FM 2010 Demo - Are these really the Match Engine graphics?

[Neil Dejyothin]

Yes, SWOS was great. It's also about 15 years old.

This is 2009. Even some of the very worst games out there on the market look better than this. The stadium themselves are so badly implemented that from the main viewing angle you cannot even see the corner taker or throw-in takers along the near touchline.

I also like the way you guys criticise FIFA 10 as if it's some awful piece of crap. It's a pretty good football game if you ask me. And I am "a true FM fan" if you wish to go down that route. Have you bought every single incarnation of this game since the first edition back in the 90's?

What you're spotting here is the camera implementation.

Ours is in its infancy at this stage, but it's something we're working on improving all the time. We do however also have licensing restrictions that we have to adhere to. We're not allowed to go in too close to the action for legal reasons.

Other games, such as FIFA, may have licenses that allow them to do so, but have also had 10 years or more to work on their 3D engines and these details.

In addition, with Football Manager, we model different pitch sizes, which alter the sizes of the stands and the surrounding structures that can lead to complications for cameras and viewing angles, distances, etc.

This is a problem that a lot of 3D action games are unlikely to have. They may not need to accurately model different pitch sizes, so can have one size that fits all and then a set number of stadium models to implement and test. That may make it easier for them to tweak and refine across the board.

For us, there are thousands of permutations and therefore we need to make some of our systems quite basic or generic to start with to ensure they work correctly. Then we refine and continue to add new details over time.

It's a different way of doing things but there are 10,000 plus clubs in FM and only a fraction of that figure in other games.

[Neil Dejyothin]

I'd be happy if the graphics were ****, but the game actually mirrored a real life football match. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

I was playing FIFA 10 on the PS3 earlier today (for the first time in 10 years) and I played a match against the computer. I was amazed at how intelligently the players passed and moved. It was so realistic.

Why OH WHY can't FM do the same? Forget the graphics, but at least have the players running around and passing and moving in a realistic fashion!

Some of the things I see on the match engine defy belief. The amount of times a players stand still doing nothing as opponents dribble past them is amazing.

I guess this is always going to be a matter of subjective opinion. In action games, you may also find that the football is not as intelligent or good when you start to choose very weak teams and playing AI versus AI.

In addition, we're attempting to model 90 minutes of football, which includes all the bad bits if you like, whereas a lot of action games are condensing that 90 minutes into a much smaller time frame (5-10-15 minutes, etc) and the longer you watch them the more you might think that it's not as realistic as you imagined. But that's probably not their intention as it's up to the players to play those games and create the experience themselves.

[Neil Dejyothin]

Still, criticism like that is to be expected, as much of that from anybody writing the game off as a glorified spreadsheet long before the advent of 3D. SI are competing on the same playing field as every game out there, and they're pretty odd-ball in that even if their game boasts more text than many an adventure game on your ZX Spectrum and has "lesser" production values than a DOS game era 3d game, it's still going like hotcakes. Should tell those publishers out there something about the importance of a game needing some kind of genuinely ineresting hook rather than masking the lack of it with flashy graphics. If proving the bloody brat of a manager destroying your club how to do the job isn't a hook I don't know what is.

And yet, SI aren't the garage developer they were in the beginning. What started out as a project of two boys between doing their homework is selling in numbers only a World Of Warcraft expansion set is able to compete with. SI are big. Which is making them look even more of an oddball than ever before, what with the massive amount of text and (technically) sub-par 3d visuals. This game is now being played by hundreds of thousands of people day in day out, and some of those start to wonder why the 3d visuals of the game are nowhere near their latest FIFA or Pro Evolution games - nor those released in the past six years, for that matter. For all the credit SI deserve for their match engine, which is the closest any video game has ever been to the real football, period, I expect a fair share of criticism for the 3d represenatation with this iteration too.

Personally? I like it. But it's nowhere near to what my mediocre PC is able render in the latest PES demo in terms of animation, texture quality, lighting and general level of representation. And yet FM remains the more realistic sim of football by a long shot, "Actua soccer" level of 3d representation or no.

FIFA and PES are beautiful looking action games and they've had probably 10 years or more working on their engines and building their knowledge base and expertise for what they do, much in the same way we have with Football Manager as a management simulation.

Those companies also have greater resources than we do. I recently read that one of those games has a team of over 200 or more people working on it. At Sports Interactive, there's probably around 35 of us working on FM. It's a totally different scale and a totally different way of working (when I joined there were just 14 of us).

But we're happy with where we are at and we're committed to improving everything in FM, including the 3D. There's still very much that bedroom like atmosphere here as well and that's something we've worked hard on retaining as we've grown.

[stevie_G_32201]

what is this thread? OP answer me a question honestly. whats more important?

1) great game-play and crap graphics.

2) great graphics but crap gameplay?

i know what i would choose. 99% of the community would agree with my answer too. there are those that prefer the graphics but a game isnt about graphics, its about PLAYING THE GAME.

[Suzie MUFC]

I would rather have intelligent moving/passing/tacking/shooting than realistic looking players. Period.

This.

It's why I will still use the 2D engine when I get FM10. Even though the 3D engine has improved over 09's version, there's still issues regarding the translation into 3D. With 2D, all you see is blobs and your imagination automatically fills in the gaps, therefore it will always be the better of the two when it comes to the engine itself. With 3D there's more detail graphically, and therefore the problems will be magnified because certain things won't match up with the commentary.

[Forbsie]

i think the 3d view is amazing, i mean what do people expect, to see the smiles on players faces or blood running from noses, i mean come on guys

[Äktsjon Männ]

what is this thread? OP answer me a question honestly. whats more important?

1) great game-play and crap graphics.

2) great graphics but crap gameplay?

i know what i would choose. 99% of the community would agree with my answer too. there are those that prefer the graphics but a game isnt about graphics, its about PLAYING THE GAME.

How about great gameplay and good graphics? Stop insisting that these things are somehow mutually exclusive.

[Svenc]

In addition, with Football Manager, we model different pitch sizes, which alter the sizes of the stands and the surrounding structures that can lead to complications for cameras and viewing angles, distances, etc.

Yeah, that's something not that obvious at first I haven't even thought about yet. Seeing that you adressed posts in order, I think you filtered the gist of this thread by now, which wasn't about making FM looking like the latest FIFA games (there, I said it). But that beneath there may be some valuable criticism in there.

what is this thread?

Very obviously one you haven't read. Mind, I don't blame you given the tone in the opening post. And you're not alone. Still.

[stevie_G_32201]

How about great gameplay and good graphics? Stop insisting that these things are somehow mutually exclusive.

not what i said. most people would choose game play over graphics thats the point i was making.

Yeah, that's something not that obvious at first I haven't even thought about yet. Seeing that you adressed posts in order, I think you filtered the gist of this thread by now, which wasn't about making FM looking like the latest FIFA games (there, I said it). But that beneath there may be some valuable criticism in there.

Very obviously one you haven't read. Mind, I don't blame you given the tone in the opening post. And you're not alone. Still.

i have read the thread. dont reply with only part of what i typed the thread makes no sense.

[JaggieBunnet]

is there anyway to switch off the stadium and crowd generation as I have found this to slow down the gameplay, 3d pitch is fine and always liked it but the stadium and those ridiculously drawn fans seem to be slowing it down as well as offending my eyes.

[Stampler]

just 5 words: JUST DONT BUY IT THEN

[Neil Dejyothin]

is there anyway to switch off the stadium and crowd generation as I have found this to slow down the gameplay, 3d pitch is fine and always liked it but the stadium and those ridiculously drawn fans seem to be slowing it down as well as offending my eyes.

You can switch stadium, crowds and weather effects off within the Preferences screen.

[cynet]

The graphics are acceptable to the aspect of the game and SI have stated it's always going to be in working progress and let's remember the gameplay that's more important than the graphics right now and the gameplay is second to none

[Neil Dejyothin]

Yeah, that's something not that obvious at first I haven't even thought about yet. Seeing that you adressed posts in order, I think you filtered the gist of this thread by now, which wasn't about making FM looking like the latest FIFA games (there, I said it). But that beneath there may be some valuable criticism in there.

From a 3D perspective, our goal for FM 2010 was to simply deliver a vastly improved 3D experience on FM 2009. We feel we've done that and hope to make similar strides with FM 2011 and have plenty of plans in place for future improvements.

I personally welcome all thoughts and constructive criticism and we while we are inspired and admire games like FIFA and PES, it's still important to believe in your own direction and style and evolve in a way that's right for us.

[Twellman24]

Aren't FM sales amazing every year? Can't you guys afford more than 35 people to work on FM? Just wondering.

[LaytonBhoy]

Let's face it, this game has NEVER been about the graphics.

Football Manager is Football Manager and has never, and should never, tried to be anything else. I have been playing the game for years, have bought every version, have sat through nights of frustration, shifting tactics, signing players, trying new things. It is an experience which sucks you in and occasionally spits you out.

When 2009 was released with 3D match graphics I was elated. It didn't matter that the stadiums were empty; my own imagination coloured in the stands and supplied the songs. The beauty of the game was always elswhere, like signing an unfancied player on a hunch, and taking pleasure in your own creation as he then ran riot.

The 3D graphics of before were more than adequate to their task. The pleasure I took from watching Andrew Barrowman score for Dundee Utd at Ibrox with a back-post header, his 2nd of the match, to take his season tally to 35, could not have been more sharp had I witnessed it on the FIFA match engine; the beauty is in what lies beneath that moment, setting the tactics, picking the team, perfecting the training. Barrowman's 5 yard tap-in against Falkirk brought me as much pleasure as his 30 yarder against Hibs in the League Cup Final. Because of what lies beneath the engine.

Lately, I have had the pleasure of watching Ezequial Lavezzi sign for my Notts Forest team (I gave them a few quid, I admit it) and to having the pleasure of predicting he'd be a club legend. His goals in pre-season were satisfying ....... but much more satisfying was watching his debut, Championship match-day 1, against Reading, away from home, in the pouring rain, where he scored a double in a 3-2 defeat.

The Football Manager Experience gets better every year, and every year I love it more. I haven't bought FIFA since 2005, and when Championship Manager came out last month with the offer to buy it for 1p plus an administration fee, I didn't waste my time or cash. Frankly, the second FM2010 arrived it would have gone on the shelf never to reappear.

There is no game like this. The graphics have always been the least of it ....... and this year I think they look damned good anyway.

Congrats to SI Games, again, on a superior product to anything else out there.

[saberhagen83]

Yeah the FM does actually look pretty poor when you think about it, I mean we are in 2009 now after all and graphics are incredibly outdated. HOWEVER, I stand by what I have always said, gameplay is much more important compared to graphics. I like the fact that we have 3D in the game now even if it looks silly. And I would love to see FM have really nice graphics in the future, with really realistic movements and play. I assume it will be a fair few years untill then. But I won't complain much about FM graphics. Anyone that has been around longer than a couple of years with this series knows that there is more to the game than the graphics. I mean when I first discovred the game it was only text based really then came the 2D and now we have a 2nd installment of 3D. Seeing as the game has sold well and still does, I suppose most don't care too much about graphics...this is a game for the football fans that want more than just flashy graphics and action gameplay...

[AbsoluteGenius]

The graphics are better on my Ultimate Soccer Manager game from 1998, but I don't play FM for the graphics. I already have loads of games with great graphics.

[theres only one ALI DIA!]

Id love FM to look as good as FIFA10 but if it was anyway near as good as that, theres NO WAY my laptop would be up to playing it!

Thing is on PS3 or 360 you know its gonna play straight of the box, but with PCs that aint gonna happen. My laptop is several years old and FM is the only new game I play on it, every other game I play is on my 360 and I'd guess theres loads of people who are in the same boat where you have PC for FM / internet etc and 360/PS3 for gaming.

Judging by the amount of people who had problems just using steam last year, which I found a really great simple product, I reckon half SI & Sega's customers having to fork out for new graphics card / RAM or even new PCs just to play FM probably isn't good business sense.

[Neil Dejyothin]

Aren't FM sales amazing every year? Can't you guys afford more than 35 people to work on FM? Just wondering.

Our sales are very good for us but they don't compare to say FIFA or PES, who are in another league altogether. They however are also established across more platforms and predominantly the console market where they share great success.

We have added to the team, but we wouldn't grow it massively in a short space of time because there are many positives by remaining a small and tight knit outfit and we have one of the lowest turnovers you'll find at any company, which is very rare in any industry.

We think we're just about the right size for what we want to achieve in the future. Adding more bodies does not necessarily speed up the development or improve quality. In fact, sometimes that can have the reverse or opposite effect.

[Svenc]

Let's face it, this game has NEVER been about the graphics.

Historically you're not even that far off, but seing how this game has turned more and more graphic in detail, I don't know if the makers would agree. Most of all as any game FM's a product of technology available at its time. Thirty years ago developers let you explore the world, entire galaxies all within three dozen paragraphs of text. Nobody did object, quite the contrary: Gamers navigated black and white stick figure avatars through labyrinths of 4 colour art and pretended this was like the real thing, they plundered dungeons, visited fantasy lands and travelled ogre caves alike. When they were finished they picked up their controllers, steered pixel paddles up and down, hit a pixel ball back and forth between them. Years passed. Thngs progressed. Rather than navigating stick figure avatars through labyrinths of 4 colour art gamers now travel the entire World Of Warcraft and fully-fledged 3d miniature versions of New York or L.A. in the latest GTA. And whilst Pong remains a classic in the video game hall of fame due to its simple, effective design, its successors are now fully-realized tennis simulators, letting you smell the grass of Wimbledon court in on- and offline play alike.

Likewise, when the two Collyer boys started out their thing, technology was in its infants, and with the two of them practically representing Sports Interactive in its entirety, budget and man power was limited too. Who knows what they had in mind back then and couldn't realize due to time's constraints? Whilst historically FM may have been little more than a glorified spreadsheet, technically, that doesn't mean this is what the game was supposed to be about. Seeing how SI have gradually improved the match day experience in particular, how they have gradually crafted what is considered to be the most complex and realistic simulation of football there is on a computer screen, I'd haphazard the guess that it's not about merely mimicing the latest edition of Microsoft Excel. They've gone from text to 2d blops to 3d models all in the space of a single series - going through their entire portfolio isn't only telling you something about the story of their company, it's also telling you something about the story of video games alike.

I fully understand the appeal that comes with all the blanks to be filled if presentation is kept simple and abstract. It doesn't take many ressources to build a world from text, and it doesn't take much more to build a world from 2d blops either. Every step up in terms of visual representation comes with its price: whilst prior to the inclusion of 2d blops and 3d players a beautiful backheel pass was just a line of text and a bit of imagination away, now it needs to be rendered first. A rather well-known cult designer of adventure games once said that graphics killed the adventure game. It was a very tongue in cheek comment, and it was obvious from the context that it was, but yeah, there is something to be said about the appeal of imagination. And the always-growing demands placed on man-power and money. Just the kind of thing the Collyer boys didn't have when they started out doing that thing of theirs. Now they have. Now is the time we'll see what they really had in mind back then.

[Grimoz]

Our sales are very good for us but they don't compare to say FIFA or PES, who are in another league altogether. They however are also established across more platforms and predominantly the console market where they share great success.

We have added to the team, but we wouldn't grow it massively in a short space of time because there are many positives by remaining a small and tight knit outfit and we have one of the lowest turnovers you'll find at any company, which is very rare in any industry.

We think we're just about the right size for what we want to achieve in the future. Adding more bodies does not necessarily speed up the development or improve quality. In fact, sometimes that can have the reverse or opposite effect.

Great response Neil, people dont seem to understand that having more people working on the same project doesnt necessarily mean that the quality will improve it just means that someone else has a little less to do. And as Neil said if SI were selling milllions of copies of FM on consoles then Im sure they could afford to put a little more work / staff into the game but as its only PC and PSP their revenue would not come close to that of EA not too mention that programmers with that kind of ability dont come cheap and arent easy to find. Also another thing that buys into the revenue that SI make is piracy, I can only imagine how much money SI would lose each time a new game is released whereas consoles like PS3 cant be pirated and therefore maintain a steady cash flow which as specified where EA make much more money. Oh yeah and also thats why EA have given up on producing top of the line ports for PC because they lose too much money from piracy and would rather concentrate on consoles that they know will make money.

[Grimoz]

People need to lay off SI because they are doing as well as they can with the resources available to them.

[Svenc]

About the sales, sure, they don't compete with EA's or Konami's absolute top-sellers. But most game studios would kill for numbers like this. This belongs to the best-selling video game series, and it's competing with World Of Warcraft expansions during Christmas craze. It's not down to any of us to assess the inner workings at SI, but one of my personal beefs is that there's sloppy art in the game that just isn't up to the standard of their match engine, database, research - or the good bits of their 3d part. Whether this is down to a lack of personell, expertise or something else isn't even important, it's them who know, not us. What is important is that it's there. Examples uploaded earlier. I don't want to nitpick, I've just got the nagging feeling that it is rush jobs like these that's hurting the 3d experience more than needed be.

[Jorge Campos]

I want to go on record as saying that ANY 3D match engine is a thrill for me. I was absolutely delighted with FM09 for this reason. No matter what the complaints may be from those spoiled by games that are built entirely for a graphical experience, the mere fact that we can actually SEE what happens on the pitch and get a reasonable representation of the action is a huge development.

I will gladly live with whatever slow evolution that SI goes through with the 3D graphics. I'm still just thrilled to have ANYTHING.

[tedder_road]

OK, the usual collection of replies in this thread. Some people have read my post and others have decided for themselves what I'm saying. I think I was pretty clear. This thread is clearly going to cause a bunch of people to argue pointlessly for all eternity, but that's the internet for you. Either way, more-or-less final word from me, in summary....

As I said - an awful lot of you think it's a case of EITHER good graphics OR a good game. It's not. You can have both. Many games do. In this case, SI have decided to bring the graphics in gradually, and that's understandable since this is a new field of the game for them and they tend to be a bit less capable of bringing in new things in one go - most new features take years to balance and get right, look at training for example it's changed every year since they brought it in. However, as I said, they have had the 3d engine for a while now, comparitively speaking - at least two iterations of the game so that's two years, and if you count development time probably more - and when they chuck in ugly stuff like the awful stadiums and crowds it makes the game look really, really amateurish. Either do it properly, or don't do it. To me this is a half-hearted attempt at graphics, it's bad looking and detracts for the immersion of the game. First time around it looked like they had a rough framework pegged out and it would improve year on year. This year actually looks worse, somehow.

NO - I do not want graphics over gameplay. That's why I've bought every version of this game. It's always been dog ugly, and mostly comprised of data on screen. Fantastic. That's what I want. That's what we all want. HOWEVER - they have brought out 3d graphics for the ME, and it's very useful. It's far easier to see what the hell is going on in a game when you can see your guys in 3d carrying out your match instructions (sometimes). There is NO REASON that it cannot perform a function, AND look nice. And yes it does matter, that's why graphics improve year on year. That's why people like HD tvs and Blu-ray movies. Things looking aesthetically pleasing make people's brains happy. Maybe not everyone notices this, but it's a fact of life. The prettier something is, the better. if it's pretty to the detriment of everything else, then that's a BAD thing. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Something tells me there might be some ugly people posting here who don't like things that look nice. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Here's another HOWEVER to add to the list....the graphics scale for games does not go "FM<.....>FIFA" with nothing inbetween. It's like some of you only play two games and so have no yardstick. I particularly like the way some people have said "HEY OP I THINK YOU'RE AND IDIOT FOR WANTING PHOTO REALISTIC GRAPHICS". You're right, I would be. NO GAMES have that. Least of all a game about football management. I DO NOT EXPECT PHOTO REALISTIC GRAPHICS. I DO NOT EXPECT FIFA LEVEL GRAPHICS. There, maybe you can read that in caps.

Also, when people compare FM to FIFA, it makes SI look like a little company who are just trying their best, aww shucks. Thanks fellas. Don't compare them to behemoths and then say "well no wonder the game is ugly, it's just made by three guys in a barn". EA Sports are a massive, massive company. SI are a moderately sized game developer. They are not teeny tiny. They can afford to spend some time and money making the game look better, and I think they should, especially when they are hyping up the 3d engine.

What is wrong with most of your arguements is the way you take everything to such ridiculous extremes in an attempt to "win" or prove your point. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. Also, the "strawman" style of debating, where you present an extreme version of my "case" and tear THAT down, rather than respond to my actual points. Oh well, internet for you.

[bollekewol]

i can't believe people are comparing the graphics of the 3d pitch to fifa 10. fifa is a football game, fm is a management game. simple as that. the number of people, hours, money and technology ea use to get the graphics like they are on fifa dwarfs pro evo never mind football manager. i personally think the 3d is a million miles better than last year. last year i hardly used it because of how jerky it was but this year i've used it in every match and actually enjoy using it and seeing how different tactics work etc..

I agree. FM = management, FIFA = football game. I actually don't even use the 3D that often: I constantly look at condition and stats of the home & away teams. A management game like FM works like that: it's about managing not about watching a high-end 3D match. You should be concerned about why striker A isn't potting them or why Winger X is not following your instructions that well, not about how good it all looks.

[rbnrbn]

Our sales are very good for us but they don't compare to say FIFA or PES, who are in another league altogether. They however are also established across more platforms and predominantly the console market where they share great success.

We have added to the team, but we wouldn't grow it massively in a short space of time because there are many positives by remaining a small and tight knit outfit and we have one of the lowest turnovers you'll find at any company, which is very rare in any industry.

We think we're just about the right size for what we want to achieve in the future. Adding more bodies does not necessarily speed up the development or improve quality. In fact, sometimes that can have the reverse or opposite effect.

I think its time you strike a partnership with either EA or Konami and get this game on the Consoles.

[KOP_007]

I just think the 3D engine is really badly optimised. It's not something SI have a lot of experience in to be honest and it shows.

I remember when PES 2007 came out and I could barely play it on my PC. Yet, on people's computers with lesser specs the game worked fine. It was up and down all over the place depending on which card you had - with the 'best' card not always being the best for PES. When PES 2008 and 2010 came out it was fluid as water - despite the game looking considerably better and requiring more spec. Konami had simply made a poor game in 2007 and later optimised it for 2008 and 2009.

It's something SI will need to sort out if they want people to use the 3D view. The 3D engine doesn't look much better than the likes of Kick Off on the Amiga, it should'nt be stuttery on any semi decent PC. People are gonna get to wrapped up in getting a better card or being told you have not got this and that, but really...you're not to blame. It's the game.

I don't mind the 3D view being what it is...BUT AT LEAST GET IT TO RUN DECENT.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I agree. FM = management, FIFA = football game. I actually don't even use the 3D that often: I constantly look at condition and stats of the home & away teams. A management game like FM works like that: it's about managing not about watching a high-end 3D match. You should be concerned about why striker A isn't potting them or why Winger X is not following your instructions that well, not about how good it all looks.

FFS.

The only people that are comparing FM to Fifa or indeed mention Fifa anywhere in their posts are those who try to counter-argument the op's views by making things up. No-one expects FM to look like Fifa. That doesn't mean the graphics in FM are as good as they could be however.

[Svenc]

I think its time you strike a partnership with either EA or Konami and get this game on the Consoles.

From what I filtered, their partnership with Sega is the perfect fit. SI are an independent studio at heart, even though if on paper they aren't. But Sega let them act as if they were. The thing with big publishers like EA is that they have a track record of buying studios, try to get their say at how things are supposed to look, play and work like, and shutting studios down eventually if sales don't meet expectations. I mean, they've been trying to turn that trend around, but SI probably know best why they haven't partnered with the biggest fish out there yet.

As for EA, they're trying to establish their own football management brand anyway already. As for consoles, it's a bit of a challenge for a game like this. SI tried. Now in times of HD resolution it's maybe easier to get to crisply display all the data on a TV screen, but at its core a game like FM is all about pointing&clicking on tons of stuff. It's a mouse-based game through and through. I'd imagine on Wii-mote it'd work quite nicely though. Furthermore some of the touch-line shouts could be replaced by letting you wildly gestigulate, Bilic-style. You could even slap your striker at half time for missing that penalty twenty minutes in.

[Mac_attack_daddy]

I like the graphics. First year using 3d and what's not to like, better than watching dots move around the screen. I even love the querks, i.e. my throw-in taker rocking his head from side to side while he waits for the ball to arrive. Absolutely hilarious.

[paulowen]

I don't think anyone should really be criticizing the 3D graphics. At the end of the day SI have done their best with it and what they're capable of at this moment in time. There's also the option of still using the 2D and the 3D will get better over the coming versions.

[Neil Dejyothin]

About the sales, sure, they don't compete with EA's or Konami's absolute top-sellers. But most game studios would kill for numbers like this. This belongs to the best-selling video game series, and it's competing with World Of Warcraft expansions during Christmas craze. It's not down to any of us to assess the inner workings at SI, but one of my personal beefs is that there's sloppy art in the game that just isn't up to the standard of their match engine, database, research - or the good bits of their 3d part. Whether this is down to a lack of personell, expertise or something else isn't even important, it's them who know, not us. What is important is that it's there. Examples uploaded earlier. I don't want to nitpick, I've just got the nagging feeling that it is rush jobs like these that's hurting the 3d experience more than needed be.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sloppy art", so if you could provide some examples we'll take that feedback on board.

When I first joined SI there was just one artist in Craig and now there's a team of 5 working across all of our titles. It's still not a massive team in comparison to other games, but it's the right size for us.

An art team also has requirements, so part of the process has also been for us to build them the necessary tools and systems to make their visions a reality. This is an ongoing process and something we focus on every year behind the scenes and does give us a clear idea of the direction and style we want to achieve in the future.

We also hire a lot of our guys directly from the community. The likes of Craig, Jesper and Chris were taken on because of the outstanding work they did within the scene. So we're not afraid to take those chances if they're the right kind of person and allow them the time to grow and develop their skills and experience with us. There's a lot of charm in doing that and believe me, they're very talented.

[tedder_road]

I don't think anyone should really be criticizing the 3D graphics. At the end of the day SI have done their best with it and what they're capable of at this moment in time. There's also the option of still using the 2D and the 3D will get better over the coming versions.

So my options according you are to put up or shut up, or revert to not using 3d, but using an even uglier view. So constructive.

[Neil Dejyothin]

OK, the usual collection of replies in this thread. Some people have read my post and others have decided for themselves what I'm saying. I think I was pretty clear. This thread is clearly going to cause a bunch of people to argue pointlessly for all eternity, but that's the internet for you. Either way, more-or-less final word from me, in summary....

As I said - an awful lot of you think it's a case of EITHER good graphics OR a good game. It's not. You can have both. Many games do. In this case, SI have decided to bring the graphics in gradually, and that's understandable since this is a new field of the game for them and they tend to be a bit less capable of bringing in new things in one go - most new features take years to balance and get right, look at training for example it's changed every year since they brought it in. However, as I said, they have had the 3d engine for a while now, comparitively speaking - at least two iterations of the game so that's two years, and if you count development time probably more - and when they chuck in ugly stuff like the awful stadiums and crowds it makes the game look really, really amateurish. Either do it properly, or don't do it. To me this is a half-hearted attempt at graphics, it's bad looking and detracts for the immersion of the game. First time around it looked like they had a rough framework pegged out and it would improve year on year. This year actually looks worse, somehow.

NO - I do not want graphics over gameplay. That's why I've bought every version of this game. It's always been dog ugly, and mostly comprised of data on screen. Fantastic. That's what I want. That's what we all want. HOWEVER - they have brought out 3d graphics for the ME, and it's very useful. It's far easier to see what the hell is going on in a game when you can see your guys in 3d carrying out your match instructions (sometimes). There is NO REASON that it cannot perform a function, AND look nice. And yes it does matter, that's why graphics improve year on year. That's why people like HD tvs and Blu-ray movies. Things looking aesthetically pleasing make people's brains happy. Maybe not everyone notices this, but it's a fact of life. The prettier something is, the better. if it's pretty to the detriment of everything else, then that's a BAD thing. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Something tells me there might be some ugly people posting here who don't like things that look nice. YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Here's another HOWEVER to add to the list....the graphics scale for games does not go "FM<.....>FIFA" with nothing inbetween. It's like some of you only play two games and so have no yardstick. I particularly like the way some people have said "HEY OP I THINK YOU'RE AND IDIOT FOR WANTING PHOTO REALISTIC GRAPHICS". You're right, I would be. NO GAMES have that. Least of all a game about football management. I DO NOT EXPECT PHOTO REALISTIC GRAPHICS. I DO NOT EXPECT FIFA LEVEL GRAPHICS. There, maybe you can read that in caps.

Also, when people compare FM to FIFA, it makes SI look like a little company who are just trying their best, aww shucks. Thanks fellas. Don't compare them to behemoths and then say "well no wonder the game is ugly, it's just made by three guys in a barn". EA Sports are a massive, massive company. SI are a moderately sized game developer. They are not teeny tiny. They can afford to spend some time and money making the game look better, and I think they should, especially when they are hyping up the 3d engine.

What is wrong with most of your arguements is the way you take everything to such ridiculous extremes in an attempt to "win" or prove your point. I think it's called reductio ad absurdum. Also, the "strawman" style of debating, where you present an extreme version of my "case" and tear THAT down, rather than respond to my actual points. Oh well, internet for you.

Can you elaborate a little on what you do not like about the stadiums? Is it because they lack the detail of the models you see in other games? We don't actually have the license to replicate real life stadiums, so they're quite generic in form at times. You'd be surprised at the limitations, so we've been quite up front and said that's not the level of detail we're going for at this time. We will be looking to improve them in the future of course, but it's been a challenging process for us given that we model different pitch sizes which I don't think any of the other games do.

I suppose we could have gone for a fixed pitch size, but that's not really what FM is all about and in the long run we feel this will add a subtlety to the match experience that indirectly gives a great feeling whenever you encounter a stadium that is the exception to the norm.

Obviously with any game, the balance of the overall look and feel has to be considered, because if you make one area far superior than another then it can look very odd. In this case you don't feel the crowd look very good, which is fair enough. Had we made them look superior to the other elements however, it would make the rest look unusual. And there are some elements that are not ready to be improved yet because they're still being worked on, so sometimes it's simply a case of providing the right balance. That's something we're still learning about here but we are making great progress year on year.

Training in football simulations has always been an interesting point. As the majority of people are just football fans who follow their team either on television or by going to watch matches at the grounds. There are very few who are exposed to regular training sessions and therefore wouldn't necessarily have a clue what goes on behind the scenes.

To replicate that in a game is asking an awful lot, at least, that's what I've always felt, whereas with all the other stuff, like match tactics, buying and selling players, etc... you can form an opinion on because you see it every week.

To summarise though, we agree, the game can look and play good and that's our ultimate goal.

[Svenc]

I'm not sure what you mean by "sloppy art", so if you could provide some examples we'll take that feedback on board.

Cardboard cutout. Like I said, as with some of the textures outlining the actual pitch, some bits look as if they weren't given equal attention as other parts of the game - or 3d visuals, for that matter. In this case, some of the spectator models are fine (guy in black shirt to the far right), and others look like the the guy on the left. A cardboard cutout job done in a hurry. These are 2d bitmaps painted over the 3d stands, which is fine, technically, but you guys don't need to rub it in like that. I think it's even worse when the edges of bitmaps affected overlap, like in a stadium that is actually packed.

[paulowen]

So my options according you are to put up or shut up, or revert to not using 3d, but using an even uglier view. So constructive.

Well yes they're exactly your options. Like I said the 3D isn't great but It's the best they've been able to accomplish at this moment in time. It's not like they'll have just thrown it together in 5 minutes and gone ah well that will do. They've obviously done their best so yes your options are to use it, not use it and go back to 2D or not buy the game, simple as that.

[Neil Dejyothin]

Cardboard cutout. Like I said, as with some of the textures outlining the actual pitch, some bits look as if they weren't given equal attention as other parts of the game - or 3d visuals, for that matter. In this case, some of the spectator models are fine (guy in black shirt to the far right), and others look like the the guy on the left. A cardboard cutout job done in a hurry. These are 2d bitmaps painted over the 3d stands, which is fine, technically, but you guys don't need to rub it in like that. I think it's even worse when the edges of bitmaps affected overlap, like in a stadium that is actually packed.

Thanks for the feedback.

Just so I'm clear, are you referring to the white fringing effect?

That does need to be improved, but it's both a code and art issue. The system that controls the crowd colouring (or re-colouring) of textures is sometimes not doing it well enough and causing small artefacts to remain or not be recoloured correctly.

That may look worse as you say when there's packed stadiums, but that's also another topic in itself as the crowd distribution is controlled by algorithms written in code, which we also want to improve in the future.

Some of these improvements will make it into a future patch and some further improvements in a future version. We will not be stopping here with the crowd implementation and there's a lot of cool and fun things we have in mind for it in the future.

If you could give me an example of the bits you don't like regarding the outline of the actual pitch, we'll take that feedback on board too.

[paulowen]

Just a few comments for SI.

When you mention not having the licensing for the stadiums, do you think in future you will be able to replicate real life stadiums so that they're similar but not exact to avoid the licensing issues?

Also in future versions will you be looking to replicate the actual players so they look similar to each real player or is that another licensing issue?

[|mmo]

Thanks Neil for all the feedback. SI are simply unique in their great participation on these forums.

For my part, I think the graphics are quite OK.

A major point I would like improved, though, is fluidity in animations. It's not that bad now, but I can't help think how great the ME would look if all movements and animations were COMPLETELY fluid and realistic...

[Neil Dejyothin]

Just a few comments for SI.

When you mention not having the licensing for the stadiums, do you think in future you will be able to replicate real life stadiums so that they're similar but not exact to avoid the licensing issues?

Also in future versions will you be looking to replicate the actual players so they look similar to each real player or is that another licensing issue?

I don't deal with licensing so I'm not sure what the actual situation is, but some of the other titles out there might have exclusive rights to replicate certain stadiums. Even if we could, the manpower and resources required to do these are quite large so it's probably not viable given the amount of teams we have in our database.

You are correct that the player likeness is also subject to licensing issues.

But that's not to say we are not going to improve these areas, because we will even if they are generic improvements across the board. We've always been keen on providing systems that are customisable, so we try to make the majority of them configurable so the community can can create the experience they want.

We obviously along with SEGA review our licenses every year and if makes sense to chase and add new ones then we will.

[Neil Dejyothin]

Thanks Neil for all the feedback. SI are simply unique in their great participation on these forums.

For my part, I think the graphics are quite OK.

A major point I would like improved, though, is fluidity in animations. It's not that bad now, but I can't help think how great the ME would look if all movements and animations were COMPLETELY fluid and realistic...

No problem.

This is definitely an area we will continue to improve in the future and something I take a keen interest in personally.

[paulowen]

To be honest I think this is the main area alongside the match engine that needs to be imprioved in future versions, the rest of the game is at a level now where I'm not sure they can improve anything majorly.

[mightymind]

Neil,

I profit this topic to ask you this question linked to engine.

Can you tell me if the impact of the player condition is higher in FM2010 ?

I felt that in FM2009, a player with 75 or 80% of condition were still running and doing excellent passes, dribbles. Has this been improved ?

Thanks in advance, I'm really interested in this reply.

[tedder_road]

That's about as off topic as it gets.

In response Neil -

I don't expect real life stadiums at all. And yes I realise the reason the camera is sometimes buggered is because the pitch size changes, but given that the pitch sizes in FM (at least in the last version) were a choice of three options (long and wide, narrow and short, normal) that doesn't really seem like a decent excuse. If you can now manually change pitch sizes, again, it cannot be that hard since the cameras we're dealing with are all still fairly static and the stadia are all fixed.

I think what I'd like to see is a bit more time spent getting a feature right before it's emblazoned across all the publicity and the box cover as a finished feature, when in fact you're giving us what should hopefully be a very, very early idea of what could one day be a really immersive match day experience.

I mean, there's no end to what you can do. One day the crowd can jump around and sing, wave flags, set off flares, throw ticker tape, and even invade the pitch when there's a "great escape" or end of season win. It would make those moments seem all the sweeter.

There's no harm in cosmetic additions, for me anyway. The game is all about immersion, that's what the whole "realism" angle is meant to be about. I think this should extend to all areas of the game, otherwise those bits that are lacking detract from the whole, rather than add to it.

[bigdunk]

I don't expect real life stadiums at all. And yes I realise the reason the camera is sometimes buggered is because the pitch size changes, but given that the pitch sizes in FM (at least in the last version) were a choice of three options (long and wide, narrow and short, normal) that doesn't really seem like a decent excuse. If you can now manually change pitch sizes, again, it cannot be that hard since the cameras we're dealing with are all still fairly static and the stadia are all fixed.

There are only three options, but the actual dimensions of the pitch are unique to every club. The researchers enter them and then the user gets the option to tweak them in game with those options. Plus there are a few clubs that have strange shaped pitches - if memory serves Wigan's is very very narrow for example.

[Svenc]

Just so I'm clear, are you referring to the white fringing effect?

That does need to be improved, but it's both a code and art issue. The system that controls the crowd colouring (or re-colouring) of textures is sometimes not doing it well enough and causing small artefacts to remain or not be recoloured correctly.

Mind, for a player it doesn't matter if this is down to code or art, for the fringe effect that makes specators occasionally look like cardbord cutout bitmaps or a Photoshop job gone wrong remains. Sounds reasonable an explanation though. I'm sure you'll get this sorted, eventually!

As for the pitch textures, take a look at this. It looks as if there are three different textures at work. One on-pitch, two others off-pitch, and of the latter two, the one beyond the touch area doesn't merely look of lesser quality than any on-pitch texture, there's also a visible junction line at the height of the corner flag. Looks as if the sides of the pitch were lined with two different kinds of carpet. The most obvious solution is probably to let the on-pitch texture just line the entire field altogether.

Textures appear to suffer greatly in the detail, the less close they are to you in general. Which is the most obvious with those showing small details, i.e. text and graphics. Whilst the advertising boards look reasonably up close, they all blur up the further away they are. It looks as if textures are being filtered by rather low-tech and old and basic filtering methods by default, such as bi-linear filtering rather than something more advanced than this. I haven't tried if you are able to force anisotropic filtering in your video driver's, admittedly, but if performance doesn't suffer, this would be another thing that could iron out some of the rough spots. I'm also suspecting that the rather blurry player names popping up over their heads are caused by filtering too.

Like I said, this isn't about nitpicking, it's merely that to me there are certain areas that indeed don't gel that well together, with certain areas being far superior to others. Playerscast rather complex and "high-tech" real-time shadows on the one side, and then you've got stuff like the cardboard cutout guys lining the stand and some texture issues on the other.

[Serdar]

I have not seen 2010 demo yet (not even sure if it is out already) I only watched the early footage of that brazilian game SI recorded, is there any new more detailed video of 3D ME, any link would be appreciated

[danish chelsea]

Thanks Neil for all the feedback. SI are simply unique in their great participation on these forums.

For my part, I think the graphics are quite OK.

A major point I would like improved, though, is fluidity in animations. It's not that bad now, but I can't help think how great the ME would look if all movements and animations were COMPLETELY fluid and realistic...

I second that..we need fluid movements..

And also better ball movement mechanics.. Now a cross from winger looks like a shotput throw (not that bad but still...)