FM 11 Details

[Bruce Higham]

Same here, but more added so when you win something, you feel you've achieved, instead of a few messages saying well done, you've brought success again ect.

Maybe a trophy presentation, and a trophy cabinet, please? :o

Our new stadium is named after me hehehe

[stevvy]

Some of the comments blabbering on about it won't be playable until the 3rd patch or whatever is typical negativity, and isn't true. The game is playable from the start, people just moan because it's not perfect, or they've found a bug or whatever. Why can't people be positive for once? I've bought every game for donkeys years, and all have been playable on the day I've bought it, and haven't had so many massive bugs that I've decided to wait before playing it again. At times I wonder if some people buy the game not to play it, but to find bugs, claim it's unplayable, and go on a big whinge going 'wah wah wah this game is unplayable its full of bugs its rubbish i want my money back wah wah wah' etc.

[foxyboy478]

^ I couldn't agree more. There's no point in wasting your money on this game if all you're going to do is criticise it after find one little bug. I am looking forward to the announcements that could be made in the coming weeks. Will give me something to get excited in these 8 weeks of boredom ¬¬

[AdriM]

Dynamic league rep please.

I totally agree with you! Now I buy new version of FM, only if SI implement this!

P.S. Sorry for my english

[paganizer]

I know I'll be testing it constantly between now and release date.

Just like the other versions ?

[x42bn6]

Some of the comments blabbering on about it won't be playable until the 3rd patch or whatever is typical negativity, and isn't true. The game is playable from the start, people just moan because it's not perfect, or they've found a bug or whatever. Why can't people be positive for once? I've bought every game for donkeys years, and all have been playable on the day I've bought it, and haven't had so many massive bugs that I've decided to wait before playing it again. At times I wonder if some people buy the game not to play it, but to find bugs, claim it's unplayable, and go on a big whinge going 'wah wah wah this game is unplayable its full of bugs its rubbish i want my money back wah wah wah' etc.

Consumers don't have to be positive-thinking, and quite frankly I'd be worried if all of them were (how else is the game meant to improve?).

Early-adoption of games shouldn't have such a bad experience as Football Manager. A game should aim for "very good" upon release, like a console game that doesn't get patched. It should be a very good game with perhaps one or two minor annoyances. However, Football Manager sort of gets to the point where a lot of people don't want to be early adopters which is really unnerving because you usually reserve late-adoption of software for serious purposes, like an operating system.

To me, the issues around recent Football Manager games reek of inadequate beta testing.

[Vic Taylor]

Consumers don't have to be positive-thinking, and quite frankly I'd be worried if all of them were (how else is the game meant to improve?).

There's constructive critism and then there's the people who throw their toys out of the pram every year. There's a difference, and the ones who go on temper tantrums and rants are usually those who just want something to complain about.

Early-adoption of games shouldn't have such a bad experience as Football Manager. A game should aim for "very good" upon release' date=' like a console game that doesn't get patched. It should be a very good game with perhaps one or two minor annoyances. However, Football Manager sort of gets to the point where a lot of people don't want to be early adopters which is really unnerving because you usually reserve late-adoption of software for serious purposes, like an operating system.

[/quote']

Not disagreeing without here, but you can't really compare console and computer games to one another. It's a whole different coding system.

To me' date=' the issues around recent Football Manager games reek of inadequate beta testing.[/quote']

It wouldn't be in SI's best interests to not test their games to the best of their ability, now would it?

[x42bn6]

There's constructive critism and then there's the people who throw their toys out of the pram every year. There's a difference, and the ones who go on temper tantrums and rants are usually those who just want something to complain about.

To be honest consumers don't have to give constructive criticism - it's never been a requirement. Even whiners should be listened to as they are customers.

I was rather unimpressed when SI said that they realised that the customer is not always right - the customer is always right even if your consumer base is a bunch of whining kids who complain about trivial issues. A trivial issue is still an issue. At the very least they should have said nothing.

Not disagreeing without here, but you can't really compare console and computer games to one another. It's a whole different coding system.

Well put it this way - lots of modern games are playable and enjoyable out of the box, not just console games. Civilization IV is fun and playable unpatched, with just one or two balance issues that only show up in higher-level gameplay. Most good RTS games nowadays only patch the odd memory leak/security fix/balance issue per release but the game is still playable unpatched.

On the other hand things like weird transfers and the hilarious injury issue for the recent release made the game in some ways "unenjoyable" (usually interpreted by whiners as "unplayable"). It just sort of "stank" of needing a patch without even going into any sort of "advanced" gameplay, which is not the case for the best games on the market nowadays.

It wouldn't be in SI's best interests to not test their games to the best of their ability, now would it?

I'm sure SI do all they can but things like the injury issues or the odd "shoots directly at goalkeeper" bug surely would have been picked up with adequate beta testing, which tells me the beta testing phase is not good enough.

----

Basically, when I buy a game, I don't want to think after a couple of hours playing, "When's the patch coming out?" It's almost become a bad joke for SI when a lot of people wait for the patch to come out before buying the game as it's not like it's an operating system or some high-tech security software - it's a game! With a lot of games nowadays you never worry about patches, but it's a pleasant surprise to find one out because the game was so good to begin with. Even then these patches only fix minor issues like balancing or security risks.

[Vic Taylor]

To be honest consumers don't have to give constructive criticism - it's never been a requirement. Even whiners should be listened to as they are customers.

I was rather unimpressed when SI said that they realised that the customer is not always right - the customer is always right even if your consumer base is a bunch of whining kids who complain about trivial issues. A trivial issue is still an issue. At the very least they should have said nothing.

I was more talking about the people who come on here and post topics about how 'they're never buying the game again' and don't give reasons for it. Constructive criticism is more useful to SI for obvious reasons, and if people want to help improve the game, then they should give constructive criticism. People who rant arn't actually helping anyone.

Well put it this way - lots of modern games are playable and enjoyable out of the box' date=' not just console games. Civilization IV is fun and playable unpatched, with just one or two balance issues that only show up in higher-level gameplay. Most good RTS games nowadays only patch the odd memory leak/security fix/balance issue per release but the game is still playable unpatched.

On the other hand things like weird transfers and the hilarious injury issue for the recent release made the game in some ways "unenjoyable" (usually interpreted by whiners as "unplayable"). It just sort of "stank" of needing a patch without even going into any sort of "advanced" gameplay, which is not the case for the best games on the market nowadays.[/quote']

Most people though, view the FM games as playable out of the box. While I agree that having bugs in the game is frustrating, there are a great many people who still view the game as enjoyable out of the box.

Also, there's no injury bug, mate. SI have even said that the average number of injuries in the game is too low.

I'm sure SI do all they can but things like the injury issues or the odd "shoots directly at goalkeeper" bug surely would have been picked up with adequate beta testing' date=' which tells me the beta testing phase is not good enough.[/quote']

I read somewhere that bugs are found and listed in order of urgency, with the most important ones being paid attention to and so on. Therefore, I believe that the testing phase is good enough, there is merely not enough time in which to fix all the bugs before the game code is locked.

[HornsofJericho]

Only thing I am interested in now is dynamic league and clubs reputations.

Theres nothing worse than building a great team, only for it to get ripped apart because the clubs rep stays so low and the players want to move to bigger clubs.

Also, a nice little trophy room or some way to see a clear list of the trophies you have won would be great.

[jonteyayo]

Dynamic Reputation is the only thing I want

[x42bn6]

Also, there's no injury bug, mate. SI have even said that the average number of injuries in the game is too low.

The problem is that the number of injuries in matches is far too high. Yes it all sort of averages out on the injury list but you see screenshots of carnage matches where 2-3 white crosses dominate the game, which is a bit of a stretch. More training injuries and less match injuries should balance it out, or simply more green crosses than white ones.

Most injuries aren't white crosses nowadays anyway - if someone gets subbed off because of an injury, more often than not it's because they're not performing well because of an injury (i.e. green cross + low condition).

The demo was carnage though, where you could have 4-5 players out injured in pre-season which was miles off the mark. Considering you try to minimise injuries in pre-season, this for some made the game "unplayable" and you could consider it so.

I read somewhere that bugs are found and listed in order of urgency, with the most important ones being paid attention to and so on. Therefore, I believe that the testing phase is good enough, there is merely not enough time in which to fix all the bugs before the game code is locked.

That's the typical way software bugs are fixed.

But as a software developer, I can't help but think the game reeks of inadequate beta testing, not insufficient time to fix bugs.

It would be nice if SI made a list of known issues of course, or a public bug tracker like Bugzilla.

[barka_legend]

Dynamic Reputation is the only thing I want

Agreed, and dynamic prize money.

[Vic Taylor]

The problem is that the number of injuries in matches is far too high. Yes it all sort of averages out on the injury list but you see screenshots of carnage matches where 2-3 white crosses dominate the game, which is a bit of a stretch. More training injuries and less match injuries should balance it out, or simply more green crosses than white ones.

Most injuries aren't white crosses nowadays anyway - if someone gets subbed off because of an injury, more often than not it's because they're not performing well because of an injury (i.e. green cross + low condition).

The demo was carnage though, where you could have 4-5 players out injured in pre-season which was miles off the mark. Considering you try to minimise injuries in pre-season, this for some made the game "unplayable" and you could consider it so.

Then the answer is to use injury minimization tactics. And in pre-season where your players aren't fit, there are going to be more injuries.

But that's off the point a bit. An announcement was made sometime in January about how SI were attempting to introduce were 'niggle' injuries into the game, as opposed to full blown 'out for months at a time' injuries. So I hope for the people who think there are too many long-term injuries in the game, this happens for FM11.

That's the typical way software bugs are fixed.

But as a software developer' date=' I can't help but think the game reeks of inadequate beta testing, not insufficient time to fix bugs.

It would be nice if SI made a list of known issues of course, or a public bug tracker like Bugzilla.[/quote']

If you hang around the Bug's Forum, you'll find a lot of issues mentioned and being taken care of, and then can get a good idea of a list of them.

Out of interest, how would you suggest SI improve their beta testing programme?

[DivineOne]

It would be nice if SI made a list of known issues of course, or a public bug tracker like Bugzilla.

Tbh that would scare people away. They would see much more bugs then most people will come across and just stop playing/buying.

[TSH]

Only thing I am interested in now is dynamic league and clubs reputations.

Theres nothing worse than building a great team, only for it to get ripped apart because the clubs rep stays so low and the players want to move to bigger clubs.

Also, a nice little trophy room or some way to see a clear list of the trophies you have won would be great.

That's one of the main problems in the game. It's a very serious issue that is holding the game from realizing a great deal of its potential.

I would be satisfied if club reputations is the only thing that is going to be fixed, since dynamic league reps is a more complex issue.

It totally ruins the experience when me, as Ajax, having won 4 league titles, having two CL quarter finals and one CL final under my belt, I'm still considered a small team compared to Genoa, who have won only one Serie A title. Seeing the press, fans and board calling my home win over Genoa a surprise is a really dissapointing and game breaking issue.

[x42bn6]

If you hang around the Bug's Forum, you'll find a lot of issues mentioned and being taken care of, and then can get a good idea of a list of them.

Out of interest, how would you suggest SI improve their beta testing programme?

I've never been a beta tester. It may be that alpha testing doesn't catch enough bugs so the beta testing brings up too many bugs, or that there's simply not enough time. But the number of complaints about high-level details like injuries and match engine issues tells me that it's more of a beta-testing rather than an alpha-testing problem

A bug-tracker is also substantially more useful than a forum considering the bugs forum doesn't highlight duplicate issues, confirmation someone is working on it or even things like NOTABUG or WONTFIX. A forum isn't really designed for bug tracking.

[StevoRobbo]

Something must be wrong with the testing when within a few hours of release, normal game players can spot glaring issues but testers cant spot them after months of looking.

[Vic Taylor]

I've never been a beta tester. It may be that alpha testing doesn't catch enough bugs so the beta testing brings up too many bugs, or that there's simply not enough time. But the number of complaints about high-level details like injuries and match engine issues tells me that it's more of a beta-testing rather than an alpha-testing problem

This is what I think. There is only so much time to test for bugs, and that is why there are patches.

A bug-tracker is also substantially more useful than a forum considering the bugs forum doesn't highlight duplicate issues' date=' confirmation someone is working on it or even things like NOTABUG or WONTFIX. A forum isn't really designed for bug tracking.[/quote']

Not sure if it's what you meant, but a lot of save games, PKMs, and screenshots get uploaded for SI to take a look at in the bug's forum. Also, 80% of the time, threads will be answered by SI employees, stating if the bug pointed out is being looked at and, if so, what stage the fix is at.

[Vic Taylor]

Something must be wrong with the testing when within a few hours of release, normal game players can spot glaring issues but testers cant spot them after months of looking.

It's been said by SI that these bugs have been spotted, but are too far down the list of the bugs to fix in time. For example, it was stated that the whole 'superkeeper' bug (I know there were no superkeepers, but it's easier to state it as that) was an issue that was noted, but not fixed.

[x42bn6]

Not sure if it's what you meant, but a lot of save games, PKMs, and screenshots get uploaded for SI to take a look at in the bug's forum. Also, 80% of the time, threads will be answered by SI employees, stating if the bug pointed out is being looked at and, if so, what stage the fix is at.

Nah not really, something like this. Bug status, importance, component, assignee...

For example, if I want to look for a list of bugs that SI are definitely working on, I can't actually do that in the bugs forum.

I have no doubt SI have a more advanced bug tracker behind the scenes of course.

Or maybe it's just me who likes seeing lots of bugs in bug tracking software.

[Vic Taylor]

Hmm... that would actually be pretty interesting to look at. Maybe you should ask why SI haven't got a public version?

[StevoRobbo]

It's been said by SI that these bugs have been spotted, but are too far down the list of the bugs to fix in time. For example, it was stated that the whole 'superkeeper' bug (I know there were no superkeepers, but it's easier to state it as that) was an issue that was noted, but not fixed.

The only way to sort it then would be to release the game every 2 years to give adequate testing time but they wont do that will they. So we are going to keep getting a game riddled with bugs until the second or third patch.

To be honest I can play the game straight from the box. I dont play it in that much detail to care but a lot of people do and its only fair that they get a game that they are happy with.

When some clever clogs finds a way to crack the game where they can change the start date so people can start a game from that year, along with updates that people make, we might see SI/SEGA finally do something. If people can play FM10 with a mod that changes the start date, a lot of people probably wouldnt buy FM11 so they would have to pull their finger out and do something.

[DivineOne]

Hmm... that would actually be pretty interesting to look at. Maybe you should ask why SI haven't got a public version?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Tbh that would scare people away. They would see much more bugs then most people will come across and just stop playing/buying.

[StevoRobbo]

Hmm... that would actually be pretty interesting to look at. Maybe you should ask why SI haven't got a public version?

This would make things a lot clearer for people that complain about the bugs. To an average user, the 'superkeeper bug' should never be in the game in the first place as it is so easy to spot, but if they prioritise? bugs as you say, it would be nice to know what they have been working on to justify leaving such bugs in the game.

[Vic Taylor]

The only way to sort it then would be to release the game every 2 years to give adequate testing time but they wont do that will they. So we are going to keep getting a game riddled with bugs until the second or third patch.

To be honest I can play the game straight from the box. I dont play it in that much detail to care but a lot of people do and its only fair that they get a game that they are happy with.

When some clever clogs finds a way to crack the game where they can change the start date so people can start a game from that year, along with updates that people make, we might see SI/SEGA finally do something. If people can play FM10 with a mod that changes the start date, a lot of people probably wouldnt buy FM11 so they would have to pull their finger out and do something.

I don't believe the game is 'riddled with bugs' when you play it straight from the box. And no, they are never going to release it every two years.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Yeah, I disagree with you.

[DivineOne]

Yeah, I disagree with you.

Why's that?

[x42bn6]

As far as I know there isn't a "end-user-friendly" bug tracker out there.

However, such a bug tracker helps organise bugs (and gives the impression they are organised, maybe most importantly) and lets the community know it is definitely involved in the debugging process, even if the bug comment left is "this is a duplicate of bug xyz".

[Vic Taylor]

Why's that?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

This would make things a lot clearer for people that complain about the bugs. To an average user, the 'superkeeper bug' should never be in the game in the first place as it is so easy to spot, but if they prioritise? bugs as you say, it would be nice to know what they have been working on to justify leaving such bugs in the game.

[BenjiDavidson]

Quick Question but why on earth would you wait untill February to release the game? More than half way through the season!

[Vic Taylor]

Quick Question but why on earth would you wait untill February to release the game? More than half way through the season!

If you're joking, well done.

If you're trolling, please don't.

[DivineOne]

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

If people will report their bug there (that's a big if already, but no different than now), what would most people think if they saw that list?

- great, my bug's being fixed

- holy ****, this game is riddled with bugs (and then never play the game again)

[Vic Taylor]

Every game has bugs. And we all know that FM has quite a lot. It would be better to have a clear way of telling whether SI are making an effort to fix things, instead of presuming one way or the other.

[DivineOne]

In a perfect world you would be right, but in this one I believe it would only scare people away.

And it's not like like SI aren't making an effort to fix things, right?

[englandmanager]

oh come on miles

atleast tell us when you will be giving us some official news on fm 11 (some of us are in agony here, not me i'm calm as anything honest)

[Vic Taylor]

In a perfect world you would be right, but in this one I believe it would only scare people away.

How about it would do both? While I'm sure there are those who would automatically think 'the game is rubbish because there are so many bugs', there would also be those interested in keeping updated on which bugs are being fixed.

And it's not like like SI aren't making an effort to fix things' date=' right?[/quote']

Depends which conspiricy theorist you ask.

[DivineOne]

How about it would do both? While I'm sure there are those who would automatically think 'the game is rubbish because there are so many bugs', there would also be those interested in keeping updated on which bugs are being fixed.

It would do both, but more scared people then interesting ones imho.

atleast tell us when you will be giving us some official news on fm 11 (some of us are in agony here, not me i'm calm as anything honest)

If he would tell you when he will give official news, that would be official news on itself, wouldn't it?

Depends which conspiricy theorist you ask.

yes, well, the fact is: most games that need it don't even get 3 patches.

[Vic Taylor]

It would do both, but more scared people then interesting ones imho.

Don't agree with you there, but it's pretty much a moot point anyway, seeing as it's unlikely SI are going to do it.

yes' date=' well, the fact is: most games that need it don't even get 3 patches.[/quote']

Yeah, I'm not knocking SI or anything. Was just making a joke.

[HarryMills]

Each release I am always surprised at how little has changed imo and am always disappointed. I've bought every game every year since CM2, but I think the rate of progress from the incredible level (relatively) of the early days has really slowed. And there is so much that I imagine could be done, and so many people contributing great ides on here. I always think surely more could have been done in 12 months (but I am no programmer)

I'll still buy it, which is a little sad, because it's a habit, there's no alternative and it's only 20 pounds, but I cant say I've got the same enthusiasm any more. So maybe one day i'll stop. And grow up.

[Ernest166]

Each release I am always surprised at how little has changed imo and am always disappointed. I've bought every game every year since CM2, but I think the rate of progress from the incredible level (relatively) of the early days has really slowed. And there is so much that I imagine could be done, and so many people contributing great ides on here. I always think surely more could have been done in 12 months (but I am no programmer)

I'll still buy it, which is a little sad, because it's a habit, there's no alternative and it's only 20 pounds, but I cant say I've got the same enthusiasm any more. So maybe one day i'll stop. And grow up.

we should stop buying the game and protest against it

[TSH]

we should stop buying the game and protest against it

Tried that. Can't be done.

[BenjiDavidson]

If you're joking, well done.

If you're trolling, please don't.

No i was seriously asking a question! i remember in days of old that the game was released not too long after the start of the season

[DivineOne]

Seriously? Where did you find that you had to wait till February then?

[Vic Taylor]

No i was seriously asking a question! i remember in days of old that the game was released not too long after the start of the season

...The game won't be released in February.

[neutral]

Early-adoption of games shouldn't have such a bad experience as Football Manager. A game should aim for "very good" upon release, like a console game that doesn't get patched. It should be a very good game with perhaps one or two minor annoyances. However, Football Manager sort of gets to the point where a lot of people don't want to be early adopters which is really unnerving because you usually reserve late-adoption of software for serious purposes, like an operating system.

I dunno if you have XBox360 or PS3(dunno about Wee!!!) or not, but nowadays console games have patches, and as in PC games, contains a lot bugs upon their first release..

[StevoRobbo]

No i was seriously asking a question! i remember in days of old that the game was released not too long after the start of the season

Whoever said the game is released in February was being sasrcastic. They meant that in their opinion, you cant play the game properly until February when the 3rd patch is released.

The game is normally released at the end of October.

[x42bn6]

I dunno if you have XBox360 or PS3(dunno about Wee!!!) or not, but nowadays console games have patches, and as in PC games, contains a lot bugs upon their first release..

My only console is a NES. Oh and a Master System, but I only had 1 game for that.

Yes console games have patches nowadays but they're not really an absolute necessity (usually) - the game is playable and fun without a patch. You seldom wonder when a patch is going to come out for the game, or whether one is available, as there are no glaring bugs.

[DivineOne]

My only console is a NES. Oh and a Master System, but I only had 1 game for that.

Yes console games have patches nowadays but they're not really an absolute necessity (usually) - the game is playable and fun without a patch. You seldom wonder when a patch is going to come out for the game, or whether one is available, as there are no glaring bugs.

That's a thing of the past, current gen consoles have and need a lot of patches (just look at the bugs in one mode of fifa: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/11539748-post4443.html). You really should some of them too, so you can see how severe these bugs are, and gamebreaking.

It's not surprising off course, games become more and more complex, and more complex = more bugs.

[Ernest166]

Tried that. Can't be done.

lol yeah,i guess that isn't the answer

someone have a better idea ?

[Miles Jacobson]

I was rather unimpressed when SI said that they realised that the customer is not always right - the customer is always right even if your consumer base is a bunch of whining kids who complain about trivial issues. A trivial issue is still an issue. At the very least they should have said nothing.

A customer who has a valid trivial issue that needs fixing is right.

The time when the customer isn't always right is when 2 customers have different opinions on something, often polar opposites. Both cannot be right in that situation. That's when we have to decide which customer is right, and which customer is wrong.

I don't see how there is anything even remotely controversial in that.