saying things you don't mean in the media

does anyone find the media system stupid and misleading. just now it said "how do you feel about losing silva bla bla bla". i chose the option "i feel we can cover him" and then it says "you have stated you wont miss silva much" and now he hates me. stupid media people always twisting your words. humph.

That is what happens in real life media, doesn't it? I do think, though, that there is certainly much room for improvement in the media system in the game. I find it currently is just repetitive and boring and hopefully it will be sorted for FM09.

I don't think "The real life media twist words" is a valid argument for the game mechanic, actually. I'm a big proponent of letting the user know what impacts they should expect their statement(s) to have - "guessing games" aren't fun. Learning that Player X reacts well to having pressure heaped on him, but Player Y needs to relax .. that's fun! .. but only if I can predict from the options presented to me which option is going to increase pressure and which option is going to relax a player.

I'd really like the media comments to mean what they say on the tin.

yeah i posted that in a moment of anger but reflecting back now i think i still have a valid point. "i feel we've got adequate cover" does no way translate into "we can easily cope without player X" no matter how much a journalist could twist it.

Ok real life media yes they do some things like that but fm they really twist it moaner yeh i agree.

Totally agree. Yes, the media in real-life may twist words and take quotes out of context, but in real-life you get a chance to issue a follow-up "I never said them 'fings" response to the media and/or talk to the player concerned to clarify your position.

The same is true of team-talks. They don't always mean what you imagine them to mean. When after a good result I tell my players that I want them to play like that every week, I imagine it coming across in a positive encouraging way - but in actual fact the game may instead treat it like a criticism and make my players unhappy. That's fair enough if in real life a manager's team talks are done via writing a sentence down on pieces of paper and leaving them on the player's seat in the changing room for them to read themselves. But this is not the case, you're there in the room speaking to them, and so the tone of your voice and general demeanor should make your words and intentions totally explicit. There should be much less ambiguity in the options.

When the press twist your words in real life, you can go to your players and tell them what you actually said. You don`t have that option on FM

When the press twist your words in real life, you can go to your players and tell them what you actually said. You don`t have that option on FM

I was thinking that myself. Totally agree. I agree with what most people have said here but I wouldn't mind the media twisting things in the game as long as it works properly but it currently doesn't.

I agree. If it was a little more detailed and you could interact with the players and fans more it would be a very nice feature. As it is I just ignore it.

yeah i posted that in a moment of anger but reflecting back now i think i still have a valid point. "i feel we've got adequate cover" does no way translate into "we can easily cope without player X" no matter how much a journalist could twist it.

Yes it does. It does so exactly. By saying that you have members of the squad that can take the players place, you are saying that you can cope without them. Both phrases are saying exactly the same thing. That the missing player will not be missed.

Yes it does. It does so exactly. By saying that you have members of the squad that can take the players place, you are saying that you can cope without them. Both phrases are saying exactly the same thing. That the missing player will not be missed.

I don't agree - and this debate is going to come down to each individual's interpretation of the phrase "adequate cover".

I would use "adequate cover" to refer to a reasonably competent backup player, in other words: somebody who I could get by with. I don't mean that I have a backup player who is as good as my starting player. For that, I'd use a phrase more like "tremendous depth" or "strength in depth".

The fact that you and I disagree on that, I think, is sufficient to prove that there is ambiguity in the way the statements are constructed ... and I think that's a significant source of frustration for players of this game.

I don't agree - and this debate is going to come down to each individual's interpretation of the phrase "adequate cover".

I would use "adequate cover" to refer to a reasonably competent backup player, in other words: somebody who I could get by with. I don't mean that I have a backup player who is as good as my starting player. For that, I'd use a phrase more like "tremendous depth" or "strength in depth".

The fact that you and I disagree on that, I think, is sufficient to prove that there is ambiguity in the way the statements are constructed ... and I think that's a significant source of frustration for players of this game.

superb post mate. hit the nail on the head, SI are you listening?

They don`t mean EXACTLY the same thing. The media mis-represent what you say. My favourite is when, in response to a dodgy penalty call, you say:

"I am not happy about it, but I can take it on the chin"

And the media report you as saying

"You grudgingly admit that the officials may have got it right"

My favourite is when, in response to a dodgy penalty call, you say:

"I am not happy about it, but I can take it on the chin"

And the media report you as saying

"You grudgingly admit that the officials may have got it right"

oh my god yes that onegets me everytime. i should of learnt the 10th time i clicked it that it totally misrepresents ehat you wanted to say.

Yes it does. It does so exactly. By saying that you have members of the squad that can take the players place, you are saying that you can cope without them. Both phrases are saying exactly the same thing. That the missing player will not be missed.

No I don't think that they are exactly the same. I think the key word that makes them differ is 'easily'. If you say you have adequate cover, you might be able to cope, but not easily. I would think that coping easily would mean you have a player of similar quality to the injured player and I don't think adequate would mean that.

Or when a former player is playing you. I always say 'We are a better team now'...but it then says i dont have much time for him, when that is not what i meant...i still want to be nice to him.

Or when a former player is playing you. I always say 'We are a better team now'...but it then says i dont have much time for him, when that is not what i meant...i still want to be nice to him.

yeah thers that one too...you say you think XXX is a good player but not a threat etc and then suddenly it says "you stated XXX wouldnt get into your team now"

if the media irl was to twist the managers words, most of the time its recorded on video or atleast tape so there is proof of what you said:P

This has been my idea for awhile, and now I'll share it:

How about you can actually type out what you want to say to your players and then choose from available options exactly what it is you want to convey to your players. Then the game remembers what you typed and gives it as an option next time?

Then, as you get to know your players (and other managers, and the press, board, whoever) you get more possible things you can convey. The words are your own, or you can choose default wordings and it builds on itself.

This is programming 101 and would add so much to the game. Do it!

Taken from Gameplay of FM2010: The Smac Years: Optional Press Interview Pre-Match

"So you are going to face Recreativo today. Do you think you can get anything from the game? They are on a run of 12 games without defeat after all...."

(User Ignores Question)

"Facing Recreativo Today, what do you hope your team can accomplish with bookmakers giving you 9-2 odds against?"

"I can give a pig's dinner what odds are picked against us. We are confident we will win if we play to our best" (user selects default intention of said custom speech which is: "Keep you heads held high and we can win this gents" to the team and "I don't care about the odds, I'm sure of getting something out of this" to the press.

"Ronaldo looks like a threat, doesn't he? How are you going to cope with him today?"

User selects his custom default option #1: "Who's (Player X)?" "Who's Ronaldo?"