Jump to content

Let's be honest, is anyone going to bother with FM19?


Recommended Posts

2 часа назад, Federico сказал:

I never stop being shocked by how so many people throws on the table how FM12 was good compared to latest releases. Putting aside any technical discussion, I just remember I gave it a go long time ago (like 2-3 years ago), just to watch how it looked after some years.

Unwatchable. The ball was flying high like an hot balloon just to fall down with improbable trajectories, sticking to a sticky pitch. The animation of players were animatronically animatronics and damn it was so easy to win. I think people loves it so much because they could win anything with zero effort. I used to make horrible tactics with no logic, but never forgot to place my DC on near post on corners.

You say it like now ball has realistic moves and animation like nextgen :D Btw I always play only 2D, FM08 or FM18, no matter.

In FM12 were nice team and individual moves. I watch a game and can imagine this IRL. In modern versions this is more welter/chaos. Situations are unrealistic.
This was more simply, because if you set something, team did it exactly. For now tactical settings are less transparent and more casual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 275
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

13 minuti fa, Novem9 ha scritto:

You say it like now ball has realistic moves and animation like nextgen :D Btw I always play only 2D, FM08 or FM18, no matter.

In FM12 were nice team and individual moves. I watch a game and can imagine this IRL. In modern versions this is more welter/chaos. Situations are unrealistic.
This was more simply, because if you set something, team did it exactly. For now tactical settings are less transparent and more casual.

No, I say this because the physic of the ball is improved massively and that's a fact, not a matter of tastes. Same for animations. And I simply made a comparison between FM12 and FM18, no next gen games involved. But if you want you can bring it on some of them, I'm sure FM would stand the challange (speaking of managing games ofc).

On the contrary, if you enjoy playing FM12 I'm happy for you. I strongly disagree on all the other points you made but it's my point of view compared to yours.

I'm just a little bit dubious when you say you can compare FM12 to real life better than you do with more recent FMs. Not the be repetitive but the collision avoidance feature, to me, is enough to make FM12 among the most unrealistics FMs made. That said I still play FM07 so I know what you're speaking about. But I loved FM15 and FM17 also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 минут назад, Federico сказал:

But I loved FM15 and FM17 also

I love this two versions too, because this is comfortable to play in ball possession.

The best point of modern versions this is interface. I play in FM17 in current moment and I missed possibility to check positions just to click on "i" like FM18. I need to open profile there. And these are a lot of little nice things. I played 600+ hours in FM18 but delete, because dont like this.

FM18 is bad. Its my opinion and you totally right about understanding your opinion, my and they can be different. If somebody enjoy FM18 - good for him. 

But this good topic and good theme for discuss. Really dont understand sarcasm or agressive misunderstandings of any users. We have a problem and want to solve it with responsobility persons. Sometimes this is not perfect shape of requests, and this escalate.

16 минут назад, Federico сказал:

No, I say this because the physic of the ball is improved massively and that's a fact, not a matter of tastes

Of course, but I mean that what a sense of this, if other wrong? (even only in my opinion)

Anyway I really wait to know a features of FM19.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jonfun1980 said:

Not enjoyed 17 or 18. Had every version since the start of CM. I hope 19 gets me back into the game I used to love.

For me 17 was immense, im still playing it. 18 wasn't so good. I don't like the scouting thing, don't think I ever went into the medical center after the first time and why did it take so long to do anything on it! I will be getting 19 just like I have every other edition since CM 00/01 and hoping it plays better than 18 🤞🤞

Edited by bigmattb28
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people could use a break from FM i feel.  There will never be a unaninmously loved strategy game beacuse a really tight strategy game can be difficult to succeed in therefore they'll be losers, people do not like losing. This is literally my first post on here, haven't been on an FM forum for about 10 years, not interested in people telling me about what wonderkids to sign, i want to find them for myself. Having looked to play online for the first time brought me here and I have to say if you don't like what SI are giving you then don't buy this years, chances are you'll be back because nothing out there even comes close.

My memory isn't great but I think it was between 11-13 I stopped buying the games simply because since 01/02 i've been addicted and knew it was time to stop for a little while plus working crazy hours. When i came back i appreciated it more than ever, there may be some bugs here and there but considering the small size of SI they do a terrific job every season and it has come on leaps and bounds over the years simply in database size alone it's ridiculous. Take a year or two off come back and i guarentee you'll appreciate it more.

Personally i have some issues, sure there are bugs, i've done almost a 1,000 hours on FM 18 but they haven't been debilating so more than happy to buy 19. I think there will be a bit of an overhaul this year, a new interface i feel has been a long time coming i think this is the edition we'll be seeing it. The biggest downer for me is the media stuff it's just mind numbingly boring and the same old s*it over and over again. Either limit the media obligations or completely revamp it making it feel at least a little fresher from one obligation to the next I'm sure they'll be looking at this.

I don't think it's as simple to say oh they should spend less time with the media stuff and spend more time on other aspects of the game though, they're probably getting the best out of the other parts of the game, as one poster said changing the ME for one bug can open up a new one or several. I've never put down a FM game becasue of bugs it's just never happened for me they are all very efficient in that department. Probably anticipating this one more than any other looks like SI have made some serious changes and in SI i trust.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kingkestrel99 said:

Some people could use a break from FM i feel.  There will never be a unaninmously loved strategy game beacuse a really tight strategy game can be difficult to succeed in therefore they'll be losers, people do not like losing.  

I stopped at FM17 because the game is too easy & I’m waiting for an AI that can offer a tactical challenge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Barside said:

I stopped at FM17 because the game is too easy & I’m waiting for an AI that can offer a tactical challenge.

Which teams do you usually start with? what experience do you start with as a coach? Have you played 18? Is there another tactical football sim out there you've found that can offer this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kingkestrel99 said:

Which teams do you usually start with? what experience do you start with as a coach? Have you played 18? Is there another tactical football sim out there you've found that can offer this?

I’m an LLM zealot so I start in the lowest playable division of my chosen starting nation & with the lowest level of experience & coaching badge.

Yes I did give 18 a try.

As for other games out there, that’s irrelevant to the discussion because FM is the only show in town.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a management style issueA lot of people understand by the word management "you have to do that and that and that".  That's what they want: to ask players and staff to do exactly what they are told. 

Management also means the ability to handle other aspects (moral, psychological, behavioral), the ability to negotiate, the ability to exploit the characteristics of different markets (players contracts, staff, sponsorships, media etc).  But many FM players do not want to play "full management".  They like "you have to do" management.  Is it bad ? Of course not. Maybe many FM players are tired after work or do not have enough time or they simply want to be "the big boss".  And a big boss is not concerned about morale, temperament, behaviour, complacency and so on. He wants to be executed all his instructions. Wants to select a formation, a mentality, some roles and duties, some other instructions ... and to win. And if he can not win he wants to know what instructions to select for win. He wants to be able to "see" (scout) as many players he can players and to "buy" and "sell" any player he wants. I do not know if it's technically possible, but it's clear that many FM players need another version of FM. Without (or with a minimum of) interactions, morale, psihological characteristics, complacency  and so on. And with an "open" scouting system. Instructions only. PI, TI, mentality, formation, roles, duties, freedom to sell/buy what they want and a large database. A kind of "Boss Style Tactical FM".  But would be this version representative for what management really means in sports ? Surely not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote the thread title- let's be honest, can anybody remember what this thread was about after 2+ weeks?

This is now just going round in circles with little input to the original question, so let's try and keep it relevant or it will be best just to move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

I do not know if it's technically possible, but it's clear that many FM players need another version of FM. Without (or with a minimum of) interactions, morale, psihological characteristics, complacency  and so on. And with an "open" scouting system. Instructions only. PI, TI, mentality, formation, roles, duties, freedom to sell/buy what they want and a large database. A kind of "Boss Style Tactical FM".  But would be this version representative for what management really means in sports ? Surely not.

Think you just described FM touch there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

it's clear that many FM players need another version of FM. Without (or with a minimum of) interactions, morale, psihological characteristics, complacency  and so on. And with an "open" scouting system. Instructions only. PI, TI, mentality, formation, roles, duties, freedom to sell/buy what they want and a large database. A kind of "Boss Style Tactical FM".  But would be this version representative for what management really means in sports ? Surely not.

Isn't there a difference between your interpretation that "many FM players" want a game without interactions, morale etc,  and what FM players seem to be saying which is that they want the interactions to be better? It's always dangerous to reduce things to the binary, and to assume that if people are critical of certain aspects of the game means they want a game with those elements removed is doing just that.

Of course management in sports involves a wide spectrum of skills and situations. But when even the SI voices are joining in the discussion, and offering their own critique of some of the elements, then it seems to me more constructive to talk about how things can be improved, rather than implying that criticising a part of the game means that we want a simpler game. 

Edited by scass
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably wont buy it when it comes out however I may eventually.  My laptop struggles to run at a suitable speed with the amount of leagues I like to play with.  It just takes too long to play, I might have a look at some of the older versions of FM I have and maybe re-install one of them

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, scass said:

Of course management in sports involves a wide spectrum of skills and situations. But when even the SI voices are joining in the discussion, and offering their own critique of some of the elements, then it seems to me more constructive to talk about how things can be improved, rather than implying that criticising a part of the game means that we want a simpler game. 

I don't want a simpler game.  There are many sections of the game that (in my opinion) should be improved.  This is not a critique but an observation. There are people who want a more complex and polished game and there are people who want a FMT called FM. Or even a FMT called FM that contains only what they call "tactical instructions" and without any other variables. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/09/2018 at 23:12, scass said:

I know what you're trying to say here, but if you read that sentence back,it seems to suggest that making a game enjoyable to play is less important  than it satisfying some technical definition of "quality". That's something of a knot to tie the discussion up in, at best.

If you read the sentence back and take what you want to hear from it, then probably, yeah.

But if you're actually reading it properly, then you'll see that I'm not making any comment of that sort.  People compare Match Engines all the time, and some that enjoyed FM12 still put it as being an objectionably better engine than in later versions.  Nothing to do with enjoyment (even though that's where it stems from), actually functionally better.  Which is as demonstrably untrue as it's possible to get.  Particularly when the reason people usually criticise an ME is due to how bad their game-breaking bugs are.  FM12's was that if you had a player with any pace they'd score hundreds because there was no collision detection.  You just can't compare them quality wise, nothing to do with how enjoyable it was.  If you want to say "I enjoyed playing FM12 more than FM18", then that's fine and perfectly understandable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, forameuss said:

if you read the sentence back and take what you want to hear from it, then probably, yeah.

But if you're actually reading it properly, then you'll see that I'm not making any comment of that sort. 

I can only read it one way - in English, giving the words their normal meaning. It's not a question of what I want to hear from it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

I don't want a simpler game.  There are many sections of the game that (in my opinion) should be improved.  This is not a critique but an observation. There are people who want a more complex and polished game and there are people who want a FMT called FM. Or even a FMT called FM that contains only what they call "tactical instructions" and without any other variables. 

Erm? I can't get your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GreenTriangle said:

I don't want a simpler game.  There are many sections of the game that (in my opinion) should be improved.  This is not a critique but an observation. There are people who want a more complex and polished game and there are people who want a FMT called FM. Or even a FMT called FM that contains only what they call "tactical instructions" and without any other variables. 

I didn't actually say you wanted a simpler game. I said that here are shades of opinion, and that it was dangerous to reduce things to the binary - but you're just re-iterated your determination to reduce it to people who only want tactical instructions, and people who want a game with all the interaction.  That's reducing it to the binary, and it's misleading in terms of the issues that have been brought up. If I read the thread, I wasn't see the division you're talking about. You're always going to get the odd poster who says "it's rubbish, it should be in the game" but actually most of the criticism( include that coming from some of the mods) points to improving interaction. It doesn't always have to be an argument - in fact, it is usually better when it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scass said:

I can only read it one way - in English, giving the words their normal meaning. It's not a question of what I want to hear from it. 

So how come you managed to get a completely different meaning from it?  Seems like you read it a completely different way.  For anything further, read the previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, forameuss said:

So how come you managed to get a completely different meaning from it?  Seems like you read it a completely different way.  For anything further, read the previous post.

It's pointless arguing, when you can't understand that saying it probably was more enjoyable, but was lagging in terms of quality is not a strong argument.  It seems to have escaped you that what the FM12 posters were comparing was the tactical move,emt of the players, nothing more. It's irrelevant to do what you have done, which is raise collisions, because that isn't the point being made. bringing this into the discussion simply avoids the issue that others are talking about, because your said, as ever, is sniping at anyone who criticises any aspect of a game which you freely admit you don't actually play.  Got it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, scass said:

It's pointless arguing, when you can't understand that saying it probably was more enjoyable, but was lagging in terms of quality is not a strong argument.  It seems to have escaped you that what the FM12 posters were comparing was the tactical move,emt of the players, nothing more. It's irrelevant to do what you have done, which is raise collisions, because that isn't the point being made. bringing this into the discussion simply avoids the issue that others are talking about, because your said, as ever, is sniping at anyone who criticises any aspect of a game which you freely admit you don't actually play.  Got it?

Well isn't that a word salad.  I'll tell you what, whenever I post, if you can stop being absolutely raging for long enough, just take whatever meaning you want to make out of it, have a grumble, then move on.  

But whenever anyone brings up the quality of a previous match engine, I'm always going to point it out.  But seeing as now I've had to point it out several times, I'll say it once more.  If you enjoy the match engine, despite it's faults, that is completely fine.  Great, even. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • FrazT locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...