Football Manager 2009: Where I have felt let down.

[hamilton162]

Interesting idea, and we do need to revisit training in the future but for now our resources are being directed towards tactics.....but the more discussion the better on these forums

Glad to see that SI and PaulC are taking notice of what us guys say Glad to hear also that tactics are being reworked and that the training section will be revamped soon after the tactics have been sorted out.

[jld123]

I personally think that graphics should be bottom of the list and lowest priority. It would be good to get some flashy backgrounds and shiny new menus, but I'd rather SI focused on features like press conferences, match engine, player interaction, etc before graphics. Then again it might not attract new customers, but I'd definately buy FM10 if I knew that it looked exactly the same but it had improved on other things.

[moj]

I agree with most points, especially the one about training being too vogue.

[peter-evo]

I personally think that graphics should be bottom of the list and lowest priority. It would be good to get some flashy backgrounds and shiny new menus, but I'd rather SI focused on features like press conferences, match engine, player interaction, etc before graphics. Then again it might not attract new customers, but I'd definately buy FM10 if I knew that it looked exactly the same but it had improved on other things.

Definitely, but I am not sure how much Hunter has to do with all of that sort of stuff and I am sure he can do a bit of extra work for a 'prettier' FM.

[Ter]

I personally think that graphics should be bottom of the list and lowest priority. It would be good to get some flashy backgrounds and shiny new menus, but I'd rather SI focused on features like press conferences, match engine, player interaction, etc before graphics. Then again it might not attract new customers, but I'd definately buy FM10 if I knew that it looked exactly the same but it had improved on other things.

It probably wouldn't be a good thing if the Graphics / UI team started messing around with things like the match engine

[peter-evo]

It probably wouldn't be a good thing if the Graphics / UI team started messing around with things like the match engine

Definitley.

Though Ter, you know you are the best; no matter what Miles says, include these graphics

[Pangaea]

Interesting idea, and we do need to revisit training in the future but for now our resources are being directed towards tactics.....but the more discussion the better on these forums

Crud. I suppose that means training will stay as it is

But a massive for the changes to tactics. I dearly hope this makes it to FM10. That change alone will be worth buying the game, as tactics have been utterly ungraspable for way too long.

[earmack]

The main problem with the game is that rigorous testing is only possible through the median of selling the game to hundreds of thousands of people and hoping they post bugs on these forums. Thusly every version will be bug riddled at release, and occasionally even after patches some versions will have bugs that are at least obnoxious and most game-altering.

edit: and theres nothing SI or Sega can do about it. Must be annoying for them to see all the complaints on release and not be able to say 'ITS ALWAYS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS TARDS'

[peter-evo]

A few more interesting thoughts.

Though I don't think FM09 is the worst in the series, I think it promised a lot more and some of the new features were perhaps not as good as expected. Now that is not due to SI, more due to the incredible amount of hype that was made by these very forums.

Earmack: They test the game an incredible amount and the massive bugs seen at the FM09 release should have been noticed within an hour of firing the game off.

[jld123]

It probably wouldn't be a good thing if the Graphics / UI team started messing around with things like the match engine

Ah yes, forgot about the whole real life thing there for a moment, I was just imagining about 5 guys in a cellar somewhere saying "Should we concentrate on graphics today?".

On second thoughts, why not scrap the graphics team for FM10 and use their wages to get £5 off the price

[freddo21]

I would like to see improvements with press conferences and player interaction. Currently there are no positive/negative player interactions except commenting on form, and the 5-answer press conferences don't really work for me. On the whole, however, I'm enjoying playing it.

[SFraser]

I was reading an article on another website about FM09 and CM01/02 and it seems to me that ultimately the heart of the complaints with FM can be pinned on the extreme transformation undergone by this series in well under a decade.

Without getting involved too deeply in this thread again I think that a lot of people no longer recognise the old CM games within FM and that the massive expansion, or indeed near explosion of the importance and complexity of match day tactics specifically and the game in general has left a lot of people both overwhelmed and under impressed in comparison to the days of CM01/02.

I read this quote in another thread and it struck me how I too would be deeply dissapointed and upset if I were in his shoes.

Those of us who go looking for shortcuts in a bid to get the most out of the game as we can with the time we have, as well as the fact that any long term success is largely marred by the undeniable AI flaw of not strengthening their squads in any way, are left with a game that is no longer desirable and largely unplayable?...

i just want this game to still appeal to me next year, the year after that and the year after that, as it has done for more years than i can remeber, but that appeal is waning rapidly

It is inevitable that when a gaming series such as this undergoes the kind of transformation it has in recent years that some people will feel disenfranchised, some people will feel that the newer versions do not suit their situation and wishes and desires like the older ones. I can understand and empathise with the reaction from those that feel this new direction removes the game from their capability to enjoy it like previous versions, but at the same time I do not think that the direction or focus of development for the game has changed, albeit the game itself has done so dramaticly.

Underneath the issue of the transformation of this game lies the issue of time. I think that time is both the central pillar of the complaints for certain users and the area of no compromise for the development team. Clearly FM is a game with elements that no longer operate within the same time frames of the old CM games and require a level of enthuisiasm and commitment that was perhaps not so necessary previously. But it is a game that remains staunch to its own commitments and its own enthusiasm for Football, and in an environment where it finds itself competing with itself, not to mention many other new pretenders, it is this staunch commitment to its enthusiasm for football that keeps it ahead of the rest, even if that means entering unfamiliar ground.

I personally think it is a spectactular game and derive great enjoyment from devoting the time to play it. I think that despite remaining true to its comittment and enthusiasm for football that perhaps FM is leaving the realm of football gaming alone and competing in genres wider than some are used to, and greater than any its competitors could hope to enter. At the end of the day the final proof is in pudding and you cannot commit to such a venture with anything other than whole hearted endeavour.

A slightly altered version of a poll I viewed in another thread:

Ease of use for the casual gamer: 3 at best.

Position as a Football Simulation and Strategy Game: Number One.

Those are my opinions and I in no way intend to disrespect the views of other gamers on this site.

[freddo21]

[/b]Every time I set up my tactic for the first time, I have no idea how my team will play. It often takes 7-8 matches of tweaking before I get the team playing the way I want and that is not realistic at all. It has not always been like this, in Football Manager 2007 I found it very easy and quick to build a tactic and know what is was going to play like with minimal fuss. I also feel that SI need to release a clearer guide to their tactics as I shouldn't have to read a 50 page guide to gain an understanding of Football Manager.

I disagree. I find it fairly realistic that it takes time for a team to gel under a new manager. If you look at most changes of management, the team is not able to go out and perform to the manager's wishes at first. Anyway, I would see this as an advantage, as I think one of the biggest integral problems with football management games is that they can be monotonous and too easy to dominate, because of the intense difficulty of setting up a seriously realistic AI. More bumps in the road can keep you guessing and add more challenge to the game.

[Kickballz]

In my opinion, SI really needs to make sure they get the long term play aspect of the game sorted out.

It is very frustating to find that the game is (again) deeply flawed in key areas which should be a strength with every fm game. Again we find that AI teams don't develop youth and they bankrupt their own clubs with incompetent spending. Where is the challenge when after a few years all your rivals have run themselves into the ground and have teams full of 40+? Managers still managing at ninety years old? Why does Si continue to ignore long term play? These are the things that completely ruin the game for many players who then end up going back to earlier versions.

Long term playability should be one of the priorities, otherwise the game is simply no use to a large percentage of players who want to enjoy playing career games.

[PaulC]

I think that is a fair point Kickballz. Long term play can easily be overlooked in beta testing due to the need to make the short term stuff presentable since that is where most of the complaining eminates from.

[peter-evo]

I think that is a fair point Kickballz. Long term play can easily be overlooked in beta testing due to the need to make the short term stuff presentable since that is where most of the complaining eminates from.

Is that supposed to be an excuse Paul? Long-term playability should be your priority.

[Glenn Wakeford]

Please bear in mind that for long-term testing there are some major issues that we have to contend with:

1. Long-term games take a long time to play, and even longer to test. Therefore getting a career game tested several years in without holidaying takes a long time.

2. These long-term games can be made to be fruitless in the testing period, due to unforseeable things such as crash bugs, competition and structural changes, as well as other factors.

3. Everyone plays long-term games differently. What appears in some long-term games doesn't in others, so many things can naturally be 'missed'.

I could go on all day listing things that makes testing long-term games hard; there's countless things that make our life difficult. That's not to say it's an excuse, or we shy away from doing them, just trying to get the information that long-term playability is nowhere near as simple or easy to test as people seem to think it is.

[peter-evo]

Please bear in mind that for long-term testing there are some major issues that we have to contend with:

1. Long-term games take a long time to play, and even longer to test. Therefore getting a career game tested several years in without holidaying takes a long time.

2. These long-term games can be made to be fruitless in the testing period, due to unforseeable things such as crash bugs, competition and structural changes, as well as other factors.

3. Everyone plays long-term games differently. What appears in some long-term games doesn't in others, so many things can naturally be 'missed'.

I could go on all day listing things that makes testing long-term games hard; there's countless things that make our life difficult. That's not to say it's an excuse, or we shy away from doing them, just trying to get the information that long-term playability is nowhere near as simple or easy to test as people seem to think it is.

Thanks Skorp.

So I imagine it is a sort of 'trial and error' for you. So, at the moment, do you have to hope that what you have done works but not have a real chance to test it out?

[Glenn Wakeford]

Thanks Skorp.

So I imagine it is a sort of 'trial and error' for you. So, at the moment, do you have to hope that what you have done works but not have a real chance to test it out?

It's more that there are so many variables that there's no way we can be sure of very much: as witness by the many fixes that made it in to 9.3.0 but didn't make it onto the fixlist due to the nature of them.

During the beta testing period there are so many changes made that long-term career games carry so many out of date bugs or areas that have been changed that after a while they become quite unreliable. As such, more stable long-term games are generally done towards the back end of the testing period, where the work is much less likely to cause problems with the save games. Obviously there is less time to do these career games at this point.

As you know though, we have opened our beta testing out quite a lot recently and this will help us get a better grip on the long-term playability of the game as a lot of these users are more able to play career games in the traditional "user" sense than we are in the QA department.

[Kickballz]

Please bear in mind that for long-term testing there are some major issues that we have to contend with:

1. Long-term games take a long time to play, and even longer to test. Therefore getting a career game tested several years in without holidaying takes a long time.

2. These long-term games can be made to be fruitless in the testing period, due to unforseeable things such as crash bugs, competition and structural changes, as well as other factors.

3. Everyone plays long-term games differently. What appears in some long-term games doesn't in others, so many things can naturally be 'missed'.

I could go on all day listing things that makes testing long-term games hard; there's countless things that make our life difficult. That's not to say it's an excuse, or we shy away from doing them, just trying to get the information that long-term playability is nowhere near as simple or easy to test as people seem to think it is.

I don't buy it. Many of the issues with long term play would be instantly apparant simply by going on holiday for 10-20 years. With regard to the problems with long term playability - it's not like it is slightly unrealistic - it is a total fail! and the very same issues have existed over a number of versions.

[Glenn Wakeford]

I don't buy it. Many of the issues with long term play would be instantly apparant simply by going on holiday for 10-20 years. With regard to the problems with long term playability - it's not like it is slightly unrealistic - it is a total fail! and the very same issues have existed over a number of versions.

Some things would be seen by that. Every night, every single machine runs on holiday for as long as possible, and we analyse these "soak tests" every day. We place a lot of importance on looking through these overnight soaks and find a LOT of issues this way.

The other way is the career progression way. Let me explain. There are many bugs that will only come to light if you play the game like a real user does. For example, in FM08 there was, at one stage, an issue whereby no matter how rich you became or how well you did, you could never raise staff wages - meaning they would all leave - this was a user only issue, so the soak tests wouldn't show this. This kind of thing is only possible when we test long-term games in the manner of a real user.

It's incredibly easy to bound around phrases like "epic fail" and "I don't buy it," but if you don't understand the nature of FM or the nature of QA, there is no way you can legitimately criticise the testing methods in place.

[peter-evo]

It's more that there are so many variables that there's no way we can be sure of very much: as witness by the many fixes that made it in to 9.3.0 but didn't make it onto the fixlist due to the nature of them.

During the beta testing period there are so many changes made that long-term career games carry so many out of date bugs or areas that have been changed that after a while they become quite unreliable. As such, more stable long-term games are generally done towards the back end of the testing period, where the work is much less likely to cause problems with the save games. Obviously there is less time to do these career games at this point.

As you know though, we have opened our beta testing out quite a lot recently and this will help us get a better grip on the long-term playability of the game as a lot of these users are more able to play career games in the traditional "user" sense than we are in the QA department.

Well I hope the new beta testers can help improve the long-term gaming as, lets face it, is where the game is at for so many people.

[SFraser]

I would have thought that the Long Term Play of an AI would always be viewed by a sufficiently capable human player to be increasingly inferior to human activity. Even Deep Blue was taken for multiple rides before a team of researchers reprogrammed that computer to avoid the specific trap laid by Gary Kasparov it had repeatedly fallen into.

I will confess to lacking the honour of 2 or more seasons completed in over 9 days playing time and so must concede that the long term activity of the AI is something I am unfamiliar with, but I raise this point to question whether or not those familiar with long term experience of AI decisions do indeed factor into account the limitations of fact, or are simply finding it easier and less intelligent as time goes by and raising complaints without due attention to contextual constraints.

[Kickballz]

It's incredibly easy to bound around phrases like "epic fail" and "I don't buy it," but if you don't understand the nature of FM or the nature of QA, there is no way you can legitimately criticise the testing methods in place.

Maybe you're not looking at the things we're talking about because you obviously aren't checking things like the ages of players, managers or staff and club finances, because if you were you would have noticed some of the problems that many people have pointed out and continue to point out.

Oh but of course I'm not capable of understanding these things and therefore have no right to critise, right?

[freddo21]

Another problem I noticed is that squads of major sides especially don't change v. much over long periods of time. In 2016 or 17, you see Arsenal still playing RvP and Adebayor in the first team, with an average age of 28, which doesn't seem realistic.

[Glenn Wakeford]

Once again we have another person that thinks that if an issue makes it into a game it wasn't even seen. You continue to show your lack of understanding of how testing works. Just because an issue is in-game that does not mean that it was not picked up in testing.

[Kickballz]

Once again we have another person that thinks that if an issue makes it into a game it wasn't even seen. You continue to show your lack of understanding of how testing works. Just because an issue is in-game that does not mean that it was not picked up in testing.

Oh so you were aware of this issue then?

So why does it continue to be an issue for multiple versions then? Excuse my ignorance but I thought the point of testing is to identify flaws and bring them to the attention of the developers.

Obviously I am mistaken.

[Jack Rudd]

Being aware of an issue does not equate to understanding why it arises, which in turn does not equate to being able to fix the issue. This is a major problem with the development of computer games, particularly complex ones with long-term emergent behaviour.

[PaulC]

Is that supposed to be an excuse Paul? Long-term playability should be your priority.

Nope, just a candid opinion. Not trying to slight anyone or excuse anything.

[peter-evo]

Nope, just a candid opinion. Not trying to slight anyone or excuse anything.

Okay. Skorp cleared up my questions so I am content at the moment and understand stuff like this can be difficult.

[SFraser]

Okay. Skorp cleared up my questions so I am content at the moment and understand stuff like this can be difficult.

Stuff like this is not difficult. Without human involvement stuff like this is impossible. Why do you think FML is such a success?

[Kickballz]

Being aware of an issue does not equate to understanding why it arises, which in turn does not equate to being able to fix the issue. This is a major problem with the development of computer games, particularly complex ones with long-term emergent behaviour.

So for serveral versions of the game we have to endure having teams full of 40+ year olds managed by 90 year olds because it is far too complicated an issue for them to understand even though they are aware of the issue.

Yeah whatever.

[SFraser]

So for serveral versions of the game we have to endure having teams full of 40+ year olds managed by 90 year olds because it is far too complicated an issue for them to understand even though they are aware of the issue.

Yeah whatever.

Computer programmes don't understand anything, that is the point. You cannot code an accurate reaction to an evolving footballing world and you certainly cannot code "understanding" that makes sense to every user in every context.

Obviously the AI needs some improvement, and I have called for this myself. But amongst the complaints of rediculous AI behaviour I read complaints of immense difficulty game by game and season by season in comprehending the mechanics of the game.

If you wish an AI capable of "understanding" long term trends then do not be so quick to complain when it rips you apart as you play short term rapid management games.

I understand to some degree the complaints of long term problems, but this is clearly a game produced to focus on minute details of minimal seasonal gameplay. You cannot ignore the "meat" of the gameplay and the industry wide limitations of AI theory while you rush through ten seasons a year.

I am sorry to be the name associated with harping on about individual player ignorance but if you cannot produce specific details and understand that all AI coding revolves around specific detail then unfortunately I am going to be the one calling you out for fallacious premises while the development staff do their level best to appease you. The game you imagine is no doubt beautiful but I sincerely doubt it will ever leave the realm of your imagination, atleast in my lifetime. If you are unwilling to consider this level of criticism then clearly you are an individual that is going to remain disappointed with every single gaming system you come across. I myself was there once, but through education I learned that infact not every development team and publisher was trying to rip me off, or ignorant of my concerns.

Perhaps you might like to consider that SI wish to produce what you would like to see emerge, but are finding it difficult, despite immeasurably more programmatical and footballing knowledge than you will ever have? Perhaps not. Clearly though generic complaints do no one any favours.

[Kickballz]

Computer programmes don't understand anything, that is the point. You cannot code an accurate reaction to an evolving footballing world and you certainly cannot code "understanding" that makes sense to every user in every context.

Obviously the AI needs some improvement, and I have called for this myself. But amongst the complaints of rediculous AI behaviour I read complaints of immense difficulty game by game and season by season in comprehending the mechanics of the game.

If you wish an AI capable of "understanding" long term trends then do not be so quick to complain when it rips you apart as you play short term rapid management games.

I understand to some degree the complaints of long term problems, but this is clearly a game produced to focus on minute details of minimal seasonal gameplay. You cannot ignore the "meat" of the gameplay and the industry wide limitations of AI theory while you rush through ten seasons a year.

I am sorry to be the name associated with harping on about individual player ignorance but if you cannot produce specific details and understand that all AI coding revolves around specific detail then unfortunately I am going to be the one calling you out for fallacious premises while the development staff do their level best to appease you. The game you imagine is no doubt beautiful but I sincerely doubt it will ever leave the realm of your imagination, atleast in my lifetime. If you are unwilling to consider this level of criticism then clearly you are an individual that is going to remain disappointed with every single gaming system you come across. I myself was there once, but through education I learned that infact not every development team and publisher was trying to rip me off, or ignorant of my concerns.

Perhaps you might like to consider that SI wish to produce what you would like to see emerge, but are finding it difficult, despite immeasurably more programmatical and footballing knowledge than you will ever have? Perhaps not. Clearly though generic complaints do no one any favours.

Thanks for the lecture but again you completely missed the point.

We are talking about specific flaws which has been present in the game for some time and have gone unaddressed, but again you have jumped on your high horse and given us a completely irrelevant (although admittedly quite amusing) bluster about your take on programming.

And please don't try to second guess my motives because it is rather tiresome.

[SCIAG]

Tactics and their relation the Match Engine:

Obviously, I didn't have to read a 50-page guide to understand tactics.

Woah there- you understand tactics without reading TT&F?

Impossible. Everybody knows you're guaranteed to lose unless you read that thing, try out every tactic in it, and tweak them every five seconds.

[peter-evo]

Woah there- you understand tactics without reading TT&F?

Impossible. Everybody knows you're guaranteed to lose unless you read that thing, try out every tactic in it, and tweak them every five seconds.

Im guessing it is because he wrote it.

[Jack Rudd]

So for serveral versions of the game we have to endure having teams full of 40+ year olds managed by 90 year olds because it is far too complicated an issue for them to understand even though they are aware of the issue.

Yeah whatever.

They're aware of the issue. Actually finding the cause of this issue is not a trivial task, and nor is addressing it in a way that doesn't screw something else up.

[pires29]

Please bear in mind that for long-term testing there are some major issues that we have to contend with:

1. Long-term games take a long time to play, and even longer to test. Therefore getting a career game tested several years in without holidaying takes a long time.

2. These long-term games can be made to be fruitless in the testing period, due to unforseeable things such as crash bugs, competition and structural changes, as well as other factors.

3. Everyone plays long-term games differently. What appears in some long-term games doesn't in others, so many things can naturally be 'missed'.

I could go on all day listing things that makes testing long-term games hard; there's countless things that make our life difficult. That's not to say it's an excuse, or we shy away from doing them, just trying to get the information that long-term playability is nowhere near as simple or easy to test as people seem to think it is.

If this is the case then why is each games release barely recognisable to the previous years version?

Why not say "OK, we think we have a good base from last years game with some solid ideas, now we are going to spend the rest of the time till release to improve and perfect all areas that need worked on."

All that seems to be happening year in, year out is that SI are painting over the cracks and then adding a few new features which will distract people from the core of the problem.

[peter-evo]

If this is the case then why is each games release barely recognisable to the previous years version?

Why not say "OK, we think we have a good base from last years game with some solid ideas, now we are going to spend the rest of the time till release to improve and perfect all areas that need worked on."

All that seems to be happening year in, year out is that SI are painting over the cracks and then adding a few new features which will distract people from the core of the problem.

Yes, it does seem like we see the same problems year in year out that never seem fully fixed.

[higgins]

Yes, it does seem like we see the same problems year in year out that never seem fully fixed.

Absolutely true, the long term career game issues emerged some years ago but never been fixed.

If you don't fix such issues I think it's pointless to add features like pre or post match press conferences, at the moment they don't add anything to the game, they're quite useless as other minor new features.

[PaulC]

Well, we will be beta testing from an earlier stage this year and you are part of it Peter so pls shout loudly if things arent right!

[peter-evo]

Well, we will be beta testing from an earlier stage this year and you are part of it Peter so pls shout loudly if things arent right!

Don't worry Paul. I will have a lot more time to test FM2010 after my exams (in 4 weeks time) and if I am not happy, I will shout.

I just want to make one thing clear, even after all these complaints, I am still loading up Football Manager 2009 when I load up my PC and, now 9.3.0 has been released, I am really enjoying the game. The reason it looks like I am slating the game is because I built up my opinions and arguments over a streched period of time so I could make a very accurate review of the problems I am experiencing.

I could quite easily have made a thread of a larger length on the things I love about the game. I am not going to because these sorts of threads spark up more interest than a 'positive' one.

I still think it is, by a country mile, the best in the series. (That is a compliment by the way )

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

IMO this thread needs a bump.

I was sitting here today and was wondering how difficult it would be to implement newspaper articles + webpages etc into the game for media purposes. Many games have actually done this successfully. With the option to edit the newspaper looks, could be extreemly interesting addition to the game.

Also @ the long term gaming posts.

It is fairly easy to run a game on holiday testing and test databases before and after. I did testing with SI on older games, I remember helping with the regens until they were fixed to a decent point for that year. I forget which version, 2005 i believe.

BTW Paul C. I used to be a tester for you guys, Sydney666 was my ID. Could I have my old ID back? I dont remember my password and I have 6000 posts on it!

[PaulC]

IMO this thread needs a bump.

I was sitting here today and was wondering how difficult it would be to implement newspaper articles + webpages etc into the game for media purposes. Many games have actually done this successfully. With the option to edit the newspaper looks, could be extreemly interesting addition to the game.

Also @ the long term gaming posts.

It is fairly easy to run a game on holiday testing and test databases before and after. I did testing with SI on older games, I remember helping with the regens until they were fixed to a decent point for that year. I forget which version, 2005 i believe.

BTW Paul C. I used to be a tester for you guys, Sydney666 was my ID. Could I have my old ID back? I dont remember my password and I have 6000 posts on it!

PM me and I will try and sort it.

[ViG1980]

Interesting idea, and we do need to revisit training in the future but for now our resources are being directed towards tactics.....but the more discussion the better on these forums

I think your efforts should be on the long-term aspect of the game. I don't know many people who play this game to complete just one season then move on.

It's been said by many people of many years how the long-term game is very bad due to terrible manager AI. I ran a simulation to 2029 on 9.3 and teams play their stars until they old and crippled - it seems to be due to the reputation factor. I could be wrong. Nevertheless it's flawed...

[peter-evo]

The long-term aspect is cruical to so many people's enjoyment and it is prett disappointing that SI's priorities are elsewhere as there are quite a few issues and I am hoping that the same does not happen next year.

As I progress further into my Marine save and notice the England team barely changing and the average age of the squad above 32, it really kills the realism from the game and really is a game-breaking issue as you get further up the leagues.

[ViG1980]

Completely agree - I have not been 10 seasons into a game since CM2 because of this.

[peter-evo]

Completely agree - I have not been 10 seasons into a game since CM2 because of this.

I am struggling at the moment. I am enjoying it but there are some aspects that I find really frustrating and the stupid sums old players are being sold and brought for really is ridiculous.

[ViG1980]

It's just so unrealistic that I have a hard time buying into the football world in my game so I lose the enjoyment.

I have all the best youngsters in the world, poached from many big clubs because they didn't rate them and they have no interest in young players.

I have to ask the question - what is SI's aim with this game? What kind of game are they trying to create? If it's a career game then this is pretty bad. If they want something where you just play a few seasons and then start with a new team then that's fine - it's just not what I am looking for.

[PaulC]

This is a very high priority area for FM2010.