Do you Watch with 3d Match View

Or the traditional? What's generally preferred in the Community?

I always use 3d match view, with the zoomed side scrolling or what it called.

Only commentary. I occasionally watch replays of goals to see what ridiculous farce has been created. The 3D match engine is very far from being acceptable and the graphics are laughably bad like something from 15 years ago.

Only commentary. I occasionally watch replays of goals to see what ridiculous farce has been created. The 3D match engine is very far from being acceptable and the graphics are laughably bad like something from 15 years ago.

I disagree, the 3d enhances the game and gives a good representation of what is happening.

The graphics may not be Fifa standard but are more than acceptable.

Personally 3d, extended highlights from an elevated view.

Thanks ever so much for poll.

Personally I switch between 3D and 2D regularly.

3D is awful in my honset opinion, I watch it and find myself laughing alot.

2D classic always for me. I like to be able to imagine what happened... if that makes sense!?

3D with key highlights at a pretty fast speed. replays of goals on slower speed.

Think the 3D is really good as it goes. I always used commentary only before this years game, didnt think the graphics were good enough on 09 to watch 3d but now there alot better

I watch 3D, you can actually see if the guy's heading it or kicking it

Nothing but full-match 3D for me.

I find it makes matches far more enjoyable to watch. That is, since I don't hold the far too common expectation that an infant 3D match engine is supposed to be indistinguishable from reality.

i watch 3d, you can actually see if the guy's heading it or kicking it

qft.

567890

I have upgraded my PC and now I can finally play in 3D mode

Touchline view for me.

2D. It's better to use your imagination.

2D Classic.

CAMRAD etc.

Nothing but full-match 3D for me.

I find it makes matches far more enjoyable to watch. That is, since I don't hold the far too common expectation that an infant 3D match engine is supposed to be indistinguishable from reality.

Completely agree. I think the 3D engine is great, considering it is in its second year. If it hasn't improved fifteen years from now, then that would be a problem...

3D all day long. I mean what's the point in watching 2D if you have advanced technolodgy.

2D all day long. 3D just doesn't look good enough in my opinion. Player motion is terrible. At least with 2D I can use my imagination abit, but with 3D it's just awful.

2D all day long. 3D just doesn't look good enough in my opinion. Player motion is terrible. At least with 2D I can use my imagination abit, but with 3D it's just awful.

it's not awful at all.

It isn't supposed to look like FIFA or PES...Personally I think the 3D just gives your imagination more to work with, and makes what you imagine more accurate to what's ACTUALLY happening.

I never said it was supposed to look like FIFA or PES so that comment is a bit irrelevant. Watch a football match, and then watch the 3D match engine. The difference is huge. I know that were never going to get anything as realistic as a football match, but 3D just doesn't look like football at all, hence why I called it awful.

If people want to watch it in 2D, then I guess that is their choice. To me, it is a bit like watching TV on a tube rather than an HD-flatscreen. I prefer the newer technology in most cases, even if it is in its infancy like the FM 3D engine.

If people want to watch it in 2D, then I guess that is their choice. To me, it is a bit like watching TV on a tube rather than an HD-flatscreen. I prefer the newer technology in most cases, even if it is in its infancy like the FM 3D engine.

It's newer technology and it is impressive with the resources available, however, that doesn't mean that it looks anything like football.

2D Classic.

CAMRAD etc.

+1

2D is so much better tactically, and for mental immersion.

It's newer technology and it is impressive with the resources available, however, that doesn't mean that it looks anything like football.

Like I said, if you want to watch it in 2D, the God Bless. To argue that you are against 3D because it doesn't look "realistic" implies that you believe 2D to be "more realistic," which I do not think would receive universal support. Your preference of 2D is your business, as is my preference of 3D. What seems as odd and hard to understand from your perspective of why I would prefer 3D is a view I share of why you prefer 2D. No offense taken, hopefully none given.

Like I said, if you want to watch it in 2D, the God Bless. To argue that you are against 3D because it doesn't look "realistic" implies that you believe 2D to be "more realistic," which I do not think would receive universal support. Your preference of 2D is your business, as is my preference of 3D. What seems as odd and hard to understand from your perspective of why I would prefer 3D is a view I share of why you prefer 2D. No offense taken, hopefully none given.

I don't think it's a case of "2D is more realistic than 3D", it's really that 3D is trying to be something that it'll never match - reality. With 2D, you're able to use your imagination more, and this fills in any gaps regarding realism. But with 3D, it's trying to fill those gaps itself, and not quite making it, which spoils the immersion.

I don't think it's a case of "2D is more realistic than 3D", it's really that 3D is trying to be something that it'll never match - reality. With 2D, you're able to use your imagination more, and this fills in any gaps regarding realism. But with 3D, it's trying to fill those gaps itself, and not quite making it, which spoils the immersion.

From your perspective, and others like you, this is probably always going to be the case. For me, and those like me, the 3D is intriguing and has the possibility of taking the game to another level. There is always something to be said for the nostalgia of "old school" video games; such is the continued draw for the original NES. SI are trying to stay at the leading edge of the market with 3D and other innovations. These will be well-received by some and poorly-received by others.

From your perspective, and others like you, this is probably always going to be the case. For me, and those like me, the 3D is intriguing and has the possibility of taking the game to another level. There is always something to be said for the nostalgia of "old school" video games; such is the continued draw for the original NES. SI are trying to stay at the leading edge of the market with 3D and other innovations. These will be well-received by some and poorly-received by others.

It's not about nostalgia, it's the fact that I can interpret things better with 2D than with 3D.

It's not about nostalgia, it's the fact that I can interpret things better with 2D than with 3D.

Fair enough. God Bless.

2D all day long. Non TV View altho I may look at swapping between them two. Simple as that, can't stand 3D, don't know why, just can't.

Although when I were Solihull Moors my team were playing rubbish and I mean rubbish, I think I went 5 games without scoring, creating a chance for that matter on 3D. Switched to 2D and I creeped out of the relegation zone, no kidding.

Always 3D and always touchline view - for one simple reason: realism. By the same token I always use the touchline shouts and never the sliders.

+1

2D is so much better tactically, and for mental immersion.

Totally and utterly disagree with that, you simply can't tell what your dots are doing properly, and any subtle changes to tactics you make don't seem to make much difference on 2D, whereas on 3D you can actually see you tactics and changes taking effect to a much higher degree.

3D all the way for me!

Only commentary. I occasionally watch replays of goals to see what ridiculous farce has been created. The 3D match engine is very far from being acceptable and the graphics are laughably bad like something from 15 years ago.

Why do you play the game? Just to moan about it?

Totally and utterly disagree with that, you simply can't tell what your dots are doing properly, and any subtle changes to tactics you make don't seem to make much difference on 2D, whereas on 3D you can actually see you tactics and changes taking effect to a much higher degree.

3D all the way for me!

You say I can't, but I can. I can tell more difference in tactics from a top-down viewpoint than any other viewpoint, it's the reason why some football managers take a seat a few rows up, so they can get a better overall view of the tactical situation. The same reason why most strategy games are based on a top-down/isometric view.

3D is a good addition, didnt get FM09 so i dont really know how much improvement was made but I have been quite impressed. A lot of the more subtle details like 50-50 challenges, shirt pulls, acrobatic volleys, injuries and dribbling skills need to be improved for the next edition but im sure SI are working on it. Good to know 2D classic dots are still there for those who want/need it.

My new laptop runs the 3D view surprisingly well, but I just prefer the 2D classic match view. I can see things much more clearly.

3D for me. It's been a good first step to the 3D match engine, give it a couple more years of development and it will be great.

I have always been a strong 2D fan but this time I have to admit the job inside FM10 is definetly worth, compared to the 3D garbage of FM09.

It could be further improved yes, above all fixing 3D slowness random bugs but it is definitely worth.

3D on Zoomed Vertical Scrolling

3D touchline, only. Wish the angle was even lower, for reality's sake...

I've even changed one of the crowd chants to "CAMRAAAAAAAD's a faaaaaaad"

Totally and utterly disagree with that, you simply can't tell what your dots are doing properly, and any subtle changes to tactics you make don't seem to make much difference on 2D, whereas on 3D you can actually see you tactics and changes taking effect to a much higher degree.

3D all the way for me!

Nonsense. 2D classic helps you see the whole tactical picture and you can quite clearly see what you've changed. 3D is not good enough but even if it was I'd still be on 2D just because it helps me understand the game better and immerse myself better in the game, with my imagination filling in the blanks rather than an average 3D animation.

2D Classic.

Despite working fine on my PC, 3D doesn't quite seem right, in fact it removes any immersion I feel to the match.

You say I can't, but I can.

Sorry, didn't mean you can't as in you personally. It's like anything isn't it? All down to opinion, like I say for me personally 3D shows a better tactical representation.

2D - classic

3d needs A LOT of work being done in it which i dont think it will become an acceptable state..

but this doesnt mean im unhappy about 2D part. It gives so much freedom to think how awesome is my goals and how stupid the opponent ones

With FM10 I only watch matches in 3D. In FM09 I sticked to 2D.

3D in FM10 works well imho. There are of course a few issues here and there, like strange animations, sliding players, etc, but all in all the 3D view works best for me. It's almost like watching a real game....!

Still playing FM09 and watch in 3D If and when I start to play FM2010 i am not sure because if defenders dont tackle or close down then I think I would become frustrated. In 09 my defenders get stuck in and my defence is pretty solid I just wish my front players woiuld score more goals.

watch on 3d but it does seem 2 go slow on my computer after 2 or 3 hours of gameplay

3D. I had to use 2D when I first got the game, but I have a good computer now and I couldn't go back.

3D - I'm a recent convert, since I've now built a PC gaming monster.