Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
antbonc

Why doesn't FM look like FIFA?

Recommended Posts

This might be a stupid question as I know absolutely nothing of game development but..

Why doesn't FM look anywhere near as good as games like FIFA? I know it's not the most important aspect of the game and I still enjoy it but it has me curious.

Is it due to the amount of people working on FIFA compared to FM? Budgets? Can't be spec can it as I'm sure people are always saying that pc's have higher specs than consoles?

Will FM ever have super realistic in-match graphics? Sure would add to the realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^

Plus budgets/resourcing. I suspect the budget for FIFA absolutely dwarfs anything SI can bring to the table. It's a niche product, after all.

I do wonder however if SI have have experimented if they can achieve this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's a football management simulator. Fancy graphics are not needed (or wanted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day that happens you can forget about mods and add-ons due to the depth of coding. A heavily coded FM might look "prettier" but as has been said it's a management game not an arcade one so I for one am happy with how it is right now and the ability to easily modify the likes of skins,shirts,faces and logos etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely sure that this would add a extra element to the game in every way, however FM is FM and mainly about management and therefore the SI crew should continue about making the game more and more real in terms of a simulation football game. FIFA in it´s own terms has the graphics it has because of it makes the game attractive to play, you are one player against another player. FM is on the other side a football management game and therefore we continue to look forward to further options you can make as a manager and not a footballer. That´s the difference i´d say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to wikipedia EA Sports has 8000 employees working across seven current games. Using some very basic mathematics, that's over 1100 people per game. If only a third of those work in development, that's still over 350 people.

As Miles said in the recent Q&A (and some of you may have seen on the FM Documentary credits) SI has 99 employees. And we're not all coders.

Not trying to make excuses, but I don't think there's quite as many people working on how the match looks at SI than there are at EA. But we make different games and both teams do the best they can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's alright, the trade off for this is that FIFA doesn't look anything like a real game of football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's alright, the trade off for this is that FIFA doesn't look anything like a real game of football.

Hahaha good one mate.

The subquestion that pops into my head in topics like this is: Should FM look like FIFA? In my opinion: No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to know how many people work on fifa, any more than 10 and i'd call you a liar, shockingly terrible game with the amount of money it makes and glaring flaws for the most simple of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah agree with most sentiments, fifa is *****, know how to do the tricks and you win, it's very arcade. FM makes you think, rather than button mashing skill, it requires a bit of inteligent investment.

Though of course better graphics would be cool and more emersive, it is not fundamental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how 3D Match looks' date=' its unique. We dont need FIFA match graphics... :thup:[/quote']

This a would hate it if fm went with the fifa graphics we dont need it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the flip side, with all these employees why weren't they able to make the players in the 3D engine move as you expect them to?

The 3D in FM might not look as "pretty" but the player behaviors and movements are much more realistic and it is getting better each year, which is why I'm excited to see the impact of the new motion capture in FM15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FM = Football simulation

FIFA = Arcade game

It always makes me chuckle whenever anyone tells how 'realistic' fifa is :D

It's alright, the trade off for this is that FIFA doesn't look anything like a real game of football.

My thoughts exactly. Hence why I haven't bought one in years.

FM is closer to looking like PES if anything :cool:

I remember when PES used to be amazing.

I'd hate to know how many people work on fifa, any more than 10 and i'd call you a liar, shockingly terrible game with the amount of money it makes and glaring flaws for the most simple of things

:D

Neil said all that needs to be said. And as we saw in the features video they are improving it every year. So while it may not end up in a place where it looks like fifa, it may get to a place that would impress you.

Personally I wouldn't want it looking like fifa. Can you imagine how much space it would take up on our computers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the flip side, with all these employees why weren't they able to make the players in the 3D engine move as you expect them to?

The 3D in FM might not look as "pretty" but the player behaviors and movements are much more realistic and it is getting better each year, which is why I'm excited to see the impact of the new motion capture in FM15.

Well, for a start, FIFA games simulate 8 or 10 minutes where FM does the full 90. If the gameplay was realistic, we would see mostly 0-0 scorelines. That won't make the game fly off the shelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust Football Manager if it started looking like FIFA. Same reason I'd rather play Out of the Park baseball over those arcade baseball games for Xbox/Playstation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I've played FIFA for a while as well, I've always preferred FM (and formally CM back in the day) and have been a lot more addicted to it. That's ever since CM Italia 93. I never wanted FM to look like FIFA, nor it should. One is a strategy simulator, the other is arcade simulator.

We might as well flip the question and ask why doesn't FIFA look like FM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be one of very few that still plays the 2d on fm lol Although I bought new FIFA I am regretting getting it now it is shockingly bad and as far as fm is concerned I wish they'd get rid of 3d aswell as the graphics r so terrible I had pm96/97 and pm 97/98 for the PC and I swear they had better graphics back then than they do in fm today. IMO they should of got rid of 3D and concentrated efforts on fixing problems in last fm in particular one that got my goat was the loan system expecting a L2 side to pay full wages n loan fee for a prem player was just stupid. Also how free transfers weren't really free transfers as u had to pay agent fees again was annoying and ruined lower league side of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the FIFA Manager? I once bought FIFA Manager 06 years ago and its utterly crap. I read that the series is dead now :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember the FIFA Manager? I once bought FIFA Manager 06 years ago and its utterly crap. I read that the series is dead now :D

I only bought the last one. It had some interesting ideas, took a different approach to some things and had some charm. But ultimately the bad outweighed the good- there was a depth there, but the presentation and UI did a poor job of showing it off. The match engine looked pretty but didn't work especially well. It ultimately felt too passive to me- things would carry on the same way regardless of my input as the boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldnt buy FM if it was like FIFA. i want a management sim not a controller football game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the FaceGen then? I've seen people name it ancient and embarrasing, and ''heads-on-sticks''.

Invest money in a new one soon? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FM beats FIFA every single time for me, and the reason for this is a very simple thought..... Gameplay is better than pretty. My lad tells me all the time about frame rates, and the graphics on this game and that. Sure they all look nice, but my question is always this 'How does it play ?'

To my mind that's a mistake a lot of people make. Graphics, on their own, do not make gameplay.

Gameplay is better than pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is simply resources. EA have a vast sum of money at their disposal and can afford not only a team of the very best designers, coders, artists and so on, but they can afford to invest in the very latest technology and even develop their own. It's impossible for SI to compete with FIFA technically, but what they lack in graphics they more than make up for in passion, dedication, and hard work. It's best you accept FIFA and FM as two very separate games anyway. One is in-depth management and the other is arcade eye-candy. Both are the best at what they do in their respective genres and I don't think either should try to emulate the other. I buy both and enjoy both for different reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must be one of very few that still plays the 2d on fm lol Although I bought new FIFA I am regretting getting it now it is shockingly bad and as far as fm is concerned I wish they'd get rid of 3d aswell as the graphics r so terrible I had pm96/97 and pm 97/98 for the PC and I swear they had better graphics back then than they do in fm today. IMO they should of got rid of 3D and concentrated efforts on fixing problems in last fm in particular one that got my goat was the loan system expecting a L2 side to pay full wages n loan fee for a prem player was just stupid. Also how free transfers weren't really free transfers as u had to pay agent fees again was annoying and ruined lower league side of the game

They don't need to get rid of the 3D to fix these though, Different people work on the two things. It isn't a case of you can't fix loans because you are fixing the match engine. And getting rid of 3D now would lose them a lot of customers. I know i couldn't go back to 2D now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's true cris it just seems imo they are trying to tell every1 the 3d pitch is great in every trailer for a new fm since they put it in the game years back but really imo I can't stand it, i tried to watch a few games when it first came out but went quickly back to 2d mode as for me I think it gives me a greater view to see how my tactics are working. Overall tho I feel the last few fms aint been as great compared to ones in the past with them trying to add more and more stuff into the game which would be fine but the game had so many errors in it last year in particular with the few I'm mentioned that it was probs one of the worst FM's I've played. Really I hope they have sorted out the problems of last year in fm15. It's just a shame they aint got any real competition on the market else after the last few additions I'd of probs ditched fm by now same goes for fifa when they used to have pro evo back in the day pushing them they in the end started making a better game and I think the same would happen to fm but until someone comes along I guess they will just keep making more bugs in new games and don't care about fixing them just care about adding new things. However with a new fm around the corner I am optimistic it will be great and I do like some of the new stuff with 3d stadiums a great addition just not the 3d engine lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't the players in FIFA behaving as realistic as the ones in FootMan? Priorities, that's right.

FIFA puts a lot effort into cosmetics that don't have any effect on the gameplay such as deteriorating pitch conditions. However, it improves the enjoyment of the game and a lot of users like the arcade style, fair enough. FootMan on the other side, while of course on a lower budget with less staff, aims for each feature to have a direct effect (except for the Movember moustache maybe :D). Users spend a lot of time with the game and expect an in-depth simulation. So in short: Different genres, different target groups, different conditions concerning staff and budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember the FIFA Manager? I once bought FIFA Manager 06 years ago and its utterly crap. I read that the series is dead now :D

Even before Fifa Manager they had Total Club Manager. That wasn't necessarily that bad. Not as good as FM mind. But it had some interesting aspects. They had, for example, implented before FM that the mood of a manager could change the mentality of the team. I think some aspects of that are true in real life too. A lot of teams represent the mentality of their manager. Good teams and good managers anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I completely understand the financial restraints SI seems to have, to say that a good graphical representation of the match itself is not needed is just silly. It's the most important part of the game and the idea is to have it as close to real life as possible. If not, then I guess everyone still plays the 'commentary only' mode? Why did SI even bother with the 2D/3D stuff then?

It's like saying a real-life manage sets everything up and then doesn't watch the game because who cares about the actual match? Both form and function are important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I completely understand the financial restraints SI seems to have, to say that a good graphical representation of the match itself is not needed is just silly. It's the most important part of the game and the idea is to have it as close to real life as possible. If not, then I guess everyone still plays the 'commentary only' mode? Why did SI even bother with the 2D/3D stuff then?

It's like saying a real-life manage sets everything up and then doesn't watch the game because who cares about the actual match? Both form and function are important.

Sorry but I disagree with this statement. The match engine itself and the AI squad building is the most important. What is the point of something that looks good if it is broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I completely understand the financial restraints SI seems to have, to say that a good graphical representation of the match itself is not needed is just silly. It's the most important part of the game and the idea is to have it as close to real life as possible. If not, then I guess everyone still plays the 'commentary only' mode? Why did SI even bother with the 2D/3D stuff then?

It's like saying a real-life manage sets everything up and then doesn't watch the game because who cares about the actual match? Both form and function are important.

It is in by far the most important part of the game. The most important part of the game is the management side of football. I'd rather SI spend their time enhancing the "managerial" side of the game than faffing about with graphics that look like FIFA.

The match engine drives the individual players into how the match is progressed - dressing it up in fancy graphics doesn't make it a better simulation at all.

Rather time was spent on the match engine rather than individually drawing every single blade of grass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most important part of the game is the management side of football. I'd rather SI spend their time enhancing the "managerial" side of the game than faffing about with graphics that look like FIFA.

The match engine drives the individual players into how the match is progressed - dressing it up in fancy graphics doesn't make it a better simulation at all.

Rather time was spent on the match engine rather than individually drawing every single blade of grass.

I agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that the game should have both, ideally, not ONLY the fancy graphics. Or are you all saying that we don't need any graphical representation of the match at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the comparison should be between FM and FIFA Manager really, but guess what????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that the game should have both, ideally, not ONLY the fancy graphics. Or are you all saying that we don't need any graphical representation of the match at all?

Back in the day there was no graphical representation, it was just commentary flashing up on the screen, there wasn't even 2D. And it was still an fantastic game.

When 2D was added there was backlash over wasting time on such a trivial thing - similar with adding 3D.

The new video shows immense new graphics compared to recent years, in the inclusion of motion capture to give a more life-like appearance to how players move on the pitch.

It's enhanced every year, but they can't turn it from stick men to Fifa like graphics overnight. Even FIFA graphics in 1990 were terrible, and if you played FIFA 2000 now and compared it to today you'd be horrified.

We don't really need fancy graphics, but SI do make enhancements every year, for those who want it. But it's a slow progression, as they have 99 staff, not 9000 like FIFA (or whatever that number was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFA is awful. Great looking, but so many exploits and flaws it's embarassing. I can play FIFA for half hour and im sick of it or bored, FM i could easily rack up hours per session, no bother, without any feeling of being fed up or bored.

I'd not like FIFA graphics in the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in the day there was no graphical representation, it was just commentary flashing up on the screen, there wasn't even 2D. And it was still an fantastic game.

When 2D was added there was backlash over wasting time on such a trivial thing - similar with adding 3D.

The new video shows immense new graphics compared to recent years, in the inclusion of motion capture to give a more life-like appearance to how players move on the pitch.

It's enhanced every year, but they can't turn it from stick men to Fifa like graphics overnight. Even FIFA graphics in 1990 were terrible, and if you played FIFA 2000 now and compared it to today you'd be horrified.

We don't really need fancy graphics, but SI do make enhancements every year, for those who want it. But it's a slow progression, as they have 99 staff, not 9000 like FIFA (or whatever that number was).

Well yes, exactly, and the goal is to have that part of the game as good as possible. These aren't the 1990s any more. Don't you want to see players do all sorts of movements, tricks, moves, dribbles? Right now, it's at Sensible Soccer (yes, I am that old) levels, as far as the match graphics go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or are you all saying that we don't need any graphical representation of the match at all?

I think you misunderstood the statements.

First, this is more of a management game than a football game. You don't need the FIFA looks as you are not trying to control a ball or hit the goal.

Second, most players prefer a view that gives them feedback for tactical and squad development rather than seeing a neat trick but have no clue why a game was lost.

Of course the graphical representation is important but it should not distract from the tactical information.That's why some (many?) still prefer 2d-view. They think they get the most relevant information in that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you misunderstood the statements.

First, this is more of a management game than a football game. You don't need the FIFA looks as you are not trying to control a ball or hit the goal.

Second, most players prefer a view that gives them feedback for tactical and squad development rather than seeing a neat trick but have no clue why a game was lost.

Of course the graphical representation is important but it should not distract from the tactical information.That's why some (many?) still prefer 2d-view. They think they get the most relevant information in that view.

Spot on, is the expression I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen from commercials FIFA15 is not graphically realistic at all. Too much arcade mode to my liking.

Also tactically it wouldn't be optimal to have FIFA graphics as the players are way too big. You would see a lesser part of the field than what you do now in FM meaning it would be harder to optimize tactical decisions as the game progress. You need to see how other players (your own and the opposition) react when they are not close to the action.

Edit: Somewhat slower than Kojak123 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you want to see players do all sorts of movements, tricks, moves, dribbles?

No, I want to see whether my tactics work as intended and if my players are up for the job. And I don't see that in a close up view of the right foot of one player dribbling (no matter how cool or fancy that trick may be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...