Not so much 3D - more 2.5D

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?

Hmm. No, it's just 3D.

I agree with OP/.

Good post.

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.

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.

it has 3 dimensions, therefore its 3D. Just because it has a fixed camera doesnt make it 2.5D.

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.

It's 3D, but in terms of technology, its about 8 years old, reminds me of premier manager 97, or USM 98.

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.

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

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.