playmaker Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 There is a statement that was often made by SI that sticks in my head - something along the lines of "we won't go 3D until the technology is good enough." For most of us that means when 3D is announced it naturally implies that the 3D is cutting edge. For those who are coming to FM for the first time, particularly the younger gamers, quality 3D graphics is the norm, so again there is an expectation. In those two contexts this means that on a first viewing the 3D view is a big dissapointment. However... If you consider it as a 2.5D view rather than 3D then it totally transforms your perception. It conveys more information than 2D - it is a step forward, even if it is not the one expected. It is a natural thing to be dissapointed when something doesn't meet expectations, but the starting point for comparison shouldn't be modern 3D technology it should be the 2D view that the last four or five games have had. View it as if it is 2D with additional clarity then it is a huge improvement. The 2D had not moved forwards since it was introduced - well now it has. After initial dissapointment I am now really enjoying the matches. With commentary and 2D there was always a degree of imagination and mentally filling in the blanks. It is not time yet to relax the imagination. Maybe in the next year or two the number of animations will make it such that we are watching a real match, but for now we will have to keep filling in the blanks. It was never a problem before, so why does it have to be now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DietSpam Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Hmm. No, it's just 3D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpico Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I agree with OP/. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift89 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Good post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VA101 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Its certainly a improvement over 2D no doubt. And over the next few releases of the game it will get substantially better. I agree with your thinking of it being 2.5D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal postie Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 i've only played the first friendly and was quite impressed with the 3d view. so as a first impression not bad. will have a proper go later on today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spoony_bard Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 it has 3 dimensions, therefore its 3D. Just because it has a fixed camera doesnt make it 2.5D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afeckingname Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 the 3d is grand if you dont expect too much, as it is its got alot of charm imo, basically the game isn't and never really was about graphics, the interface is a bit clunky but maybe im just getting used to the new features there anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Abs Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's 3D, but in terms of technology, its about 8 years old, reminds me of premier manager 97, or USM 98. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoVieira Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 What bugs me the most is not the graphics. But the players standing for a century with the ball before making a move. But that has nothing to do with the 3D view i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falastur Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Technically because you can change the camera between side-on and end-on views, it's 3D, but I have to agree with the OP - in gaming terms, a 3D game is one where you can alter the angle you look down at the game freely, whereas a 2.5D game gives you a fixed isometric view. I wasn't really expecting a free-moving camera, but in the gaming industry this would be very close to being labelled 2.5D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
playmaker Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 it has 3 dimensions, therefore its 3D. Just because it has a fixed camera doesnt make it 2.5D. Yes, I know it has 3 dimensions - you can't have half a dimension. It is meant as a conceptual idea, not a literal one. I think you are missing the point that the extra dimension is not about the quality of the graphics, but improving the information available from a purely 2D view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.