Is there a way to hear the commentary?

[OPFM]

Can you hear the commentary in this game?

I also think that mabye having fan chants would be a good addition to make the atmosphere better in matches.

 

[XaW]

This were in one of the older CMs I think. Was fun for one game before it got repetitive and turned off.

[OPFM]

Yes, but dont you think it would be good to have chants from fans during games to improve the atmosphere.

[phnompenhandy]

19 hours ago, OPFM said:

Yes, but dont you think it would be good to have chants from fans during games to improve the atmosphere.

There's a mod to add some chanting.

[cris182]

Isn't there some sort of licensing believe it or not that prevents certain things like chanting being included?

 

[Svenc]

There've been audio commentary community "mods"/additions in the past, not sure as of FM19.

Then again, whilst some of the stuff is "some" useful, the Events.cfg file containing the commentary is also in large parts a Collection of the worst Football commentary cliche's ever. I'd make for an interesting Experiment in Player psychology if the commentary would additionally be highlighted by an over the top voice though. Like that voice yelling one of the game's virtually dozens of variations of the old-chestnut that "HE'S GOT TO SCORE!!!!1"  over and over again at like everything, possibly on higher match speeds and at every Rebound /second ball too.  

Edited April 14, 2019 by Svenc

[Smurf]

With voice synthesisers and online abilities, it would be possible to have a website where people 

1) Suggest commentary

2) The game inserts the name of the player

For example: <Name of Player> races down the wing, looking for the byline and swings in a cross aiming for <Name of Player>, <Name of Keeper> comes and clears it with a less than convincing fist!

The voice synthesiser can then read the name of the players 

<Ngolo Kanté> races down the wing, looking for the byline and swings in a cross aiming for <Higuain>,  <Ederson> comes and clears it with a less than convincing fist!

 

The idea with the website to upvote commentary suggestions would be to keep the commentary in the game fresh - you'd have to subscribe to it etc. in your game preferences of course. Perhaps it's a paid service, perhaps it's given for free for 1 season. It would depend on your internet connection. 

There are already websites with "Stadium Sounds" like this one http://soundbible.com/tags-stadium.html - this could give randomness to the stadium, or add extra volume for Finals etc.

 

And there is software to convert text to speech 

https://helpx.adobe.com/ie/audition/using/text-to-speeech.html

Which also include new voices and different languages. 

 

I suppose SI would need to recruit different people in different countries to sample their voice to use in the game. 

 

The game could then take the text from the commentary that is being pulled in from the web - which is upvoted, changed, new commentary added all the time by FM users or others, and then the name of the player in the scenario is also converted to a voice and relayed back to the user. 

 

Whether this happens online, or in a portion of the game files. 

 

You could actually, in theory, generate unique experiences of commentary and sounds within the game on the fly - which would be something quite different that no other game does - as far as I know.

 

I came up with this entire post as I typed it - I'm sure there are plot holes. 

===

Edited April 16, 2019 by Smurf

[forameuss]

The biggest plot-hole being that every time sound is ever brought up, a lot of people confirm they play with the sound off.  I'm sure SI have echoed that too (and they have the stats to back it up).  Seems an incredible amount of work for something that'll please a handful of people.

The biggest argument against commentary is that you can be the most successful football game out there, one that makes millions upon millions in sales and microtransactions, and you put out the laughably limited Martin Tyler/Alan Smith/Cheers Geoff system that FIFA has.  It's repetitive, it's boring, and it gets muted immediately.  What's the point?

[Red Horizon]

 

 

 

[Smurf]

41 minutes ago, forameuss said:

The biggest plot-hole being that every time sound is ever brought up, a lot of people confirm they play with the sound off.  I'm sure SI have echoed that too (and they have the stats to back it up).  Seems an incredible amount of work for something that'll please a handful of people.

The biggest argument against commentary is that you can be the most successful football game out there, one that makes millions upon millions in sales and microtransactions, and you put out the laughably limited Martin Tyler/Alan Smith/Cheers Geoff system that FIFA has.  It's repetitive, it's boring, and it gets muted immediately.  What's the point?

The only reason I have it off is because the way it's currently implemented in the game it has no use to me at all. 

I wouldn't mind audio commentary if it was different every game, or for a final of a World Cup, etc. or CL etc. 

I think if it was implemented well it would be used more often. As it stands, it just is a bunch of noise and the previous audio commentary was repetitive. 

Technology has improved in these areas, and implementing correctly would give those who want it the chance to use it. 

[forameuss]

5 minutes ago, Smurf said:

The only reason I have it off is because the way it's currently implemented in the game it has no use to me at all. 

I wouldn't mind audio commentary if it was different every game, or for a final of a World Cup, etc. or CL etc. 

I think if it was implemented well it would be used more often. As it stands, it just is a bunch of noise and the previous audio commentary was repetitive. 

Technology has improved in these areas, and implementing correctly would give those who want it the chance to use it. 

Which brings me to the second point I mentioned.  The market leader in this area has a quite frankly terrible implementation.  Not exactly their fault, you can only code so many phrases in, and there's only so far some creative butchering of said phrases can give the impression of intelligence.  Play the game enough, and there's nothing original there.  And that's with massive financial backing available to actually improve it.

If you think you're going to get a system that doesn't become repetitive on a fairly short timeline, then you're thinking about something that simply doesn't exist.  And what are you basing the nebulous "technology has improved" on?  You're still reacting to events with a fixed script, and I don't imagine they're going to go away and build this incredible artificial intelligence that can do it better, while neglecting to do the same for AI elements that would bring benefit to everyone.

[XaW]

While I can't speak for anyone else, I don't see the need for sound at all in FM. I usually always do something else while playing FM, like watching a game on TV, or watching a show on YouTube or something, so sound on the game would be instantly muted for me.

I also wonder how it would work on different game speeds? Football commentary with chipmunk voice when playing on fastest speed? Otherwise it would be some random and strange pauses between the lines on the slower speeds? Like "He goes for the shot!", pause for 5 seconds, "it hits the bar!", pause for 5 seconds, "on the rebound?!", pause for 5 seconds, "it goes wide".

I also imagine that would be very costly to implement into the graphics engine in order to time it somewhat correct. And I'd rather they focus on continuing to improve the functionality and fine tuning the graphics engine rather than expand it to allow for commentary.

[Smurf]

3 hours ago, forameuss said:

Which brings me to the second point I mentioned.  The market leader in this area has a quite frankly terrible implementation.  Not exactly their fault, you can only code so many phrases in, and there's only so far some creative butchering of said phrases can give the impression of intelligence.  Play the game enough, and there's nothing original there.  And that's with massive financial backing available to actually improve it.

If you think you're going to get a system that doesn't become repetitive on a fairly short timeline, then you're thinking about something that simply doesn't exist.  And what are you basing the nebulous "technology has improved" on?  You're still reacting to events with a fixed script, and I don't imagine they're going to go away and build this incredible artificial intelligence that can do it better, while neglecting to do the same for AI elements that would bring benefit to everyone.

I have some experience in this field and technology is far more advanced than you think - you can actually use AI to read text out loud with things like this https://lyrebird.ai/

It would need some definite AI - probably custom built - for footballing commentary - but I know it can be done. 

I'm not saying they neglect other areas of the game for AI at all - it's one portion of the game to build on while simultaneously working on others. 

How practical that is is an issue for SI, not you or I.

[Smurf]

And there's plenty of people out there to help build on the commentary - there's a whole forum dedicated to custom skinning for FM - surely there would be those interested in keeping commentary fresh and up to date in the game. 

I'm not saying they should do it - I'm just saying it can be done with AI and help from the community it's certainly not beyond the bounds of technology.

[Smurf]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

I also imagine that would be very costly to implement into the graphics engine in order to time it somewhat correct. And I'd rather they focus on continuing to improve the functionality and fine tuning the graphics engine rather than expand it to allow for commentary.

2

Firstly, I wouldn't imagine any of us have any indication of how much it costs to implement. You have to go to market, test and price and test and keep on going which in my experience can take up to 1 to 5 years if done right. So it's not as if they have to promise it in the next version. But could research it for cost implications and do some testing offline in the labs for implementation and integration to the game to see if it's a real possibility. 

They can do both. They can keep on fine-tuning the functionality of the game. 

 

Commentary is an interesting idea. Practical? I don't know.

[puffascruffowitz]

9 hours ago, forameuss said:

Which brings me to the second point I mentioned.  The market leader in this area has a quite frankly terrible implementation.  Not exactly their fault, you can only code so many phrases in, and there's only so far some creative butchering of said phrases can give the impression of intelligence.  Play the game enough, and there's nothing original there.  And that's with massive financial backing available to actually improve it.

If you think you're going to get a system that doesn't become repetitive on a fairly short timeline, then you're thinking about something that simply doesn't exist.  And what are you basing the nebulous "technology has improved" on?  You're still reacting to events with a fixed script, and I don't imagine they're going to go away and build this incredible artificial intelligence that can do it better, while neglecting to do the same for AI elements that would bring benefit to everyone.

I'm not so sure of the "effort" that EA have put into their audio. Oh wow, they added Lee Dixon in FIFA 19. But with the money they have it would be no sweat for them to add many more lines of commentary for different situations. That's really all it is, recording the lines and then associating them with actions that take place in-game. 

Using EA as the benchmark for what a massive studio can do is nonsense, because they put zero money back into their game. 

[viperswhip]

I can only say that, back in the last EA NHL game I bought (2009), they had commentary by one of the great hockey guys of the time Jim Hughson, and it never got repetitive for me, and that's an 82 game season, with more scoring chances that you see in football. I think it also had some crowd chants, but don't quote me on that, I haven't played it for a while. I don't know if they still have commentary, but I am guessing so.

Having said that, there are probably around 800 NHL players in any given year, I cannot even begin to guess how many football players there are, well, based on my game, over 290k. Ouch.

[forameuss]

11 hours ago, puffascruffowitz said:

I'm not so sure of the "effort" that EA have put into their audio. Oh wow, they added Lee Dixon in FIFA 19. But with the money they have it would be no sweat for them to add many more lines of commentary for different situations. That's really all it is, recording the lines and then associating them with actions that take place in-game. 

Using EA as the benchmark for what a massive studio can do is nonsense, because they put zero money back into their game. 

They don't put "zero money" back in.  Certainly not the majority of their profits, but let's not get hyperbolic.

I'm well aware of what you need to do, but you're missing the overarching point.  EA probably put the most effort into commentary in this kind of game.  That isn't to say they're particularly good at it, because they're not.  Commentary is pretty much universally terrible in any kind of game that has it.  Because at the end of the day, all it is - like I said earlier - is a limited set of lines that can be used in certain situations.  You can add more lines, but you're still limited, and on a long enough time-scale, you're going to see it be repetitive.  FIFA becomes repetitive after a handful of games - how many games does the average FM player play?  

18 hours ago, Smurf said:

I have some experience in this field and technology is far more advanced than you think - you can actually use AI to read text out loud with things like this https://lyrebird.ai/

It would need some definite AI - probably custom built - for footballing commentary - but I know it can be done. 

I'm not saying they neglect other areas of the game for AI at all - it's one portion of the game to build on while simultaneously working on others. 

How practical that is is an issue for SI, not you or I.

Obviously nothing is beyond the limits of technology, but it very well could be beyond the limits of a small team working on a niche product.  They're not equivalent.  It's a sizeable piece of work, so the only way they don't impact other modules in some way is by bringing people in to work solely on it, which has financial impacts rather than resource impacts.  

[Smurf]

30 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Obviously nothing is beyond the limits of technology, but it very well could be beyond the limits of a small team working on a niche product.  They're not equivalent.  It's a sizeable piece of work, so the only way they don't impact other modules in some way is by bringing people in to work solely on it, which has financial impacts rather than resource impacts.  

2

Well, everything has an impact on resources. Your statement is nothing  as none of use really know any of the above.

There's work in everything - how much work and resources is a guess. 

How much work do you think went into Faces for Regens?  How much resources? How many people were brought in to solely work on it ? How as it integrated? What was the impact?

The truth is - as true to myself - neither of us know.

I hate the way these conversations spiral into "I'd rather see them work on something else, or fix something else" - "It will take too much resources!" etc. 

Nobody knows if they can work on both, or how much resources.

I really wish we could just stay on topic and discuss the fact that some people would like to have commentary - there are ways to get it working really well that already exist, so it's not building from scratch. 

 

[Svenc]

Whilst I see the attraction (TV style presentation all the way through): If I'd voice anything, it's not commentary. Technically, all that punditry tripe doesn't even belong there -- what Kind of Manager listens to TV commentary? It's an intelligent assistant, rather. May also help many Players, as from my experience they are god awful at roughly judging chances (just as awful albeit "realistic" as all the lines how the lad's gotta score -- see above).  

Actually, it's been one of the historically  pitfalls of FM's commentary in General. As the engine, just like footie, is a bit of a black box -- seemingly "clear cut" Feedback such as commentary is oft seen as objective Feedback, some kinda Gospel, some truly insight  into what was going on -- when it's Always been just a bit flavor (well, for the most part). No doubt whatsover it sends Players into Frustration loopholes to this day. "See? Even FM's commentary agrees!"

Edited April 18, 2019 by Svenc

[Smurf]

35 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Whilst I see the attraction (TV style presentation all the way through): If I'd voice anything, it's not commentary. Technically, all that punditry tripe doesn't even belong there -- what Kind of Manager listens to TV commentary? It's an intelligent assistant, rather. May also help many Players, as from my experience they are god awful at roughly judging chances (just as awful albeit "realistic" as all the lines how the lad's gotta score -- see above).  

Actually, it's been one of the historically  pitfalls of FM's commentary in General. As the engine, just like footie, is a bit of a black box -- seemingly "clear cut" Feedback such as commentary is oft seen as objective Feedback, some kinda Gospel, some truly insight  into what was going on -- when it's Always been just a bit flavor (well, for the most part). No doubt whatsover it sends Players into Frustration loopholes to this day. "See? Even FM's commentary agrees!"

What manager watches the game from a directorial camera? If the truth of the game was realised it would be a vision from the dugout, of players running by, the manager using the arrow keys to back and forth in his/her technical area. Then it would be like a real football manager. 

Many facets of the game are included to give a presentation to the game, not necessarily from a managerial point of view, but perhaps it's a fan viewpoint. 

What manager has stats up on a HUD that shows the players fitness levels, the rating of the player and how they're doing? That isn't realistic but it's there. 

If I can be on a zip wire above the pitch looking at the players running around, and HUD giving me feedback on the players condition and match rating live as the match progresses, then perhaps hearing the commentary isn't totally unrealistic. 

Originally, before the 3D pitch side of things came into it the only visual impact you had watching a game was the commentary.

 

 

 

Years and years on - no improvement to this facet of the game - what about all the people that don't want a visual of the 3d pitch and only want to watch the match in Commentary only?

Surely - a voice aspect would give another dimension.

[Svenc]

18 minutes ago, Smurf said:

watch the match in Commentary only?

Which is some frustration guaranteed. However, since "Commentary only" always been an option (and since SI don't seem to see the issue with that -- or rather their commenatry, which "realistically" apes all terrible commentary cliches in the world and multiplies them on many an occasion), sure why not. 

It will make for an interesting experience though, as voiced commentary is far more "instrusive", "memorable" and "in your face" than a simple line of text. Can already see the Steam review pages imploding due to Forwards regularly missing chances they "should have damn scored!!!!" etc.   In General, the commenatary (voiced or text) could be adressed some by making it more explicitly clear that it's mostly flavor. Say, perhaps by intelligent assistants or staff that puts Things into a more "useful" perspective. Perhaps even on the Occasion by them challenging what the TV style commentator had just preached during the Highlights. Both internally (in a post match Analysis) as well as the game's various media. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Svenc

[Smurf]

Well that's why it would be optional, for those that want it, and if you don't want it you turn it off. 

I wouldn't mind it, I often need to do things around the house, and having the commentary voiced would be favourable while a match is ongoing. 

Or should I be looking at something on the internet and the match playing in the background. 

 

[6Times]

Maybe they should have 3 options- no sound, standard crowd, and crowd+commentary. This allows those who dislike commentary to keep the normal crowd sounds, while letting those who want to try it out have a chance. Even if it is only beta, doesn't include names and is only in English, it still might work. Plus, fans can suggest missing pieces of commentary.

[Svenc]

Thanks for digging this up again. But in particular considering FM20s 1vs1ish Scenarios, this would be even more of a glorious experiment in player psychology. Even moreseo considering how many of them are finished off really tight angles, which should make them 1 in 6 to 1 in 5 chances at very very best even once patched, so possible to miss a truckload of them in sequence despite the commentary insisting otherwise. Mind you, the frequency will very likely come down with the next major patch anyways.

I went through the Events.cfg and am greeted with the entire array of football commentary "idiocy" and I didn't have to look longer than a couple minutes -- there's easily a dozen+ more likely.

 

Funny that despite all those lines appearing in actual football commentary, stuff is missed regularly. Probably a reason why no manager listens to it when assessing his team's performance. In-game, it would be perceived that way though, as a help, a further truly insight was was specifically going on, when much of it isn't. 

 

tldr; for as long as SI communicate crystal-clear that much of it is but atmospheric flavor (e.g. emulating a TV style presentation of a football match, cliched commentary included)… why not. Otherwise, if the game were to ever (re-)introduce voice commentary, the entire commentary needs be rewritten or there'd be a frustration meltdown. The above commentary is basically the ill-fated CCC stat given a bad voice.

 

Edited December 26, 2019 by Svenc

[alian62]

On 16/04/2019 at 17:36, forameuss said:

The biggest plot-hole being that every time sound is ever brought up, a lot of people confirm they play with the sound off.  I'm sure SI have echoed that too (and they have the stats to back it up).  Seems an incredible amount of work for something that'll please a handful of people.

The biggest argument against commentary is that you can be the most successful football game out there, one that makes millions upon millions in sales and microtransactions, and you put out the laughably limited Martin Tyler/Alan Smith/Cheers Geoff system that FIFA has.  It's repetitive, it's boring, and it gets muted immediately.  What's the point?

What is a handful of people and what is a lot of people ? You make it sound like 99% play with the sound off and I'm sure this isn't the case  . It is repetitive and there would have to be solutions to fix that sort of thing .