Jump to content

forameuss

Members+
  • Posts

    12,531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by forameuss

  1. The Match Engine does all the calculations, and serves up something that can be visualised, either by the 3D or 2D visual engines. Metaphorically, the Match Engine is a big bag of shopping full of ingredients. The 3D and 2D engines are chefs, both with very different recipes to make, but both with the same list of ingredients. Improving the match engine would be like improving all of those ingredients in the bag. That benefits both chefs, even if they're cooking the same recipes. Or something, maybe lost my way a bit there.
  2. But what has been glossed over is that development on this feature could well lead to improvements across the board. The match engine likely hasn't changed in structure in a long, long time, but clearly with this, something's got to change. New approaches, new ideas, new opportunities. You're very unlikely to be able to justify as big a rethink of the match engine without this feature, so it could end up being a big opportunity in a number of areas. To believe that working on this suddenly means that all work stops elsewhere, or that there couldn't be some other benefit is massively reaching.
  3. Yup, absolutely. That's the age-old problem that comes with inviting the kind of feedback SI do.
  4. Which is a fair point again, but while I'd always argue for SI to make FM as realistic as possible, if we're getting to the point where we're seriously developing features that are knowingly tedious (and I know, I know, it's completely subjective) just because it's tedious in real life, then they're in dangerous of disappearing in the vicinty of certain orifices. I'd be even more supportive of a version of FM that could be as realistic as possible, whilst "game-ifying" certain other parts to make them more enjoyable to sit through. Not convinced that is ever going to be a direction they'll go though.
  5. Could very well be. Although it might not be done to stuff being taken away, or more that the stuff added doesn't really add much in terms of immersion. Personally I don't feel like the media modules have added anything really, outside of very rare occasions. But they still form a fair chunk of the game if you let them. EDIT: For what it's worth, I hate the use of "immersion" in this sense. There's definitely the kernel of a point in there, but then you get the wild claims from people that say their immersion is ruined because they noticed that their favourite player had a few pixels that looked vaguely like a side-parting. It's overused by now.
  6. It can be both, you know. It can be that the game is incredibly repetitive and sterile, with little difference between wherever and at what level you're managing, while simultaneously having no real way to differentiate that. The former is very true for me. And I agree with what @(sic) is saying, and would go as far as saying that it often doesn't really matter what club you're playing at, let alone what level. It's just different names flashing by, slightly different looking stadiums, but the same game loop. It's a game that has always relied on each individual user to build their own immersion, but the past few editions have seemed particularly sterile in that it's the same obfuscated loop over and over again. That may be a personal thing now rather than the direction the game has gone in, as maybe my imagination isn't quite what it used to be, and the same stories aren't getting made up to make things interesting. But the game has never been particularly good at that. How do you change that? Is it even possible?
  7. Hmm...wonder where this will go next... ...yup. Something tells me I'm not the overly sensitive one here.
  8. Yeah, that's true. I think they have been getting better quality wise (or, more accurately, the game is getting more forgiving for errors). The tools are definitely there for someone to make something really high quality, but yeah, mileage massively varies depending on who is building. It's the language used. Plenty of ways that particularly point could've been worded that wouldn't make it sound like that. Context matters, particularly when surrounded by the rest of it. Someone comes in and says they have no interest in the feature and probably wouldn't use it, fine. Smugly talk about how "it's all PC gone mad lololol" and use words like "eliminate", context switches more than slightly.
  9. Personally I'm disgusted that CDPR made so many mistakes in CyberPunk 2077 that they couldn't have fixed in the previous 2076 iterations. And this is the big issue, not just with FM, but with gaming in general, particularly with yearly franchises. People, ultimately, are weak. They like to talk a good game online, ranting about how awful things are, wielding those big dislike buttons. "Oh look! That video has been disliked several million times! ROFL!" they chortle, whilst looking into their wallet to count out their pennies to buy a copy. The consumer should hold all the power in this relationship, but bitching about a product without any action behind it has to be amongst the most pathetically pointless things you can do. If people actually backed up their hate of the product (and admittedly, FM is nowhere near as guilty for this as others) by not buying it, that is something that would get noticed.
  10. Eh? The post you replied had a list that would take years to get through, a number of them, if realised, would be huge for the game. I couldn't care any less for a graphics overhaul (although I know it's popular elsewhere) but improvements in AI across the board are desperately needed, and you could spend several editions purely making improvements there. And ultimately, it'll continue to sell at the pace it always has. I expect every company that does something like this will have some breathless social media manager parrot out dislike ratios and angry comments, but ultimately, they mean absolutely nothing without actual action taken. And if there's one thing that very rarely happens, it's actual action. EA have taken the FIFA franchise on a heinous ride to the bottom of the barrel, they're constantly derided, seemingly constantly hated on for doing so, yet they just laugh and count the money that people are still seemingly happy to give them. Obviously SI aren't on that level, but unless people actually back up pressing a big thumbs down on YouTube with not buying...ultimately, who cares?
  11. I'm not convinced that just putting an rubber stamp saying "official" over something that could've been done in the freely available editor is that much of a great new feature. They can't do it to their high standards given the current researching resources, and they know there's people out there who can generate the content for them (albeit at a lower quality, but the gap is closing). No, suggesting it's been added for "political correctness", expressing surprise that people might actually like it as a feature, and using language like "eliminate" it does that far better.
  12. Yeah, my issue with England is more with the Premier League. Haven't gone lower leagues for a long time, maybe even with "fake" players too to break a wee bit more from reality. I'm edging towards holidaying to the actual date in real life, but a year forward. November 9th is release, so add a manager to a team on November 9th 2022, which gives the World Cup for a bit more "colour" during the season. It'll probably be utterly tedious, but let's see.
  13. I'm going to try and force myself back to here for FM22 with a few different ideas. One I'm quite interested in is a proper real-time save where I essentially cover one single season alone with updates purely covering that day. Obviously won't be the main save, as very little is going to happen, but maybe interesting as an experiment for documenting. So, my question to all of you, what would be the ideal club to do something like this with? Personally I've always gotten on best with smaller leagues with less games to play, but that's obviously not going to be ideal for a save like this as far less would happen. Brazil would then arguably be the best, as they play something like 583 games a season, but I know far less about the country and the football, so I can add less colour. I thought maybe the Scottish Leagues, but ideally you'd want a side in European competition to give that extra edge, and...well, that would mean Rangers or Celtic. Eurgh. English leagues may end up being the best option, but I usually hate the long, boring, financially over-inflated seasons there. Maybe the Championship with the longer and more hectic seasons? Final option could be just to wait until the proper release and get my hands on the editor, then build the situation I'm happy with. Anyone have any suggestions?
  14. I was more aiming for it not being the sole aim, which would suggest that there's somehow this group of people who would love to play FM, but don't, and only because there simply isn't a female option for the leagues. It's a pretty unique situation in that there's unlikely to be huge groups (not to say there won't be some) who will be a fan of solely the women's game. That's not to say there won't be any, just that I doubt it'll be a primary focus. That focus appears to be just keeping the most realistic product, and having the women's game added no matter what. They've said they don't expect it to be particularly profitable.
  15. If you found that "defensive", seems like you might be projecting. It's simply disagreeing. What do you think the female players of FM are doing now? Just looking sadly at the editor? But then taking your opinion and believing it'll be widespread, seems unsurprising.
  16. Why does that matter? You could just as easily get a female player who has zero interest in the women's game and it's involvement in FM, just like you could get exactly the opposite and have a male player who ends up exclusively playing in women's football during a save. I doubt SI's main aim is to draw female eyes to the product as much as it is getting - and keeping - any eyes on the product.
  17. I do delegate them. But you're always going to have to balance the negatives for doing it that way. I'd rather they actually tackled whether it was actually enjoyable to most rather than shrugging and saying "just don't do it then".
  18. I don't want them either. I have a pretty good idea of the sacrifices that would have to be made to get the game to that position. And if they'd announced FM22 with them included but still had the game feeling as sterile and on-rails as it does now, then I'd find it hard to be excited by "ooh shiny". Put lipstick on a pig etc etc
  19. So maybe it's time to break from realism with certain features in the interests of, you know, actually having fun. I get the game's a simulation, that's good. But if you're designing it (which I don't think they are) from the perspective of "well, these are deathly dull in real life, so we have to accurately model that in-game", then they're doing it wrong.
  20. Ought to get that jerk in your knee seen to before you do yourself an injury. Edit: and because I expect certain people will be absolutely beeling at that, any extreme reaction, positive or negative is just attention-seeking at this stage. Headline features could turn out to be anything - useless, ok, or ground breaking - depending on implementation. Minor features could do the same, as a small quality of life change could have huge impacts to you (or conversely, make absolutely no impression). There is absolutely no way to tell until YOU get a chance to form your own opinion.
  21. this is a decent point. If things are logical, then "what we're supposed to say" should be logical too, even if the answer is different for every player. If it's working properly it should be about you as a manager being able to determine how to deal with each player individually, doing that, and then getting the benefit. Clearly that's not the case, so are we supposed to think of it as a video game, and there being some "answer" to use? It wouldn't be an ideal solution, but it would at least be a solution. Unfortunately the way it seems to be, it's neither of these things. It's, like you say, seemingly a lottery, and not even close to fun. Worse than that, it seems completely pointless, as I've taken to just not talking to anyone as routine. I'm sure I'm maybe losing, say, 15% that I could make up by doing those bits, but I should be losing more. The arbitrary nature of it all just makes it seem completely pointless.
  22. Oh I don't know, purple seems about right for the colour I imagine your face went when you found out that *gasp* women play football too.
  23. This, absolutely. It's a shame, because if you do actually want to get into one of these "war of words" situations, you can. It actually works out quite well. I had a running battle with England manager Eddie Howe in the media when I was managing Scotland, and it led to him getting sacked after us beating them at the Euros one year. But for every situation like that, there's a whole lot that make absolutely zero sense and don't really let you build any kind of narrative. As with so much in the game, it's a startling lack of context in most decisions. AI in the match engine is not too bad despite obvious issues, but AI outside of the match in the less important areas is sorely lacking.
  24. There's one party that can tell you whether it's valid anymore. Can you tell which one? I'll give you a clue, it's the ones that made the decision to keep it that way. What does that tell you? I'm not convinced to be honest. I think there's a lot more they could do to the game to take it to the next level before they look at the visuals. If they suddenly came out and said that 22 would have a presentation similar to FIFA/PES, but not much else had changed behind the scenes, it'd be an Alan Partridge shrug from me. I don't doubt people would be losing their minds and saying how great it is, but the entire game behind it, the day to day, it would still be the incredibly sterile, repetitive, static and often po-faced world that we have today. If they managed to completely overhaul that instead, and even said because of it we'll be going back to 2D, then I'd be there on day 1 without hestitation. Plus part of the reason that it looks the way it does, I'd imagine, is because they're building a bespoke graphical representation of their own incredibly complex engine. Having a FIFA-like presentation for that I would imagine would be an incredibly difficult task. Certainly more than chucking a few animations together ala FIFA/PES.
×
×
  • Create New...