Football Manager 2020 - Feature Announcement Blogs

[Becanes]

2 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

The stadium editor would be used to make existing stadiums look more realistic, just as there's a data editor for exactly the same thing (among others).  It's not for any in-game use, at least that's not what I want it for. 

They could at least make the stadiums moddable in some way. I know there's the licence thing, but they don't have the licence for the EPL, yet it's possible to get all the badges and kits etc installed in the game. 

Agreed on this.  We can just mod the stadiums.  Make some changes here and there so you're not playing in the same stadiums most of the time.

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

The stadium editor would be used to make existing stadiums look more realistic, just as there's a data editor for exactly the same thing (among others).  It's not for any in-game use, at least that's not what I want it for. 

They could at least make the stadiums moddable in some way. I know there's the licence thing, but they don't have the licence for the EPL, yet it's possible to get all the badges and kits etc installed in the game. 

Im guessing it's not feasible to do so. Only Neil could say for sure though. 

[Dalglish]

2 minutes ago, Becanes said:

Agreed on this.  We can just mod the stadiums.  Make some changes here and there so you're not playing in the same stadiums most of the time.

Yep, stadiums are crying out for a bit of variation. In FM 19 Wembley looked smaller than Coventry's Ricoh Arena.

I'd love to see a running track around a pitch. However, at the very least I'd like to see the massive tv screens removed from lower league grounds.

 

[Dagenham_Dave]

22 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Im guessing it's not feasible to do so. Only Neil could say for sure though. 

If you can mod the pitches, the balls. and the nets, surely it's not too much of a stretch to mod the other graphics in the 3d engline. Perhaps not. 

[Rashidi]

SI have adopted quite a few features from the community, and if its viable they will almost certainly add one in. The only challenge i see with the stadium editor is how the light effects are going to be handled. If people want absolute control over the editor then lighting will definitely pose an issue.  It's a nice idea, i probably can't be bothered to do it since i am more interested in what happens on the pitch, than how the pitch looks within a stadium, even then people should just pop up a Feature Request. 

[DiStru_]

Never cared about stadiums, clothing of my manager, or graphics in general and never will. I'd much rather them focus on revamping the tactical UI. Adding tactical presets was a step in the right direction, but they need to work on it further. It only takes one visit of the Tactics forum to see how badly certain things are explained in this game (to the point they're actually misleading). We shouldn't need seasoned FM veterans translating things for us. Tactics in real life are nowhere near as complex as this micro puzzle of mentalities, roles, duties and instructions. Honestly, it's no surprise the AI is struggling to keep up against better players.

[Brother Ben]

6 hours ago, gunner86 said:

Same here really.

There is enough change to make it worth while. And £35 for 1000 hours of play time works out at 3.5p per hour.

I told myself it would take significant changes to takeme away from 19, but even QoL improvements are still improvements. And we have the updated database.

Well put, I've mentioned before on the forums that I have spent thousands on Laptops, PC's and upgrades and a windows tablet to play just this game and it's worth every penny in my eyes.  Maybe it's because i'm a little older than some other players I don't know, but I think the game was near perfect a good few years back so all of the little features that are added year on year are just icing on the cake in my mind.  I won't be quibbling over £35

As an aside I remember being really surprised when they decided to bring out the 2D and then 3D engine as it seemed obvious to me that it would be really difficult to graphically represent the thousands of calculations going on in the background.  It has sadly invited a lot of the "it looks like FIFA 97" type comments that we see now.  Still that's the price of progress I suppose

 

[Double0Seven]

7 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Well put, I've mentioned before on the forums that I have spent thousands on Laptops, PC's and upgrades and a windows tablet to play just this game and it's worth every penny in my eyes.  Maybe it's because i'm a little older than some other players I don't know, but I think the game was near perfect a good few years back so all of the little features that are added year on year are just icing on the cake in my mind.  I won't be quibbling over £35

As an aside I remember being really surprised when they decided to bring out the 2D and then 3D engine as it seemed obvious to me that it would be really difficult to graphically represent the thousands of calculations going on in the background.  It has sadly invited a lot of the "it looks like FIFA 97" type comments that we see now.  Still that's the price of progress I suppose

 

Not saying it is "easy", but with todays technology and many other games being able to simulate good graphics while having thousands of calculations (usually more) going on, theres no excuse. 

At the end of the day, Football Manager is not a small franchise and will regularly be a top 10 played game on Steam. If much smaller games and franchises or even mobile games have better graphics, then why are we happy with the graphics FM has?

Just show any non FM player a picture of this and they will laugh at us. I dont know in what world anyone can be "pretty happy" with graphics that come straight from the 2000s. Sure, FM is not about the graphics, but if they put it in the game why is it so hilariously bad compared to what much smaller companies and much smaller franchises put out?  

 

 

[RorysRocketThrow]

Apologies for the potentially lazy and daft question, but have we seen any match engine footage yet, and if not, why not?

[gunner86]

2 minutes ago, RorysRocketThrow said:

Apologies for the potentially lazy and daft question, but have we seen any match engine footage yet, and if not, why not?

Not yet. Simply because it’s not ready

[themadsheep2001]

47 minutes ago, Double0Seven said:

Not saying it is "easy", but with todays technology and many other games being able to simulate good graphics while having thousands of calculations (usually more) going on, theres no excuse. 

At the end of the day, Football Manager is not a small franchise and will regularly be a top 10 played game on Steam. If much smaller games and franchises or even mobile games have better graphics, then why are we happy with the graphics FM has?

Just show any non FM player a picture of this and they will laugh at us. I dont know in what world anyone can be "pretty happy" with graphics that come straight from the 2000s. Sure, FM is not about the graphics, but if they put it in the game why is it so hilariously bad compared to what much smaller companies and much smaller franchises put out?  

 

 

Because they also know their user base, and more importantly, the fact that a large chuck of it tend to play considerably lower spec hardware than the average gamer. The fact that you can play FM on such relatively low specs, and thus almost anywhere is a) one of its unique selling points to said audience and b) one of the tradeoffs it makes for that user base. Of course they could aim for more, but that comes at a spec cost. And if the cost outweighs the gains, it's a non starter. 

[BigV]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

There should be a dark skin choice in the game should there not

yes there will be, but i was just pointing at other areas for preference. 

[janrzm]

2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Because they also know their user base, and more importantly, the fact that a large chuck of it tend to play considerably lower spec hardware than the average gamer. The fact that you can play FM on such relatively low specs, and thus almost anywhere is a) one of its unique selling points to said audience and b) one of the tradeoffs it makes for that user base. Of course they could aim for more, but that comes at a spec cost. And if the cost outweighs the gains, it's a non starter. 

Genuine question, is that opening statement based on published research or a hunch? Personally, I'd find the notion of a video game developer deliberately stifling it's own development in order to accomodate outdated technologies hard to accept. Indeed, if they were to publicly announce this as policy I'd be incredibly disappointed. Clearly, you want to make the game available to as wide an audience as possible but not at the expense of progress IMO. 

[gunner86]

8 minutes ago, janrzm said:

Genuine question, is that opening statement based on published research or a hunch? Personally, I'd find the notion of a video game developer deliberately stifling it's own development in order to accomodate outdated technologies hard to accept. Indeed, if they were to publicly announce this as policy I'd be incredibly disappointed. Clearly, you want to make the game available to as wide an audience as possible but not at the expense of progress IMO. 

Yes, they will get usage statistics from Steam regarding the type of machines used to play the game.

And they've openly stated on these forums that they want to ensure they don't want to cut out a significant segment of their market by upping the minimum requirements.

A lot of people don't have high spec gaming machines, and FM is the only game they play, so why would they want to go out and buy an expensive machine just to play one game? And a lot of these people have been paying the game for a long time.

What good is progress if you have no one to sell it to?

Edited October 9, 2019 by gunner86

[janrzm]

10 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

Yes, they will get usage statistics from Steam regarding the type of machines used to play the game.

And they've openly stated on these forums that they want to ensure they don't want to cut out a significant segment of their market by upping the minimum requirements.

A lot of people don't have high spec gaming machines, and FM is the only game they play, so why would they want to go out and buy an expensive machine just to play one game? And a lot of these people have been paying the game for a long time.

So, if that is indeed the case then the obstacle of outdated tech will be largely removed with the availability of the game on Google Stadia. Therefore it will no longer be the hinderance to progress that its currently perceived to be? Assuming of course its available in your region, which for me, won't currently be the case....

Edited October 9, 2019 by janrzm

[gunner86]

1 minute ago, janrzm said:

So, if that is indeed the case then the obstacle of outdated tech will be largely removed with the availability of the game on Google Stadia. Therefore it will no longer be the hinderance to progress that its currently perceived to be?

Potentially/hopefully.

I'd imagine they'd wait to see how many people will actually be using Stadia to play the game before they make that decision. As it stands, it looks like there will be limitations to Stadia, e.g. no editor, no modding/skinning etc. and no cross-platform (i.e Stadia to Steam or Game Pass) network play capability - all at least at launch - could put people off. Plus, there will be no offline play, ever.

It's very much in the wait and see box right now, but it'll be at least a year, more realistically more than that, before we know whether that's the route they'll take.

[themadsheep2001]

8 minutes ago, janrzm said:

So, if that is indeed the case then the obstacle of outdated tech will be largely removed with the availability of the game on Google Stadia. Therefore it will no longer be the hinderance to progress that its currently perceived to be? Assuming of course its available in your region, which for me, won't currently be the case....

It also needs you to have a solid connection and always be online. It doesn't cover spotty connections, or no connections it might not even be available to your area. It's another way to play but doesn't replace the core way to play. There's still sections currently unavailable to such as modding. If it launches well its another way to get more people in, but doesn't function as a replacement to the traditional way by any means

[janrzm]

5 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

Potentially/hopefully.

I'd imagine they'd wait to see how many people will actually be using Stadia to play the game before they make that decision. As it stands, it looks like there will be limitations to Stadia, e.g. no editor, no modding/skinning etc. and no cross-platform (i.e Stadia to Steam or Game Pass) network play capability - all at least at launch - could put people off. Plus, there will be no offline play, ever.

It's very much in the wait and see box right now, but it'll be at least a year, more realistically more than that, before we know whether that's the route they'll take.

 

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

It also needs you to have a solid connection and always be online. It doesn't cover spotty connections, or no connections it might not even be available to your area. It's another way to play but doesn't replace the core way to play. There's still sections currently unavailable to such as modding. If it launches well its another way to get more people in, but doesn't function as a replacement to the traditional way by any means

There are some clear benefits to Stadia but I agree, there is no one solution for all playing habits although I'd be certain most of us are playing in darkened rooms........  From a personal perspective, aside from the fact it won't be available in my region, if there is no ability to add faces, logos, backgrounds and an alternate skin I just wouldn't go there as they are integral to me playing the game. Conversely, if I was playing on an old, slow PC I'd possibly not be adding all those graphical elements so I may see it as an upgrade.  

[99]

2 horas atrás, janrzm disse:

Genuine question, is that opening statement based on published research or a hunch? Personally, I'd find the notion of a video game developer deliberately stifling it's own development in order to accomodate outdated technologies hard to accept. Indeed, if they were to publicly announce this as policy I'd be incredibly disappointed. Clearly, you want to make the game available to as wide an audience as possible but not at the expense of progress IMO. 

Truth be told, if you compare the system requirements of FM and other 2019 games, clearly FM allows for more players with more systems to be able to play. I for one benefit from it since my laptop was choose for work and not for gaming, with FM being the only game I play for several years. Maybe the global implementation of Google Stadia can help that to change, because I also agree that FM graphics are not good.

Edited October 9, 2019 by 99

[SpGR]

Il 8/10/2019 in 14:51 , Double0Seven ha scritto:

I dont understand this snarky comment from Miles. 

How is this "arcade"? Surely there are DOFs in real life who have more power than your average DOF and also DOFs who have less power. 

It's just my interpretation, but I get that this Brett guy is substantially asking for a "can i haz change instantly how difficult will it be for my DoF to sign a certain category of players?"
Meaning "Hey, I'm Huddersfield Town. I want my DoF to sign Raheem Sterling, but he won't succeed. Can I pick a button and have my DoF to succeed? And even get back to the original difficulty level once I'm done with it?"

In this sense, Miles' words make sense - and I personally agree with him.

9 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Forumpoll roulette!  What would YOU like to see next?

O  18703 - no more polls

O  5874 - MOAR POLLS, excitement mounting

O  22053 - I don't use Twitter

O  1296 - I'll wait for the demo

GIB MOAR OR GIT REKT

7 ore fa, Dagenham_Dave ha scritto:

If you can mod the pitches, the balls. and the nets, surely it's not too much of a stretch to mod the other graphics in the 3d engline. Perhaps not. 

What can be modified of pitches, balls, kits and nets are textures, which are not so damn hard to edit.

Stadiums and players in the 3D engine are models, and that's not what we end-users are allowed to edit. There's some serious work on 3D modeling programs people like me can't even work out.

[janrzm]

8 minutes ago, SpGR said:

It's just my interpretation, but I get that this Brett guy is substantially asking for a "can i haz change instantly how difficult will it be for my DoF to sign a certain category of players?"
Meaning "Hey, I'm Huddersfield Town. I want my DoF to sign Raheem Sterling, but he won't succeed. Can I pick a button and have my DoF to succeed? And even get back to the original difficulty level once I'm done with it?"

In this sense, Miles' words make sense - and I personally agree with him.

GIB MOAR OR GIT REKT

What can be modified of pitches, balls, kits and nets are textures, which are not so damn hard to edit.

Stadiums and players in the 3D engine are models, and that's not what we end-users are allowed to edit. There's some serious work on 3D modeling programs people like me can't even work out.

I believe the poster on Twitter was making the point that not all DoF's are created equal and that from club to club their roles, stature and power vary. For Miles to dismiss that by saying "we make a simulation of the real world" is very misleading in relation to the DoF as it currently stands in FM. Whereby the role is totally generic from club to club and offers no level of control in any regard. Thats about as far from simulating the real world as you could get IMO. As I pointed out yesterday, the addition of the Club Vision in FM20 whilst great, will be massively undermined if your DoF continues to recommend ageing players when your vision is to invest and develop youth, for example. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by janrzm

[SpGR]

4 minuti fa, janrzm ha scritto:

I believe the poster on Twitter was making the point that not all DoF's are created equal and that from club to club their roles, stature and power vary. For Miles to dismiss that by saying "we make a simulation of the real world" is very misleading in relation to the DoF as it currently stands in FM. Whereby the role is totally generic from club to club and offers no level of control in any regard. Thats about as far from simulating the real world as you could get IMO. As I pointed out yesterday, the addition of the Club Vision in FM20 whilst great, will be massively undermined if your DoF continues to recommend ageing players when your vision is to invest and develop youth, for example. 

I see your point, but there's more to take into account - let me guess some: responsibilities in the club, club philosophy, DoF's attributes, Chairman's attributes, league/nation preferences and behaviour, and how all of the above is set in the database you're using. You could also have set some role in a way that doesn't suit your expectations. Of course you have to consider what the player's, the club's, your personal, the league's and the DoF's home and world reputations are, and how they relate to each other.

As far as I know, players' ages should be set in the Scouting section, and then the DoF should - but is in no way expected to - follow those criteria.
Just don't forget the DoF is a typical Italian role: the headcoach asks for a player capable of doing certain things, then the DoF selects some profile careless of age or whatever and submits them to the headcoach. If it's ok, then he starts negotiations. English football is used to have managers personally picking players and negotiating.
The kind of DoF you describe is something atypical.

[styluz05]

The first 3 main features excite me personally, if delivered properly. I worry the new contract talks could make it very difficult to sign players if they simply won't agree to your terms. IE they think they are a First Teamer when actually realistically only a Hot Prospect. I really hope this works and doesn't back fire. 

All the other little announcements are just side pieces which is either redesigning the UI or graphical. Which I think is unfair to try and sell them as new features. 

My biggest hope was to have improvements on DOF I'd love to play a save where all transfers are done by my DOF and I just manage and coach however DOF in the game currently are useless. Always suggest useless players or players I don't want. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by styluz05

[styluz05]

My worry is process speed as well with all these new added little UI features. I don't want to spend my whole time clicking away to get to my next game. 

[Sevkak]

15 hours ago, Double0Seven said:

Just show any non FM player a picture of this and they will laugh at us. I dont know in what world anyone can be "pretty happy" with graphics that come straight from the 2000s. Sure, FM is not about the graphics, but if they put it in the game why is it so hilariously bad compared to what much smaller companies and much smaller franchises put out?  

Even mobile games have better looking graphics... Without speculating much, I'd assume it still looks the way it does because of the technology chosen to render the graphics is limiting. It looks like the game engine is created in-house rather than licencing something like Unity. The major argument will be to make it least CPU intensive as possible, but seriously mobile games look better than FM with much weaker processing power so it can't be an argument any longer.

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, Sevkak said:

Even mobile games have better looking graphics... Without speculating much, I'd assume it still looks the way it does because of the technology chosen to render the graphics is limiting. It looks like the game engine is created in-house rather than licencing something like Unity. The major argument will be to make it least CPU intensive as possible, but seriously mobile games look better than FM with much weaker processing power so it can't be an argument any longer.

The reasoning is about 10-12 posts up

[akm.91]

At the end of the day, and this is the bottom lime, FOOTBALL MANAGER decided to introduce graphics and 3D models. How some users can then moan at other users for justifiably criticising the awful graphics we still have after all these years is mind boggling. 
 

PC specs is not an excuse. FM introduced this system so it’s on them to continuously improve the system, something they haven’t done. 

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, akm.91 said:

At the end of the day, and this is the bottom lime, FOOTBALL MANAGER decided to introduce graphics and 3D models. How some users can then moan at other users for justifiably criticising the awful graphics we still have after all these years is mind boggling. 
 

PC specs is not an excuse. FM introduced this system so it’s on them to continuously improve the system, something they haven’t done. 

This is fundamentally incorrect. The specs matter, because if you cut out half your user base, you're in massive trouble financially. The specs are result of what and how the user base plays

[akm.91]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

This is fundamentally incorrect. The specs matter, because if you cut out half your user base, you're in massive trouble financially. The specs are result of what and how the user base plays

If a small percentage of users do not want to play in 3D, then they can use 2D. 
 
Using system specs as an excuse for not improving graphics since 3D was launched about 5 years ago is a terrible excuse. 

[themadsheep2001]

4 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

If a small percentage of users do not want to play in 3D, then they can use 2D. 
 
Using system specs as an excuse for not improving graphics since 3D was launched about 5 years ago is a terrible excuse. 

It is not a small percentage playing on low end specs.

If you want to ignore that, that's your choice. But It's not going to change the fact that specs will be, and have to be a limiting factor, because ultimately they have to look at the bigger picture, and work within the constraints of the user base.

[gunner86]

44 minutes ago, akm.91 said:

If a small percentage of users do not want to play in 3D, then they can use 2D. 
 
Using system specs as an excuse for not improving graphics since 3D was launched about 5 years ago is a terrible excuse. 

As far as excuses go, I'd say it's actually one of the better ones.

Or would you rather pay £80 because they have to double the price to make up for the loss of sales they'd get from the people that now can't play it anymore?

[Brother Ben]

1 hour ago, akm.91 said:

If a small percentage of users do not want to play in 3D, then they can use 2D. 
 
Using system specs as an excuse for not improving graphics since 3D was launched about 5 years ago is a terrible excuse. 

I'm pretty sure the 2D uses the same graphics engine now that they have done away with 2D Classic so that wouldn't help.  Regardless, the "small percentage" part of your argument is an assumption with no basis

[alian62]

18 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Because they also know their user base, and more importantly, the fact that a large chuck of it tend to play considerably lower spec hardware than the average gamer. The fact that you can play FM on such relatively low specs, and thus almost anywhere is a) one of its unique selling points to said audience and b) one of the tradeoffs it makes for that user base. Of course they could aim for more, but that comes at a spec cost. And if the cost outweighs the gains, it's a non starter. 

That doesn't make sense considering back on FM15 and others they had the options for the 3D in preferences to whether you wanted High Median or Low graphic content and Anti -Aliasing , Mesh , Shadows . So they can still make a high Graphic game and have options for lower machines to use

[grasu]

There's a monthly Steam survey that has a complete breakdown of the PCs people generally use on Steam. While this survey is optional, and it's very likely that many people who play FM might have poorer hardware, the overwhelming majority of people on Steam have a discrete graphics card. Even if they wouldn't have a discrete graphics card, the graphics in Football Manager are very much behind the times. The character models aren't even PS2 quality. Almost any integrated graphics card, even those from a few years ago, could do better. Furthermore, games now-a-days offer vastly more scalability and you could do loads to tune the graphics for some people that might have poorer hardware. Even people on relatively cheap cards, like the 1050 Ti, can still play most modern games without a problem, on low.

IMO graphics are simply not a priority, and I can't really blame SI. Most people that play this game probably don't even bother with the games especially later in their careers. There's an instant result skin that's one of the most popular in the game! Nearly no one watches matches on full time, switching only to key or, at best, extended highlights. Why, in this case, should they bother? 

[Tony Wright 747]

2 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

This is fundamentally incorrect. The specs matter, because if you cut out half your user base, you're in massive trouble financially. The specs are result of what and how the user base plays

I am not sure that this argument holds water because IMO the graphics were better in FM16 and 17 than in FM18 and 19, 16 and 17 could still be played on lower spec machines

[Tony Wright 747]

2 hours ago, gunner86 said:

As far as excuses go, I'd say it's actually one of the better ones.

Or would you rather pay £80 because they have to double the price to make up for the loss of sales they'd get from the people that now can't play it anymore?

For top of the range graphics I for one would happily pay more

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, Tony Wright 747 said:

I am not sure that this argument holds water because IMO the graphics were better in FM16 and 17 than in FM18 and 19, 16 and 17 could still be played on lower spec machines

I mean, they werent, and we're not talking incremental differences we're talking about what would be needed to make generational leaps

It's not so much an argument as a statement of where SI are. This isn't a secret that the spec levels have to match the user base, and its also relevant to the AI, processing and game speep

[themadsheep2001]

13 minutes ago, prot651 said:

That doesn't make sense considering back on FM15 and others they had the options for the 3D in preferences to whether you wanted High Median or Low graphic content and Anti -Aliasing , Mesh , Shadows . So they can still make a high Graphic game and have options for lower machines to use

We're talking about the minimum spec level, people on laptops with integrated cards, which is where many are. 

[Tony Wright 747]

1 minute ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I mean, they werent, and we're not talking incremental differences we're talking about what would be needed to make generational leaps

It's not so much an argument as a statement of where SI are. This isn't a secret that the spec levels have to match the user base, and its also relevant to the AI, processing and game speep

I am aware that the spec level have to match the user base, but there are games out there with much better graphics for the same specs.  As i pointed out it is my opinion that the graphics were better before, but it is an opinion shared by significant others.

[themadsheep2001]

13 minutes ago, grasu said:

There's a monthly Steam survey that has a complete breakdown of the PCs people generally use on Steam. While this survey is optional, and it's very likely that many people who play FM might have poorer hardware, the overwhelming majority of people on Steam have a discrete graphics card. Even if they wouldn't have a discrete graphics card, the graphics in Football Manager are very much behind the times. The character models aren't even PS2 quality. Almost any integrated graphics card, even those from a few years ago, could do better. Furthermore, games now-a-days offer vastly more scalability and you could do loads to tune the graphics for some people that might have poorer hardware. Even people on relatively cheap cards, like the 1050 Ti, can still play most modern games without a problem, on low.

IMO graphics are simply not a priority, and I can't really blame SI. Most people that play this game probably don't even bother with the games especially later in their careers. There's an instant result skin that's one of the most popular in the game! Nearly no one watches matches on full time, switching only to key or, at best, extended highlights. Why, in this case, should they bother? 

Again Steam /= FM users. This is the fundamental point. FM users are on average way behind. It's not your typical PC gamer spread

If anyone wants to see a trend of this, scan through the the "what laptop shall I buy" thread, and see how many are trying to play at min spec or below

[themadsheep2001]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

I am aware that the spec level have to match the user base, but there are games out there with much better graphics for the same specs.  As i pointed out it is my opinion that the graphics were better before, but it is an opinion shared by significant others.

Again, you're talking opinion on incremental differences. I'm talking about what would happen with a generational leap in FM

[Bosey82]

I had the Kevin Toms Football Manager, I've had Championship Manager since 1992 and Football Manager ever since the split. I don't post on here but enjoy reading the community comments and the passion displayed by everyone that has helped make the game what it is today. Always look forward to this time of year. On the stadium appearance, what I haven't understood is how some of the stadia can look reasonably accurate and others just miles off. Some grounds in real life have essentially 4 stands. Others are more modern wrap around. It can't be that hard to get at least the basics correct. I can't think of many if any that three tier let alone the smallest stadiums. Certainly not any under 40,000 capacity yet the game has lots of them in the game. These are minor things to fix to add to the realism of the game which essentially is one of its most critical components. From a graphics standpoint, it's a nice touch to have your facial likeness but I'd rather the match engine be continuous improved and the appearance on match day to be as good and as realistic as it can be.

[themadsheep2001]

I'm being light-hearted here, but if you want massive graphical leaps, and also AI leaps, stop playing on machines slightly more powerful than a toaster  (this is obviously not possible and the ability for almost anyone to play is part of the appeal)

[Tajerio]

43 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I'm being light-hearted here, but if you want massive graphical leaps, and also AI leaps, stop playing on machines slightly more powerful than a toaster  (this is obviously not possible and the ability for almost anyone to play is part of the appeal)

I am never giving up my dual-potato core processor, thank you very much!

[duesouth]

1 hour ago, Bosey82 said:

I had the Kevin Toms Football Manager, I've had Championship Manager since 1992 and Football Manager ever since the split.

I spent many happy hours playing Kevin Toms Football Manager as a kid - the old Spectrum 48k was probably less powerful than a modern toaster!!  The players were little stacked pixel blocks - very little variety in the chances/goals you saw - but I loved it!  Not sure what I'd make of it now!  Seeing how far games have come in those years is amazing - just imagine what FM will look like in 35 years time!  I suspect something like Stadia might be the way forward and that could mean processing power that will make the current top-end PC today look like a Spectrum does now to us.  Something like shouts in the current game could become quite literally shouts in a VR style game!

[michelb86]

Have been playing CM/FM for about 16 years now, and obviously a lot has changed. Don't know if it is because I have a kid now, but last years version was my least played en least enjoyable one ever. But still I played 300+ hours and that's why I always will buy the game if I enjoy it for a bit. 

But I really hope something has changed this year. I didn't like last years match engine and there was way too many clicking and squad management necessary. Tried FM Touch too, but that didn't work out well either. That's also my viewpoint on the new features. Some sound really nice, as long as it doesn't add another 3x clicking and repetitive advice from your assistent. And that's what I'm worried about. In the past most of the times it's better just to ignore your assistent's advice (we are being overrun in midfield), if only this changes it would be a massive win.

[Double0Seven]

Once again interesting responses regarding my complaint around the graphics. I have decided to look up a few things for comparison so Im not just blindly spitting out opinions without substance.

I first started with another game close to my heart. Csgo, a shooter released in 2012 running on the source engine from 2004. Another game that is relatively old and is supported on many computers. If you look at minimum specs and compare it to FM 2019.

OS: FM supports only windows 7 and on. Csgo supports XP and on. Processor: Slightly stronger dual cores are expected as minimum. Ram: Same amount GPU: Slightly worse if you look at the mac/linux recommendations. 

Well and how does a 7 year old game run on the minimum specs? Rather terrible, but nothing unexpected. It hits 60fps average, but rather stuttery.  I will let you be the judge. My personal opinion is that csgo on the minimum specs still displays graphics better than FM on better specs. Not bad for a 7 year old game with an even older engine.

Lets look at another popular game in TF2, released in 2007 running on the source engine as well. The minimum specs are even lower than that of FM. Well it runs ok on low end hardware. Here is yet another one on slightly better than min specs of Fm19. And TF2 is quite a game with lots of stuff going on, online as well and multiple people running around and interacting with each other. 

For even more comparison, you can look at the minimum specs of Fifa/Pes around 08/09/10. I couldnt find any videos for it, but I cant imagine them running that badly to unplayable. And all those games are very old one as well. I cant imagine FM in 2019 to not do better despite still having low minimum specs. Those games I mentioned also managed to keep low end hardware playable while still allowing high end hardware to thrive. 

My personal opinion is that FM, despite the minimum specs, can do a lot better for the higher end hardware, especially comparing with other much older games. Have a look at what I said/linked and be the judge for yourself. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Double0Seven

[kandersson]

I'm still expecting the beta next friday  #friday4FM

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 minute ago, kandersson said:

I'm still expecting the beta next friday  #friday4FM

No chance, be the week after at the earliest I reckon. 

[Akasha]

il y a 6 minutes, Double0Seven a dit :

My personal opinion is that FM, despite the minimum specs, can do a lot better for the higher end hardware, especially comparing with other much older games. Have a look at what I said/linked and be the judge for yourself. 

Hi, 

 

I think you are forgetting that not everyone has computer with big config, and i'm the first one (for the moment)

FM must remain accessible to everyone.