Am I playing a different game or something?!

I read all these different threads from people saying how brilliant this game is and its like no other football game because its so "advanced" and "realistic".

What is realistic about this game? The fact that players don't seem to follow instructions and "shouts" AT ALL! The fact that some players who might be very left-footed and, according to this game, can't use their right foot to kick a ball if their life depended on it seem to be through on goal and ON their left foot and still decide to shoot with their right foot?! The fact that so many times the ball is pretty much passed to the opposition goalie rather than the player shooting at goal with some bloody power! Or the fact that pretty much every shot at goal is aimed at the goalie's head or the top corner! Centre-backs never move with the ball. If there's no obvious pass forward, it's too complicated to move with the ball or shift the ball and their position and find the right pass. Instead, he turns around and goes back to the keeper who then smashes the ball upfield towards Theo Walcott or Andrei Arshavin....real giants in football! Doesn't make things any easier that they're being marked by Ryan Shawcross or Bred Hangeland!

There is NOTHING realistic about the match-play in this game or any FM game, which is a massive shame because you can play FIFA or ProEvo and the technology used to create match-play in those games looks lightyears ahead of FM. Even the graphics on FM look pathetic. I played a FIFA game recently which is about 10 years old and the graphics on that were even better than FM.

I do hold out some hope that the creators of FM games will actually do some research in the future into how the beautiful game of football is actually played. Because if they really think it's played the way it is on FM, it's an embarassment

That is all.

go back to fifa then, clearly FM is too complex for your little mind

go back to fifa then, clearly FM is too complex for your little mind

This comment was unnecessary, disrespectful and in no way rational since you criticize the person and not his/her arguments.

The person who started this thread have clearly experiencing some things which are not realistic, and if you disagree you should reject his/her arguments with rational and legitimate arguments that refutes the claims.

kevlaaaar: FM is not realistic in many ways, and it is far from sure that this is something that its going to change in the near future. What you can do is to accept that this is a game, and thus accept the unrealistic variables in the game, or you can simply not play and not buy the game next time. Personally, I try my best not to annoy my self for all the errors and lack of realism in the game, much beacause there is no similar games today which are better. I have no option.

There is NOTHING realistic about the match-play in this game or any FM game, which is a massive shame because you can play FIFA or ProEvo and the technology used to create match-play in those games looks lightyears ahead of FM. Even the graphics on FM look pathetic. I played a FIFA game recently which is about 10 years old and the graphics on that were even better than FM.

FIFA and Pro Evo simulate matches that are much shorter than those FM simulates, and their matches are much higher scoring than a real match. FM is more realistic, in terms of actual football simulation, than those two by a long way. As for graphics, FIFA and Pro Evo aren't aimed at nearly the range of devices that FM is so can afford better graphics. FM also focuses on things other than the aesthetic.

Please try and be constructive with your criticsm as far as possible. Centre backs not bringing the ball out of defence is a constructive piece of criticism- if you'd like to upload a PKM in the bugs forum showing some situations where you'd expect the centre back to dribble it would be much appreciated. Goalkeepers hoofing the ball at midgets is another piece of constructive criticsm, particularly if the goalkeeper had other options- again, PKMs would be nice if you have any.

Calling FM an "embarrassment" is not constructive and I'd also ask you to avoid using foul language in the future.

I won't say that nothing is realistic, but there are things that I do find irritating. The morale aspect has been discussed elsewhere, so I won't add to that except to say that I think, after some consideration, that SI is on the right track. But they really need to work out the irrational aspects of the system. The things I find irritating are the things that we always worked to eliminate in youth players and so have no place in the professional game. Two examples: 1) I repeatedly have coaches recommending that they be allowed to train players not to use their weaker foot; all that does is make the player easier to defend. A coach would want to train the player to strengthen his weaker foot. 2) It drives me to distraction to see players to whom others have passed the ball stand there while a defender swoops in to interecept. Has no one heard of closing on the ball? Or checking to the ball? There are others, but those are the most egregious.

I also think it's ridiculous that we are forced during a match to sit and watch while players writhe in agony and then are s-l-o-w-l-y escorted off the pitch. There is also the aimless milling about while we wait for substitutes come onto the pitch. I'm sure there are those who believe that this adds "atmosphere", but I would love to see an opt-out alternative.

1) I repeatedly have coaches recommending that they be allowed to train players not to use their weaker foot; all that does is make the player easier to defend. A coach would want to train the player to strengthen his weaker foot.

In real life a coach would want a player to train his weaker foot 100% of the time, as it can only be a positive thing. But in FM improving a weak foot would either take up PA or re-distribute CA points to compensate, so sometimes the player ends up losing attribute points, which can be annoying for some.

Look, I'm as big a fan of FM as anyone, but I think that there is a case to be made that the game might, just might, not be for everyone (I know, shocking!). Let's face it, it does come with certain, shall we say, interesting personality quirks:

- 70% of your playing time is spent clicking "continue" and watching a progress bar. Most of the "progress" thus made results only in reaching another screen where you can click "continue" once again to watch yet another bar. The alleged progress of the game is then slowed down even further by the inevitable alt-tabbing to these forums to escape progress bars.

- The remaining game time is occupied with watching players standing around waiting to take throw-ins or walking towards the edge of the field with all the urgency of a Bergman movie (FM's idea of "highlights").

- There is a billion metric tons of information dumped on the player every minute, and half of it is contradictory. The remaining half is merely useless.

- The 3D graphics are actually made in MS Paint.

- On release day, the game customarily has more bugs than features. When the first patch is released, is turns out that even things that you thought were features were in fact bugs. This plethora of weird and astonishing bugs has actually made FM the subject of several reference works in entomology.

- All in-game staff are perfect representations of real human beings... who are also deranged lunatics.

Etc. I'm still hooked, of course.

"All in-game staff are perfect representations of real human beings... who are also deranged lunatics."

Every single assistant manager in the entire game has a shared form of asberger's syndrome, which causes them to intone, ad infinitum and with no variety, "I think this one needs to be about the fans." This has begun to drive me slowly insane.

As for the OP's original point, I do believe that this game is better at outcomes than at outputs. Which is to say, I think the overall results -- scorelines, league standings, goalscorers, etc -- are extraordinarily realistic (especially since there is a random, fluid quality overtime that sees some teams evolve and become better while others fade from glory). But the in-match performance, while a reasonable facsimile of soccer, will never be mistaken for the real thing. Similarly, the morale system is incredibly crude -- though I am not sure how better to simulate complex interpersonal dynamics in a sytem of 1s and 0s.

I guess your enjoyment of the game will depend on your willingness to accept that the scenery along the way sometimes looks like badly-painted backdrop, but the destination is worthwhile.

Similarly, the morale system is incredibly crude -- though I am not sure how better to simulate complex interpersonal dynamics in a sytem of 1s and 0s.

True. And I'd think long and hard about continuing down this road, if I were SI.