Would you be in favour of a 3D match engine?

Just wondering.

I personally wouldn't as I love the 2D match engine (would be better with a few tweaks but still love it) and I think a 3D match engine would turn the game a bit more into the tragedy that was LMA Manager.

What do you think?

No.

Here's 99 responses worth of thread re 3D discussion http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=28494&highlight=match+engine

i'd hate FM to go 3D. it may lead to all sorts of problems with graphics cards/memory/frame rate etc etc. not to mention FM just wouldn't be so loveable anymore- can't really explain it but i just would hate to see it happen.

i'd hate FM to go 3D. it may lead to all sorts of problems with graphics cards/memory/frame rate etc etc. not to mention FM just wouldn't be so loveable anymore- can't really explain it but i just would hate to see it happen.

I agree it wouldn't fit with FM IMO, but I don't think possible problems or bugs should ever deter SI from pushing the game forward.

If it would be an accurate representation of the tactics, and my Macbook can still run it graphically-wise, I would not have a problem with it.

But I can see how, for some people, it would destroy the character of the game.

There's nothing funnier than hearing my girlfriend say: "Why the hell are you watching 22 dots?" While she's playing Bejeweled on her cell-phone…

There's nothing funnier than hearing my girlfriend say: "Why the hell are you watching 22 dots?" While she's playing Bejeweled on her cell-phone…

You could be really cheeky and reply "I'm also keeping a close eye on the referee so thats 23 dots!".

It's a womans perogative to say one thing and do another. My wife thinks FM is ridiculous looking, but continues to enjoy the Pokemon trading card game on the Advance

Ay, women eh. Can't live with them, can't live without them.

I'm in favour of a 3d.

The 2d system doesn't show nothing: you don't see dribblings, height of cross, the difference between head/foot shot.

And it's all false the worry about pc/graphic card/etc ... we have 3d games from 10 years... nobody ask for a top 3d ... a visualization like (ex.) ISS pro 2000 would be fine ... the important is that the engine can created actions like (and better) than the 2d

I'm in favour of a 3d.

The 2d system doesn't show nothing: you don't see dribblings, height of cross, the difference between head/foot shot.

And it's all false the worry about pc/graphic card/etc ... we have 3d games from 10 years... nobody ask for a top 3d ... a visualization like (ex.) ISS pro 2000 would be fine ... the important is that the engine can created actions like (and better) than the 2d

You have a point about the requirements, I must admit.

Part of the fun of the 2D version is interpreting in your mind the action that is unfolding with examples we see IRL e.g. we see one of our dots make a through ball to the number 9 dot who fires across the keeper. We can imagine Torres or Henry scoring that goal. It is element of using the imagination thatmakes the 2D fun.

If it goes to 3D, we will lose that element and I reckon the goals we score will start to seem as repetitive as they do on Pro Evo or Fifa.

I can imagine the appeal of 3D. I know that SI will want to increase their fan base by getting the goldfish attention span teen market sewn up. IF it does go 3D, I hope they retain the option of 2D, so I can make the decision. Just like I can make the decision to turn off the ridiculous and needless face packs!

I voted no. Two reasons: mainly because I can't see how GOOD 3d graphics can possibly run on modern machines whilst maintaining the standard of gameplay in other areas of the game -- especially long term.

I gave up on the PES series because I got bored of the repetitive nature of it after only half a season. And tilting the pitch like on CM to have a players "skating" around the pitch is just a table cloth over the same product.

And no, it shouldn't be an "option" because it would still be running in the background eating up RAM like a hoard of locusts.

The second reason is that the 2D graphics haven't been perfected yet, so I wouldn't be confident in a full-on 3D match. The "match engine" is not what you see on the screen, but what goes on behind the graphics. The graphics are a representation of what the computer interprets as happening on the pitch (all those 0s and 1s), but the visual and what is supposed to be happening don't always marry up. It's why an attacker who slices a ball out for a goal kick is perceived to be making a "clearance", and is the main reason why the consipiracy theorists cry "super-keeper" when the blobs fly ten feet across the goal.

So, 1. machines need to get better and 2. the interface between match engine and graphics needs to improve. THEN I'll be crying for 3D graphics along with the children.

Part of the fun of the 2D version is interpreting in your mind the action that is unfolding with examples we see IRL e.g. we see one of our dots make a through ball to the number 9 dot who fires across the keeper. We can imagine Torres or Henry scoring that goal. It is element of using the imagination thatmakes the 2D fun.

If it goes to 3D, we will lose that element and I reckon the goals we score will start to seem as repetitive as they do on Pro Evo or Fifa.

100% agreed

The 2D engine gives us about 40% of the whole picture, the other 60% is left for imagination (random figures, I know, but that's how I see it ). For example when a striker puts it into the net we can picture him in our head doing a little fancy flick with his left, smashing it with his right or passing it into the net etc - the options are endless because we don't actually see what exactly is the little dot doing there. This leads to every goal being unique because the bigger picture is only in our imagination. The 3D engines of today are nowhere near good enough to generate an acceptable amount of unique highlights. A good 3D would be fun for about a season, from there on it would be incredibly tedious to watch as every goal would have already been scored before.

The original Q was "Would you be in favour of a 3D match engine?". It seems a lot of people are answering based the premise that 3D wouldn't work well or at all.

I'd like to answer based on the premise that you had either a) a fully functioning 2D engine or b) a fully functioning 3D engine which would accuratly reflect the decisions made by the user...

...my answer would be 3D.

I appreciate the argument that 3D would take away from the users imagination playing an important part of the game though, but there were probably similar arguments against 2D before it came out.

I'd prefer a mix of the two. Like having the match played in 2d then having goal replays, injurs, offside calls played in 3d so I could actually see how it was done.

I hated the 2D match engine when it was first introduced (in fact I was convinced that it made my team play worse ), yet I like it now. Right now I can't imagine liking the addition of a 3D match engine, but I do think it's kind of inevitable.

Didn't vote.

NO, current engine is fine

The original Q was "Would you be in favour of a 3D match engine?". It seems a lot of people are answering based the premise that 3D wouldn't work well or at all.

I'd like to answer based on the premise that you had either a) a fully functioning 2D engine or b) a fully functioning 3D engine which would accuratly reflect the decisions made by the user...

...my answer would be 3D.

I appreciate the argument that 3D would take away from the users imagination playing an important part of the game though, but there were probably similar arguments against 2D before it came out.

I see your point, but having seen the best that 3D of today can offer in pro evo and fifa we can be fairly sure that we aren't ready for that change yet. I'm sure if the 3D could be great and wouldn't generate the same highlight all over again there would be no-one arguing against it. Eventually the 3D engine will be introduced anyway. I'm even hoping they already have somebody doing the preparation work on one to be released in the future versions because developing something that complex will surely take time. The question is whether we're ready for 3D right now and I can't see this being the case.

I hated the 2D match engine when it was first introduced (in fact I was convinced that it made my team play worse ), yet I like it now. Right now I can't imagine liking the addition of a 3D match engine, but I do think it's kind of inevitable.

Didn't vote.

Yes, most arguments at the time if i remember it correctly revolved around the "imagination" bit disappearing to make the game less magical. I thought it would be disappointing too at the time. But I have got used to the 2D match engine and while it's not without its flaws, I find it really hard to go back to text alone. I recently repurchased cm01/02 to run a game and was quite put off by the very basic interface... funny how things change, this used to be my favourite just after cm97/98.

The second reason is that the 2D graphics haven't been perfected yet, so I wouldn't be confident in a full-on 3D match. The "match engine" is not what you see on the screen, but what goes on behind the graphics. The graphics are a representation of what the computer interprets as happening on the pitch (all those 0s and 1s), but the visual and what is supposed to be happening don't always marry up. It's why an attacker who slices a ball out for a goal kick is perceived to be making a "clearance", and is the main reason why the consipiracy theorists cry "super-keeper" when the blobs fly ten feet across the goal.

This is indeed the biggest concern. I don't even want to imagine how many frustrations would arise from various bugs and shortcomings of a 3D match engine. Once we have a 2D match engine that's near perfection (there will always be at least minor, but acceptable, annoyances though), maybe, then SI can start thinking about a 3D engine. And even then there are so many issues. Accurately modelling the players in the game - thousands upon thousands - is impossible, definately if you consider who little faces are in the game in the first place. And I doubt the majority of FM'ers would appreciate players that look nothing like their rl counterpart. And what about animations. If they're poor, and in most football games they are, the matches wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable as a good 2D representation. In my opinion only the upcoming next gen editions of Fifa 09 have animations that are more or less credible, and I doubt it would go easy on the system specs, even with lesser graphics.

So in short: 3D would do the series much more harm than good at the present. This idea should be put to rest for another 5-10 years, at the minimum.

2D= for gamers, 3D=for teletubies

CM09's 3D match engine looks damn good

Although I feel there are more pressing issues for FM, I wouldn't mind a 3D version in 2010 or 2011.

CM09's 3D match engine looks damn good

Although I feel there are more pressing issues for FM, I wouldn't mind a 3D version in 2010 or 2011.

The video doesn't actually show anything though, does it? Other than the players all running around like they're on crack or something. I seriously doubt it's any good.

The video doesn't actually show anything though, does it? Other than the players all running around like they're on crack or something. I seriously doubt it's any good.

Exactly, it's like the adverts for Fifa and ISS that make you go "wow, that looks good", then you buy it and it's the same as Fifa 03 and Pro Evo 3.

I love the 2D, the only problem is when it's a foul, i don't have clue whats happened. I think going to 3D would make FM look more unproffesional, jst MO

Not a 3D engine because as soon as you say 3D people automaticly think gimmicky flash looking rubbish with no depth or subtance. Which generally is right. I do think that an upgrade is needed to the current 2D match though, to keep the game moving forward. Just a bit more detail so you can really see when a player is dribbling, when a keeper makes a great save and what height and angle a long pass or shot is being hit at. Maybe the option of a slight tilt on the aerial view would be good aswell. The match engine is one of the top things I am looking forward to on the new game. Am I the only one who would be dissapointed to find the exact same look of the match engine on the new game?

The video doesn't actually show anything though' date=' does it? Other than the players all running around like they're on crack or something. I seriously doubt it's any good.[/quote']

Actually it shows just how good the ME could look without it having to resort to unneed graphcis (like PES or FIFA). Doesn't matter how the CM plays.

I think that SI have to start thinking about moving on from the 2D ME and look at CM's as a source of inspiration. I don't trust BG studio to deliver as good a match engine as SI can. So think of the looks in the video with the capability of Fm's 2D match engine.

I'd love to see it, aslong as it is done properly.

Oh and someguy, after seeing CM's match preview in the video above, I would be slightly dissapointed but I don't think it would last too long as FM is always a better game. As usual, I will try the CM demo and give it a good luck.

I voted no. Since cm4, the 2d match engine has been brilliant and the mark of the sports interactive managing games. The other manager games that went 3d have all failed.

has no one mentioned the fact that the current match engine shows a full match, real time if you want it to be (even though im sure just use highlights) so there would have to be lots of animation so it doesnt get repetitive, fifa is usually a 8 to 10 minutes game, this would be showing 90 minutes of football, which would look stupid on anything other than regualr speed.

It goes without saying that FM is by far the best manager game around and always has been. One reason why it is so respected is because of its refusal to substitute rubbish gimmicks for realism, depth and solid gameplay. Personally though, like I said, I do think the 2D does need a tweak. Just a few subtle things would take the game even further and give the gamer more feedback. I didn't play the game before the 2D engine because you need something more then text at the least. How can you do all the work, the signings, the tactics, pick the right team and then watch it all unfold with some lines of text?

Anyway the new game will be as solid as ever with or without a tweaked engine but with one it will be a much better.

I still play with commentary only

I'm real old school hard core!!

Actually it shows just how good the ME could look without it having to resort to unneed graphcis (like PES or FIFA). Doesn't matter how the CM plays.

I think that SI have to start thinking about moving on from the 2D ME and look at CM's as a source of inspiration. I don't trust BG studio to deliver as good a match engine as SI can. So think of the looks in the video with the capability of Fm's 2D match engine.

Absolutely. Like you say, SI have to start thinking about this, and I imagine they already have definite ideas / plans of where to take it and when.

It's not something that's going to happen overnight. You can't just go from the current match engine and 2D dot representation to the most state-of-the-art realistic TV-broadcast quality 3D representation in the space of a single iteration of the game, not if the underlying match engine doesn't support it.

Regardless of how CM plays, and whether you like the actual look of it or not, I believe they've been quite wise in how they've evolved both the match engine and the visual representation of it each year.

SI could evolve the match engine (if needed) so that it could be viewed from an isometric perspective and with the dots replaced with CM08-style skittles. If it doesn't look great, for release they put the dots back, and whack the camera back to an overhead view. The FM faithful are then happy that the 2D visual representation is still the same, but underneath the extra refinement is there and the 1st steps are made towards 3D (like I say, if that's not the case already).

For the next iteration, they then replace the skittles with rudimentary animated players, but keep the camera zoomed out so that you can't see inaccuracies, glitches, the repetiveness of the animations, or the fact that player's faces haven't been modelled, etc.. Again, it's still possible to replace those players with dots and stick the camera looking straight down over the pitch again.

So you can see this evolution can start occuring now, without any worry about the average user's CPU/GPU specs etc., and undergo years of improvements and refinements until they're ready to flick the switch and give us a 3D match representation that they're happy with. And this is why I disagree with the people that say "no! FM must stay 2D coz you can't do 3D yet!". And also why it's important to distinguish between a 3D match engine and a 3D visual representation.

Of course, like I said, SI are surely on the ball with all this, and know exactly what they're doing.

Excellent post Squirmy Rooter 2.0 especially this bit

SI could evolve the match engine (if needed) so that it could be viewed from an isometric perspective and with the dots replaced with CM08-style skittles. If it doesn't look great, for release they put the dots back, and whack the camera back to an overhead view. The FM faithful are then happy that the 2D visual representation is still the same, but underneath the extra refinement is there and the 1st steps are made towards 3D (like I say, if that's not the case already).

I think this is very important. Also, another thing to point out, which I'm going to bold so everyone can see it....

SI introduce a 3D ME but why can't they leave the 2D ME in too?

Then everyone gets what they want. Afterall, they did this with the commentary. You don't have to watch the game on 2D just like you wouldn't have to watch it on 3D.

I don't see why they can't implement both

I've always thought that all the match engine really needs to do is to give a representation of what's going on on the pitch. In other words, it needs to be able to help you see your tactics in action. As long as it does this, it's everything it needs to be. There are far more important things to develop. The bird's eye, 2D view, does this perfectly. Well, it would if it was perfect, anyway!

At least, that used to be how I felt. I'm still uncomfortable ith the idea of the 3D engine. However, I've read what Neji and Squirmy Router 2.0 (Great name! ) have to say and I think they make very valid points. SI can't allow themselves to be seen as falling behind, especially to CM. And, what's more, I've moderated my view that 2D is the best way to get a representation of the action and of your tactics in practice. This is because I suddenly considered what it's like for a real manager. They don't hover above the ground in a blimp (do blimps hover?). They obviously have a 3D view, and it doesn't hinder them. So in theory I'm not totally opposed to the development of a 3D match engine. However, I do worry about it. I just can't imagine it being implemented, and there not being myriad problems with it.

3D engine means LAG

I think the best feature of a 3D is the background stadium. Seeing Camp Nou or Old Trafford with all the fans would bring a lot of immersion to the game.

However, I do worry about it. I just can't imagine it being implemented, and there not being myriad problems with it.

I worry about that too, but that can't put SI off if they want to stay on top of the competition. Even if they started developing a full 3D ME now (who says they aren't?) but just improve small details of the current 2D then it would help keep problems to a minimum when they do release it into the game.

I voted no. I haven't ever seen a 3D match engine that didn't look tacky

I voted yes. After seeing the cm video, and reading that the other companies making management games have hired people specifically for designing something similar, I believe that SI are planning to have it in in some variety in either 2009 or 2010. I also believe that they will do a good job with it, however the poster who said it would get repetitive if you had a full real time match also has a valid point. To stop this, when in 3d mode I would just have it so it ran faster than real time, just like the football games do.

After thinking a lot about this and the fact that I generally dislike 3D as long as it's not 100% perfect, I think that it's simply not necessary to implement it. Sure you can implement it in a few years, but as FM is a management game, or a match-simulation or even a football simulation-game, if you want to. What it is not, is a supporter-game.

You're not simply watching the players play, you're managing a club. While I admit that a real manager stands (or sits) next to the pitch, we don't. So, as long as we're not able to shout and give pointers during the game, I don't feel like there is a direct need for being 3D.

I mean, PES is nice, I like to play it just for fun, but I simply go back to FM whenever I come up with some brilliant tactic I want to see.

There is a reason why CM/FM has built up such a fanbase. And all that with the only display of players being a dot on a field and a picture (if you're lucky) on the profile. Does FM need the 3D? No, they don't. Would it be nice? Yes, but not unless they have made a solid game all around it. So I think it can wait until they feel they can't make anything more of it without it making 3D.

Call me conservative, call me boring, but I don't think we need the 3D to enjoy the game. It works without that too. And I don't think the hardcore fans will run off if anything made something in 3D which worked only half as well as FM does now.

I voted no, but the truth is yes... just not yet.

As long as the 3d engine is on par with the rest of the game, bring it on... *drools*

Until that's possible, no way in hell.

Right now, I doubt that's even remotely possible.

I've always thought that all the match engine really needs to do is to give a representation of what's going on on the pitch. In other words, it needs to be able to help you see your tactics in action. As long as it does this, it's everything it needs to be. There are far more important things to develop. The bird's eye, 2D view, does this perfectly. Well, it would if it was perfect, anyway!

Your point is right actually. The main point of the 2D is to show formations, player movement with and without the ball etc. You don't have to see the what the players look like and exactly which foot they used to score that tap in and all that sort of stuff.

I'm in favour of tweaking the 2D. If it was tweaked, as in a few more animations and slightly more detail, it would still carry out its main purpose only clearer and better.

make 2d work first

I feel a slight urge to try and clarify a few things - or in other words bore you senseless.

There is the confusion between the match engine, and the visualisation of it (i.e. what we see on the screen). I'm going to make the following, totally unofficial, definitions:

Match Engine - This is all the clever calculations, functions, formulas, dice-rolling etc. used to determine what happens during a match. So when player X takes a shot, is it saved or blasted over the bar etc.

Visualisation - This is how the results of the Match Engine are viewed by you.

So to put it in real-world context, the Match Engine is a football match - the outcome of which has nothing at all to do with how you view it. If Ryan Giggs plays a through-ball to Tevez in the 63rd minute, and he slices it wide for a goal-kick, that's going to happen regardless of whether you're there to witness it personally or if you're queuing at the checkouts in Tescos.

The Visualisation is how you choose to watch that match. You can go to the game and watch it live. You can watch it in the pub on Sky Sports. You can watch the highlights on MotD. You can watch Paul Merson watching it on Gillette Soccer Saturday. Or you can just check the score on teletext when you get home from Tescos. It doesn't matter - the score will be the same, and Carlos will still have fluffed his shot in the 63rd minute.

So, back to FM. What would be the difference between a 2D and 3D Match Engine? Potentially not much, but also potentially a massive amount. For starters, it has absolutely nothing to do with PES or FIFA. A 2D engine would simply mean that for the purpose of all match calculations, everything is represented in 2-dimensions. There would be no "up". So for example, the height of the ball above the ground is not stored, nor is the distance off the ground that a player jumped etc. You could probably just use a random number generator to determine whether a player heads a ball or kicks it, or if a forward is out-jumped by a defender. Since it's all completely flat - who'd be able to tell?

With a 3D Match Engine, now everything has an "up" coordinate, and calculations can be performed in 3D space. The height of the ball above the ground can directly influence whether a player kicks or heads the ball.

So what's the difference between a 2D and 3D Visualisation then? Well you know what the 2D is like because you see it in FM now. The most common misconception though is that 3D automatically == FIFA/PES. This is not the case. Imagine that in FM, those dots were actually cylinders (i.e. they have height and also a distance above the ground). Now as long as the pitch is viewed from above with an orthographic projection, you're not going to see that they're cylinders - they'll still look like circles from above.

But now, without changing anything else, just imaging rotating the camera position down to pitch level and viewing it side-on. Now you can see the cylinders. You can see how tall they are, and how high they might be "jumping" off the ground. This is a 3-dimensional representation. A 3D visual. With cylinders - not with accurate animated representations of Ronaldihno with his texture-mapped face, head-band, and flowing locks. It's not going to be a thing of beauty, but it reveals important information that was previously hidden by the 2D view.

So, to answer the question of "Would you be in favour of a 3D match engine?". Probably, but unless I can actually see the difference, it doesn't really matter much.

If the question was "Would you be in favour of a 3D match visualisation?". Yes I would. I want to be able to see that all-important 3rd axis, even if it's just basic geometric primitives! But this isn't going to happen unless the match engine is 3-dimensional enough to support it.

"Do ultimately want FM to look like a real live football match?" Absolutely - why not? It's not up to us to say it'd be too difficult - that's for SI to struggle with. Or as far as other attempts at 3D looking tacky, does that mean people should stop trying?

As I said before, it's not going to happen overnight. And I believe that CM has been quite shrewd in how they're phasing this in and evolving it over versions. The skittles were a step forward in granting you a sense of the vertical axis, and gradually replacing them with more realistic player models over each iteration is just the next logical step.

Christ, I've even managed to bore myself. And England's friendly is about to kick-off....

Just wondering.

I personally wouldn't as I love the 2D match engine (would be better with a few tweaks but still love it) and I think a 3D match engine would turn the game a bit more into the tragedy that was LMA Manager.

What do you think?

i think 3d would be better as in the curerent match engine you don't have a clue if a players has been fouled.edt after the game you get asked if you think it should have been a goal you can't tell if there was a foul or whatever in 2d 3d would help better and it would look better as well.

For all those people who say they want a 3D engine so than can see what exactley is going on, and so that they can see the amazing goals scored, then I have 3 simple words;

Use your imagination.

No preference tbh.

This thread, and all 3d threads are so anachronistic! I swear, you could cut and paste a discussion on the very same issue from say, 1991 or so and it would look nearly the same.

But 2 very good points against 3d (though I myself would love to see 3D FM):

1. Imagination

2. Type of immersion.

1. It really is different to have to imagine things versus judge a visual against your imagination. We all know how we feel when a favorite book is made into a movie: A little nervous. But after the movie is released, it replaces the book as the story. The words are no longer valid on their own. Only the full sensory experience is the story. And there is definitely room to have some experiences remain more imaginary, especially that this flies in the face of the tendency to the opposite extreme in media, which is often overwhelming, disappointing, and mind-fogging. So kudos to that reason.

2. If you like to get immersed in the facts and figures, the transfers, the attributes, etc.., rather than the match day experience 'on the ground', then putting in the 'ground' will necessarily dilute and detract from the original immersing draw of the game. I respect the wariness here. As thing stand with the game I hardly bother with the match day when I just want to plow through a season. I can choose to focus on it or not. But if there were a brilliant 3D engine I might feel more compelled to slow down and try managing in real time. Maybe good, maybe bad, but certainly different than now.

.......

But I want 3D. I think the reasons listed so far are good. I'm confident that an optional or highlights-only system would be fantastic for 99% of players, and that it really should happen.

I don't think player-likenesses have to be done for it to be good. In fact it would be better without them as the point isn't to oogle your favorite player's pixelations but to manage the team. Even stick-like 3D players would enable so much more information to be given to the manager. Or not. Of course it would be difficult to model 1000s of moves, but even a few basic ones and a 1:1 interpretation of the current 2D engine would allow the evolution of the engine beyond its current threshold.

Because as things stand now, there really is a limit to how much you can get a feel for what is happening in the match. I think we're at the cap. We need to see player orientation, jumping, falling, closing down, tight marking, fouls, and PPMs to get any more from the engine. And I think we need this info to be able to understand how to interact with the tactical engine properly. Its tactical feedback and development that are crippling the series at the moment, and to get this to a better place, better info is required. A lot easier with 3D than 2D to convey this.

Not to mention how damn cool it would be.

After thinking a lot about this and the fact that I generally dislike 3D as long as it's not 100% perfect, I think that it's simply not necessary to implement it. Sure you can implement it in a few years, but as FM is a management game, or a match-simulation or even a football simulation-game, if you want to. What it is not, is a supporter-game.

You're not simply watching the players play, you're managing a club. While I admit that a real manager stands (or sits) next to the pitch, we don't. So, as long as we're not able to shout and give pointers during the game, I don't feel like there is a direct need for being 3D.

Exactly my thoughts

I don't have the link but if you look at the leaked CM 3D you can't see everything. The bird's eye lets you see positions of players in the run up to the event. If I can't see if my full back is getting too far in front of the winger because of the angles of the 3D then it's no use as a manager. There's a reason prozone tools look so similar to the FM 2D match engine.

So I'm not against 3D per say but given the option I'd still stick with the bird's eye view when analysing tactics but probably look at goals or nice play in 3D just for the eye candy.