Did 2D ruin Football Manager?

Here's an interesting little discussion item that has occured to me.

CM01/02 is generally held in very high regard by the Football Manager fanbase. I've been wracking my brains as to why the game simply seemed more fun then and have hit on the 2D engine as the reason why.

1) It has raised expectations of the engine. Now we can actually see where the engine fails us in its modelling of the game.

2) It over-emphasises tactical fiddling. Don't get me wrong, but tactical choices seemed more logical when I couldn't see what was going on. More time spent on tactics == less playing time.

3) The combination of 1 and 2 above adds to the frustration, sometimes with the engine, sometimes when the game seems dead set against us for no reason.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for the 2D engine to be stripped out of the game - we can turn it off if we really want to.

I do, however, think that it has perhaps been an element too much of "simulation" and detracted from the "game".

Here's an interesting little discussion item that has occured to me.

CM01/02 is generally held in very high regard by the Football Manager fanbase. I've been wracking my brains as to why the game simply seemed more fun then and have hit on the 2D engine as the reason why.

1) It has raised expectations of the engine. Now we can actually see where the engine fails us in its modelling of the game.

2) It over-emphasises tactical fiddling. Don't get me wrong, but tactical choices seemed more logical when I couldn't see what was going on. More time spent on tactics == less playing time.

3) The combination of 1 and 2 above adds to the frustration, sometimes with the engine, sometimes when the game seems dead set against us for no reason.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for the 2D engine to be stripped out of the game - we can turn it off if we really want to.

I do, however, think that it has perhaps been an element too much of "simulation" and detracted from the "game".

No, it's just a visual representation of the non-2D match engine. Doesn't affect the result.

Or so we are told.

Agree, it raises expectations. The constant changes mean working harder at tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do, however, think that it has perhaps been an element too much of "simulation" and detracted from the "game". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the game is a 'simulation' isnt it?

my theory on why everyone loves cm 01-02 is becasue it was easy

I'll be honest, I found CM quire frustrating because there was a degree of guesswork as to what tactical changes I should make mid-match.

Having said that, I can see your point that the match engine has left SI open to critisism as we can now disect whats going wrong and find flaws(which are there) within the match engine.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but I guess over-all life was easier pre-match engine.

What is the definition of contradiction anyway??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fatboyjohnmulhern:

my theory on why everyone loves cm 01-02 is becasue it was easy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree with that

For me at least, the introduction of the 2D engine is what persuarded me to buy CM4. I'd seen previous editions in the shops, but the thoughy of having to read the text and not see what was happening on the pitch just didn't make sense, so I didn't buy until it was introduced.

I think that 2D has just had the misfortune of being implemented when SI decided to ramp up the levels of detail, hence the frustration associated with tactical subtleties and a generally harder game - coupled with the visual representation of misses, means that the 2D engine makes people more aware of the limitations of the ME.

If you get my meaning, that sentance may not make much sense...

I really can't believe how we used to play without the 2-D. I love it and I think it's been a marvellous improvement. And in my opinion it gets better and better every year. This comes from someone who often criticizes SI when he thinks they did something wrong - not from and a..kisser! 2-D rulez!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fatboyjohnmulhern:

my theory on why everyone loves cm 01-02 is becasue it was easy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i found it harder than fm currently is, unless i used tactics that exploited weaknesses in the ai

on the subject of that, there are now third party patches for cm 01/02 that increase the difficulty and prevent supertactics from having much success. if i could find my 01/02 disc i'd give them a go, although it would suck a bit to play with the old-style champions league format

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OP said:

Did 2D ruin Football Manager? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all.

I probably wouldn't buy it these days if it hadn't gone this way.

Nah, not at all. As others have said you couldnt really tell what your tactics were doing and where everyone was positioned. The 2D aspect helped a lot....

It's not 2d that killed FM, it's the shift away from fun to job.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Did 2D ruin Football Manager? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. But it did ruin these forums

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Half-time Orange:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">OP said:

Did 2D ruin Football Manager? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all.

I probably wouldn't buy it these days if it hadn't gone this way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree. The 2D is great, and so everything else but what am doing wrong, being 10 points off the pace ;(

The 2D keeps me interested. Gives me something to watch. If it was all text base, I'd probably end up really bored quite quickly. The little dots occupy my needs. And when you see your little dot score, it's alot more exciting then just seeing "GOAL!" in big letters on the screen.

But that's how my attention span works.

It's nothing to do with the 2D, it's the current-gen system in my opinion that let's it down.

The last few version has shown that the current-gen match engine can't be improved sufficiently enough with each version, the training engine is also an example of this.

This current-gen isn't enough of a simualtion, which it is supposed to be after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gazzamcg:

It's nothing to do with the 2D, it's the current-gen system in my opinion that let's it down.

The last few version has shown that the current-gen match engine can't be improved sufficiently enough with each version, the training engine is also an example of this.

This current-gen isn't enough of a simualtion, which it is supposed to be after all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it appears FM hasn't really evolved beyond CM in terms of depth. Doesn't detract from it being a great game, but yeah, its 2008. There must be room for a more dynamic all-round simulation/experience.

Audio/visually FM is weak ..

It does also lack depth/immersion thanks to prohibitive licensing costs and image rights etc.

I'd love to see pro zone or generic rip off in FM09, better sound, a 3d match engine for sure etc etc.

In the age of 64 bit dual cores, 1ghz GPU's the real potential for the match engine ought to come into its element .. all that horsepower .. yet the game is still based on a 200 mhz PII model.

Although I loved the 2-D right from the start, I sometimes miss the text-only versions. While I was reading the text I was imagining every little detail of the match. Not being able to see the pitch forced you to be imaginative in a pleasant way. It was pure magic I only use 2-D nowadays though. I tried going back to text, but the game is more demanding now and I missed several tactical insights by not knowing what's going on on the pitch.

No I love 2D because you can actually see the tactical changes you're making. If you tell your defenders to push up, you can actually see the back line move forwards (if viewing the whole match). I've read a post in which somebody mentions the fact that he uses his imagination less with the 2D-engine. It has no effect on my imagination though. When I read:

"Free kick to England on the edge of the box"

"David Beckham steps up to take it"

"He curls it over the wall"

"Goal for England!"

I scream just as loud as when I see a white dot with a number in it moving towards another dot, making the other dot go forwards and eventually stopping in a white pixelly net.

I love the 2D engine, because you get a visual representation of the match, and it gives you a better idea what players are and aren't performing, and where I need to tweak my tactics. Not that this stops me being rubbish!

Also, let's face it, the 2D engine makes watching the game unfold a lot more exciting than just reading a load of text.

Text engine - A book.

2D engine - A film.

One has you use your imagination, the other has you fed. The text engine definately has you on your edge of the seat a lot more, as you follow the action more closely.

The problem lies within being fed, the players still fail to respond to your requests, so it highlights particular issues and flaws within the engine. I don't expect it to be absolutely perfect. It's asking far too much of the coders.

Put bluntly, the user seeing the flaws spawns frustration.

Since the introduction of the 2D engine, the emphasis on tactics has lessened, and mind games with players, as well as media interaction have increased. Rightly so in my mind, but the balance is out of proportion.

The wibble/wobble screens were a highlight of tactical discussion with Dave Challinor, WWW, and Buxton, and more so, a lot more fun. Tactic discussion hasn't been the same since.

Since the introduction of 2D, the game really hasn't been the same. If I were to make changes, I'd keep the engine for those who wish to use it, but I'd put the emphasis on the text engine and focus on improving that, with a lot more variable text.

Add the same level of media and player interaction to CM01/02 - as well as 4-4-2, 4-5-1 as opposed to the 2-3-2-1-2 tactics of CM - and you have an unbelievably good game.

I couldn't imagine FM without the 2D engine these days. I enjoyed it perfectly fine in the old days, but I don't know how looking back - surely the whole tactical side (which I enjoy) was just guess-work back then with no visual representation? I can't see how it's ruined the game, surely it's completely the opposite. The 2D match engine was surely the single biggest thing to happen to CM/FM. Seriously, just imagine playing the game now without it - and if you are one of those people who plays without it, how?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KK2003:

I couldn't imagine FM without the 2D engine these days. I enjoyed it perfectly fine in the old days, but I don't know how looking back - surely the whole tactical side (which I enjoy) was just guess-work back then with no visual representation? I can't see how it's ruined the game, surely it's completely the opposite. The 2D match engine was surely the single biggest thing to happen to CM/FM. Seriously, just imagine playing the game now without it - and if you are one of those people who plays without it, how? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really wouldn't be that difficult to translate the current 2d engine into a 3d engine.

Yeah it would be cool if you could see FM-games in 3D. The only problem is that a lot of people will start complaining about the graphics. Personally, I dont really care about graphics, as long as tactical details are visualised on the pitch very accurately. I guess it would make it inpossible for me to play the game on my MacBook though...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gubbs:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KK2003:

I couldn't imagine FM without the 2D engine these days. I enjoyed it perfectly fine in the old days, but I don't know how looking back - surely the whole tactical side (which I enjoy) was just guess-work back then with no visual representation? I can't see how it's ruined the game, surely it's completely the opposite. The 2D match engine was surely the single biggest thing to happen to CM/FM. Seriously, just imagine playing the game now without it - and if you are one of those people who plays without it, how? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It really wouldn't be that difficult to translate the current 2d engine into a 3d engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not, but how much more useful would it be? For me a 2D/top down view is perfect to see the movement of your players and your tactical setp-up as well as that of your opposition.

I think a 3D view would be less useful in terms of playing the game. It would be nice to look at maybe, but little more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah it would be cool if you could see FM-games in 3D. The only problem is that a lot of people will start complaining about the graphics. Personally, I dont really care about graphics, as long as tactical details are visualised on the pitch very accurately. I guess it would make it inpossible for me to play the game on my MacBook though... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it would look nice to see the games in 3D, but you say you don't care about graphics, you just want to see the tactical details accurately. Surely the 2D pitch is the best way to see this? This would be the method that many real managers would use to analyse certain things.

There's nothing you could get from 3D (other than eye candy) that you couldn't get from a 2D view.

You wrote down brilliantly what I was trying to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It does also lack depth/immersion thanks to prohibitive licensing costs and image rights etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only just seen this post, after not reading the whole thread before. How does cosmetic touches like pictures and graphics impact on the depth of the game?

Being able to see Michael Owen's face when you look at his profile or having the match engine use a ball with a Nike tick wouldn't have any effect on the game at all.

In any case these things can all be manually added to the game if that's your thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schotsmannetje:

You wrote down brilliantly what I was trying to say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gubbs:

In the age of 64 bit dual cores, 1ghz GPU's the real potential for the match engine ought to come into its element .. all that horsepower .. yet the game is still based on a 200 mhz PII model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder just what proportion of PCs out there fall into those categories. Most of the best games are playable on less then state of the art PCs as they concentrate on the gameplay rather then the shiny graphics. FM actually does a good job of catering to people with older machines then most other new games. 3D falls into the category of shiny stuff, it offers very little extra tactical info over a plain 2D view.

I disagree wholeheartedly with whoever said that the 2D engine and the text engine are comparable to a book and a film.

Personally, myself, books and films are two of my greatest loves/passions, but the thing that often makes me prefer a book to the film is not only that you use your imagination instead of seeing someone else's (though that certainly figures), it is mainly that you can take a book at your own pace, you are completely on your own and can immerse yourself in it much more. The match will take roughly the same time whatever the engine, not the several hours/days more a book takes.

But whatever, a little off topic. I like both very much. I feel the 2D representation is very accurate and I can see what's going on. CM4 was a very exciting game for me, as I could see my players much more. The text engine was still great though, I always had it on the top speed and used to love amazing people about how I was actually following the game entirely and knowing what was going on despite them barely catching a word bar the flashing picture for a goal.

In answer to the question, no. The 2D engine didn't ruin FM/CM, and it sort of improved it. It definitely added another dimension to the game, and in that sense it is better, even if you dislike it, you still have the option to play with the text only, you have the choice, which is what I like.

I will concede however, that I somehow preferred the old tactics, despite all the latest revamps, as now there are millions of options with great effects. Before, I could leave all the settings on normal except for taking playing style up a couple of notches to Attacking, play a simple 4-4-2, and was relatively successful.

Plain and Simple..100% Yes..Bring back the CM match engine!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaveRH:

Here's an interesting little discussion item that has occured to me.

CM01/02 is generally held in very high regard by the Football Manager fanbase. I've been wracking my brains as to why the game simply seemed more fun then and have hit on the 2D engine as the reason why.

1) It has raised expectations of the engine. Now we can actually see where the engine fails us in its modelling of the game.

2) It over-emphasises tactical fiddling. Don't get me wrong, but tactical choices seemed more logical when I couldn't see what was going on. More time spent on tactics == less playing time.

3) The combination of 1 and 2 above adds to the frustration, sometimes with the engine, sometimes when the game seems dead set against us for no reason.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for the 2D engine to be stripped out of the game - we can turn it off if we really want to.

I do, however, think that it has perhaps been an element too much of "simulation" and detracted from the "game". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fm is a good game don't get me wrong but how the hell did you guys play it without a 2d engine and just text, i havent got a clue!

the games about the match.

the least you need is the 2d

how did you know anything before?

An interesting topic, although Dave seems to have abandoned it

For me the 2D match engine made the game much better, and I genuinely think it's just got better and better.

However, I do feel it's had an adverse effect on some peoples opinions and expectations of the game. I think this is mostly down to the fact that people can see certain unrealistic events that they would not be able to see with the text only view.

As for your 3 points:

1 - It has raised expectations of the engine. Now we can actually see where the engine fails us in its modelling of the game.

Absolutely agree. There would have been many problems and inaccuracies in the game before the 2D engine, it was just a lot harder for people to see them. The thing is, as much as SI want to strive for realism this will always be a game and should always be treated as one. I'm personally not bothered if the match engine doesn't 100% represent reality at this stage as long as my gaming experience is enjoyable, which for me it is.

2 - It over-emphasises tactical fiddling. Don't get me wrong, but tactical choices seemed more logical when I couldn't see what was going on. More time spent on tactics == less playing time.

I disagree here. I don't think the now more difficult tactical interface has anything to do with the 3D engine. I think tactics became more difficult because SI wanted the game to be more challenging and didn't want the user to be able to easily exploit weaknesses in the AI. So more intricate tactics for us meant more intricate tactics for the AI also, making them harder to beat.

I like it this way but feel that many people would benefit from better tool being available in the game to help them understand why things might not be working, assistant feedback being my favourite method.

As for the 2D engine and tactics, I find it much better to be able to see my tactics played out in 2D. I find it much easier to spot flaws and strengths in my tactic by watching it in 2D. And I'm not a person that has loads of time to play the game and spend fiddling with my tactics.

3 - The combination of 1 and 2 above adds to the frustration, sometimes with the engine, sometimes when the game seems dead set against us for no reason.

I agree to a certain extent, but still genuinely feel that most people are enjoying the direction the game is going in and only a few people are not happy with it. It seems however that the unhappy people are generally the vocal ones.

There's a fact that is particularly true with me. If I didn't visit these forums I would be blissfully unaware of many of the 'problems' that affect the game. I think a similar thing applys with the 2D engine. If people couldn't see what was happening in 2D, they'd never have been aware of things such as the closing down issues, the one-on-one issues and many other things that have been mentioned since 2D came in.

So while I'm all for the 2D engine, I do believe it's caused the standard needed to be a hell of a lot higher. With text only it was a whole lot easier to make the game seem perfect, but with the 2D engine a whole lot more can look wrong to different people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Acoustic:

Text engine - A book.

2D engine - A film. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The book is always better than the film though

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

An interesting topic, although Dave seems to have abandoned it

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still here. Still watching.

I haven't had a huge amount to add to the thread to be honest.

Despite my opening post - I'm a fan of the 2D engine, but I find that playing "devils advocate" will sometimes shake loose a few good ideas for improvement in the game.

Discussion a small part of the game (2D engine in this case) makes more sense to me than trying to discuss the game as a whole.

I will, however, stand by my statement that the game seems less "gamey" than it used to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Neji:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Did 2D ruin Football Manager? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. But it did ruin these forums </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true; no need even for the

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaveRH:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

An interesting topic, although Dave seems to have abandoned it

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still here. Still watching.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Living up to your location then

I agree that the game does feel less 'gamey' these days in a way. The more you put in, the more you get out. But I'm one of those that likes it this was, and saying that most of the time I spend is only at the start of a new game, after that it's pretty much continuing through and playing games until the transfer window opens.

At the same time though there are various ways that people can make it easier and cut down the time they spend on stuff like tactics if that's what they want. There are plenty of good tactics for all occasions on these forums and other forums which can be downloaded and used by those who don't want to spend the time it now takes to make their own. There are then scouting and editing programmes which can make the game as customisable and as easy/difficult as you want it to be.

I think one problem is that many people feel they don't have the time or inclination to get to grips with the tactical side and make a series of successful tactics of their own. But at the same time they don't want to use someone elses tactic as that somehow takes away their enjoyment. I used a downloaded tactic in FM06 and that helped me learn enough to start creating my own so have no problem with it, I think it can be a good solution.

How all the above ties in with the 2D match engine I'm not sure went off on a bit of a tangent I'm afraid.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaveRH:

I will, however, stand by my statement that the game seems less "gamey" than it used to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Football Manager isn't a game, it's a way of life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did 2D ruin Football Manager? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmmmmmmm... no

That would be great to have it in 3D !

Even though 2d has left SI open to criticism. It is only this criticsm which will make the engine better. Rather than move to 3d while you have an unfinished 2d engine, lets get the 2d perfect and then make the switch