FM2009 deserve 2.0 out of 10.0

[Wakers]

ehm, baseball world series is contested between american teams and..do they even let Japan play?

[lonestar007]

ehm, baseball world series is contested between american teams and..do they even let Japan play?

Possibly the worst argument ever. Really. Calling it the world series doesn't make it so and any minimal research would show it is a league championship.

I guess it would be like if we were to call something the "European Champions' League" and allow non-champions to enter while not allowing some champions entrance. Something only Americans' would do. 'ehm.'

[tormy]

wow just wow! I guess this article will scare away some customers...

[LincolnCanary]

wow just wow! I guess this article will scare away some customers...

I doubt it. How can you review anything based on what it isn't? It's proposterous!

[Ando THFC]

While it's easy to dismiss this review, the guy makes some valid points and it's idiotic to just brush it aside with a causal swipe at ignorant Americans.

The 3d match engine - while a step forward from 2d - is embarrassingly shoddy and looks like a beta product. If it was in the next version of Championship Manager half of you would be in here pointing and laughing at the terrible implementation. Players running through nets, hoardings and dugouts, balls with horrible physics and the ability to pass though almost any solid item, the empty, childish stands etc etc.

Also, there is some validity to his point about a lack of interaction in the game. The half-baked, poorly implemented media elements have rendered a lot of the supposed interaction monotonous. I, for one very rarely attend press conferences of answer the same dull media questions so my interaction is limited, in the most part, to clicking through to game day.

Yes, the reviewer misses the wood for the trees but despite his unsuitability for the review, he makes some criticisms that SI would do well to pay heed to.

[FootyKing]

God i hate yanks.....what a stupid **** that fellow that did that review!

[McMaster#28]

ehm, baseball world series is contested between american teams and..do they even let Japan play?

The world classic on the other hand is played by national teams. Japan are the current holders.

Good job in Soccer we don't proclaim the European Champions to be the best team in the world.

[lonestar007]

Actually, I think this review is spot on, unfortunately.

First, notice it is a review of WWSM not FM. While the games play the same, the reason for the name change is two vastly different audiences. WWSM is focused on bringing in customers in America who are not knowledgeable about FM and its history. For them it is a game of first impression, like it is for this reviewer.

Given that, the review is correct. Having never used WWSM the menus and tabs are not easy to manipulate, and there is minimal help. There is no introductory mode which explains and outlines the different areas of the game, including competitions, countries, and menus. To illustrate this, look at the number of menu options available and how many have to be gone through just to set up your first friendly match. Or how you have to go to two separate menus first find out your club's affiliations and then to go request a new affiliation. It is tedious at best, and for the most part not very intuitive. The fact that everyone who has played the game for several years understands where to go does not help the first timer.

Second, to effectively play the game, a multitude of things have to be done before you even get to matchday. As many people have stated, it is easy to spend an hour or more when you first take over a team just to get things set up. Add to this simply trying to figure the game out and you are looking at a substantial amount of time to first experience the game. And remember, this all occurs after a decent amount of loading times to set up the game compared with other PC games.

Then there is the tactics section. It has been widely stated that to understand the tactics in the game you need to read the long articles in the tactics forum. Playing the game as a first timer, it is overwhelming and unintuitive. Players who have played FM for years still have trouble, I cannot imagine trying to play with limited football knowledge. Really, can anyone truly explain what 'creativity' is? Try using it with little to no knowledge of the game.

So lets say the first timer, after muddling through the menus, setting up what he can, spending an hour or more trying to figure out training, scouting, player search, staff, affiliates, etc.. he finally gets to watch a game. Well, the graphics are fairly unimpressive. The stands are shocking, and a lot of it looks unfinished. And, once again, he hits a button to start the game and really doesn't know what to do next. He watches, maybe goes to the tactic screen, massive amounts of stats,sees his assistant saying the team needs more possession, and does not have a clue how to do it. Frankly, I would turn the game off as a lesson in frustration as well.

This review illustrates a major fault with FM and why I fear for its future. Having tried to get several friends who play football to try this game, and watched their frustration, I think this should be a major wake up for SI and not something to laugh at.

And to contract this review with the ign.uk reviews, notice the second paragraph of the latter. The reviewer has played FM, watched it develop, and knows the game. Completely different standard and in no way inconsistent just because they are part of the same company.

[sthptngomad76]

I was watching Once In A Lifetime: The Story of the New York Cosmos

Cracker of a doco, that one

[Fredric Drum]

He has some good points. The game is hard to pick up and play for casual gamers. The tactical workings are hard to understand even for experienced users. Graphics and sound is rubbish for the year we live in.

I still rate it an 8/10! But I can totally see how he can give it a low score from HIS point of view.

[SmurfDude]

While it's easy to dismiss this review, the guy makes some valid points and it's idiotic to just brush it aside with a causal swipe at ignorant Americans.

The 3d match engine - while a step forward from 2d - is embarrassingly shoddy and looks like a beta product. If it was in the next version of Championship Manager half of you would be in here pointing and laughing at the terrible implementation. Players running through nets, hoardings and dugouts, balls with horrible physics and the ability to pass though almost any solid item, the empty, childish stands etc etc.

Also, there is some validity to his point about a lack of interaction in the game. The half-baked, poorly implemented media elements have rendered a lot of the supposed interaction monotonous. I, for one very rarely attend press conferences of answer the same dull media questions so my interaction is limited, in the most part, to clicking through to game day.

Yes, the reviewer misses the wood for the trees but despite his unsuitability for the review, he makes some criticisms that SI would do well to pay heed to.

Comments like these I don't particularly understand. You go on as if the whole game is ruined by shallow media interaction and poor 3D graphics

Behind all that there is still the core gameplay which has been successful for so many years. You can still choose to watch matches with commentary only, and you can ignore media 95% of the time. So yes those elements can be improved, but they in no way ruin the game because they are not mandatory

Try and put things into perspective, seriously

[stewpot01]

i really wouldnt worry urselfs about that review, anyone who calls football soccer really needs to go buy a one of them giant hands and shout " LETS GO YANKEES DUM DUM DUM DUM" whislt watching american football.

Anyway he said he found it extremely difficult to navigate through the screens............anyone who finds that difficult should be on disability allowance instead of working.

My mother is on disabilty you prat, I find your remarks extremely offensive in that regard. Why don't engage your brain before putting your mouth into gear.

[SmurfDude]

He has some good points. The game is hard to pick up and play for casual gamers. The tactical workings are hard to understand even for experienced users. Graphics and sound is rubbish for the year we live in.

I still rate it an 8/10! But I can totally see how he can give it a low score from HIS point of view.

His point of view is that it should be a football action game like FIFA or PES...do I really need to say anymore?

[stewpot01]

Comments like these I don't particularly understand. You go on as if the whole game is ruined by shallow media interaction and poor 3D graphics

Behind all that there is still the core gameplay which has been successful for so many years. You can still choose to watch matches with commentary only, and you can ignore media 95% of the time. So yes those elements can be improved, but they in no way ruin the game because they are not mandatory

Try and put things into perspective, seriously

Totally agree. I only use the 3D for goal replays, and ususally send my AM to press conferences and although having cast doubts on ths version in the past couple of weeks, since adapting to these small changes I am enjoying it all the more.

[stewpot01]

Almost all American children grow up playing soccer (at least they did 5-10 years ago).

That's a bit unfair? We have tons of interest in baseball, the "American pasttime," yet we are heavy underdogs in most international competitions. We get beaten handily by Central American countries with far fewer resources. See the Olympics and the WBC. Football is hardly an international sport. Softball is getting phased out of international play and most Americans couldn't care less. Just because we're good at a lot of things doesn't mean we don't care about things we aren't good at. I think you'd be VERY surprised how much support and interest the US team gets during the World Cup.

Sorry, but I have lots of American friends with that attitude regarding 'foreign' sports, and they all have a 'Winning means eveything mentality', so you appear to be in a minority. As to the support the team gets in the world cup, it's not terrific, only fervent, as all fans at the tournament are. They don't get followed around by hundreds, and apart form people more than likely based outside the States, just how many travel out of the USA to attend the tournaments, not many I can bet.

QUOTE]

[stewpot01]

ehm, baseball world series is contested between american teams and..do they even let Japan play?

Arrogance personified on their part I guess. There is a myth that it was called the world series by some newspaper back in the late 1800's/early 1900's .In all honesty think the two Chicago sides (Cubs and Whitesox) faced each other in a final, and then gave it that name.

Same goes for NFL, their winners are known as 'World Champions'. Small world then, probably same with Basketball too, despite it having a strong European game.

It's probably only because the Canadians have a couple of 'token' teams in ice hockey that that isn't the world championship too.

[stdan27]

Arrogance personified on their part I guess. There is a myth that it was called the world series by some newspaper back in the late 1800's/early 1900's .In all honesty think the two Chicago sides (Cubs and Whitesox) faced each other in a final, and then gave it that name.

Same goes for NFL, their winners are known as 'World Champions'. Small world then, probably same with Basketball too, despite it having a strong European game.

It's probably only because the Canadians have a couple of 'token' teams in ice hockey that that isn't the world championship too.

Lol no. Canada has some of the best Hockey teams in the league. And the hockey world cup is played with National sides, Russia being the current champions i think.

[kiwityke]

Arrogance personified on their part I guess. There is a myth that it was called the world series by some newspaper back in the late 1800's/early 1900's .In all honesty think the two Chicago sides (Cubs and Whitesox) faced each other in a final, and then gave it that name.

Same goes for NFL, their winners are known as 'World Champions'. Small world then, probably same with Basketball too, despite it having a strong European game.

It's probably only because the Canadians have a couple of 'token' teams in ice hockey that that isn't the world championship too.

Its actually called the World Series because the champions were in effect 'world champions' mainly because nobody except the americans played at the time, its just a name that has stuck I suppose.

[Ando THFC]

Comments like these I don't particularly understand. You go on as if the whole game is ruined by shallow media interaction and poor 3D graphics

Behind all that there is still the core gameplay which has been successful for so many years. You can still choose to watch matches with commentary only, and you can ignore media 95% of the time. So yes those elements can be improved, but they in no way ruin the game because they are not mandatory

Try and put things into perspective, seriously

I don't see how you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I quite clearly state that the reviewer can't see the wood for the trees, i.e. he misses the bigger picture in terms of the game's playability by focussing on the areas where the game falls short. At no point do I implay they ruin the game.

My very point is that the shoddy parts of the game (3d, transfers, media) do not prevent it from being a good game but they are certainly fair game for criticism.

As for the guy who has gotten around the annoyance of the poor 3d and the boring press stuff by sidelining them - that's proof of what this reviewer is saying, not evidence to the contrary.

Having had the game less than a month, already demoting two of the main new features to the margins shows how badly SI have implemented them.

The media elements need a complete overhaul to make them worthwhile, the team talks are a repetitive bore, tactical setup is a complete guessing game of sliders that bear no relation to the real world, the transfer system (while slightly improved) is still pathetic and the fit and finish to the match day experience is shockingly bad - long setup screens, grey screens, empty stands, no physical integrity, a smaller 2d pitch, info boxes that cover part of the 3d pitch and bug-ridden view selections.

The game certainly isn't a 2/10 (I've voted 6 in its current state) but the people just posting about how stupid the reviewer is are bigger fools themselves for ignoring the valid aspects to his criticism.

[Canadian Red]

Wow this thread kinda blew up!

That said, the anti-American stuff is so annoying to read. The "Americans are dumb" talking point is ridiculous when you look at the ****ing streets of England these days. They're not football fans? So what, the sport is growing at a grassroots level. As for American sports, they all have their merits. Hockey is great to watch, as is football even as a casual fan. The guy that said Hockey has token Canadian teams is as ignorant as the reviewer! Hockey's best players are Canadian, and it's the national sport.

Otherwise, I agree that the reviewer totally missed the point and didn't grasp it. The guy that said the game is 2/10 anyway is on something. With regards to the ease of access, football fans will easily pick it up, non-football fans won't. It's as simple as that. I played most of the games I bought without ever fiddling with the training or coaches, and I still had a lot of fun trying to win the league/avoid relegation. The more you play, the more you learn, and the more you try to implement.

[Gecko]

My question is, if im not a baseball fan why would I go buy a baseball game...?

[Les Girondins]

I don't see how you've misunderstood what I'm saying. I quite clearly state that the reviewer can't see the wood for the trees, i.e. he misses the bigger picture in terms of the game's playability by focussing on the areas where the game falls short. At no point do I implay they ruin the game.

My very point is that the shoddy parts of the game (3d, transfers, media) do not prevent it from being a good game but they are certainly fair game for criticism.

As for the guy who has gotten around the annoyance of the poor 3d and the boring press stuff by sidelining them - that's proof of what this reviewer is saying, not evidence to the contrary.

Having had the game less than a month, already demoting two of the main new features to the margins shows how badly SI have implemented them.

The media elements need a complete overhaul to make them worthwhile, the team talks are a repetitive bore, tactical setup is a complete guessing game of sliders that bear no relation to the real world, the transfer system (while slightly improved) is still pathetic and the fit and finish to the match day experience is shockingly bad - long setup screens, grey screens, empty stands, no physical integrity, a smaller 2d pitch, info boxes that cover part of the 3d pitch and bug-ridden view selections.

The game certainly isn't a 2/10 (I've voted 6 in its current state) but the people just posting about how stupid the reviewer is are bigger fools themselves for ignoring the valid aspects to his criticism.

When I haven't had my frappé, I'm completely behind you. I agree the features are poor and they were a bit slapdash to say the least. Well, I don't really need to go over that again; needless to say I am with you to a point. The game is still enjoyable and will only improve with time. Nobody has forced me to buy it. Yet here I am.

I'm a freelance journalist myself, running several blogs on behalf of sports media companies. I've also been a staff writer on a few on-line publications dealing with ents. reviews and can say with absolute aplomb: video game publications are held in utter disregard by everyone. Consumer media is all about sales and extending runs, they are just as fractious and politicised as red top tabloids. Someone underwrites the company to serve their ends. Half of them aren't even profitable. I worked for years at EMAP and Future and you learn pretty quickly who the pay masters are and just what you are required to do - provide facts and tow the company line. Not wanting to get too sidetracked but we all know they are essentially an extension of the PR machine for the mega corps and have only a pretence of independent judgement.

What am I rambling about? Well, this makes it all the more telling when someone slips up in the manner that Mr. Burk has. He has shown no capacity for reason, no ability for rational objective critique and certainly no empathy for the end user. There is no semblance of effort invested in this review, nothing meritorious or noteworthy about the use of language, the insight (or lack thereof) or conclusions. He doesn't understand his own business and as such, you can be absolutely certain anything he is left to deal with himself, without the benefit of a publisher's crib sheet of shifty PR catchphrases and points of 'interest' to include in his already mainly pre-fabricated 'review', will be the worst kind of copy imaginable.

As Matt said: he evidently has no idea what he's doing. As such any salient point the layman gleans from his incoherent ranting is mooted by the sheer blinding ignorance of the man.

Who would employ such people? But that is this the point - they aren't paid to hold opinions. They are paid to regurgitate the PR and provide an acceptable skein of professional objectivity whilst they copy down the ad man's homework and suck up to teacher. Fin. The trouble is every now and then something comes in that nobody has a vested interest in promoting. This happens for various reasons, lack of baksheesh, geography, independent publishers, rival underwriters, new start-ups, new products etc. These are nearly always universally dismissed and given to the intern to deal with or handled badly quite intentionally. Why? Because there's no launch parties to attend, no opportunity to expand your network of corporate liaisons. No freebies. No five star hotel rooms and business class flights to HQ for private review etc.

Frankly, who cares? Nobody.

Take it in the spirit it is offered: total apathy. :thup:

[lonestar007]

When I haven't had my frappé, I'm completely behind you. I agree the features are poor and they were a bit slapdash to say the least. Well, I don't really need to go over that again; needless to say I am with you to a point. The game is still enjoyable and will only improve with time. Nobody has forced me to buy it. Yet here I am.

I'm a freelance journalist myself, running several blogs on behalf of sports media companies. I've also been a staff writer on a few on-line publications dealing with ents. reviews and can say with absolute aplomb: video game publications are held in utter disregard by everyone. Consumer media is all about sales and extending runs, they are just as fractious and politicised as red top tabloids. Someone underwrites the company to serve their ends. Half of them aren't even profitable. I worked for years at EMAP and Future and you learn pretty quickly who the pay masters are and just what you are required to do - provide facts and tow the company line. Not wanting to get too sidetracked but we all know they are essentially an extension of the PR machine for the mega corps and have only a pretence of independent judgement.

What am I rambling about? Well, this makes it all the more telling when someone slips up in the manner that Mr. Burk has. He has shown no capacity for reason, no ability for rational objective critique and certainly no empathy for the end user. There is no semblance of effort invested in this review, nothing meritorious or noteworthy about the use of language, the insight (or lack thereof) or conclusions. He doesn't understand his own business and as such, you can be absolutely certain anything he is left to deal with himself, without the benefit of a publisher's crib sheet of shifty PR catchphrases and points of 'interest' to include in his already mainly pre-fabricated 'review', will be the worst kind of copy imaginable.

As Matt said: he evidently has no idea what he's doing. As such any salient point the layman gleans from his incoherent ranting is mooted by the sheer blinding ignorance of the man.

Who would employ such people? But that is this the point - they aren't paid to hold opinions. They are paid to regurgitate the PR and provide an acceptable skein of professional objectivity whilst they copy down the ad man's homework and suck up to teacher. Fin. The trouble is every now and then something comes in that nobody has a vested interest in promoting. This happens for various reasons, lack of baksheesh, geography, independent publishers, rival underwriters, new start-ups, new products etc. These are nearly always universally dismissed and given to the intern to deal with or handled badly quite intentionally. Why? Because there's no launch parties to attend, no opportunity to expand your network of corporate liaisons. No freebies. No five star hotel rooms and business class flights to HQ for private review etc.

Frankly, who cares? Nobody.

Take it in the spirit it is offered: total apathy. :thup:

I simply cannot agree with this conclusion. While I do agree that many good reviews are procured from such luxuries as 5-star hotel rooms and such, it is not a reasonable jump in logic to think that lack of such things creates bad reviews.

As I stated above, for someone picking up the game for the first time, it is horrible without real desire and deep understanding of football coupled with a willingness to expend upwards of 5 hours to actually find a semblance of accomplishment. Even then, the accomplishment is short and hollow compared to the time investment, and it is not until one has invested a season or more of time that true reward is gotten.

Your statement of his inability for objective criticism has no foundation in the review. Just because he does not come out the way you think he should does not make him incorrect. The bigger question is why the review came out this way if the game is in fact so good.

And the game is made by SI and SEGA. SEGA is large enough to not be dismissed to the intern.

[Kewell08]

OK, so some of his points are valid. But seriously, lonestar, I'm not sure how you can read that review and not realise that it is written by someone who has absolutely no idea and doesn't want to have any idea. That isn't conducive to a fair review.

The game is marked down because it doesn't allow you to "actually play soccer". That is a fundamental error.

[Luckz]

This review illustrates a major fault with FM and why I fear for its future. Having tried to get several friends who play football to try this game, and watched their frustration, I think this should be a major wake up for SI and not something to laugh at.

I dunno about you, but the few people I introduced to FM (and who had the patience, which sure isn't the case for ye average footie fan!) all grasped it. Even feeble female creatures!

I believe people only laughed at the reviewer's lack of mental coherence. Enough posts in this thread addressed flaws of the game - without claiming that the review makes much sense.

I simply cannot agree with this conclusion. While I do agree that many good reviews are procured from such luxuries as 5-star hotel rooms and such, it is not a reasonable jump in logic to think that lack of such things creates bad reviews.

He basically said that you're not going to write a good review if you're not getting similarly good bribes. Seems fairly obvious and, yes, even logical.

Your statement of his inability for objective criticism has no foundation in the review. Just because he does not come out the way you think he should does not make him incorrect. The bigger question is why the review came out this way if the game is in fact so good.

Oh please, that's just trolling

And the game is made by SI and SEGA. SEGA is large enough to not be dismissed to the intern.

What's the last Sims/Call of Duty/Far Cry/Crysis/C&C/Warcraft/Half-Life [..] SEGA published? I'm not aware of any "AAA" franchises of theirs that lately sold like hotcakes. Admittedly I have no idea how well the 2K series sports games sell, but from my limited experience with them they too appear to be aimed at a more sophisticated audience than EA's offerings (and are thus bound to sell less). The FM series can be seen in a league with Paradox Interactive games, random 4X games and maybe Stardock's games - pretty much all not aimed at what one'd call a 'mainstream audience', and thus sure fodder for the intern (or at least destined for a quite lazy treatment).

IMO SI could do with playing FIFA manager for a while and get some ideas about product presentation, yes the match engine is rubbish but that doesnt mean they have nothing to offer or learn from. FM may have the brains but fifaman does have some personality. It wouldnt hurt for FM to work on that a bit

Personally, I always found the presentation of EA sports games horrible: Menu structures that just take way too many button presses to get anywhere in - and usually were aimed at console users, while still being extremely inefficient and frustrating to use on those. Menu music that's not only usually pretty unimpressive but also can't be set to play during matches (am I the only person who's extremely irritated by a song only playing for a few seconds, to then either have a new one start or the music end in favour of ingame sounds?). A tendency to force-start in 640x480 or 800x600 to delay startup with some annoying splash screen(s) - FM (so far!) only does the latter bit.

While the 'next-gen' version of FIFA 09 is leaps and bounds ahead of the FIFA games that use the old engine/gameplay, the menus are still a pain! For an example, the new tactics settings (FM-like sliders) are customised in a screen separate from the formation screen, and every slider tweak needs to be saved to a save slot for you to be able to use that tactic - mid-match tweaking is anything but fun. I admit I haven't forced myself to play the newest FIFA manager iteration after suffering through a couple hours of last year's (the gameplay, or lack thereof, specifically how what you watch on the screen just does not look like football one bit - I sure prefer FM's idealised, beautiful-to-watch even in 2D idea of how a football match should look to watching the FIFA AI engage in *random* passing into *random* directions), but it probably isn't much better either. The way media interaction is handled there also only really reminds me of

The fact that he wanted music over the menus and less "clicking" only proves this further - lack of attention span, a completely passive experience, wants the senses to be bombarded and not have to think so much.

[Les Girondins]

Oh well.

It was just idle conjecture. I'm not really motivated to enter the debate. It doesn't interest me for one simple reason: it is utterly futile. S.I. don't give a curried fig, most people don't care, they just want their patch ASAP please-thank-you-very-much. That's the way it works.

I knew the game was a buggy sputnik when I bought it. I've been buying them for years like you and likely the vast majority of the other nut balls on here. In fact isn't it de rigeur to preface a rant with 'I've been playing this game since the Amiga .. ' and postscript with ' .. eeee by gum in my day we didn't have fire for entertainment .. '.

2008 release was an utter stinker, to rival the Guinnes induced mega floaters of my student years - but it was finished eventually. Like the proverbial Borg, I rotated my shield harmonics and got on with the business at hand: having a laugh. Alone. In the dark. Because I didn't have any real friends and the Mrs. buggered off with her gymn trainer years ago.

It really wasn't a titanic shock to discover this year's release was also a bit squiffy. I've come to expect it. There really is nobody to blame for your disatisfaction but yourself. It is admirable and fitting that your good self and all the other misfits and intellectual agitators seek so selflessly to promote a better Football Manager; even going so far as to spend your own free time on here pushing for better standards and picking fights with naer do wells and half measures from obscure nations with interesting Engrish and a burning desire to belong. Myself inlcuded: I am just as irate and irritable and waste just as much time being sancamonious and sucking up to the wrong people and alienating everyone else. I'm not placing myself on a pagoda of different mentalities and slightly dodgy inferences. I'm just a bloke who likes his FM.

Spocky nerdy goof ball pedants and deeply unfulfilled middle aged sorts like myself, well, we're just in it for the laugh. Any attempt at disgruntlement just seems faintly ridiculous in the face of all the other 'big boy' issues we, you, I, they, anyone who wants to be included in that sweeping generalisation, are currently otherwise pre-occupied with. Like staying solvent. Paying the mortgage. Not getting shanked outside the Spar by irate pre-teens on E4701 and mescalin for looking at them 'funny'. You know. Life n' sheet.

Suck a lemon. Take a pill. Enhance your calm. etc. Whatever man.

[stewpot01]

Wow this thread kinda blew up!

That said, the anti-American stuff is so annoying to read. The "Americans are dumb" talking point is ridiculous when you look at the ****ing streets of England these days. They're not football fans? So what, the sport is growing at a grassroots level. As for American sports, they all have their merits. Hockey is great to watch, as is football even as a casual fan. The guy that said Hockey has token Canadian teams is as ignorant as the reviewer! Hockey's best players are Canadian, and it's the national sport.

Otherwise, I agree that the reviewer totally missed the point and didn't grasp it. The guy that said the game is 2/10 anyway is on something. With regards to the ease of access, football fans will easily pick it up, non-football fans won't. It's as simple as that. I played most of the games I bought without ever fiddling with the training or coaches, and I still had a lot of fun trying to win the league/avoid relegation. The more you play, the more you learn, and the more you try to implement.

I am NOT ignorant you prat. I meant token as far as the Americans are concerned, I was been sarcastic. So don't run your mouth off at me until yolu understand what was meant by the posting. I love it when Toronto and Montreal do well in the Stanley cup, and if you think I am dumb, look in the mirror.

[Canadian Red]

What you type and what you mean to type are apparently two wildly different concepts. Otherwise why would you suggest that Canadian teams are "token" in the NHL? It's not funny, nor is it sarcastic in any way. It's stupid, and incorrect. It's not even insulting, just stupid, and incorrect.

[yowg8ynwa]

wow that IGN reviewer is completely...i dunno how to put it, but wow

IGN sucks, i never thought to subscribe to that sh*te

on the whole US thingy, im in the US right now and although they do say soccer and exhibition match n all that, ive met a bunch of them who are just as hardcore about footie as the rest of the world

y cnt we all just get along? everyone loves footie

(although its a pet hate of mine too, callin it soccer haha)

[Kyouya]

I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.

This kinda summarizes the review. Sure, I am happy to see some opinions from non-soccer management fans but unfortunately, I guess the reviewer isn't aware of the existance of management games(we are talking about a genre that's over 25 years old).

3d engine sucks, sound is horrible(even old CM had better chants) and I am still incredibly mad at SI for not-so-impressive Mac port. But 2.0? Sorry, its just plain wrong.

[RamonBenitez]

Usa! Usa!!

[GerdMuller]

It's a bit like slating Schindler's List for not being funny enough.

You might be right Schindlers list didnt make me as sad as FM...

[seanos]

2/10 is obviously harsh.

Im really dissapointed with this years release so far and so are most of my friends.

It really is unplayable at the moment, just hope the new patch sorts this out and I can start enjoying the game like all previous versions.

[flibby7]

by Avi "I am a complete" Burk

[Dreaded Walrus]

That IGN score has really damaged the Metacritic average. Only three reviews out of 18 are actually below the "average" of 74, including the new IGN US review.

I mean, I realise that it's fine for a reviewer to disagree with the majority of all other reviewers. And I realise that reviews are meant to be opinions. If someone told me to review a racing game, I'd probably think it was rubbish, because it's not my kind of thing. But I wouldn't think it was rubbish because it's not Burnout, you know? And then proceed to give it 2 out of 10 because of that.

This review tries to compare FM to Pro Evo and FIFA and say that FM is worse because you don't control your players, which is such a strange comparison to me. For a start, it suggests that the reviewer isn't aware of a football management genre. And secondly, they're completely different gameplay experiences by design.

It would be like someone comparing the upcoming Halo Wars unfavourably with Halo 3 by saying it's not an FPS. Or comparing it favourably, by saying that you control loads of units instead of just one.

To put it simply, don't give a game to a reviewer that is not interested in a genre. You wouldn't get a casual gamer to review a 100+ hour RPG; so don't get someone who clearly dislikes the very idea of the management genre to review a management game.

[Spanky_202]

That IGN score has really damaged the Metacritic average. Only three reviews out of 18 are actually below the "average" of 74, including the new IGN US review.

I mean, I realise that it's fine for a reviewer to disagree with the majority of all other reviewers. And I realise that reviews are meant to be opinions. If someone told me to review a racing game, I'd probably think it was rubbish, because it's not my kind of thing. But I wouldn't think it was rubbish because it's not Burnout, you know? And then proceed to give it 2 out of 10 because of that.

This review tries to compare FM to Pro Evo and FIFA and say that FM is worse because you don't control your players, which is such a strange comparison to me. For a start, it suggests that the reviewer isn't aware of a football management genre. And secondly, they're completely different gameplay experiences by design.

It would be like someone comparing the upcoming Halo Wars unfavourably with Halo 3 by saying it's not an FPS. Or comparing it favourably, by saying that you control loads of units instead of just one.

To put it simply, don't give a game to a reviewer that is not interested in a genre. You wouldn't get a casual gamer to review a 100+ hour RPG; so don't get someone who clearly dislikes the very idea of the management genre to review a management game.

The breakdown of reviews there really shows how much the IGN one stands out, although the reviewer has passed some fair comment it still shows he's way off the general consensus and thus out of touch with his target audience. IGN seem to be ignoring the issue completely despite the larger than normal amount of comments being left against the review slating it.

[digsy11]

To be fair, if he's a games journalist who's getting paid to review a game, then all bias of whether he personally likes the game or not should immediately have gone out the window. He's there to review the functions of the game, the pros and cons and so on, not whether HE liked it or not, because every games journalist has the type of games they like and don't like, but they still have to review them from a technical point of view.

It's like going to see a house to buy and deciding not to buy it because you don't like the current owner's furniture.

Yes and he didn't like the functions because he felt they were to complicated, he can only give a judgement on the game from how he feels about it, it's kind of human nature considering he's not (to the best of my knowledge) a robot.

[SmurfDude]

Yes and he didn't like the functions because he felt they were to complicated, he can only give a judgement on the game from how he feels about it, it's kind of human nature considering he's not (to the best of my knowledge) a robot.

He loaded up WWSM expecting to play a football action game like FIFA or PES, of course he was going to find the game complicated...

[Dregganor]

As an American, I feel pretty embarrassed after reading that... Sigh.

I'll just continue to do what I've been doing for a while.. trying to spread FM throughout my group of friends... Have probably sucked in 5 or 6 of my good friends so far into the life-consuming universe of FM.

[Thierry Henrhys]

Baseball - largely international

Basketball - even more so

Hockey - And then some..

American football - gaining popularity internationally and playing regular sold-out games in *shock* London.

But hey, I would only expect such a narrow-minded and bias comment calling sports 'crappy' from an American discussing football/soccer right? I mean, ignorance is what only we Americans thrive on when it comes 'international' sports.

I wouldn't call once in a blue moon regular. They've played a handful of American Footy games and yes they have sold out because it's not very often it comes here. American Football here on a regular basis could not compete with Soccer as you like to call it.

[ToonForever]

2/10 is obviously harsh.

Im really dissapointed with this years release so far and so are most of my friends.

It really is unplayable at the moment, just hope the new patch sorts this out and I can start enjoying the game like all previous versions.

While it's not perfect, it's most certainly not "unplayable" at the moment. I'll assume hyperbole, because it is quite playable, and quite better than the previous two iterations, and worlds better than CM, TYVM...

[filipe_fonseca]

The whole "americans are ignorant" thing sounds mostly like envy. It shouldn't be taken into serious consideration. Ignorance is universal and it is the way of the masses.

What's relevant about the review is that they assigned someone who wouldn't have liked even the classic CM 01/02. Saying the game doesn't reach out for the broader audience is merely stating the obvious. I don't think FM and those silly simplified manager games aim for the same market share. Ever since the days of CM, the game took patience to take off. It was never a game for the casual gamer. A review is supposed to analyse what a game aims to be, whether it achieves its own goals or not. That was IGN's mistake.

There are some valid points in that review, and I think it sheds some light on how daunting the game can be for beginners. Most of us are so used to the game mechanics that we lack a good position to evaluate that. There's no doubt FM could be more graphically appealing without losing its tone and complexity.

That said, I'm really happy with FM 2009 so far. The 3D match engine does need some work, but it sure as hell beats the 2D dots. The game feels much less random (or perhaps just easier) than recent installments. It's definitely a nice step back onto the right track.

[roseboy64]

TBH I started out with CM 03/04 and didn't find it daunting at all. Of course I needed help for some of the finer points but if you have a bit of patience you can easily work through the game.

[Kewell08]

I used to write reviews for another forum.

The first piece of information on the "How to Review" page said "don't review a genre that you don't like. Just don't."

That rule has clearly been broken.

[Donners]

I suppose it depends on who the intended audience is.

If this review was written purely for the subgroup of gamers who are interested in the pure sports management genre, it is not a good review.

If it is written for the casual player who may stumble across the game on a shelf, see the graphics and think that they can play the actual matches, then they may well be as disappointed as this reviewer.

Several of the points are quite fair, particularly the poor presentation of graphics and sound. As International Cricket Captain shows, there's little point presenting a management game with 3D graphics if they are so flawed as to actually detract from the game.

The review is certainly not a whitewash - it makes it quite clear that the game has a lot of depth. It just has the conclusion that a casual player will not enjoy it, and I think that has some merit.

[oranjeman]

was laughing the whole time while reading this thread/review....

2.1/10 ...IGN is bloody pants!

something i never understand is when people say " why do you play football manager you dont even play it?"(they mean move the guys on the pitch like fifa)

somehow i think everyone thinks the word "MANAGER" is silent or something and another classic example from our very lost friend at IGN

quote -

Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer.

[Roke]

I suppose it depends on who the intended audience is.

If this review was written purely for the subgroup of gamers who are interested in the pure sports management genre, it is not a good review.

If it is written for the casual player who may stumble across the game on a shelf, see the graphics and think that they can play the actual matches, then they may well be as disappointed as this reviewer.

The review is certainly not a whitewash - it makes it quite clear that the game has a lot of depth. It just has the conclusion that a casual player will not enjoy it, and I think that has some merit.

Donners, I cut out the bit about the points you agree with (which I can tend to agree), and the mention of the Cricket Manager. I don't think you necessarily agree with the review, but I have to say I disagree with your points regarding the casual player.

The problem is, IGN has reviewed at least the last 2 versions of Baseball Mogul, another sports management series which probably would not appeal to the casual player either. The reviewer in both those reviews (not the same one as the person who wrote this FM review) did not criticize the game for it not being like your typical baseball video game, nor did they criticize being unable to control the players on the field, something this FM review does.

[Dreaded Walrus]

Regarding the whole getting-into-FM issue, when I first got into the series (CM01/02 on the Xbox), I seriously knew absolutely nothing about football, let alone management. I didn't know some of the rules, I didn't know most of the teams, and I probably couldn't even name ten footballers.

(The reason I bought it was because it was famed for its longevity and addictive qualities, and I was very poor at the time and needed something to last me a long time)

And yes, it took me a while to get into the game, especially as my copy was pre-owned and I didn't have a manual to explain all these terms (contract negotiations took me a while to get used to, I remember ), and this was in the days before the in-game tutorial, adviser, and hint systems.

Now I appreciate that the game is much more complex these days, but as I say above, there are now systems in place to advise newcomers about what the menu screens are for, and even wizards for new game starts.

Now bearing in mind that I didn't even like football before this, let alone football games, I think the point about this only appealing to people who already like the genre is wrong (and that's forgetting the paradox of how those people became interested in a genre that only appeals to existing fans of the genre).

As Kewell08 says above, you simply do not review a game if you are not a fan of the genre. If you are freelance and you are offered a commission on a game from a genre you don't like, then it's good ethics to turn down the commission.

You wouldn't get a film critic who hates war films to review Saving Private Ryan, as he will probably dislike it - regardless of its merits - simply because it's a war film. You wouldn't get someone who hates all horror films to review Saw V, as it simply wouldn't result in a good (as in quality, not as in positive) review. You get someone who is already familiar with horror films, so they can discuss the film's merits as a horror film.

There's nothing wrong with not liking Football Manager 09. If you think it's a bad management game, fair enough. If you prefer Championship Manager, that's okay. But to compare it to FIFA or Pro Evo is ridiculous, and like saying "I don't see why anyone would watch Saw V over Saving Private Ryan".

[S.G.]

deserves at very least an 8 imo

[MadCatz900]

Best fm yet but the injuries make the game unplayble for me, So unrealistic.