Fun or realism?

Apologies if this question appears over simplistic or has been done 1000 times before. Searching for "realism" within the threads didn't really help me.

I'm a longstanding fm addict but this version has left my slightly perplexed. In some ways this version is the best yet but I haven't fallen in love with it at all. Tactically I am rubbish and this might form the basis of my problems but I'm struggling to enjoy this version as much as previous incarnations. My problem is that I struggle to get any kind of consistancy. In previous versions I felt it was fairly easy to get any tactic or style of play to bear fruit within a single seasons tinkering. In this version however, aside from a few attacking set-ups (e.g. 4-3-3) I have struggled to get good results past a 15 match period.

In my recent Crewe game, for example, 7 wins and 2 draws (Hearts and Leverkeusen in friendlies) in which 6 goals were conceded were followed by a terrible run of about 6 games where the team started conceding about 4 a game. After getting annoyed I treid a little experiment and fixed the teams morale and fitness with fmrte but still my previously good tactics had become completely ineffectual.

To be successful, you have to adjust your tactics to every opponent, and for every player for every game. For some this is realistic and great news. I however, miss it being a little more easy and a lot more fun. If I have to spend 10-15 minutes tinkering my tactics per game then I can no longer fly through the seasons building a team and watching it develop whilst maintaining a job, reationship and social life. This was the bit I loved. I want a game not a simulator... unless it gets so realistic I'm actually going to start getting payed like a real football manager!

So my question is: what do you want consider to be most important for football manager, realism or fun?

Thanks

Realism. Although i am all for fun the game is a Managerial Sim. This year is the best because how realistic it is becoming. Although this may be too simple i reccomend Handheld FM. Thats more simple than PC FM. I do find Realism fun sometimes though.

I play for the fun of it.

If I wanted realism I'd go manage a real team.

Realism all the way its what sets fm apart from alot of other manager sims the way they try make fm realistic well as realistic as they can.If i wanted fun i'd buy fifa manager or something

I like the balance of fun and realism that the game currently has.

It is a myth that you have to play with your tactics for every match just to get the expected level of success. I've played nearly 30 seasons with just one tactic and I've done ok, as you can see here.

Pointless question really. Almost an oxymoron.

I find the game fun BECAUSE it strives to be realistic.

If the game wasn't realistic it wouldn't be fun.

Whant balance in realism and fun. Not too hard not too unrealistic like in 10.2 is clear cut chances and super keepers.

Realism all the way its what sets fm apart from alot of other manager sims the way they try make fm realistic well as realistic as they can.If i wanted fun i'd buy fifa manager or something

So you don't have fun playing FM? i know what you mean though.

I like the balance of fun and realism that the game currently has.

It is a myth that you have to play with your tactics for every match just to get the expected level of success. I've played nearly 30 seasons with just one tactic and I've done ok, as you can see here.

I played with the same tactic for roughly 70 years - I got to be over 100 years of age.

I was very successful.

Pointless question really. Almost an oxymoron.

I find the game fun BECAUSE it strives to be realistic.

If the game wasn't realistic it wouldn't be fun.

Excellent point.

I would like to have a balance between fun and realism. Kind of the way it is now.

For me FM10 has been the "most fun" version since CM01/02. Some of the fun feeling was back again.

I do, however, think the fun aspect could be improved. Stuff like the "ARSE" command and all that, i miss that.

For me FM10 has been the "most fun" version since CM01/02. Some of the fun feeling was back again.

lol CM01/02, otherwise known to me and my friends as 'The Red One', that really was all about fun, and buying many many scandanavians.

Kim Kaalstrom was the best

I'm not sure I really got my point across here. Mind you I'm not sure I really know what my point is.

I'm not complaining about lack of success and I know you can get success with just one tactic but I've just found that that one tactic has to be one of a limited subset. A midfield diamond will work wonders year after year and even crazy asymetric tactics are very successful but I can't shake the feeling that these tactics are the ones the AI adjusts too least successfully and if you want consistent success you have to stick to exploiting these weaknesses. Maybe this is because the match engine is much better and the number of exploits has shrunk. Now it requires actual thought, knowledge of football and skill rather than just dragging arrows all over the place. This is progress and the game is stronger for it. However, maybe the casual gamer who plays just an hour or so a week is getting a little left behind as it does take so much more investment in terms of time. I did look up Fifa manager but it appears to be hideously bug ridden so I'm going to keep going with this version although if someone could pm me a plug and play tactic for a slow defence in the meantime it'd be greatly appreciated.

I'm not sure I really got my point across here. Mind you I'm not sure I really know what my point is.

I'm not complaining about lack of success and I know you can get success with just one tactic but I've just found that that one tactic has to be one of a limited subset. A midfield diamond will work wonders year after year and even crazy asymetric tactics are very successful but I can't shake the feeling that these tactics are the ones the AI adjusts too least successfully and if you want consistent success you have to stick to exploiting these weaknesses. Maybe this is because the match engine is much better and the number of exploits has shrunk. Now it requires actual thought, knowledge of football and skill rather than just dragging arrows all over the place. This is progress and the game is stronger for it. However, maybe the casual gamer who plays just an hour or so a week is getting a little left behind as it does take so much more investment in terms of time. I did look up Fifa manager but it appears to be hideously bug ridden so I'm going to keep going with this version although if someone could pm me a plug and play tactic for a slow defence in the meantime it'd be greatly appreciated.

I must admit, I did spend a lot of time on my tactic when I first designed it but it wasn't about exploiting the AI for me, it was about creating a style of football that I was happy with. I think this could possibly be why I've not needed to adjust it with the patches, which often improve the AI and render 'exploit' tactics useless.

I have found a base tactic that works for me, get my assistant to do the opposition instructions (takes 1 click) then get on with the match, I have players that suit each posistion and try to swap like for like, this tactic has kicked in once I got my balance right, I have to change is slightly in some games but every manager does this, and it doesnt work well against all tactics, but I dont have to spend time changing before every game to suit

Its fine the way it is regarding the two extremes.

Pointless question really. Almost an oxymoron.

I find the game fun BECAUSE it strives to be realistic.

If the game wasn't realistic it wouldn't be fun.

What he said.

Pointless question really. Almost an oxymoron.

I find the game fun BECAUSE it strives to be realistic.

If the game wasn't realistic it wouldn't be fun.

this

MLG got something right.

To be fair, though, the game is beginning to try to be realistic in some areas which makes the game a bit of a chore, detracting from the fun. Team talks and press conferences, for example. A nice idea in theory, but when your entire season takes a turn on one half-time team-talk, where the options at best were vague, then the fun's most definitely lost.

Fun through realism, I suppose.

I love my game to be as realistic as possible, because it's the closest I'll get to ever managing a pro/semi-pro side (I hope that's wrong but it probably wont be ). Although, despite this, it annoys me that you have to change your tactics (which take ages anyway) every match.

And sometimes, I do question whether managers have to change there tactics every game in real life. Of course, some managers love to pay attention to every detail - e.g. dieting, personal lives and tactics in every small detail. But not every manager does this, and sometimes I feel like FM is forcing us to do this. Some managers believe in focusing on every detail (Houlier) but some don't (Clough - I think).

I haven't had FM10 for as long as some, but it appears to me you have to go into a lot of detail - determining what role your players play (attacking full back, defensive full back,), using the sliders to tell them if to cross and where, what type of way to tackle, where to venture forward to etc. etc. I like the option of this, but surely the team would use there own common sense and know what sort of tackling etc. Sometimes I feel if I don't impliment these, then the team won't play well, which is a little frustrating.

All in all, I love as much realism as possible, but I want to have as much fun as possible through it.

Ya realism is fun, That why FM stand infront of other manager games by a mile.

(That said FM2010 is much closer to a consol type manager game, Making it more "fun" and playable for new people)

Pointless question really. Almost an oxymoron.

I find the game fun BECAUSE it strives to be realistic.

If the game wasn't realistic it wouldn't be fun.

I would think along the same lines.

The key word is: Balance

the two arent mutually exclusive... and it annoys me that people think so.. they are clearly playing the wrong game...

the more realistic the game is .. the more fun it is for me...

Agreed with the sentiments of the majority, the more realistic the game is the more fun it is for me.

I find the game fun because I can easily shift between reality and fantasy.

If I want to make Barrow-In-Furness a Premiership club, I can do it two ways: By building them up or editing them. Each has its side of fun for me.

And at the end of the day, it's a game so it's not realistic anyways.

The realism aspect is the fun part for me

I also would love to see not just the footballing world change, but the in game world change.

REAL Managers have FUN, don't they? Anyway, define fun...

I've seen this debate quite a few times and I'll say the same thing I always say - why do people see realism and fun as too different things? I bet the game wouldn't be half as popular if it was some sort of circus with a vague footballing overtones. The reason we all like it so much is because of how damn realistic it is!

That said, I do feel it's important that any realistic aspects of football that would actually hinder the fun of the game should be left out. For example, in many countries, the manager doesn't control transfer policy. Those decisions are made over his head and he is effectively just a coach. I'd hate to see that get implemented, no matter how realistic it is.

Well i voted for fun.

The reason is simple, this is computer game and should be fun.

I mean realism it highly depends on you point of view. My view is that I want ME that is challenging and can assossiate like real football matches. However with ME bugs does not help to realism. That is why I think FM07 ME is the closest to real in all of the series.

Also my statement that realism depends on your point of view, is because I know that my team (SL Benfica), the likes of Ronaldinho, C. Ronaldo, Messi, Káká, W. Rooney and Casillas would never signed for Benfica. So if I wanted realism I needed to defend that the likes of Benfica couldn't hire these players. One of the things I want to do, when i got the money to buy them.

Realism for me cus if you want fun you can always use FMRTE.

Realism for me cus if you want fun you can always use FMRTE.

S o when you play FM you don't have fun? I'm asking because i'm confused with oyur statement. Care to explain?

Well i meant fun like you win every game and get Messi in Ligue 2 side get it?

there is a balance in the game;)

but realism has to be the main priority:thup:

Well i meant fun like you win every game and get Messi in Ligue 2 side get it?

Fun for me is game that provides challenge in beating my opposition and not the ME. Which means the ME needs to have even less bugs and well balanced and players act like suppose to be and not like the defenders that seemed to statues on the field (and since play only handful games it didn't happen to me but the opposition, so your win every match theory doesn't work).

And no league 2 should have hired Messi, unless he accepts their contract because he wants to join that League 2 team, but a team that is one of the top three of Portuguese Liga Sagres to win championship every single season, since the 1940's, with the correct high reputation it can.

Realism

But i must admit i kinda miss the old versions that i used to buy a couple of cheap bug players and become world beater

If you want more fun and less realism, there are other games on the market.

Realism is fun. (if someone said this earlier...I apologize; I was lazy and did not read all posts)

As I'm sure others have said, I find fun in realism, not one or the other.

Would actually be very interesting to see this game actually being realistic. Don't think it would be as fun as it is now.

If you want more fun and less realism, there are other games on the market.

This

I suppose it's fine the way it is but, yeah, for me the game has lost a bit of it's fun in recent years. It's not really all that realistic in the end (not to say it isn't the most realistic manager game out there though) but I suppose that is what is keeping the fun in the game. The fact you actually CAN take a BSS team to European glory in a matter of when not if...you woudn't see much of that IRL. If the game would be really realistic, gamers would have a serious job on their hands to take a lowly team to glory and I think very few would find that fun even if people do want realism, I think people only want it to a certain degree IMHO. If I want proper realism I'd become a manager myself and manage a real club with real people. At least I get some reward for it when things go well.

For me the game has lost it's spark, even if it has regained it a little with FM10 (apart from latest patch). I find myself working more on tactics than ever before and I often find myself not wanting to spend all that time to make it perfect. Some seem to have the luck to have a working tactic for years while I myself find that even going around on 2 tactics, the AI seem to read through it a couple of seasons at most and I'm back at square one.

To be fair, though, the game is beginning to try to be realistic in some areas which makes the game a bit of a chore, detracting from the fun. Team talks and press conferences, for example. A nice idea in theory, but when your entire season takes a turn on one half-time team-talk, where the options at best were vague, then the fun's most definitely lost.

See, this is how I basically feel about the direction FM seems to be heading in, too.

I'd like it to be more fun and less of a chore, but for the fun bits to remain realistic. If that makes sense.

It's becoming too much work (more clicks and things to get through and things to keep track off that could be automated by default), and we aren't getting paid for it.

I've barely played this game since I bought it. Waiting for 10.3 and I'll give it another try.

I'd like the new toys this one brings together with the smoother, faster, game progression pace of FM07, for instance.

I have no beef with the amount of time required to handle a match. It's the rest of it that's the problem.

I believe FM requires a major upgrade in terms of user interfacing, in order to cut down on clicks and spending too much time where it isn't necessary (and there are many areas for which this could be done).

An example would be injuries. All our teams get them. There should be an option in Preferences or Team Settings, in which you could set all injured players to be sent to physiotherapy except when send to specialist is available. How many clicks would that avoid in a long term game? Gazillions. Doesn't need to be the only option. Other options would cater for everyone's preference in this regard.

You could also have a general setting to send all injured first team players to reserve squad until match fitness is gained. Again, you'd cut down on clicks there. Also one to send unfit first team players to reserve squad until match fitness is gained.

Transfers is another area. If you don't want to click click click , be rejected, make new offer etc etc etc, why not have an option where you can ask your assistant manager (or chairman or whoever) to handle the selling or buying of a player? You could tell him:

1 (a) Sell this player straightaway.

1 (b) Use your head, don't rush too much and try get a decent amount for him.

1 © Hold out until a great offer comes in.

Similarly for buying a player:

2 (a) Sign him as soon as possible. Money is little obstacle.

2 (b) Use your head etc.

2 © Negotiate with every trick in the book to get him for peanuts.

3 (a) Ask me for confirmation before finalizing transfer.

3 (b) Do not ask me.

This would help me out immensely as I'm really tired and bored of having offers rejected, going back with another offer, and repeat ad nauseam. Same for trying to sell a player. Keep clicking and lowering his asking price, to try get the max for a player. I don't believe most real-life managers get so involved in transfers anyhow? Others take care of the details and back and forth, even if the manager is kept informed of how things are going.

SI could sit down, and think about all the things we come across in the game that could be automated according to our individual preferences. If it's done carefully and thoughtfully, then everyone should be happy. If others would like to keep doing all this stuff themselves, for example, then just don't select the options.

Maybe in this manner, by streamlining the old content of FM, the new content won't pile on so much extra work and time. And there'll be a better balance again.

As for team talks and press conferences, there really should be an enable/disable option quite apart from asking your assistant manager to do them. It isn't realistic (to me) that a manager would be given a shortlist of plastic things to say anyway. It's more realistic (to me) to urge the team on in my mind, imagining a motivating speech or what have you, than the current format. It immerses me more. i.e. One person's idea of realism might not be the same as someone else's.

I think it's clear that those who prefer FM to fly by faster, like the old days, are not happy. And I also noticed that a substantial number (even if not the majority) of people who praised FM10 when it came out, began to love it less the more they played it. I reckon accomodation for them is plausible if these suggestions are considered by the programmers and implemented in such a way that will not change the game for those who love it as it is.

Realism of course.

The thing is, though, things like press conferences and media interaction can indeed seem a chore. But that is a fault in their implementation rather than evidence that realism works against fun. As I said in my post further up realism can be detrimental to your enjoyment of the game. It certainly has the potential. But with things like press conferences, I would argue that it's a direction the game should go in. If we could get them working in a less routine, less predictable way, they'd be both realistic and fun. It's not an unachievable aim.

realism = fun

realism = fun

Or I could have just said that.

Apart from very casual gamers, almost all will pump for realism. Now i might be called as a whiner (or as someone had already done "pedantic") but maybe somebody will define what type of realism. One definition might be that the players play realistically on the pitch (of course depending on their attributes), AI managers make realistic transfers (not just the quantity but also the quality and thinking on a long term basis), the board appoints new managers realistically and provides transfer funds realistically and the players react realistically to off-field events then yes...everyone will agree. However if realism means tailoring a far from perfect ME depending on surveys, stats or research, then i believe a substantial percentage (not telling majority) will obviously disagree.

I think that you can only have a fun game when it is realistic tbh. It's because of the fact that fm isn't realistic that it takes the fun out of playing.

It not real life, it's a video game, set of instructions, so it has to be fixed in order to stay close to realism. I dunno if I want this game (a video game) to try and be realistic. I don't want it to try and be too realistic.

Realism is key for a good sim.

If this game wasn't realistic, I wouldn't buy it. Thankfully, FM is realistic which means it'll be challenging - and I like a challenge.