Daily Mail Review of FM16.

I use this as a good read when I wake up and before I sleep however this is the first time I have read the news giving a review about a game and this game is FM16.

So naturally I gave it a read and was surprised to see a review that set out to criticise FM16, especially after hearing a lot of positive feedback from people like myself.

Thought I would link the review here for the mods/official from SI to have.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3316345/Football-Manager-2016-Review-FM-remains-miles-ahead-football-game-latest-loved-series-offers-little-new.html

Your first mistake was reading the Daily Mail.

Not clicking the link because **** the daily mail but to say it "offers little more" seems stupid (even for the mail) based on everything I've seen so far. Looks like there's been some great updates this year.

RPS and other PC centric sites have been critical of 16 as well.

I've read a lot of criticism that there is essentially nothing new this year and that it's suffering from yearly revision syndrome.

I'm happy with a polished version, but I understand where other people are coming from.

It probably doesn't class all the refinements as "something new". If you hadn't played FM for very long you'd probably think the same, but those who have played it years appreciate the little refinements and understand these are why you buy the new version.

Don't really agree with the article. Especially because white skin is back from fm14!

Can't wait to get home and get on this tonight.

Can't see what you can really add to a football SIMULATION.

Just keep refining the fundamentals and you won't go far wrong SI.

Well lets be honest.

There really isnt any major feature this year.

There are lots of great small improvements, but all the so called "big" features like 3d manager etc arent really all that big...or good.

So the criticism is fine, and justified.

But we all know that most FM players dont really need big new features.

Reviews are really going out of fashion anyway. Seems that a lot of people - bafflingly - take user reviews on Steam (fairly useful) and Metacritic (the opposite) more seriously than critic ones.

The reviews will probably sit around the 70-80% mark, as they usually do, and SI will probably consider sales and user feedback a better metric for how well they've done, rather than a critic. Especially the Daily Mail.

Never take any notice of what the Daily Mail publishes. Britain's worst newspaper by a long way.

Yup pretty much on the ball .

I very much doubt the writer of that article ever played fm15 or 16. There are major differences in terms of challenge, they are different worlds. As for the writer of that article i don't think his on this one.

Agree 100% Siven.

But 16 does seem far more polished than previous release day products. I'm happy with my purchase.To be quite honest though, I'm not sure what they can add in terms of features. It's all pretty much been done.

Sorry, Daily Mail, so didn't click..... just couldn't do it.

I've bought the game every year since '94 and while I sometimes see where people are coming from about not enough changes (for a full price game), for me, I see it as around another 1000 hours of entertainment for £35.00 a year. Its not perfect, it will infuriate, but I keep going back for more because it is Good.

Daily Mail review of FM

''1 Star, too many foreigners.''

I hate to align myself with the DM, but I've said many times already that if we're being honest, this years game is FM15.5.

Daily Fail so not much point in reading. Remember many years ago when I worked in a pub, had a quiet afternoon with not many customers so had plenty of time on my hands. Someone had left a Daily Mail and there was a Final Fantasy VIII review so decided to give it a read, the author got all the character names mixed up calling the protagonist Seifer and the bad guy Squall and the whole thing read like someone else had told the writer off hand about the game, and they hadn't actually played it themselves.

Awful writing with no editorial oversight or corrections, plus they're a bunch of xenophobic knee jerk reactionary morons.

The guy needs to realise that his nose is FAR bigger than he realises. If he tries making it bigger his avatar will instantly look more like him!

The guy needs to realise that his nose is FAR bigger than he realises. If he tries making it bigger his avatar will instantly look more like him!

Perhaps he's in denial

I hate to align myself with the DM, but I've said many times already that if we're being honest, this years game is FM15.5.

It's really a case of whether you see that as a good or bad thing that would align you with the Mail.

I agree with the review. I have an idea of what the game should be capable of at this point, and it seems that it is stuck in the mud. essentially I want watching matches to be like watching match of the day. There's lots of other things that I believe the game should be capable of.

However,

1. I don't know what the impact of cut away scenes etc. would be on computer requirements. I guess PCs aren't like game consoles.

2. Consolidation isn't always a bad thing. Maybe it's better to have something unambitious that works rather than endanger the franchise with transformative new features that don't.

3. People like the game as it is. It may be a mistake to alienate your customers by changing things too much. In fact even the relatively slow evolution of the game necessitated making it into two games with the new Classic or Touch version.

I do have a question for Si though. Are you working on what we might call the next generation of Football Manager?

-Cut away scenes (such as one gets in console games)

-Audio commentary

I could go on, but the details don't matter. My question is do you have a long-term strategy for the game, because if you do, but the technology and typical computer capability wasn't ready for FM16, that's fine. On the other hand, if you want FM17 (and 18 and so on) to be like FM16 ) then I think your laurels are being overly sat upon.

I have to agree with others. This is barely more than an update. I have the game, but I don't really see any point abandoning my FM15 save. I'm just being honest. I can't regard FM16 as even being anything more than a data and visual update. It really is still FM15. Sorry.

That said, I do recognise that most customers seem to be quite happy. The needs of a reviewer (what new features can I write about?) are not the same as your customers (do I enjoy playing this game?)

For me however, a long-term supporter of the franchise, and of SI as a whole, if FM17 doesn't take a significant leap forward, there's a good chance that I'm going to lose my religion. No matter what others think, I personally am really disappointed.

At the end of the day, a review is still a review, you can't cherry pick the best ones.

His thoughts and ratings have the same worth as another guy giving it a 10/10, it's just their personal opinion, nothing more.

. essentially I want watching matches to be like watching match of the day.

Why on earth do you want a Sitting on the Couch simulator?

At the end of the day, a review is still a review, you can't cherry pick the best ones.

His thoughts and ratings have the same worth as another guy giving it a 10/10, it's just their personal opinion, nothing more.

spot on you can take most reviews with a pinch of salt

Yes, but it's worth looking at reviews as a whole. Frankly not all the 2016 reviews are in yet, but I believe statistically FM15 received a lot more mixed reviews than FM14, and the Mail review is indicative of what may be a trend for the new game. Good game? yes. Worth the money to upgrade from FM15, maybe not. It's not just the Mail saying this. You know it's not.

On the other hand, I'd be hard pushed to point to a negative review that the series has ever received, and any franchise or series of games suffers from what I'd call a sort of fatigue in the reviews. FM16 isn't revolutionary. It's not changing the world. it's just another edition of one of the most popular and successful games in the world, so of course reviews are going to exhibit a certain ennui.

Disagree with the Daily Mail in my opinion it's the best FM game in years especially the way the tactics are set out.

Football Manager started in 1994. During 21 years the game has developed a steady pace by a group of committed professionals supported by thousands of fans and forum members. As a united group the game has been challenged and new ideas thrashed out.

After 21 years of refinement in a Football Management game, what is the Daily Mail really expecting, and are players really wanting a revolution each game? I think the Daily Mail are being naive and as a player of the game, i don't want a revolution, i like the fact I can come back to the game after a few years out and feel right at home. The game is fantastic, superb, wonderful - the only time I haven't brought the game is when my computer wasn't powerful enough or when I was at uni. If i am honest with myself I spent over £1200 on a Macbook with 16GB of RAM to play FM.

Love FM!

A more reasonable review: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/13/football-manager-2016-game-review-sports-interactive

I agree with the review. I have an idea of what the game should be capable of at this point, and it seems that it is stuck in the mud. essentially I want watching matches to be like watching match of the day.

I don't get this comment at all. You want to be watching highlights? You have control over your game - whether you attack, defend, change formation, change roles w/e so this comment is really strange and you're probably the only person who wants to see the game turn like that.

Personally I'll be my own reviewer of the game and I definitely wouldn't listen to a newspapers review, that'd be like listening to IGNs review of Heroes of the Storm.

Being able to create your own club is a pretty big addition - much more significant than the creating an avatar. The writer has clearly picked the latter as it supports his argument.

However, the reality is, when a game is as in-depth and complete as FM is, most new versions are going to be a glorified data update.

The author is reviewing the new features instead of the game itself as a whole. He's saying the new features aren't significant enough to justify an upgrade from FM15, which is fair enough, but who says you have to buy it every year? Why not give an insight into how the game actually plays instead of focusing on the manager avatar thing?

The upgrades to the existing features were enough of a reason for me to upgrade. It has been every year and this year is no different.

Updating the players and clubs is enough for me to buy it

Never been a fan of people who are paid to give reviews, I mean who are they?

Film critic = Wannabe/jealous actor

Music critic = Wannabe/Jealous singer

Food critic = Hopeless chef

FM critic = Either useless at FM/ Jealous of the people working at SI

I would much rather get my reviews from unpaid genuine people.

Never been a fan of people who are paid to give reviews, I mean who are they?

My thoughts exactly.

I don't bother with reviews anyway, don't know that person so why would I just take their opinion on things.

The reviewer has a point.

We may not like it, some because "it's the Daily Mail" so it must be rubbish by default, most because it's FM, and FM is always great, even when it is not. But WE can criticize it, outsiders can't.

Let's be honest here: in recent years, very few iterations have had enough meaningful or game-changing improvements. Or at least big enough to justify a full-price purchase, besides for the updated database.

The first 3D engine, the new 3D engine and the (working) add/remove leagues are, off the top of my head, the only features that made the purchase an absolute must have. Dynamic league rep couts as well, but only for long-term players.

Anything else is down to personal opinion... Surely, some bits were welcome additions, but hardly a main selling point.

I understand how yearly releases work, also outside the FM universe, but I maintain the general tone of the reviews being "heh, it's more of the same, with a few marginal additions. 8/10" is very fitting and not at all a scandal or spiteful.

I played FM15 demo for a few hours before going back to my long-term FM14 save because I frankly felt it wasn't worth binning a fun and satisfying career just to start all over again with a couple of added tidbits.

Now I've got FM16 demo but I'm afraid to experience the same feeling of deja-vu.

BTW, I agree with vikeologist about the long-term plans SI have for FM... It's been made abundantly clear on this forum by mods that many "modules" in the game can only be tweaked but have specific limits and they'd need a complete makeover to obtain radical changes... So I wonder how long can the current setup last before it's time to take a bold step and finally leave the comfort zone the game has slowly but steadly slipped into.

Frankly, if a cosmetic (and pointless) feature like manager avatar and a glorified "overwrite a club" mode are the Top Features for the new edition, perhaps the glass celing has been hit, and quite hard as well.

At the end of the day, a review is still a review, you can't cherry pick the best ones.

SI had a pretty good go at cherry picking - no sign of the Mail in the review sticky!

SI had a pretty good go at cherry picking - no sign of the Mail in the review sticky!

Tbf, that's one of the poorest reviews I've ever read.

There are many many new features in this game that really differentiate it from FM15. The GK wearing yellow clown trousers, the Prozone tactics thingy that tells you everything you need to know about the last match you played, despite its abysmal interface, and the of course the absolute best feature ever added to a game:- the ability to wear the same coat as Arsene Wenger. Of course this feature is bug ridden; IRL the zip would never work.

That's the thing RBKalle, no-one forces you to buy the game. You play the demo and don't think you want to buy it? You don't buy it.

A feature you may think is pointless someone else might love. The main selling point of the game is that you get to be a football manager, everything else is down to personal opinion.

I'm not debating tastes and personal preferences... I'm merely stating that, in terms of actual, game-changing features (both metaphorically and factually), recent FM iterations haven't been as exciting as it'd have been fair to expect.

I can be a football manager with FM16, FM12, FM05 or whatever low-budget cheap alternative we have on Steam or on smartphones... The difference is how many details we want. And while there's no denying FM16 is probably the richest of the series, I also think it's fair to say the gap between it and, say, FM14 or FM12 isn't as noticeable as it is in other franchises or as it was, in the past, between various CM versions a few years removed.

Fine, we can all agree FM has reached the point of being so complex and advanced that adding a killer feature is not as easy as it used to be, but then it'd may be the time to consider not if, but WHEN, a brand new game structure/code/module section will be introduced.

SI had a pretty good go at cherry picking - no sign of the Mail in the review sticky!

It is now.

Just out of curiosity what %age of suggestions make it into the game?

The reviewer has a point.

We may not like it, some because "it's the Daily Mail" so it must be rubbish by default, most because it's FM, and FM is always great, even when it is not. But WE can criticize it, outsiders can't.

Let's be honest here: in recent years, very few iterations have had enough meaningful or game-changing improvements. Or at least big enough to justify a full-price purchase, besides for the updated database.

The first 3D engine, the new 3D engine and the (working) add/remove leagues are, off the top of my head, the only features that made the purchase an absolute must have. Dynamic league rep couts as well, but only for long-term players.

Anything else is down to personal opinion... Surely, some bits were welcome additions, but hardly a main selling point.

I understand how yearly releases work, also outside the FM universe, but I maintain the general tone of the reviews being "heh, it's more of the same, with a few marginal additions. 8/10" is very fitting and not at all a scandal or spiteful.

I played FM15 demo for a few hours before going back to my long-term FM14 save because I frankly felt it wasn't worth binning a fun and satisfying career just to start all over again with a couple of added tidbits.

Now I've got FM16 demo but I'm afraid to experience the same feeling of deja-vu.

BTW, I agree with vikeologist about the long-term plans SI have for FM... It's been made abundantly clear on this forum by mods that many "modules" in the game can only be tweaked but have specific limits and they'd need a complete makeover to obtain radical changes... So I wonder how long can the current setup last before it's time to take a bold step and finally leave the comfort zone the game has slowly but steadly slipped into.

Frankly, if a cosmetic (and pointless) feature like manager avatar and a glorified "overwrite a club" mode are the Top Features for the new edition, perhaps the glass celing has been hit, and quite hard as well.

Fine, we can all agree FM has reached the point of being so complex and advanced that adding a killer feature is not as easy as it used to be, but then it'd may be the time to consider not if, but WHEN, a brand new game structure/code/module section will be introduced.

Interesting posts.

The 3D, for instance, took 3 years to do before implementing it. I read somewhere that it was meant for an earlier version (FM07?), but that didn't go according to plan. FM09 it was then.

The collision detection system took 2 years.

Things like MoCap needed big prep work that started 7 years ago.

Then there's FM16:

The injury system is completely new (which the reviewer didn't bother reviewing) and it is quite detailed now in how players pick up injuries.

"Time of Day" is new this year (planning started 6 years ago), which sees shadows, lighting etc update in real time. Changes in light can happen during a match, because of the movement of the sun or clouds momentarily blocking the light.

Wind and rain intensity can also change during a match and the wind affects the direction of the rain falling.

Then there's all the work done with the amount of away fans being better represented and the stadiums looking different at times when it is being renovated etc.

The outside scenes also look different when playing in South America to Asia or Europe.

The ball, these days, updates 12 times a second. A few years ago, it was 4. You might think there's not much of a difference between 1/12th of a second and 1/4th of a second, but in that time, literally hundreds and thousands of calculations can be performed, including complex formulas and algorithms by the CPU and so this is quite a feat. This is the sort of thing that allows us to have a better ME now and in the future.

That's not even counting all the work done to the Transfer AI and ME. AI managers also are much better at setting up tactics, making in-match decisions and selecting teams.

Some of these new additions will have been missed, but they are there and there are certainly no "comfort zone" situations. There are long-term plans as well as medium and short term plans. SI is still working as hard as ever, if not harder, on the game.

HUNT3R - I think you just did a better job of selling the new features of the game than SI ever have. They should give you a job. Almost makes me want to play the game.

As people have correctly identified, the Mail review, like reviews in general, focus on the features of the game, whilst people actually make decisions based on the benefits of a product.

It's interesting how defensive of the game (and I suppose by extension SI) some posters are. That's a good thing.

This thread was just a suitable place for me to mention some of the concerns I have (reflected as they are by the review in question); inasmuch frankly that GD could ever be a suitable place to have a proper conversation. They're only slight concerns, and I hope I acknowledged that most people genuinely seem to be very happy with the game.

Interesting posts.

The 3D, for instance, took 3 years to do before implementing it. I read somewhere that it was meant for an earlier version (FM07?), but that didn't go according to plan. FM09 it was then.

The collision detection system took 2 years.

Things like MoCap needed big prep work that started 7 years ago.

The 3D ME was indeed a major change, probably THE change, just like the 2D view was for the previous generation. It's good to see it's improving, but it's also a fact plenty of awkward moments are still there.

Again, in fairness, I'd take a more polished ME in the graphical rendition of the calculated event over a more aesthetically pleasing but glitchy experience.

The injury system is completely new (which the reviewer didn't bother reviewing) and it is quite detailed now in how players pick up injuries.

Assessing the new injury system will take time, likely much more than what a random reviewer can put into the game... Even here, among dedicated FM players, some issues are clear only to those who play longer or a specific style.

So far, in 1 week of in-game time, I've had 4 injuries without my players having a minute of football... 3-4 weeks out due to training ground accidents and the flu. Not off to a good start

"Time of Day" is new this year (planning started 6 years ago), which sees shadows, lighting etc update in real time. Changes in light can happen during a match, because of the movement of the sun or clouds momentarily blocking the light.

Wind and rain intensity can also change during a match and the wind affects the direction of the rain falling.

Then there's all the work done with the amount of away fans being better represented and the stadiums looking different at times when it is being renovated etc.

The outside scenes also look different when playing in South America to Asia or Europe.

See my point about effectiveness vs aesthetics.

Those are surely nice touches, but it's merely cosmetic stuff. Now if we had actual real-life stadiums, that'd have been much more impressive as a selling point

The ball, these days, updates 12 times a second. A few years ago, it was 4. You might think there's not much of a difference between 1/12th of a second and 1/4th of a second, but in that time, literally hundreds and thousands of calculations can be performed, including complex formulas and algorithms by the CPU and so this is quite a feat. This is the sort of thing that allows us to have a better ME now and in the future.

Optimization is great news. Let's hope the extra operations are put to good use...

That's not even counting all the work done to the Transfer AI and ME. AI managers also are much better at setting up tactics, making in-match decisions and selecting teams.

I'm unsure about that... Maybe things have improved a bit last year, but until FM14 (included) the AI squad building was still a shambles, with CA+PA+Rep dominating the scene and leading to absurd transfers.

And as long as the system will be based on those criteria, there will be only so much tweaking SI can do. It's been tinkered with year after year, just like other factors, like age decline, physical skills vs technical skills and so on...

As said already, the modules allow a finite amount of changes and combinations...

Some of these new additions will have been missed, but they are there and there are certainly no "comfort zone" situations. There are long-term plans as well as medium and short term plans. SI is still working as hard as ever, if not harder, on the game.

When I say "comfort zone" I mean most of the improvements are made within the aforementioned boundaries... There appears to be no room for bold(er) moves, and in all honesty there isn't an urgency for them, as FM is the only show in town.

However I maintain the current structure is in need of a more courageous policy. Like the 2D and the 3D engines or the newgens system were.

Don't really agree with the article. Especially because white skin is back from fm14!

Can't wait to get home and get on this tonight.

I wonder if White Skin is still broken, in the beta certain things like team talk result in black text on black background.

If you want truly balanced opinions of games then you should take a look at metacritic's users reviews. Such mainstream sites are seldom trustworthy.

The 3D ME was indeed a major change, probably THE change, just like the 2D view was for the previous generation. It's good to see it's improving, but it's also a fact plenty of awkward moments are still there.

Again, in fairness, I'd take a more polished ME in the graphical rendition of the calculated event over a more aesthetically pleasing but glitchy experience.

So you want a polished ME, but at the same time you want a more courageous policy? SI have to strike a balance and I'm sure most would agree that the ME is quite polished this year.

See my point about effectiveness vs aesthetics.

Those are surely nice touches, but it's merely cosmetic stuff. Now if we had actual real-life stadiums, that'd have been much more impressive as a selling point

See my point about having a longer term vision. Rain intensity, wind changing etc will all affect how a match plays. It'll be tricky to eventually add, but there is at least movement toward it.

I'm unsure about that... Maybe things have improved a bit last year, but until FM14 (included) the AI squad building was still a shambles, with CA+PA+Rep dominating the scene and leading to absurd transfers.

And as long as the system will be based on those criteria, there will be only so much tweaking SI can do. It's been tinkered with year after year, just like other factors, like age decline, physical skills vs technical skills and so on...

As said already, the modules allow a finite amount of changes and combinations...

Every year more factors that the AI consider when shortlisting a player is added. It's not as simple as you make it seem.

Painting every version with the same brush isn't very clever. Was it FM15 that saw the AI buy players based on roles, rather than position? That was a big step in buying the right player for their needs. This year, they're more competent at using these players.

The scouting system is also making life harder for us, so we can't just automatically find the best players and buy them for peanuts. The AI negotiations and asking prices have been improved again, so even if we do find the next Messi, it's going to be a fight to get him.

When I say "comfort zone" I mean most of the improvements are made within the aforementioned boundaries... There appears to be no room for bold(er) moves, and in all honesty there isn't an urgency for them, as FM is the only show in town.

However I maintain the current structure is in need of a more courageous policy. Like the 2D and the 3D engines or the newgens system were.

SI aren't where they are by accident.