PDA

View Full Version : 2d or not 2d, that is the question.



BC_Tiger
28-02-2010, 12:12
ok, so ive had a quick look and cant find a similar poll, if there is maybe this will give a more up to date result.

do you use 3d? or stick with 2d? can your computer handle 3d? etc

itsallaboutthierry
28-02-2010, 12:16
If you want to enjoy the game a bit more try 'only commentary'. All of a sudden the ME makes more sense because you only get the info it tries to tell you rather than interpreting it yourself. Also you don't see how stupidly easy those clear cut chances are and (I think) you get a better feel for how the momentum shifts during a match.

grade
28-02-2010, 12:53
I use the 2D classic, because the 3D still feels like so 90's. I can run the 3D with five stars.

FMAnderson
28-02-2010, 12:55
I use the 2D classic, because the 3D still feels like so 90's. I can run the 3D with five stars.

What specs do you have?

grade
28-02-2010, 13:03
I have Quad Core 2.83, with 4 GB of Ram with ATI Radeon HD 4800

fabioke
28-02-2010, 13:03
2d on laptop. 3d on desktop.

Edle
28-02-2010, 13:59
2D for me, such is a crap integrated GFX card.

Hershie
28-02-2010, 14:00
DDD.

Most of the time. :)

Saithis
28-02-2010, 14:07
3d just because I like the match day info boxes and they cover too much of the pitch on 2d..

baker.simon
28-02-2010, 14:12
Converted fully to 3-d now.

Veg1ta
28-02-2010, 14:15
i like 2d classic, i just cant get into 3d am just to use to the classic way of doing things, also with tacticsa as well i convert to classic.

markyosullivan
28-02-2010, 14:48
3D. Though because of my old graphics the framerate goes a bit bad when there's a big stadium. (30,000+)

dafuge
28-02-2010, 14:53
I use commentary only for most games, but 3D for big matches.

matt_forest
28-02-2010, 14:58
2d for me. My laptop can run the 3d view at a decent rate but even on a top spec computer I think it is still quiet poor graphically.

baker.simon
28-02-2010, 15:00
This poses another question which is kind of relevant so I won't open another thread ;)

Say my laptop can run 3-d perfectly well, if I just stuck to 2-d would the game be quicker at all?

ism-scfc
28-02-2010, 15:28
3D every game

Younger Crayola
28-02-2010, 15:34
3D, always. There's just so much more information there that you don't get with the 2D view. All that remains now is for SI to have the option to remove the commentary bar from the bottom during the game, because I never look at it. I need that screen space for more little 3D wobbly guys!

Quboid
28-02-2010, 15:58
3D, always. There's just so much more information there that you don't get with the 2D view. All that remains now is for SI to have the option to remove the commentary bar from the bottom during the game, because I never look at it. I need that screen space for more little 3D wobbly guys!

Blasphemy!

Back when I were a lad that's all we had. And we were glad of it!

Actually I was very keen for 2D and going to 3D is a continuation of that. I'll always want better animation and detail so I get more information on what exactly my players are doing, but I think it's at an excellent standard now. The ME problems are nothing to do with graphics or how you view the match and it's that which I hope 10.3 and 11 work on.

Deisler26
28-02-2010, 16:05
2D for me.

I can see more of how the team plays.

chopo
28-02-2010, 16:10
2D, much prefer it. Too much about the 3D annoys me.

grade
28-02-2010, 17:03
This poses another question which is kind of relevant so I won't open another thread ;)

Say my laptop can run 3-d perfectly well, if I just stuck to 2-d would the game be quicker at all?

Well that is a good question.

Personally my problem with 3D is more a look a problem the speed. For me it looks something out of 90's football game.

if 2D is more is it quicker then 3D? I really don't know, never made such comparison.

lee50_11
28-02-2010, 19:03
3D all the time

themoffster
28-02-2010, 19:10
2D for me, such is a crap integrated GFX card.

snap .