Football Manager 2021 - New Headline Features

[goranm]

2 hours ago, JordanMillward_1 said:

Again, as previously mentioned, the issue is the kind of computers being used by the FM audience - when you're having the likes of 30+% of people playing with Intel integrated graphics, because they play on what are essentially work laptops, you have to weigh up how many people would stop playing the game if they had to buy a new laptop, compared to how many might be bothered by the current level of graphics. The people on this forum are a tiny minority of the overall playerbase, so you should take into account that the people here playing on high-spec gaming PCs are the statistical outlier.

I don't see how this is an issue. Graphics have a detail level, keep everything as is and add a "super high" level that possibly runs on a different graphics engine that has its own minimal requirements.

It's the same as the game offering to run 50 leagues at once with 200k players & staff, only those with high-end processors will be able to do that. Those that are playing on a 20 year old Pentium 4 processor will have to be content with running just a couple of leagues with a small database. But we don't see that restriction being imposed because a number of people are playing on low-end processors, in fact more players, more staff and more playable leagues are added all the time.

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by goranm

[AndersBC]

21 hours ago, Smurf said:

I've avoided this thread to let it build and I've read a lot of comments. 

I hope SI take away from it the disappointment, no matter how unconstructive a lot of it was, but I hope they take away the points made by people who are not happy. 

 

I am one of them.. sorry to say, but if these are headline features... it's worrying. 

=================

A little button to point finger, throw a bottle, .... give a player a hug.... open your arms.... really.

I'm sure there's a roadmap for interactions - but this wasn't implemented well when it was first introduced (player interactions) and it's steadily got worse year-in year-out. 

Interactions are terribly integrated into the game, and the influence it can have on players who behave like babies at times makes it a 'feature' I don't even bother with. 

==================

Match Engine/Graphics side of it - looks good, year on year improvements as expected. 

THumbs up

=================

More graphs.........booooring - never be used and don't want to ploughing through graphs. 

Won't use them at all. 

It's a game, I don't want to see graphs - what's the point of that?

My point is, it's boring, this is a football game!

=============

Scouts

Fire them all - never use them.

Takes too much time and interacting with scouts - meetings - sorry, but it's boring!

Find players easily myself. It's easy. Scouting is boring.

==============

End of season review

I hope that this can be an option! 

The worst part of the game is End of Season already.

All the contract renewals, and it takes sooooo long to get from end of season to start of new season.

Again, it's boooring, takes me about an hour to get from May to August!

========================

I don't know about other people but my typical style of play is to take over a team, I get rid of deadwood, and buy/loan players to fit my tactic (I've had the same tactic since FM 2010).

I fire/hire coaches.

Set my tactics (same as it's been for 10 years)

It's then full on to get to matches, play matches and win titles. 

 

At no point do I stop to have quick chats, or to talk to a player, or do anything with the media - never do and never will.

 

You might notice all the boring comments, yes it's boring part of the game. It's a game! It's a football management game. I'm sure there's a roadmap of enhancing features. I do think that this roadmap by SI needs to be severely looked at.  It's getting to the boring stage and has been for a few versions (to the point I've stopped buying the game since FM15!).

And boring is not good. 

Please SI - and mods - don't take it the wrong way - hopefully my scathing review of the features is taken in the spirit of the forum, and as constructive.

Stay safe.

 

So basically you want to play a Football Manager game but not do any of the Manager bits

[Zemahh]

Can we at least have the old 2D graphics back, please?

[Cal585]

If I remember the fuss a few years back, wasn't that a completely separate 2D graphics engine that they discontinued because they were finding it tricky to maintain 2 versions of it? So they won't bring it back. But it would be good if they could spruce up the existing 2D one that does indeed look a bit drab.

Edit: Apparently FM18 changed from primarily 2D converted to 3D to being mostly 3D with a 2D skin. So they had to scrap the nice looking 2D view for the sake of progressing the rest of the game.

Reference as to why it was done: 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Cal585

[forameuss]

  

4 hours ago, upthetoon said:

i just can't understand the logic that the 'vast majority are playing in Potato computers. So we have to design a game with the Potato PCs in mind'

Maybe because making it so the "vast majority" of your users can't buy your product is a terrible business decision?  Fair enough if you don't agree with their thinking - it doesn't really matter if you do or don't - but it's pretty easy to understand.

Edited October 18, 2020 by forameuss

[Smurf]

1 hour ago, AndersBC said:

So basically you want to play a Football Manager game but not do any of the Manager bits

Hugging a player a managers role? I manage the team. Win matches. Primary role of the manager.

For these to be headline features, improved interactions - that is really lame. 

Where's the attend training days, or arrange a friendly between your teams to try new roles, tactics. 

Practicing set pieces, testing them out - yes you can set your tactics, and set your set pieces, but don't see them in action until match days. 

 

My main gripe is that the 'headline features' don't add anything to being a football manager. Can't just throw glitter on something and say look how sparkly it is! 

Come on. Looking at graphs and stats - great fun that is.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Smurf

[Novem9]

5 часов назад, JordanMillward_1 сказал:

Again, as previously mentioned, the issue is the kind of computers being used by the FM audience - when you're having the likes of 30+% of people playing with Intel integrated graphics, because they play on what are essentially work laptops, you have to weigh up how many people would stop playing the game if they had to buy a new laptop, compared to how many might be bothered by the current level of graphics. The people on this forum are a tiny minority of the overall playerbase, so you should take into account that the people here playing on high-spec gaming PCs are the statistical outlier.

Again, 2D graphics exist. I played in my laptop in FM15 in 2D only until I bought new PC especially for fm17. For now I play in 2D + 3D goal replays. And my laptop supported 3D low graphics but it was so warm. If someone don't ready to buy new hardware , he needs to limit himself by 2D. In logic which you try to show new games could be in graphics of Doom 2. Oh wait FM20 has graphics worse of mobile phones. And this is no insult, this is very sad fact

And again, SI has a wonderful chance to create a full FM for Xbox Series X and CHEAP Xbox Series S, which support keyboard and mouse, but they created just FM Touch for this newgen system

[Dbuk1]

So essentially we are stuck with a **** match engine forever.....sounds great

 

when the match engine is shown on the new xbox.....I don’t dare wonder what players think

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dbuk1

[Viking]

I can't say I care much about the quality of the graphics per se (I knew the introduction of 3D graphics would be a slippery slope leading to disgrunt by the way), but some more sexy dribbling and unexpected move animations would be nice. Can't say I see much difference between - say - Adama Traore and some mediocre lower league bloke on the pitch in that regard.

[Double0Seven]

There are games with similar minimum requirements that boast a lot better graphics. To keep things close to home, FIFA and PES had better graphics a decade ago with similar minimal requirements. Heck, even FIFA 07 or Pes 2007 looked better. That's 14 years ago with even worse minimal requirements. What's holding FM back in 2020? 

[Mars_Blackmon]

5 minutes ago, Double0Seven said:

There are games with similar minimum requirements that boast a lot better graphics. To keep things close to home, FIFA and PES had better graphics a decade ago with similar minimal requirements. Heck, even FIFA 07 or Pes 2007 looked better. That's 14 years ago with even worse minimal requirements. What's holding FM back in 2020? 

Just a world wide pandemic 

[akm.91]

2 minutes ago, Mars_Blackmon said:

Just a world wide pandemic 

What’s the excuse for the last 10 years then? 

[bartdude]

On 15/10/2020 at 18:09, HUNT3R said:

Love some of the new animations, especially one GK at 2:45. That dink at 2:58 is also great to see.

Unless it's a consequence of posting video content online, the match graphics look hopelessly lagging, something that has been the curse of FM18, 19 and 20 for many of us out there, despite us owning high spec. machines. It was cured in FM18 and 19 but never solved in FM20. Si need to get it right with FM21 !

Edited October 18, 2020 by bartdude

[Dundalis]

6 hours ago, JordanMillward_1 said:

Again, as previously mentioned, the issue is the kind of computers being used by the FM audience - when you're having the likes of 30+% of people playing with Intel integrated graphics, because they play on what are essentially work laptops, you have to weigh up how many people would stop playing the game if they had to buy a new laptop, compared to how many might be bothered by the current level of graphics. The people on this forum are a tiny minority of the overall playerbase, so you should take into account that the people here playing on high-spec gaming PCs are the statistical outlier.

You do realise that a big reason why a large percentage of the audience is playing on crappy laptops is literally because the game caters to being able to play on a crappy computer? If you could play Fifa on a crappy laptop, absolutely loads of people would play it on that too. Actually creating a high quality 3D gameplay representation would actually open the game up to a whole new audience who don't play the game because they don't wanna play with a glorified spreadsheet, they want quality up to date graphical representations of a football game, which would give the game a level of life that is completely missing. There are a lot of people IMO who don't play the game, but totally would if the graphical quality was anything close to even something worthy of a football game from like 10-15 years ago. And the thing is, there's no reason why you couldn't absolutely allow the customisation of the game to allow it to be played on crappy laptops by simply disabling the upgraded graphics on launch of a new game. People literally have a one track mind about this stuff, it's ridiculous when it's so blatantly obvious. If this is the legitimate reason for SI putting zero resource into improving the match engine, they must have absolutely terrible management, and have no interest in taking risks (it's really not much of a risk) to bring their game to a wider audience.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dundalis

[santy001]

1 minute ago, Dundalis said:

There are a lot of people IMO

This is the part where you lose a lot of credibility.

You're presenting an opinion, as fact, without any evidence to back it up. 

It may be possible that SI could say licence a graphics engine (pretty pricey, some tend to want a fixed % of unit sales) and then they could learn how to implement that in their game and increase the GPU demands of the match experience. Perhaps they could add further complexity to the ME with physics that significantly jacks up the processing power required to get through a game. They might then find their potential customer base is in the low six figures, maybe even less. 

Imagine that presentation in 12 months when reviewing sales figures...

"So uh guys... what went wrong?"

"Well we saw this post on the forums, couldn't possibly have argued against it so we went with it. Turns out it was wrong, who knew."

[Smurf]

3 minutes ago, Dundalis said:

You do realise that a big reason why a large percentage of the audience is playing on crappy laptops is literally because the game caters to being able to play on a crappy computer? If you could play Fifa on a crappy laptop, absolutely loads of people would play it on that too. Actually creating a high quality 3D gameplay representation would actually open the game up to a whole new audience who don't play the game because they don't wanna play with a glorified spreadsheet, they want quality up to date graphical representations of a football game, which would give the game a level of life that is completely missing. There are a lot of people IMO who don't play the game, but totally would if the graphical quality was anything close to even something worthy of a football game from like 10-15 years ago. And the thing is, there's no reason why you couldn't absolutely allow the customisation of the game to allow it to be played on crappy laptops by simply not incorporating the upgraded graphics. People literally have a one track mind about this stuff, it's ridiculous when it's so blatantly obvious.

For every person that wants better graphics, there is another person that doesn't. 

For everyone that wants them to work on something different, there's someone that doesn't want them wasting time on that feature, but on the feature that they want to be implemented.

 

Truth is, graphics were never a part of FM in the past, it used to be just commentary popping up on the screen, and you'd follow the text commentary. 

Adding dots to the pitch was a breakthrough, seeing your players running around was an amazing feat. 

Then they added 3D graphics. They aren't trying to emulate a FIFA/PES with it but trying to give everyone what they are asking for. 

THe graphics were rudimentary, and still are to a degree in comparison to other games. But to make them better they'd probably have to to forego other areas of the game - and that annoys the other people that want other facets of the game enhanced. 

 

Like all software, there is a roadmap in place and incremental improvements, some take weeks, some take months, some take years.

As I said, one person wants one thing, and another wants another - and others what other features. 

It's not all possible. But it's getting there.

[Dundalis]

27 minutes ago, santy001 said:

This is the part where you lose a lot of credibility.

You're presenting an opinion, as fact, without any evidence to back it up. 

It may be possible that SI could say licence a graphics engine (pretty pricey, some tend to want a fixed % of unit sales) and then they could learn how to implement that in their game and increase the GPU demands of the match experience. Perhaps they could add further complexity to the ME with physics that significantly jacks up the processing power required to get through a game. They might then find their potential customer base is in the low six figures, maybe even less. 

Imagine that presentation in 12 months when reviewing sales figures...

"So uh guys... what went wrong?"

"Well we saw this post on the forums, couldn't possibly have argued against it so we went with it. Turns out it was wrong, who knew."

If you interpret the acronym "IMO" as me stating something as fact, you you either don't know what the acronym means, or you have a serious problem with basic comprehension of language. It's not a fact, but if you have any common sense whatsoever, the idea that a quality, modern 3D graphical engine is not gonna open the game up to a bunch of new fans.... I guess your just one of those people who think like that then... it's the epitomy of backwards management of any company.

"Well let's not try and do something to genuinely improve the product, cause there's this chance that it's not gonna make a difference to sales" Ultimately the reason they've been able to play it safe is because they have a monopoly on the fanbase really, due to no competing product in the genre that would actually kick them up the backside and force them to take risks to make meanginful improvements to the game. It's the same as Fifa once they got a stranglehold over Pro Evo, they don't give a **** about actually improving the product in any meaningful way. There's nothing whatsoever to commend about a company having that mindset. It's deserving of every criticism it's given.

The best thing that could happen to football management simulation genre of games is a competing company coming in with the balls to actually devote resources to putting out something quality that could match and supercede FM. Prob won't happen any time soon, but I'd guarantee you FM wouldn't be patting themselves over the back about a stagnant product with superficial improvements being put out each year, they'd be going all out to take risks and innovate to not fall behind the competitor.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dundalis

[davehanson]

15 minutes ago, santy001 said:

This is the part where you lose a lot of credibility.

You're presenting an opinion, as fact, without any evidence to back it up. 

Not sure where @Dundalis is presenting anything as fact. He literally states IMO. 

My 2 lads are mad on football. Won't touch FM because 'It looks like something from the 80's'. They might grow into it as they get older, my youngest son I think would struggle at the moment with the complexities of FM anyway. As I have said previous I really don't care for graphics. The dots do me fine, although I do agree that they could go back a few versions for them to when they we a bit better with the stadium etc, but again, doesn't bother me at all. However, the generation of my kids are hooked on graphics. At some point FM will have to take the leap and leave behind those playing on old technology or they will potentially risk missing out on the next generation of gamers.

I think how well the game sells on Xbox will be interesting. They may look at sales figures and feedback from that platform to judge when the time is right to move FM forward on the PC.

[themadsheep2001]

I think most of this graphic topic misses the mark in the sense that it talks as if SI won't have had these discussions themselves. You may or may not agree with their decision. But we're not going to be talking about anything they won't have talked about themselves, and with more information since only they know where they stand internally. 

[Smurf]

7 minutes ago, davehanson said:

I think how well the game sells on Xbox will be interesting. They may look at sales figures and feedback from that platform to judge when the time is right to move FM forward on the PC.

It was on xBox before and did ok - problem was playablity as the controller wasn't friendly to the UI. I guess those things are fixed up now and they are giving it another go. 

 

[akm.91]

14 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I think most of this graphic topic misses the mark in the sense that it talks as if SI won't have had these discussions themselves. You may or may not agree with their decision. But we're not going to be talking about anything they won't have talked about themselves, and with more information since only they know where they stand internally. 

Surely it’s about time they address the graphics conundrum then? They are releasing a product that is arguably looking worse and worse with every year that passes. 
 

If they addressed the situation and didn’t completely ignore this criticism every year then there would be no need for so many people to talk about it...

 

 

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

Surely it’s about time they address the graphics conundrum then? They are releasing a product that is arguably looking worse and worse with every year that passes. 
 

If they addressed the situation and didn’t completely ignore this criticism every year then there would be no need for so many people to talk about it...

 

 

They've spoken about it before, about needing to strike this balance. The answer would be the same again, really. There's a core than disagree, and that's entirely their choice, but equally SI have made their decisions too. They do invest more in their Mo-cap and they have been hiring more animators, so it's not like they have stated they will never do anything. Just a balance, which again people may agree or disagree with 

[Marko1989]

58 minutes ago, Smurf said:

For every person that wants better graphics, there is another person that doesn't.

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoever say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

It is Just some people don't want the game to became more demanding. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by Marko1989

[Smurf]

Just now, Marko1989 said:

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoevet say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

It is Just some people don't want the game to became more demanding. 

That's your opinion, it's not a fact. 

 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Marko1989 said:

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoevet say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

It is Just some people don't want the game to became more demanding. 

Marko dial it down please. You can't start calling people liars because their subjective view is different to yours

[destmez]

Imagine that presentation in 12 months when reviewing sales figures...

 

"So uh guys... what went wrong?"

 

"Well we saw this post on the forums, couldn't possibly have argued against it so we went with it. Turns out it was wrong, who knew."

We are not talking about leaving a part of fanbase or upgrading minimum requierement WE talk about high graphics mod 

[Smurf]

2 minutes ago, Marko1989 said:

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoevet say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

It is Just some people don't want the game to became more demanding. 

The demand comes from the processor. And graphics cards aren't that expensive.

The better processor you get, usually has a pretty decent graphics card paired with it, that would easily play FIFA, actually most graphics card shipped with most laptops would play FIFA easily.

But FM is different to other games - it relies on a processing power, not graphical power. 

Even if they did go all out and put FIFA-esque graphics into the game, most people wouldn't need to do any sort of an upgrade to their systems. 

 

[destmez]

3 minutes ago, Smurf said:

The demand comes from the processor. And graphics cards aren't that expensive.

The better processor you get, usually has a pretty decent graphics card paired with it, that would easily play FIFA, actually most graphics card shipped with most laptops would play FIFA easily.

But FM is different to other games - it relies on a processing power, not graphical power. 

Even if they did go all out and put FIFA-esque graphics into the game, most people wouldn't need to do any sort of an upgrade to their systems. 

 

Bro the minimale for processor is 2003 AMD , or Intel core , that why i suggest them to try to contact NVIDIA they work well (256 - 2gb VRAM)

Edited October 18, 2020 by destmez

[akm.91]

At this moment in time we don’t even want FIFA or PES graphics. Just give us LMA manager graphics 🤦🏻‍♂️ That was from 15 years ago, but most would take it compared to what football manager provide currently. 

[Smurf]

3 minutes ago, destmez said:

Imagine that presentation in 12 months when reviewing sales figures...

 

"So uh guys... what went wrong?"

 

"Well we saw this post on the forums, couldn't possibly have argued against it so we went with it. Turns out it was wrong, who knew."

We are not talking about leaving a part of fanbase or upgrading minimum requierement WE talk about high graphics mod 

Fine if you want it. There's a suggestion thread around somewhere - you can make your case there.

[Smurf]

3 minutes ago, destmez said:

Bro the minimale for processor is 2003 AMD , or Intel core , that why i suggest them to try to contact NVIDIA they work well (256 - 2gb VRAM)

What are you talking about here? 

[Double0Seven]

2 minutes ago, Smurf said:

The demand comes from the processor. And graphics cards aren't that expensive.

The better processor you get, usually has a pretty decent graphics card paired with it, that would easily play FIFA, actually most graphics card shipped with most laptops would play FIFA easily.

But FM is different to other games - it relies on a processing power, not graphical power. 

Even if they did go all out and put FIFA-esque graphics into the game, most people wouldn't need to do any sort of an upgrade to their systems. 

 

Exactly! It baffles me that people look at these graphics of a high selling game and are ok with it. 

Yes some people don't care and yes it's not the core of the game. 

But it's 2020 and you can upgrade these graphics without having to up minimal specs that much.

SI isn't an indie company. This is a game where they have a monopoly and sell millions every year. Topping steam charts over and over even with older versions of the game. They are also popular on phone. Triple AAA games released every few years can't even hit the numbers SI does and it's a yearly release even. 

The playerbase loses nothing with better graphics, I don't understand why people so hesitant about it. There are only pros.

[Mr U Rosler]

15 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

They've spoken about it before, about needing to strike this balance. The answer would be the same again, really. There's a core than disagree, and that's entirely their choice, but equally SI have made their decisions too. They do invest more in their Mo-cap and they have been hiring more animators, so it's not like they have stated they will never do anything. Just a balance, which again people may agree or disagree with 

Where is this balance? 

There is no balance, they build the game to run on a toaster. Balance would acknowledge the vast GPU/CPU improvements over the last decade and make the game scalable so those with the latest tech can actually use it. 

It's cheaper and easier to trot out the same graphics engine year after year using the ready made excuse that they have to respect their user base has crap laptops, even though FM lends itself extremely well to game streaming which would offer them a far better experience. 

[destmez]

2 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

At this moment in time we don’t even want FIFA or PES graphics. Just give us LMA manager graphics 🤦🏻‍♂️ That was from 15 years ago, but most would take it compared to what football manager provide currently. 

There is a problem when mobile look better than your game

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Mr U Rosler said:

Where is this balance? 

There is no balance, they build the game to run on a toaster. Balance would acknowledge the vast GPU/CPU improvements over the last decade and make the game scalable so those with the latest tech can actually use it. 

It's cheaper and easier to trot out the same graphics engine year after year using the ready made excuse that they have to respect their user base has crap laptops, even though FM lends itself extremely well to game streaming which would offer them a far better experience. 

Like I said, you're entitled to disagree or agree with their choice. But they will make their decisions based on the information and tools to hand

[treble_yell_:-)]

1 hour ago, bartdude said:

Unless it's a consequence of posting video content online, the match graphics look hopelessly lagging, something that has been the curse of FM18, 19 and 20 for many of us out there, despite us owning high spec. machines. It was cured in FM18 and 19 but never solved in FM20. Si need to get it right with FM21 !

I do wonder if the animations are locked to 30fps. 

[KiLLu12258]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Mr U Rosler:

Where is this balance? 

There is no balance, they build the game to run on a toaster. Balance would acknowledge the vast GPU/CPU improvements over the last decade and make the game scalable so those with the latest tech can actually use it. 

It's cheaper and easier to trot out the same graphics engine year after year using the ready made excuse that they have to respect their user base has crap laptops, even though FM lends itself extremely well to game streaming which would offer them a far better experience. 

For me its not only a graphic thing, but also how the players move and this isnt smooth either. Everything at the Match Presentation looks like early 2000 and instead of working at this aspect we get a few more questions at pressconferences. hell yeah.

Im at a point were i would be already happy when players stop ice skating on the pitch. How can they be happy with this? I dont get it.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by KiLLu12258

[kingjericho]

In this page the discussion comes down to graphics, which means it's an area where SI should focus. Personally, as long as the 3D graphics look the way they do I'll stick with 2D, it looks better and it's easier to analyse the match. If they do a significant (like FIFA 2002 graphics) 3D upgrade I will consider switching.

Regarding the announced features, I would be one of many that would be more excited if, just for once, SI said "we keep the core of the interface and secondary aspects like chats, media, tutoring, and we have focused on rebuilding the ME as best as we could".

[Dundalis]

1 hour ago, Smurf said:

For every person that wants better graphics, there is another person that doesn't. 

For everyone that wants them to work on something different, there's someone that doesn't want them wasting time on that feature, but on the feature that they want to be implemented.

 

Truth is, graphics were never a part of FM in the past, it used to be just commentary popping up on the screen, and you'd follow the text commentary. 

Adding dots to the pitch was a breakthrough, seeing your players running around was an amazing feat. 

Then they added 3D graphics. They aren't trying to emulate a FIFA/PES with it but trying to give everyone what they are asking for. 

THe graphics were rudimentary, and still are to a degree in comparison to other games. But to make them better they'd probably have to to forego other areas of the game - and that annoys the other people that want other facets of the game enhanced. 

 

Like all software, there is a roadmap in place and incremental improvements, some take weeks, some take months, some take years.

As I said, one person wants one thing, and another wants another - and others what other features. 

It's not all possible. But it's getting there.

That's like saying role playing features weren't really part of the original Assassin's Creed, so it's not relevant to add it in future iterations like they have. It's part of the evolution of video games, it's not something to be commended when it does evolve in that way (3D graphics happened much later than a lot of fans wanted it to). Your assessment of how FM has evolved over the years is not untrue, but certainly somewhat disingenuous. It's the type of language I was talking about that I would probably expect SI executives within the company to release validating themselves doing the minimum possible to really elevate and improve their product, in order to seem like they are actually doing something to employees and fans. It's a bit ignorant of the current evolution of video games, especially over the last 5-10 years. I can't think of another video game that has been an established institution for almost 30 years that has progressed so little over so long a timespan. It's not commensurate of the evolution of video games as a whole, regardless of the proportionate size of the company. Video game companies have done more with less. Congratulating a company for doing the bare minimum to actually evolve as they should like everyone else in the industry is IMO completely counter productive. If I work a management role in a company and I do what my position description states, that's not worthy of congratulations, it's actually going well above and beyond to do something innovative that is.

But again it all comes down to the lack of competition. Nothing drives risk taking and real innovation like a competitor that comes in and is a threat to knock you off your position. I've worked in the public sector and the mindset is rampant there, full of self congratulations from people doing the absolute bare minimum. Completely different mindset to private sector where there's good competition within their specific niche. Nothing will make a company go stale like complete lack of competition. If SI had genuine competition consistently over the last 30 years I'd bet my house the game would be miles and miles ahead in development of where it currently is.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Dundalis

[Tony Wright 747]

1 hour ago, Dundalis said:

If you interpret the acronym "IMO" as me stating something as fact, you you either don't know what the acronym means, or you have a serious problem with basic comprehension of language. It's not a fact, but if you have any common sense whatsoever, the idea that a quality, modern 3D graphical engine is not gonna open the game up to a bunch of new fans.... I guess your just one of those people who think like that then... it's the epitomy of backwards management of any company.

"Well let's not try and do something to genuinely improve the product, cause there's this chance that it's not gonna make a difference to sales" Ultimately the reason they've been able to play it safe is because they have a monopoly on the fanbase really, due to no competing product in the genre that would actually kick them up the backside and force them to take risks to make meanginful improvements to the game. It's the same as Fifa once they got a stranglehold over Pro Evo, they don't give a **** about actually improving the product in any meaningful way. There's nothing whatsoever to commend about a company having that mindset. It's deserving of every criticism it's given.

The best thing that could happen to football management simulation genre of games is a competing company coming in with the balls to actually devote resources to putting out something quality that could match and supercede FM. Prob won't happen any time soon, but I'd guarantee you FM wouldn't be patting themselves over the back about a stagnant product with superficial improvements being put out each year, they'd be going all out to take risks and innovate to not fall behind the competitor.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I believe that it was competition that was the driver for SI to introduce 3D as early as they did and competition would drive the game forward faster.  The problem is that football management games are very much a niche market and it is unlikely that any developer would be willing to invest in the resources necessary, probably why EA didn't push ahead with Fifa manager

[themadsheep2001]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

As I have mentioned in other threads, I believe that it was competition that was the driver for SI to introduce 3D as early as they did and competition would drive the game forward faster.  The problem is that football management games are very much a niche market and it is unlikely that any developer would be willing to invest in the resources necessary, probably why EA didn't push ahead with Fifa manager

Tbh it was also the single most requested feature over a number of years not just here but on a number of forums, and this was pre social media

[Huey Lewis]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

As I have mentioned in other threads, I believe that it was competition that was the driver for SI to introduce 3D as early as they did and competition would drive the game forward faster.  The problem is that football management games are very much a niche market and it is unlikely that any developer would be willing to invest in the resources necessary, probably why EA didn't push ahead with Fifa manager

Yeah find it quite tiring reading about how much the game would be better with competition. Always seems to be phrased like it's SI's fault which I find a bit strange. It's not like they bought out any other companies or used nefarious tactics, they just consistently made a better game than the other games that were available.

The fact people feel like they need to keep saying this isn't suddenly going to make this phoenix rise from the ashes and take them on. You may as well say "the game would be better if the government found a drug that allowed people to work at double speed and SI used it on their development team so more work can be done". It's not something they've got any control over and at the moment seems unlikely, as even EA's attempts both now and in the past haven't been great. And that's a company seemingly swimming in money.  

 

[Smurf]

31 minutes ago, Double0Seven said:

Exactly! It baffles me that people look at these graphics of a high selling game and are ok with it. 

Yes some people don't care and yes it's not the core of the game. 

But it's 2020 and you can upgrade these graphics without having to up minimal specs that much.

SI isn't an indie company. This is a game where they have a monopoly and sell millions every year. Topping steam charts over and over even with older versions of the game. They are also popular on phone. Triple AAA games released every few years can't even hit the numbers SI does and it's a yearly release even. 

The playerbase loses nothing with better graphics, I don't understand why people so hesitant about it. There are only pros.

All I can do is tell you what I've heard over the years from the maker of the game. 

The game is not driven by graphics, it was added very late on in the franchise. People asked for it, so they built it and introduced it.

It will never be good enough for some people. And for others it's perfectly fine.

30 minutes ago, Mr U Rosler said:

It's cheaper and easier to trot out the same graphics engine year after year using the ready made excuse that they have to respect their user base has crap laptops, even though FM lends itself extremely well to game streaming which would offer them a far better experience. 

I'm not sure that's a driving factor - in that they trot out the same graphics, they certainly don't, and I can see huge differences from FM10 to FM20. 

As I said before, others will always find fault with the 3D side of the game, and others are fine with it. 

But it's a football management game, so i do feel they try and put this first in a lot of cases, which means the 3D side of things are what they are, small improvements. 

30 minutes ago, destmez said:

There is a problem when mobile look better than your game

Not sure if it's a problem. I have no issue with the 3D graphics, they look good to me. 

It's a matter of opinion. 

26 minutes ago, KiLLu12258 said:

For me its not only a graphic thing, but also how the players move and this isnt smooth either. Everything at the Match Presentation looks like early 2000 and instead of working at this aspect we get a few more questions at pressconferences. hell yeah.

Im at a point were i would be already happy when players stop ice skating on the pitch. How can they be happy with this? I dont get it.

Again, I don't mind the 3D match engine, I'm not looking for the same realism as you. I'm ok with. 

And I'm one of those that would prefer better implemetation of management features over tinkering with a 3D match engine.

Yes, I would prefer them to do all of it, better everything. But I'd be happier with management side of things improved over 3D.

I understand others don't. 

15 minutes ago, Dundalis said:

That's like saying role playing features weren't really part of the original Assassin's Creed, so it's not relevant to add it in future iterations like they have. It's part of the evolution of video games, it's not something to be commended when it does evolve in that way (3D graphics happened much later than a lot of fans wanted it to). Your assessment of how FM has evolved over the years is not untrue, but certainly somewhat disingenuous. It's the type of language I was talking about that I would probably expect SI executives within the company to release validating themselves doing the minimum possible to really elevate and improve their product, in order to seem like they are actually doing something to employees and fans. It's a bit ignorant of the current evolution of video games, especially over the last 5-10 years. I can't think of another video game that has been an established institution for almost 30 years that has progressed so little over so long a timespan. It's not commensurate of the evolution of video games as a whole, regardless of the proportionate size of the company. Video game companies have done more with less. Congratulating a company for doing the bare minimum to actually evolve as they should like everyone else in the industry is IMO completely counter productive. If I work a management role in a company and I do what my position description states, that's not worthy of congratulations, it's actually going well above and beyond to do something innovative that is.

But again it all comes down to the lack of competition. Nothing drives risk taking and real innovation like a competitor that comes in and is a threat to knock you off your position. I've worked in the public sector and the mindset is rampant there, full of self congratulations from people doing the absolute bare minimum. Completely different mindset to private sector where there's good competition within their specific niche. Nothing will make a company go stale like complete lack of competition. If SI had genuine competition consistently over the last 30 years I'd bet my house the game would be miles and miles ahead in development of where it currently is.

I don't think you ment 'disingenious' there. Comparing it to another game isn't fair really. I don't know Assassins Creed, but I presume the graphics are pretty great, and I don't know what Role Playing means in this instance. But if it's something the fans wanted and pushed for, and they had a model already in place, and the engine already built, it was probably easy enough to port to suggestions. 

In this instance, FM is not a graphical game, and never was - it was just asked to put 3D into it and SI did. But as I said before, there will always people that want more, and always people that think it's fine.

I'm ok with it, as I said earlier to another reply above.

I'm not trying to defend the franchise, or give you executive responses. But just my view. 

If you don't like that then that's fine.

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

As I have mentioned in other threads, I believe that it was competition that was the driver for SI to introduce 3D as early as they did and competition would drive the game forward faster.  The problem is that football management games are very much a niche market and it is unlikely that any developer would be willing to invest in the resources necessary, probably why EA didn't push ahead with Fifa manager

I think they introduced it too hastily - I love the 3D though and enjoy watching matches in 3D. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

I like it. But I understand others want more. And that's ok too. 

 

[angelo994]

4 hours ago, Zemahh said:

Can we at least have the old 2D graphics back, please?

Damn. So not only has the 3D gone backwards, but 2D too? 
 

It really put it into perspective. I’ve not really noticed just how far backwards we’ve gone until I’ve seen these screenshot comparisons. 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, angelo994 said:

Damn. So not only has the 3D gone backwards, but 2D too? 
 

It really put it into perspective. I’ve not really noticed just how far backwards we’ve gone until I’ve seen these screenshot comparisons. 

If I remember rightly, 2D was a specific engine that was used until FM18 which was removed because barely anyone used it for the development it took up. I think someone had the post to hand previously

[DementedHammer]

On 18/10/2020 at 23:04, Marko1989 said:

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoever say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

It is Just some people don't want the game to became more demanding. 

I can honestly say that I'd be totally fine if, for the next 10 years,  the graphics only had minor incremental improvements BUT during that time, the match engine underwent radical improvements. Graphics don't bother me. For me, realistic player positioning, movements and decision making within the match engine is much more important. 

(I should point out that I play in 2D and only use 3D for goal replays.)

Edited October 22, 2020 by DementedHammer

[Smurf]

3 minutes ago, DementedHammer said:

I can honestly say that I'd be totally fine if for the next 10 years the graphics only had minor incremental improvements IF during that time, the match engine underwent radical improvements. Graphics don't bother me. For me, realistic player positioning and decision making within the match engine is much more important. 

(I should point out that I play in 2D and only use 3D for goal replays.)

This is it really - it's fine and everyone wants SI to work on different things. 

I don't mind the positioning/decision making in the 3D match engine, I barely notice it. And it's fine for me.

But everyone wants something different. And SI can only do so much.

I'd imagine a lot of what they wanted to do with the match engine/graphics etc. came down to the introduction of VAR and other rule changes, and sometimes things will take a back seat while they need to add essentials into the game, like the basic rules of football.

I'm sure adding VAR was not easy, and I'm sure tweaking the rules around the game for new laws etc has ramifications in the programming world. 

 

[GunmaN1905]

I hate to be that guy, but all the new features will be for nothing if ME isn't a big improvement over 20.

20 was a perfect game for me, I'd never ask for anything else in a FM game...if actual ME wasn't horrible.

So no matter how good the new features are, and they all look great, it will all be for nothing until we see if ME is improved.

[jcw163]

Yes but can goalkeepers commit fouls yet though?

[Pav_Makarov]

1 hour ago, Marko1989 said:

Absolutelly false. Everybody wants better graphics. And whoever say that they would not like FM to look better is lying.

You are wrong, and trying to speak for everybody makes you two times wrong.

Anyway, what "demanding" has to do with graphics, when big percentage of gamers play 2D?