FM Match Graphics

[Gunnersmoke]

So I’ve been playing fm for years on ****** laptops but I’ve just upgraded to a decent gaming pc and after having played on low graphics at most for years I finally was able to select very high. Or so I thought.... the 3D models look literally identical to low settings and in general the game looks so so so bad. I have been playing another strategy game in total war napoleon and although that game came out in 2010 the graphics and models are light years ahead given how much more processing is needed and how many more models there are. I honestly am pretty stunned that it’s this bad as I’ve never experienced good graphics before.

 

also I am getting 75 FPS (think it’s capped? But that doesn’t matter) but there is so much stutter and the physics of the ball are absolutely laughable 

[Kazza]

I am playing the demo.  For the first time in years decided not to buy it straight away. They have not updated the demo and I think I understand why. It does stutter re the 3D. The UI and overall look in my view is dreadful and light years behind what it should look like, given the free skins out there.

 

I also have the TW Napoleon and you are right that looks graphically far better. There must be a reason :  it could and  probably is that they want to keep the audience who have lower spec PC's/laptops!

[Glen_Runciter]

Well, the sh*ttiness of the animations, I can accept, 'cause in FM, characters are constantly making decisions, reacting to the very fastly changing events, I think it would be impossible to make a realistically animated representation of that, sou you are better off with going a more stylized route.

Only if I'm really trying to be lenient, can I explain the general simplicity of everything else as trying to keep an overall aesthetic of "being simple as f*ck".

And I can't even try to come up with something to explain the quality and diversity of the sounds. That is just embarassing.

The only reason I'm not using 2D, even though it's what I would call "THE Football Manager Experience" is because it feels wrong, after all, real managers have to watch from the sidelines too.

[Gunnersmoke]

1 minute ago, Glen_Runciter said:

Well, the sh*ttiness of the animations, I can accept, 'cause in FM, characters are constantly making decisions, reacting to the very fastly changing events, I think it would be impossible to make a realistically animated representation of that, sou you are better off with going a more stylized route.

Only if I'm really trying to be lenient, can I explain the general simplicity of everything else as trying to keep an overall aesthetic of "being simple as f*ck".

And I can't even try to come up with something to explain the quality and diversity of the sounds. That is just embarassing.

The only reason I'm not using 2D, even though it's what I would call "THE Football Manager Experience" is because it feels wrong, after all, real managers have to watch from the sidelines too.

Don’t even get me started on the “sounds” why do they even bother? Sometimes nothing is better than something so half arsed

[Glen_Runciter]

3 minutes ago, Kazza said:

 There must be a reason :  it could and  probably is that they want to keep the audience who have lower spec PC's/laptops!

Granted, I don't know sh*t about how the market works, but this would feel like a horrible decision: putting out an ugly game for everyone, potentially losing out on new customers, while the old ones would still have the option to use 2D, so you'd probably not lose many of them.

[KlaaZ]

Or they want to use their time for stuff that really matters in a football simulator.

[KUBI]

Just to clarify, there is no 2D engine in the game anymore. All is 3D, when you watch 2D you watch a specific view, but the backbone for all views is 3D.

[Gunnersmoke]

2 minutes ago, KlaaZ said:

Or they want to use their time for stuff that really matters in a football simulator.

Like the football? Or the sounds of a stadium? Or the beautiful passages of play we all love in real life football? 

[KlaaZ]

1 minute ago, Gunnersmoke said:

Like the football? Or the sounds of a stadium? Or the beautiful passages of play we all love in real life football? 

I'd say the visual representation and the sounds are the least of my worries, yes. I'd rather have them spend their time trying to create something that mimics football as closely to real life as possible (within the realms of possibility, that is). 

[Glen_Runciter]

10 minutes ago, KUBI said:

Just to clarify, there is no 2D engine in the game anymore. All is 3D, when you watch 2D you watch a specific view, but the backbone for all views is 3D.

Well, yeah, but I guess using the overhead view would allow for a less performance-heavy option.

OFC this doesn't matter though, what we want is a pleasing sideline view.

[KUBI]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Glen_Runciter:

Well, yeah, but I guess using the overhead view would allow for a less performance-heavy option.

OFC this doesn't matter though, what we want is a pleasing sideline view.

Try this mod:

 

[Gunnersmoke]

39 minutes ago, KlaaZ said:

I'd say the visual representation and the sounds are the least of my worries, yes. I'd rather have them spend their time trying to create something that mimics football as closely to real life as possible (within the realms of possibility, that is). 

What is your idea of mimicking football then? If you don’t care for the visual or sounds then you might want to play deaf and blind football manager

[KlaaZ]

6 minutes ago, Gunnersmoke said:

What is your idea of mimicking football then? If you don’t care for the visual or sounds then you might want to play deaf and blind football manager

How the ME translates football patterns? I.e. player movement, passing decisions, defensive anticipation,... the graphical representation of this is, for me at least, of lesser important. If I want something nice to look at, I'll go play FIFA.

[skybluedude]

 I don't mind the current graphics at all, as i have a Potato PC and can't afford a new one.

[Mitja]

I really don't understand how anyone can play in 3D. And it looks SI is paying less and less attention to 2D. Unfortunatly.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Mitja

[Dagenham_Dave]

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

I really don't understand how anyone can play in 3D. 

I've mostly played in 3D this year after being a 2D player for years. Quite enjoying it, but I do sometimes nip back to 2D. 

One thing I've started doing to help with the 'immersion', is when my team plays away from home, I adjust the 'TV' camera angle so that it's a similar angle to real life (or where I think it would be if lower league) - This creates a unique feeling for every away match. For example, in my Hibs save, when we play at Celtic Park, it's a high, wide camera angle, but a match away to Ross County would see the closest, zoomed in one. I also use the 'reverse' camera angle if I think it's at the opposite side of the ground to where it would be in real life. 

[themadsheep2001]

I always play in 3D, with radar on to watch the shape of the teams. 

[anagain]

13 hours ago, Gunnersmoke said:

So I’ve been playing fm for years on ****** laptops but I’ve just upgraded to a decent gaming pc and after having played on low graphics at most for years I finally was able to select very high. Or so I thought.... the 3D models look literally identical to low settings and in general the game looks so so so bad. I have been playing another strategy game in total war napoleon and although that game came out in 2010 the graphics and models are light years ahead given how much more processing is needed and how many more models there are. I honestly am pretty stunned that it’s this bad as I’ve never experienced good graphics before.

 

also I am getting 75 FPS (think it’s capped? But that doesn’t matter) but there is so much stutter and the physics of the ball are absolutely laughable 

You have your expectations set too high if you ever expected FM to be state of the art graphics. Napolean might be nearly ten years old, but it is also a game designed with graphics in mind - much more so than FM. FM is essentially a database with some graphics added?

Could the in game graphics be better? Yes, of that there is no doubt. My personal thinking, however, is that it doesn't matter one iota to me. I do know that some of SI have been on therads like this in the past to say that they would like FM to look better, but it's never as simple as just putting better graphics in. You have to bear that in mind.

[Welshace]

Strange comparison... 

 

You should be comparing it to other strategy games in which graphics are low on the priority list of things that are needed...  Think of hearts of iron, crusader kings,  prison architect...

 

They don't have massively fancy graphics because it's not needed... it isn't integral to the game..

 

Total war is different, it is integral.. the whole selling point of the series (of which i'm a huge fan btw) is the campaign mode alongside the very graphics intensive battle simulations..

[Gunnersmoke]

24 minutes ago, Welshace said:

Strange comparison... 

 

You should be comparing it to other strategy games in which graphics are low on the priority list of things that are needed...  Think of hearts of iron, crusader kings,  prison architect...

 

They don't have massively fancy graphics because it's not needed... it isn't integral to the game..

 

Total war is different, it is integral.. the whole selling point of the series (of which i'm a huge fan btw) is the campaign mode alongside the very graphics intensive battle simulations..

I can’t understand why people don’t think the graphical representation of the actual football matters? You can’t simulate football without the actual football??

[anagain]

19 minutes ago, Gunnersmoke said:

I can’t understand why people don’t think the graphical representation of the actual football matters? You can’t simulate football without the actual football??

The game does simulate football. It may not be FIFA level, but it is simulating football.

Ever play Rimworld? It's one of the highest rated games on Steam. It looks like stick figures. It's an incredible game. Graphics don't make a game.

[rockpie]

24 minutes ago, Gunnersmoke said:

I can’t understand why people don’t think the graphical representation of the actual football matters? You can’t simulate football without the actual football??

It matters to me.

It just happens to matter less than everything else, because this is a management simulation game.

When I think about "what makes FM fun for me?"

Almost all the answers are related to "My ability to do x in the game."

Buy and sell players, develop youngsters, implement a tactical system and philosophy at a club, become a journeyman or spend 20 years at a club, take a minnow all the way to the top, create stories and narratives through the years, and ultimately make decisions that strategically affect the success / failure of my team.

At the end of the list is whether I can see the ball spinning / curving in the match engine, or whether Cristiano Ronaldo is specifically modeled on his real-life movements and appearance.

Like someone else said above, if I want that level of realism I can play something else. Just like playing something else won't give you as much strategic control over all areas of managing a club.

Edited December 10, 2019 by rockpie

[alian62]

2 hours ago, Mitja said:

I really don't understand how anyone can play in 3D. And it looks SI is paying less and less attention to 2D. Unfortunatly.

How do you watch football in real life ? Not 2 D I hope 

 

[tyro]

My graphics driver updated. I didn't realize it. I loaded up the game and all was very blurry. I checked the graphics and saw it reset it to low. I put it back on very high and it is crystal clear.

So, there is definitely a difference between low settings and high settings.

Also, compared to previous years, the way the players move, shoot, look has increased substantially. I don't think anyone can deny that. Maybe one can argue that it wasn't a big enough change. But then again, FIFA tried and had these great graphics but no matter what you did, it did not get represented on the pitch. And they probably have 10x the budget? All graphics but no substance. I prefer it the other way around and see the yearly improvements.

[Welshace]

31 minutes ago, Gunnersmoke said:

I can’t understand why people don’t think the graphical representation of the actual football matters? You can’t simulate football without the actual football??

'I can't understand how people dont think the graphical representation of the actual war matters? you can't simulate war without the actual tanks and guns' ... 

 

It's a non starter as an argument.... how on earth do you think FM was so succesful all these years with 2d dots running around a green square? it does represent the football and so does the 3d.. you can see your players position on the pitch and you can see them pass and shoot and score and fail... that is football.. anything beyond what we have now (ME flaws are seperate) is extra bells and whistles which aren't important to a simulation

[Dagenham_Dave]

9 minutes ago, anagain said:

Graphics don't make a game.

One word. Minecraft. 

Biggest selling game of all time. Graphics are, for the most part, horrendous. Which is kinda the point, but it proves you don't NEED flashy, modern graphics for games that don't really need them. Yes, the dream would be to see FM combine its ME with the graphical powerhouse of a FIFA or PES game, but it's not a realistic proposition. FIFA gets away with these types of graphics as they have a mountainous budget compared to SI, and their match engine is much, much simpler. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

35 minutes ago, Gunnersmoke said:

I can’t understand why people don’t think the graphical representation of the actual football matters? You can’t simulate football without the actual football??

I still play Championship Manager 2001/02 now and again. Without question, the daddy of the older games. No graphics whatsoever, still simulated football beautifully. 

Especially if you had Mark Kerr 

[anagain]

1 minute ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

One word. Minecraft. 

Biggest selling game of all time. Graphics are, for the most part, horrendous. Which is kinda the point, but it proves you don't NEED flashy, modern graphics for games that don't really need them. Yes, the dream would be to see FM combine its ME with the graphical powerhouse of a FIFA or PES game, but it's not a realistic proposition. FIFA gets away with these types of graphics as they have a mountainous budget compared to SI, and their match engine is much, much simpler. 

100% agree.

It's all about imagination too. Kids can't manage that these days.

I had a really nice Minecraft save going. Stopped playing it around FM beta time. Really must go back. Sorry, that was off topic. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

2 minutes ago, anagain said:

I had a really nice Minecraft save going. Stopped playing it around FM beta time. Really must go back. Sorry, that was off topic. 

My daughter plays it all the time, I can't remember the last time I got on my own PS4 

Thank goodness for FM

[CFuller]

My favourite video game ever is Age of Empires II. The graphics weren't amazing back when it came out in 1999, they're certainly not amazing now, but it's the depth and strategy that really makes the game. Thousands of people still love playing the original game, even two decades later - and even with a brand new 'definitive edition' now on the market.

Football Manager is kinda similar. The intricate match engine and the vast player database are more important to that game than, say, modelling virtual Harry Kane to look exactly like real Harry Kane.

Put it this way. Which video game would I rather play: a plain-looking game that simulates all 90 minutes of a football match (like FM), or a gorgeous ultra-HD representation of an 8/10/20-minute arcade game on fast-forward (like FIFA)? No question: I'd always go for substance over style.

And as Welshace points out, the CM/FM series was still going strong long before the 3D graphics engine was a thing. Until circa 2009, we went by with 2D - and we didn't even have that as an alternative to 'commentary only' until CM4 came out in 2003.

[Federico]

Wow people's still playing 2D. That's shocking but hey, if they like so...

[Welshace]

2 minutes ago, Federico said:

Wow people's still playing 2D. That's shocking but hey, if they like so...

Why shocking? i'd love to know why you are shocked?

[Tiger666]

13 minutes ago, Federico said:

Wow people's still playing 2D. That's shocking but hey, if they like so...

The day SI remove the 2D view is the day I stop playing.

[anagain]

29 minutes ago, Federico said:

Wow people's still playing 2D. That's shocking but hey, if they like so...

People play 2D to see the entire pitch and the shape of the team.

I use 3D graphics but I play well zoomed out to see as much as possible. I just find it hard to watch a lot of dots, and I quite like the game's graphics. They have a quaintness that I enjoy.

[Federico]

36 minuti fa, Welshace ha scritto:

Why shocking? i'd love to know why you are shocked?

Just a personal opinion. I find outdated to watch a football game represented with dots on the pitch from a bird's eye perspective. The argument of "having a better view of tactics" is... inconsistent, if someone knows what to look at, he will look at it whatever the view (well maybe behind the net would make this quite difficult ).

So yeah I find 2D out of context in 2020. Probably SI would be more than happy to get rid of it, but it seems it's still loved..

[Welshace]

1 minute ago, Federico said:

Just a personal opinion. I find outdated to watch a football game represented with dots on the pitch from a bird's eye perspective. The argument of "having a better view of tactics" is... inconsistent, if someone knows what to look at, he will look at it whatever the view (well maybe behind the net would make this quite difficult ).

So yeah I find 2D out of context in 2020. Probably SI would be more than happy to get rid of it, but it seems it's still loved..

I literally just use it for the very reason you dismiss.... the birds eye view, by its very nature gives you an overall view of the shape of your team and the opposition without any clutter to distract.. i find it much easier to assess my teams flaws from that angle..

[forameuss]

It's almost like everyone plays the game differently, and no one opinion on what the game should be is "correct".  Some will play commentary only.  Some won't play the matches at all.  And others might play in full real time for every single match.  None of them are right or wrong, they're just...there.

[Federico]

Yeah exactly, I don't want my post to be misunderstood. People prefer commentary only, because they like to figure out how the game is going on, someone else like the dots, someone else the 3D. Luckily they're all there for everyone's taste.

[Keyzer Soze]

I agree that graphics don't make a good game, in particulary a game like FM, but, and this is a big but, if you have them (grpahcis) then they better be good as as the rest of the game. 

For years FM was just text, then they implement a 2D camera angle, and it was a really good one. Good definition, basic graphics but good ones. 

When they turn to the 3D camera angles the level dropped and to my opinion, despite the improvements, those 3D graphics are far far away in terms of quality that FM should have. We are talking about the best football manager game in the world... with silly and poor graphics. I doesn't match. 

I always play with the 2D camera angle, but sometimes, for curiosity, I like to watch goals replay with a 3D angle, and the majority of time the thought that crosses my mind is... "oh, this is how it happened?" 

So I prefer to watch in 2D and let my imagination do the rest. 

Imagination, I think, is a big part of the experience when playing FM, and if you take it, with the 3D camera angles, then you better replace it with top notch quality graphics to leave us with or mouth open. 

Untill it's the case, and I doubt it will ever be, I'll never stop playing with 2D camera angle. 

Edited December 10, 2019 by Keyzer Soze

[Svenc]

I don't Play FM for the graphics myself. But that said, I think throwing games such as Minecraft into the fold is a bit misleading.

Graphics aren't merely the technicals. Technically, Minecraft is horrible. Its game world is as blocky as the early 1990s 3d games, the textures are nothing to speak about, and the lightning models are behind arguably even FM. Yet it has a unique art style that you would immediately identify it by.

"Realistic" Football games don't have that. Their art style is photorealism, their targeted look an actual TV presentation of a football match, and as such that is the ideal people have in their heads when judging them. That is, outside of highly stylized games such as Nintendo World Cup, Sensi Soccer, et all.

If it was purely about the Imagination, everybody, SI included was still on text commentary. No matter how badly that commentary apes all that bad TV comentary out there. "HOW DID HE MISS THAT?"   No reason to go all mo-cap, shader effects, dynamic lightning and all that jazz.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Svenc

[Longhorn]

I was having problems with the graphics as well, and my rig is a gaming-oriented performance model with a performance video card and plenty of video memory.  Eventually I discovered that my came configured with two video drivers, an integrated driver from Intel, and my Nvidia driver.  Then I learned that Windows 10 allows us to customize which video driver is normally used for any specific application (display settings -> graphics settings).  Some systems are configured with two drivers, one for low-power mode (such as laptops), and one for high performance.  Once I set FM to use the Nvidia driver my graphic quality improved considerably.  Don't know if you are having the same problem or not but perhaps someone else has the same situation as I found.

[Tony Wright 747]

6 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I've mostly played in 3D this year after being a 2D player for years. Quite enjoying it, but I do sometimes nip back to 2D. 

One thing I've started doing to help with the 'immersion', is when my team plays away from home, I adjust the 'TV' camera angle so that it's a similar angle to real life (or where I think it would be if lower league) - This creates a unique feeling for every away match. For example, in my Hibs save, when we play at Celtic Park, it's a high, wide camera angle, but a match away to Ross County would see the closest, zoomed in one. I also use the 'reverse' camera angle if I think it's at the opposite side of the ground to where it would be in real life. 

I always watch in reverse camera for exactly the same reason you have stated

[Tony Wright 747]

4 hours ago, Welshace said:

'I can't understand how people dont think the graphical representation of the actual war matters? you can't simulate war without the actual tanks and guns' ... 

 

It's a non starter as an argument.... how on earth do you think FM was so succesful all these years with 2d dots running around a green square? it does represent the football and so does the 3d.. you can see your players position on the pitch and you can see them pass and shoot and score and fail... that is football.. anything beyond what we have now (ME flaws are seperate) is extra bells and whistles which aren't important to a simulation

I use 2D for post match analysis, but 3D for the actual match because in 2D you can't see things like which foot was used to make the pass, cant see what kind of tackle is being made and can't see headers

[Tony Wright 747]

4 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I still play Championship Manager 2001/02 now and again. Without question, the daddy of the older games. No graphics whatsoever, still simulated football beautifully. 

Especially if you had Mark Kerr 

Didn't CM 01/02 have 2D

[CFuller]

Just now, Tony Wright 747 said:

Didn't CM 01/02 have 2D

No, that was still commentary only. CM4 was the first to have 2D.

[Tony Wright 747]

Just now, CFuller said:

No, that was still commentary only. CM4 was the first to have 2D.

Thanks for that, was there a CM release after CM4 with 2D before FM05

[CFuller]

Just now, Tony Wright 747 said:

Thanks for that, was there a CM release after CM4 with 2D before FM05

CM03/04 - the last game before the SI/Eidos split.

[Tony Wright 747]

Just now, CFuller said:

CM03/04 - the last game before the SI/Eidos split.

That was the one I was thimking of

[forameuss]

Was that the "big muddy ball" cover?  Seem to remember it was.  Can't beat big red 01/02.

EDIT: No, seems like that was CM4.  03/04 was just a big boring mitre.

Edited December 10, 2019 by forameuss

[destmez]

On 09/12/2019 at 20:50, Glen_Runciter said:

Granted, I don't know sh*t about how the market works, but this would feel like a horrible decision: putting out an ugly game for everyone, potentially losing out on new customers, while the old ones would still have the option to use 2D, so you'd probably not lose many of them.

optimisation 

 

On 09/12/2019 at 20:44, Kazza said:

I am playing the demo.  For the first time in years decided not to buy it straight away. They have not updated the demo and I think I understand why. It does stutter re the 3D. The UI and overall look in my view is dreadful and light years behind what it should look like, given the free skins out there.

 

I also have the TW Napoleon and you are right that looks graphically far better. There must be a reason :  it could and  probably is that they want to keep the audience who have lower spec PC's/laptops!

Or why a mobile games like this have better graphics than my favorite game ? it could and  probably is that they want to keep the audience who have lower spec PC's/laptops! NO They are just curbing their marketing capacity of the game, in 2020 the visual aspect is important I think they see the graphic increase as a risk taking but one day it will have to be done because the technology advances and the material (pc) of people and more and more efficient and I think that we will be more and more more people asking for better graphics