retired_rolando.perez

I am beginning to feel now that the 'it's a game' argument is becoming somewhat exhausted now, and it riles me to see it occur so frequently on these boards. The fact is that it is a football simulation, and hence simulates real-life football. That is the underlying goal of the series - to simulate the football of the modern day - and if this is not tacked up on every single wall of the SIGames offices, then they should question themselves why. That said, what does a football simulation consider success to be? Well, I'd have a wild stab at being a true replica of the real life sport. So, it seems to me that every single player of FM, particularly those who have bought more than one edition of it (FM05/06/07), is sufficiently satisfied with the games representation of real football, or else why buy the game? Therefore, while it is a 'game', it is clearly one that the majority of the time reflects its true life counterpart. And so, if I hear the excuse 'it's only a game' one more time, I may well explode.

Assuming then that the majority of the time FM works the same way as real football, why can't we debate it in that manner? In effect, sliders are the managers voice, and so if we are successfully able to translate our real life ideas into 'slider speak', then the game will normally mirror our wishes. If it doesn't then it is a failure. Now, since it is clearly not a failure, commercially or otherwise, we can firmly state that what we input into the sliders will be mirrored on the pitch. What I perceive to be the biggest gripe among FMers is that they are able to translate a plan into the FM sliders and onto the pitch, but it doesn't bring them success. They complain, arguing that they had a plan and thought it through, so obviously it's the games fault for not bringing auto-success. But most of the time, fully structured tactics that don't work in FM, wouldn't work in real life. Just because it's thought through, doesn't mean it will outplay other tactics in the game.

Not all is bright and rosy of course, and I'm sure SI would be the first to admit that there are several anomalies in the game. The 4-2-4 scenario is one that exaggerates real life, rather than failing to mirror it altogether, since teams who are losing will normally go all-out-attack in the last few minutes. SI's reflection of this was the 4-2-4; you can guarantee it won't be quite so successful in the edition. Remember though, these anomalous areas of the game are few and far between, and only those who are unable to handle and accept an error that slipped in under the radar come on these boards to shout about how messed up the game is. If you create a tactic you can adopt in the last 2 minutes of the match which counters the 4-2-4, you will successfully remove the anomaly, and the rest of the game will be played as normal. It is nonsense to say that SI intentionally made aspects of the game in the aim of being unrealistic - you can guarantee that every minute detail of the game will go through rigorous realism tests. Some of the game is simply exaggerated, like the increased work ethic of a team down to 10 men. Again, have a tactic to deal with it and move on.

The simple matter of fact is, that if you are able to cope sufficiently with the odd anomaly, which only crops up every now and then, FM DOES simulate real football, regardless of anyone saying otherwise. I have only ever achieved success in the game by adopting the approach I would in real life. I don't try to outsmart the AI by FINDING anomalies, and I cope with them if I do. At the end of the day, 95% of the game is reflective of true life, with only a small part of the other 5% being truly bothersome in it's exaggerated realism.

To finish, I also want to note that for those of you complaining tactics are the most influential feature of the game... well yeah! Obviously! There are only so many players one can buy and only so many teamtalks one can give, so SI did the smart thing in realising that the area with the most scope and depth for player input would be the tactical aspect. And so yes, tactics are the most influential aspect, because if they mattered as much as players, one would be tempted to buy superstars and leave the tactics, which would reduce the game to a couple of transfers and hundreds of clicks on the continue button. It is absolutely plain to see that tactics are the most accessible part of football for a manager, and rightfully play the biggest part in the game in order to maximise the gamers influence.

Neon

JeffRogers

i'm going to have to disagree!

although i wouldnt say the game is cheating, there are PLENTY of 'anomalies' that can leave a player FEELING cheated or wronged! more than there should ever be, imo!

and i have plenty of success thank you!

JeffRogers

oops i keep doing that!

and i also have no problem losing! i have just been to 5 finals in 3 years and lost them all! unluckily for me!

retired_rayrhi

I am beginning to feel now that the 'it's a game' argument is becoming somewhat exhausted now, and it riles me to see it occur so frequently on these boards. The fact is that it is a football simulation, and hence simulates real-life football. That is the underlying goal of the series - to simulate the football of the modern day - and if this is not tacked up on every single wall of the SIGames offices, then they should question themselves why. That said, what does a football simulation consider success to be? Well, I'd have a wild stab at being a true replica of the real life sport. So, it seems to me that every single player of FM, particularly those who have bought more than one edition of it (FM05/06/07), is sufficiently satisfied with the games representation of real football, or else why buy the game? Therefore, while it is a 'game', it is clearly one that the majority of the time reflects its true life counterpart. And so, if I hear the excuse 'it's only a game' one more time, I may well explode.

Not sure if any of this is relevant to what I posted previously. In any case, I'll be sure not to be in 'explosion distance' from you any time soon. The last thing I need is koppite guts all over my new suit.

Assuming then that the majority of the time FM works the same way as real football, why can't we debate it in that manner? In effect, sliders are the managers voice, and so if we are successfully able to translate our real life ideas into 'slider speak', then the game will normally mirror our wishes. If it doesn't then it is a failure. Now, since it is clearly not a failure, commercially or otherwise, we can firmly state that what we input into the sliders will be mirrored on the pitch. What I perceive to be the biggest gripe among FMers is that they are able to translate a plan into the FM sliders and onto the pitch, but it doesn't bring them success. They complain, arguing that they had a plan and thought it through, so obviously it's the games fault for not bringing auto-success. But most of the time, fully structured tactics that don't work in FM, wouldn't work in real life. Just because it's thought through, doesn't mean it will outplay other tactics in the game.

Absolute nonsense. How on earth can you conclude that unsuccessful tactics in FM would not work in real-life? I know, you must have sent a slider system template survey to Adie Boothroyd asking him to fill it out, and then you implemented his tactical input into FM07 only to finish last place every time. The fact is, a lot of time, the thought process behind your tactics in FM would seem logical and applicable to real-life football, but they are not always guaranteed success. As I mentioned previously, I have 'mastered' the game, but only through trial and error. I had to scrap my 'logical footballing decisions' in favour of trial & error since logical decisions do not always translate to victories. And then there is the fact that everyone has their own opinion of what is logical and what is not.

It is nonsense to say that SI intentionally made aspects of the game in the aim of being unrealistic - you can guarantee that every minute detail of the game will go through rigorous realism tests. Some of the game is simply exaggerated, like the increased work ethic of a team down to 10 men. Again, have a tactic to deal with it and move on.

This is your opinion and I respect it, but from what I have experienced throughout my FM experience of 07, the AI enjoys a significant shots on goal/goals ratio. This is not realistic. If there was an explanation as to why this happens, I would accept it, but there is not, so I can only conclude that the AI receives a shot accuracy boost of some kind. I think this was introduced to eliminate 'super tactics' and/or to level the playing field. It happens too often and for too many people for it to be avoided. It has NOTHING to do with your tactics.

The simple matter of fact is, that if you are able to cope sufficiently with the odd anomaly, which only crops up every now and then, FM DOES simulate real football, regardless of anyone saying otherwise. I have only ever achieved success in the game by adopting the approach I would in real life. I don't try to outsmart the AI by FINDING anomalies, and I cope with them if I do. At the end of the day, 95% of the game is reflective of true life, with only a small part of the other 5% being truly bothersome in it's exaggerated realism.

I agree that FM does simulate football very well, and I agree that if you can overlook the few anomalies, then what you are left with is a tremendous managing sim.

I don't agree that adopting a real-life approach guarantees success. I have found success having my back 4 on attacking mentalities, and none of my players on forward runs. This is NOT real-life nor is it logical. The fact is, the sliders are not so well explained that you can sensibly even attempt to implement a real-life strategy. With this in mind, the game is merely a trial & error exercise since the translation from slider implementation to on-the-pitch observation is quite poor. Hence the argument, 'it's only a game'. This was a human made game by a team of lads that may or may not have their own theories on how the game should be played. We should not be so narrow-minded to expect that our way is the 'right way'. This has been proven to me on a number of occasions. My ideas of football and tactics are sound in my mind, but why should the game deem this true? This is why I feel tactics are too heavily weighted.

To finish, I also want to note that for those of you complaining tactics are the most influential feature of the game... well yeah! Obviously! There are only so many players one can buy and only so many teamtalks one can give, so SI did the smart thing in realising that the area with the most scope and depth for player input would be the tactical aspect. And so yes, tactics are the most influential aspect, because if they mattered as much as players, one would be tempted to buy superstars and leave the tactics, which would reduce the game to a couple of transfers and hundreds of clicks on the continue button. It is absolutely plain to see that tactics are the most accessible part of football for a manager, and rightfully play the biggest part in the game in order to maximise the gamers influence.

To a certain extent, but Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal etc. would beat most teams using a 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 2-3-5 etc. etc. On this game, it seems that a 4-4-2 is the only way to go. It is all too difficult to create a 'novelty' tactic (4-3-1-2, 5-3-2 free role etc.). This is because the AI can exploit your tactic far too easily. Tactics are far too heavily relied upon. I hope you have not exploded.

retired_curlatorres

When you are an average team and you play someone better than you away, you lose.

I was 1-0 up away at Fulham with Peterborough after 90 minutes, I ended up losing this game despite winning 1-0 after 90 Minutes.

retired_hope

Just started a new game with Bristol Rovers

Friendlies
Beat Chelmsford 6-0 away 15 shots 10 on vs 1 shot 0 on target for them
Beat St Johnston at home 2-1 7/3 vs 5/2
Drew with Nottingham Forest at home 1-1 3/3 vs 13/6
Beat Kilmarnock at home 2-0 11/6 vs 3/0
Beat Crusaders 2-0 away 11/4 vs 11/5
Drew away with Northampton 7/2 vs 14/5

League Two
Beat Torquay away 2-0 6/3 vs 7/1
Half time away at Macclesfield 2-0 6 shots 5 on targets vs 2 shots 1 on target for them.

The point is that I can consistantly do better than the AI regardless of the shots they have on target. This is against opposition home and away, better and worst. Most of the AI shots are not really threatening. I have never seen this domination of one team other the other with such a poor goal return. So I do believe it is tactical.

retired_hope

Full time at Moss Rose 2-0 to the Gas. 8/6 for me 7/4 for Macclesfield.

Gotta love those muddy pitches

retired_rolando.perez

Arteta is(n't) god, I struggle to comprehend just what kind of illogical functions the sliders perform for you. Since I play the game with an attitude similar to that of real life, and have played it substantially enough to have come up against most adversities, I don't understand how changing my instructions to illogical ones would have garnered more success than I attained. Let me use an example. If I am playing against a defensive team, I will implement real life tactics; high width and defensive line, attacking mentality and the like, all in keeping with a single philosophy (attack in this instance). Now, if you adapt to each scenario in this manner (meaning creating logical, applicable to real life tactics), then you will attain a certain degree of success; the level of success depends on how much other factors work in tandem with your own input to aid it, or stop it. I simply fail to recognise then, where it would be appropriate to use illogical tactics to gain success - I am a successful FMer with many teams with this approach, and never have I had to resort to using illogical decisions to exploit flaws in the system. Now, yes, if (and that is a big 'if') it is in fact possible to exploit the system through ill logic, then this is clearly a failure on behalf of SI. However, to claim you are a 'master' of the game because you EXPLOIT such flaws, rather than reporting them to SI so they can tighten these issues up, is farsical.

The manual and feedback from SI is only insufficient to those who cannot achieve success through actual footballing methods, ie people who cannot comprehend real life footballing philosophy first and foremost. I agree that the technical aspects of the game (why there are 20 notches on each slider and how much each notch changes things for example) are left somewhat unanswered, but with a little observation and an ounce of common sense, mentality, passing and the like really explain themselves. And, from experience, I know that utilising these sliders in a strategic way, rather than an exploitive one, is the best way to achieve legitimate success.

Now, I understand that you are likely to come back with something along the lines of "SI should not allow for 'illegitimate' success" (ie success earned through exploiting flaws in the system), but cut them some slack. FM is not the finished product. Don't forget that the most potent exploitations, the supertactics, have been pretty much irradicated, and left in their wake are a few pieces that SI will have to mop up. Eventually, perhaps as soon as FM08, success will HAVE to be achieved through logical strategy, rather than it being one of a number of options as it is in this state. I think it is fair to conclude that if you want to gain success through real-style management you can, but unfortunately there are enough gaps for you to gain success in other manners. However, a real life approach to tactics is one that FM are trying to enforce, and soon that will be the only way 'win' at this game.


NOTE: Isn't it funny how, as the scope for supertactics and exploitation of flaws diminishes, the number of complaints grows? My interpretation - the more real the game gets, the more people who don't actually understand the sport start whining about how they can't just drop a pre-made tactic into the game, click continue a few thousand times and admire that they are top of the Hall of Fame in 3 seasons... I find this utterly pathetic.

retired_spoon30

This is becoming a "religion". We are discussing about things that we "belive" the games does or it`s programmed for. We put in the game or in the AI behaviour our beliefs. "The AI does this or that" etc. when we don`t even know if that is true, because we have not programmed this game. And all of this is happening because there is not any feedback from programmers. As a result, you have a lot of people talking about something they have not seen (Religion). We haven`t got conclussive proofs of many issues that we post in these forums. "Does the game cheat?" Usually the AI has "suspiciuos" high rate goals/shots... and then we conclude that it`s cheating. It could be possible or not. WE DON`T KNOW.

I`m not with the "loosers are who belive the game cheats", because I generally have big success in this game, but constantly experiencing the AI having a "suspicious" luck. Luck exists, but nobody has luck everytime, and sometimes the AI has all with it.

There are very few FACTS in this game. The poor information in the manual, the poor "tips and hints" in-game, and stop counting.

retired_fitnessconnection

It does'nt look to me as if too many of you actually watch a significant amount of games to make an educated decision?.

If you were to watch these games in any great detail like myself, you would simply have no choice but to agree with what the likes of myself and "Arteta is God" have to say.

There are at least one or two threads on FM Britain in which i provide more than enough evidence to prove the game favours the AI in almost every situation.

Now i use wwfan's latest tactic set, so if you want to tell me it's my tactics that are at fault then go ahead, but if your saying that wwfan's tactics must be wrong, then God help the rest of us?.

wwfan's instructions for the use of his tactic set is clear and concise, with the idea being to use a specific tactic against specific opposition settings to control the game as much as is possible and it works!.

What it cannot do(no tactic can), is change the efficiency of the opposition when they are being managed by the AI.

The problem is and i'm stating a FACT here, is that the game is still too easy!. The reason i know this is true is because i dominate most games all too easily with even the poorer clubs and this should'nt be the case.

The fact that i dont win a very high percentage of these games(unless i play as a World Class side!), proves that the game itself has to compensate, otherwise i'd be able to win the Prem with Watford first and every season.

It might not be nice for many of you to hear, but this game is far from the sophisticated engine that so many of you drool over. In fact, as far as realism goes, this has to be the poorest release so far and i've bought and played them all!.

What you witness on the pitch seldom resemble's the actual match stats and real life football and tactics to an even lesser degree.

Dont take my word for it, start watching a few games in full and you can't miss it!, although it will obviously help if you have a little prior knowledge of the real thing first!.