People dont want 3d engine because they have no faith in si

[TeeWee]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Squirmy Rooter 2.0:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

Learn to read the first post on a page. Like stated, updating to a basic 3D isometric view would do nothing to the gameplay or the match engine. Therefore, all your arguments are basically worthless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly the most ridiculous statement I've seen for a long time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity Chop, assuming you are purely referring to the bolded part, what is it about the statement you find ridiculous?

Certainly I would be surprised, nay shocked, if the way that the match was visualised had any effect on the results of the match-engine itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it could have a very strong effect on the gameplay; that is, once you can easily see what basic actions a player is performing (attempted tackle vs just standing still), it may very well help the manager understand the match better and make better decisions in the future. This is improved gameplay, and if improved graphics supports such decisions, why would anybody be against this?

[chopper99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Squirmy Rooter 2.0:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lonestar007:

Learn to read the first post on a page. Like stated, updating to a basic 3D isometric view would do nothing to the gameplay or the match engine. Therefore, all your arguments are basically worthless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly the most ridiculous statement I've seen for a long time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity Chop, assuming you are purely referring to the bolded part, what is it about the statement you find ridiculous?

Certainly I would be surprised, nay shocked, if the way that the match was visualised had any effect on the results of the match-engine itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a start changing to an isometric 3D view would certainly have some effect on the gameplay. Whether that be a positive or negative effect doesn't matter, the gameplay will be different as the whole match experience will be different.

Secondly, I think the way the match is visualised has a massive effect on the match engine. Even now, with the 2D view, certain things that happen in the match engine can be represented strangely in the 2D engine. A recent example is a thread someone started about slower players beating quicker players to the ball. I've no doubt that when FM does it's calculations there's a good reason for the quicker player being first to the ball but when viewed on the 2D pitch it simply looks like the slower player outpaces the quicker player for no good reason.

There are other examples of this but the point is that if the view was changed to some form of 3D there would be plenty of other things that may not be quite displayed the way the match engine intended. Or, the things that didn't look so convincing in 2D may be better in 3D. Either way, positive or negative, I feel it's a mistake to say that going 3D would have absolutely no effect on the gameplay or the match engine. The match engine may still make the same calculation, but the way the results of those calculations is displayed would be massively different with a 3D view.

[chopper99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

I've no doubt that when FM does it's calculations there's a good reason for the quicker player being first to the ball </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Balls, that should have read 'there's a good reason for the slower player being first to the ball'.

[madmandaniel]

if there was a 3D engine SI would have to make realistic faces and skin colour and hair colour for every player in tht etop leagues and people would then be complaining that "Ronaldo doesnt look realsitic" etc who gives a sh*t...

gods sake FM's 2d engine is great and the people who say that they cant interpret whats happining dont watch much footie. i can easily tell when they are dribbling, tackling, passing over the top etc wake up

[Nomis07]

As I said earlier, I don't think the argument that it's too hard to understand what's happening in the 2D representaion means anything and replacing it with 3D would be a drastic step just to fix it. Improved and reliable commentary would fix this problem easily.

[anagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TeeWee:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anagain:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Pink:

Yes Disasterd and a few others above.

Graphics like Sencible Soccer or Kick Off,

I dont want state of the art grahics like Fifa just want to be able to see a pair of legs, some haircolour, skincolour etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJJgfTN7UKo

Then i might upgrade my fm2007 (which i love) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If SI did something like add graphics similar to Kick Off or Sensible Soccer then I would just scream. They look tacky and there is no reason why SI need resort to adding something so minimalistic to a modern PC game just so that a handful of people can have a flashier game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your assumption is wrong; not everybody who wants a more detailed representation than the current overhead blobs want it because they want a flashier game (mind you, 3D graphics do, in general, give a game better shelf space in a store). The fact is, it is much, much easier understand what's happening when you see the visual representation actually make a tackle and miss, instead of just seeing your blob stand still and trying to piece it together through the commentary lines. Graphical information is in many cases much easier to process than textual information. Good UI design is not about flashier graphics, it's about more functional graphics.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, okay there are two camps here. That much has been determined. Your point is that you want flashier graphics to enable you to better see what is going on in the match; what tackles are taking place etc. My point in response is how the hell are you going to see that if said graphics are of the quality of a 1980s/1990s game a la Kick Off or Sensible Soccer? That is what some people are saying will be acceptable.

If SI are going to ever upgrade the match representation to 3D then they need to go the whole hog and make it quality rather than a generation back. Graphics of the quality of Kick Off or Sensible Soccer are not going to show the level of detail some say is needed. True?

Whether we need 3D graphics is another point entirely.

[anagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

As I said earlier, I don't think the argument that it's too hard to understand what's happening in the 2D representaion means anything and replacing it with 3D would be a drastic step just to fix it. Improved and reliable commentary would fix this problem easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a strong point Nomis. I think it would easily come under the 'other ideas that can make FM a better game' that I posted earlier.

Someone needs to collate the for and against points on this discussion.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chopper99:

Secondly, I think the way the match is visualised has a massive effect on the match engine. Even now, with the 2D view, certain things that happen in the match engine can be represented strangely in the 2D engine. A recent example is a thread someone started about slower players beating quicker players to the ball. I've no doubt that when FM does it's calculations there's a good reason for the quicker player being first to the ball but when viewed on the 2D pitch it simply looks like the slower player outpaces the quicker player for no good reason.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from now. While changing the way the match is visualised should not in itself have any direct effect on the match engine, it would perhaps highlight certain shortcuts and parts of the simulation that were not accurately modelled. Therefore SI might need to change the match engine to compensate. I would agree with that.

My example would be jumping and heading. At the moment, for all we know when 2 players go up to head the ball it might just be a "dice roll" as to who wins the header. If we were able to better visualise the 3rd-dimension, even just by simply giving the dots "height" (e.g. cylinders!), then however abstract those characters were represented we would expect to see them timing their jumps correctly and whoever gets closest to the ball wins the header. And that's something that might not exist in the M.E. now, and would probably be nowhere near as simple as it may sound to add.

I think it would be incredibly naive to think that FM could go from the current 2D representation to a full-on Pro-Evo/FIFA style 3D visual in one or two iterations. However, I would like to see some steps towards it in the coming years, just starting with giving us some sort of better visualisation of the "up-axis", however abstract it may be. Gradual evolution, rather than sudden revolution, if you like. CM has it's faults, but I don't think it's done a terrible job of how the match is drawn. It just shows there are potential "shades-of-grey" between circles and photo-realistic fully motion-captured 3D characters.

I'm pretty sure it was exactly the same around these parts when the jump was made from commentary-only to 2D.

[jakobx]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anagain:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nomis07:

As I said earlier, I don't think the argument that it's too hard to understand what's happening in the 2D representaion means anything and replacing it with 3D would be a drastic step just to fix it. Improved and reliable commentary would fix this problem easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a strong point Nomis. I think it would easily come under the 'other ideas that can make FM a better game' that I posted earlier.

Someone needs to collate the for and against points on this discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont know. At least us humans have trouble looking at two things at once. I only have one set of eyes which means only one location to which i can focus on. Another problem is the match speed. Not many have the patience of actually watching the match at such a low speed that actually reading the commentary is possible. Even if i just focus on the commentary i only perhaps manage to read about 30% of the text.

Maybe some of you are robots or aliens with many eyes and probably tentacles and this might not apply to you.

[Nomis07]

Jakobx,

My point was aminly re: media interaction and the fining system etc. Rather than introduce a 3D system that would still be rather ambiguous when it comes down to offside etc, realistic and definate commentary would sort it out.

When we get asked about the red card in the previous match, and the game telling us that the referee got the decision right after we have complained, the game could tell us if it was the correct decision striaght away. There is no need to read the commentary during the match as we can't do anything about it then, but the ability to check a match report that gave us a definitive answer before selecting our response to media would definately discount some of the issues raised re: 2d.

[TeeWee]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anagain:

Yes, okay there are two camps here. That much has been determined. Your point is that you want flashier graphics to enable you to better see what is going on in the match; what tackles are taking place etc. My point in response is how the hell are you going to see that if said graphics are of the quality of a 1980s/1990s game a la Kick Off or Sensible Soccer? That is what some people are saying will be acceptable.

If SI are going to ever upgrade the match representation to 3D then they need to go the whole hog and make it quality rather than a generation back. Graphics of the quality of Kick Off or Sensible Soccer are not going to show the level of detail some say is needed. True?

Whether we need 3D graphics is another point entirely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be precise, the graphics should not necessarily be flashier, but they could be more functional. Flashier implies that I want the better graphics with texture mappings just because it's possible. Functional implies that there's a gameplay reason I want them: it helps me assess what's going on on the pitch. I'm fairly sure that only a minority wants better graphics just for the sake of them being prettier (which the usage of the word "flashier" implies).

While I mentioned Kick Off or SensiSoc as examples, I put them forwards not in the sense that I wanted an implementation exactly like that; I just wanted to see if we could jump out of both the "change nothing, keep the 2D blobs" and the "3D PES-style full realistic physics model" boxes. True, there will never be enough detail (neither blobs, overhead animated players or 3D), but I believe there's a gap between what the blobs can represent and what I think should be represented. And I think that overhead, animated players will go a long way to close that gap. I don't want every detail; I want the most important ones (and that includes the basic actions of a player, without having to read the commentary lines).

I think that the overhead type, be it blobs or Kick Off style, is the best way for a management game to display a match. You'll want to see the positioning of the players first and foremost. But I really do believe that the limitations of the blobs are both unwanted and unnecessary. I'm actually optimistic that a Kick Off style overhead view is detailed enough to be worth it functionally and also definately not heavy enough to tax a system that's able to run FM in the first place. Keep in mind that graphic displays have improved immensely over the years since Kick Off 2 was the best footie game in town. So I don't want a display of early 90s quality, but I may want a display in current quality that captures the inherent abilities of that style to show what's going on on the pitch.

[Iwan Owen]

I posted a still picture from a sensible soccer game earlier in this thread as an example of the kind of change i would like. The characters would still be very small so there`d be no need for face racognition and such, and people who are thinking that`s what we`re after are completely missing the point. Many a time i`ve screamed at the screen when my player seemingly makes no effort whatsoever to tackle the opposition or simply seems to give up completely and stand still when chasing someone, when in fact the player might be still on the floor after an earlier challenge or have attempted to slide in for the ball and failed (which would both look like he`d just stopped for no reason in 2D). 3D would get rid of little annoying things like this and would make the game more interesting to watch and much easier to spot important minor details IMO. Here`s a link to a Sensible Soccer video, which is similar to the kind of thing SI should aim for in my oppinion, but with more of the pitch in view at any given time...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJQ_VZYfGU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJQ_VZYfGU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Ljuba82]

I think there is no need for 3d ME right now. The game is such a joke now and it needs much improvements in other areas. This version is classical example of unprofessionalism of SI. Maybe it would be nice to see something like in CM, but realism of ME and whole game comes to first place for me.

[postal postie]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Iwan Owen:

I posted a still picture from a sensible soccer game earlier in this thread as an example of the kind of change i would like. The characters would still be very small so there`d be no need for face racognition and such, and people who are thinking that`s what we`re after are completely missing the point. Many a time i`ve screamed at the screen when my player seemingly makes no effort whatsoever to tackle the opposition or simply seems to give up completely and stand still when chasing someone, when in fact the player might be still on the floor after an earlier challenge or have attempted to slide in for the ball and failed (which would both look like he`d just stopped for no reason in 2D). 3D would get rid of little annoying things like this and would make the game more interesting to watch and much easier to spot important minor details IMO. Here`s a link to a Sensible Soccer video, which is similar to the kind of thing SI should aim for in my oppinion, but with more of the pitch in view at any given time...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJQ_VZYfGU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYJQ_VZYfGU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would like a less top down view personally. but i can see how this could be done with a SS type match engine.

doesn anyone know how all the scrolling would affect our enjoyment though?

scrolling of the screen is fine if we're controlling one of the little guys but watching a game, with little control over what their doing with the potential for the ball to be pinging all over the place raises the prospect of too much scrolling of the pitch

[disasterd]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madmandaniel:

if there was a 3D engine SI would have to make realistic faces and skin colour and hair colour for every player in tht etop leagues and people would then be complaining that "Ronaldo doesnt look realsitic" etc who gives a sh*t...

gods sake FM's 2d engine is great and the people who say that they cant interpret whats happining dont watch much footie. i can easily tell when they are dribbling, tackling, passing over the top etc wake up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

was it not just established that a sensible soccer type engine would be acceptable

this means that si dont have to make faces perfect with facial hair etc

[Guest arrogantio]

A 3-D engine wouldn't actually let you in on any secrets of how something happened. You wouldn't be let in on the secret of whether it was the superior strength, timing or sheer bloody determination that was the decisive factor in the algorithm allowing your player to reach the ball first at coordinate xyz and deflect the ball in a beautiful parabola towards the top corner xxyyzz. You would, however, enjoy the dubious benefits of watching the intersecting players represented as motion captured sequence 0030450, which the match engine determined to be the best representation of the player movement, although arguably not entirely consistent with where the ball ended up. Which ultimately, when you've watched enough identical aerial challenges in close-up, would simplify more than it would enlighten.

A sensible soccer type engine would be an even bigger step backwards. I'd rather see two blobs intersecting and the ball spinning off at an apparently random angle than two sprites performing a generic slide tackle and apparently making no contact with other or the ball, which nevertheless spins off at an apparently random angle. One view doesn't provide me with sufficient information to know exactly what happened. The other deceives.