GillsMan_Returns

I've kind of taken a back seat during the debates and rows that have sprung up since FM 2008 was released. I've watched the sniping and the counter-sniping. Accusations of fan-boyisms and people who just want an excuse to whinge. During that time, I've even found time to play the game. Many people have made some good points and weighing them all up, I'd like to make my observations, and hopefully spark some debate.

A lot of people have said that earlier games in the FM and CM series were among the most addictive in the series and I think that they were right. So why was that? Well, a lot of people took immense satisfaction from building up a team and assembling a squad of players that they could (hopefully) go on to achieve success with. The current iteration of FM, and FM 2007 to a degree, relies far too much on designing and perfecting the tactics.

BUT, to a degree I think SI are right to make players concentrate on tactics more- and certainly to ask questions of us "managers". We should adapt our tactics depending on who we are playing, or the state of the pitch and weather, etc. But the degree to which we are asked to micro-manage our tactics is, to my mind at least, erring on the unrealistic side. Now, I don't mind any of the actual options - and I think the slider bars generally work. But I think that they have too great an effect on the match performance. I'd like to dictate how my team plays - so I can go for a quick, short passing game, or a long, direct, tough tackling game.

Rather than spend all my time fiddling around with my tactics, and micro-managing the slider bars, I'd rather spend more time developing players and getting the right players into my club.

For example, youth development is quite random at the moment. But if we had more influence over it - for example to invite youth players to train with the first team squad and to invite them into the matchday squad - I think the management experience would be greatly enhanced, and we would go back to the addictive nature of the earlier games.

Also, the financial model of the game could be improved. We're asked at the beginning of each season whether we'd like to run reserve and youth teams - but there is no financial knock on from that. It's getting better, but it's rarely the case that I'd need to get rid of a player because of his wages - as is the case with a club like Crawley who had to let someone go because they couldn't afford his wages. How about the knock-on (even if temporary) effect of signing a higher profile player on stadium attendances, thereby boosting finances?

In summary, I think the earlier games in the series were so successful and so addictive because people could build up a club from the bottom. The complexities of the game have made it a "better" game, but perhaps we're missing one or two of the vital elements that we need to become truely addicted to this series.

Perhaps one of the other reasons we can't become addicted to these games is that they are released too often. I know this has been the subject of fierce debate already, so I don't intend to press the issue, but I'd like to see a new game every two years, rather than every year, and in the interim years perhaps they could release an update with a few minor, cosmetic changes, like an expansion pack (I'd happily pay £10-15 for this and then £30-35 for the "proper" game). This would give the developers more time to work on the game, remove the bugs and produce the game that I believe that they want to put out. The other point to bear in mind is that people could have more time to play a variety of different games and FM experiences if the game was essentially the same for two years rather than one.

With so many people complaining about the match engine and the complexities of the tactics, my thoughts are simply that we need to spend more time building the team and club that we're managing up for success, and less time micro managing tactics to too much of a degree (and shouting at the match engine).

I don't know if anyone has any thoughts, they want to expand upon my ideas, or simply shoot them down.

Cheers.

Number 7

I don't think many people (including myself) could afford the £10-£15 for an update and then another £30 for the real game.

Ferthepoet

But you can afford to buy a new game each year?

neil220779

so you can't put aside a few pence a week? your having a laugh mate.

However, I don't agree that the game developers need 2 years to create a full update of the game. FM 2008 has so far been the only version with so many flaws, and I feel this will be a one off event, SI can't possibly afford to do the same again and I'm sure will take much more care during the testing of 2009.

In terms of addictivness(word?), this is certainly for me the least addictive since I began playing over 10 years ago, and I think GillsMan_Returns is correct when he says this may be due to the increased detail in the tactical side of the game. In the old CM games it was easy just to go from match to match and I,on many occasions, could complete a season in one days play(I no longer have that kind of spare time ).

However I do also like that FM has become more challenging, perhaps if it was still too easy to be successful I would have lost interest in the series altogether.

Looking for players is still very enjoyable for me,finding the right type of player to fit my system is very satisfying,its no longer a case of "any top class striker will do", he has to be a specific kind.

I don't think the youth system is "random", far from it. Developing youth players is one of the most enjoyable and satisfying parts of the game for me. I like to bring the best ones into the first team and give them the odd game, I like to have an older player tutor them and I like to find the best youth coaches I can to help them develope.