made for it.

So, Option 4 for me.

I really can't believe that developer who made cm3 can make a bad game,but before it was more about fun,today is all about money(damn capitalism),i think 2010 doesn't need any new features,only improving old features,and they will be going in good way if they do that but it's only my opinion!In 2009 fun does not exist.

How do feel about the Realism/Fun Gaming balance?

I feel lethargic and aroused.

For me 08 had a good blend of realism, challenge and fun. 09 feels like hard work, I don't have the time or inclination to spend three months tinkering with sliders in order to get my tactic working. I don't want it to be "pick up and play", but I don't want it to be "pick up and scratch your head" either.

It's not realistic. The match engine is crap as far as I'm concerned. Neglected the defensive side of things for ages now, it's no wonder people get 300 clear cut chances every game and lose 0-1, when the focus is on the attacking all the time. The arrows were meant to get rid of these, but it's still in the game. They should have saved their time by the looks of it. And it isn't fun either, when you're on the end of these stupid results.

The game will never be realistic because it's a game and you can't imitate real life.

Pedant of the year award goes to....

The game will never be realistic because it's a game and you can't imitate real life.

If only the world was that black and white.

The options aren't literal.

To make life easier, think of realistic as comparabale realism, compare it to other games and with that in mind is it more realistic.

Isn't this question an oxymoron? I doubt that real management could be interrupted by any professional manager as being "fun" - So taking that into consideration the game cannot be realistic AND fun at the same time, it's either one or the other. The more realistic that the game is the less it should be fun and vica versa.

In any sport/computer game if you are winning on a consistent basis then odds are that you're having more fun than not. If you're always losing then you're probably having a lousy time, the game can be as "fun" as a house full of chicks (the poultry type, not the female kind) but if you're losing then you're probably hating life.

Personally I would rather the game be realistic.

Oh for goodness sake. How hard is it for people to use a bit of imagination?

Allthough i choose the first option. im kinda in favout of the 3rd option also..

As much as the game has moved forwards in recent years i feel a little somthing is missing but can't put my finger on it.. may be it's becasue im older now and i may be growing out of computer games?

may be it's the small bugs which takes somthing away from it? it's definately alot harder but i think that's a good thing.. Im all in favour of having a complex game providing it resembles football and my real life knowledge can work in a game format..

I answered the poll but my vote is secret.

No Vote, due to the word "enough." The game is not realistic, and fun.

In any sport/computer game if you are winning on a consistent basis then odds are that you're having more fun than not. If you're always losing then you're probably having a lousy time, the game can be as "fun" as a house full of chicks (the poultry type, not the female kind) but if you're losing then you're probably hating life.

Personally I would rather the game be realistic.

Thats not true...i am sure there are many gamers whose results were below expectations but still managed to enjoy the game. For example on 08 as QPR my first season target was to finish in the top six..however though i managed to finish 17th i still enjoyed my season because the team played how i wanted them to play and any mistakes that they made were due to mistakes in the tactics. However thats not the case here..it is not realistic that world class strikers miss easy chances time and again just because that someone came up with a stat that the conversion rate from one-on-one situation is just 36% or because they miss easy chances just because that the game wants to maintain realistic score lines.

My first ever footy game that i played was fifa 2000 and if i remember correctly, on that version as you increased the difficulty, your players slowed down considerably so that it becomes difficult for you to steamroll your opponents. At that time i felt cheated because slowing down your players just to make the game more difficult was a bit stupid...the same case can be applied here..making your strikers miss chances just so that the scorelines are realistic is stupid..instead make the defenders more intelligent but not so that even a non-league team defender will be able to consistently stop a top player

if you don't think it's fun then why are you buying it and playing it? loss in sales would make SI change their minds about the future of the game. Keep buying it and complaining about how its too real to be fun and nothing will change. personally i like the game and find it entertaining as hell.

if you don't think it's fun then why are you buying it and playing it? loss in sales would make SI change their minds about the future of the game. Keep buying it and complaining about how its too real to be fun and nothing will change. personally i like the game and find it entertaining as hell.

I think you're missing the point. The game is not as fun as it has been in the past in my opinion.

I bought it because I've loved all of the FM games so far and because no other football management game measures up.

Does that mean I cannot be disappointed with it or hope that it improves in the future?

Not fun or realistic in my view. Too many issues with inexplicable strings of weird results and overpowered AI team talks. Also way too many bugs that you shouldn't have to wait months for a patch to fix. Patches can go out anytime, right? How about you fix the AMC ratings? Leaving it in the game, and effectively taking a whole bunch of realistic and fun tactical formations out of play, or at least handicapping those formations, is inexcusable in my book. Maybe I've been playing this game for too many versions, but this is the first one that has left me extremely frustrated.

Not fun or realistic in my view. Too many issues with inexplicable strings of weird results and overpowered AI team talks. Also way too many bugs that you shouldn't have to wait months for a patch to fix. Patches can go out anytime, right? How about you fix the AMC ratings? Leaving it in the game, and effectively taking a whole bunch of realistic and fun tactical formations out of play, or at least handicapping those formations, is inexcusable in my book. Maybe I've been playing this game for too many versions, but this is the first one that has left me extremely frustrated.

The reason patches take some time to be released is because any change made to the game code will have a domino effect and alter something else which you might not be aware of. Therefore there needs to be a rigorous testing process to ensure that solving a bug did not create a new one.

Personally I think the balance is just about right.

I don`t have too many complaints, even if there are a few bugs. There are games that are played online (RPG) for the past few years and they STILL have bugs. My few is that some people on here expect the game to be bug free and realistic as they come from the day of its release. This will never happen so i am happy with the way the game is.

I am only in my 6th season as it takes me roughly 20 hours of play per season and i am still enjoying it heaps.

I feel the realism is the fun aspect of the game

[x] I couldn't agree more.

Well, assuming difficult = realistic, they're making the wrong part of the game 'realistic' for me. I like wheeling and dealing in the transfer market, and it's absurdly easy/unrealistic to put together an incredible squad. My Union Berlin team has well over 100 internationals under contract. On the other hand, I don't enjoy micromanaging tactics which seems to be a requirement to get results. Designing a single tactic and style of play/philosophy is fun(was more fun with arrows), tweaking it endlessly is not So I'd like them to make the on-pitch game less 'realistic' and and the off-pitch parts moreso

voted realistic not fun

though that was tough call.

unrealistic is trying to wrap your nugget around the slider tweaks and what they are actually doing. the vague idea of what team talks and press conferences are doing. (ie you can do positive press conferences but at what point is the team getting overconfident and how do we know that?) why cant the assistant manager be trusted to not muck up morale at a press conference. what is the turning point of too many drops/buys in the form of cohesion and morale? the difficulty in pinpointing what is exactly causing success or failure within a tactic or squad development. why players values are listed if they go for 2-4x their listed values. unrealistic injury runs (like being reduced to 10 men because of 4 injuries, twice in a 6 week period)

everything else is great!!!

if i had to pin down what troubles the series, its the vague nature of some of the game mechanics. id also like them to take the approach that when in doubt, side with ease of use and fun.

On a slightly related note, this is an excellent article for anyone prepared to read through it:

http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

i agree that there could be a little less realism in the game in order to make it more fun.

People just want to win games, but they want to feel like they've put in effort in order to win them.

The elements that are making the game more realistic (team talks, press conferences etc.) are pretty tedious, and kind of take the fun away once you know what to say, I found in 08 I was going through the same process just before each match, say the right thing pre match, then tell them they can win the game, it wasn't as if I was thinking or chossing an option, I just knew that was what I had to say, so didn't really make it anymoe fun for me.

Didn't vote because IMO, FM08 had the balance about right and I haven't played enough of 09 to assess. As long as it doesn't get significantly less fun from here, I'm happy

The reason patches take some time to be released is because any change made to the game code will have a domino effect and alter something else which you might not be aware of. Therefore there needs to be a rigorous testing process to ensure that solving a bug did not create a new one.

I get that. But through that rigorous testing process they missed forward ratings being broken in initial release and AMC rating broken in second patch. A patch like that, specific to one position on field, shouldn't have a knock on effect. It's only recalculating how AMC ratings are determined, not doing anything that effects the ME, tactics, etc. I understand why there are large patches that are seperated by months, but this should not be one of them.

there should be an option at the start of the game whether to have master mind tactics in the game or general tactics

i voted the most favourable response but i have to say that this one doesn't quite seem as realistic as previous ones. too much domestic domination and the whole debt thing has ruined the game. man utd have literally been twenty years out of the top half of the premier league, most of that in the championship, and i swear it's just because of the debt they're in with the glazers at the start of the game.