sosidge

Discuss.

sosidge

Obviously I mean discuss whether CM was better before the visible match engine, not discuss just anything!!!

SWaRFeGa

I wouldn't say it was "better", but it certainly caused less arguments. A spade was a spade. If you get me. Whatever the commentary said, was gospel. Now you have the commentary telling you one thing, and the action on the pitch being slightly different. Which gives people scope for complaint. Much like real-life though. Opinions and mistakes. Human error. So either way, gotta live with it!

sosidge

I pretty much agree with you.

The old versions were more about statistics, and reading the commentary, and making your changes based on that.

I was a lot better at the older versions however you could argue also that they were easier to be good at.

In contrast the match engine always throws up strange sequences of play that frustrate you.

Los_Culés

CM 4 & CM 03/04, too many flaws in engine, but it's comprehensible, they were first versions with a visible engine and in the next versions FM 05, 06, 07 SI developed the engine pretty well. Each version had a better engine IMO. Until FM 08, disaster for me, but waiting for a new patch and then we'll see.

DaveRH

I think the match engine took something away from the game in terms of its intensity (it takes longer to play each game now). At the same time, I would not say that the text commentary was better - just different.

Pim1984

For some reason I don't like the game without a 2d match engine, it feels strange and useless to create tactics just to see text only and the text is often repetitive. Absolutely undiscussable to ever leave it out again if you ask me. It just needs progress, but the match engine is great. The 2d is fine for now and still can be enhanced in future versions.

What I do prefer is a smooth gameplay with the match engine, match flow aids that cause and it needs to be enhanced further.

chopper99

I much prefer the game since the 2D engine. I could never go back to a 'text only' version of the game now.

However, as has been rightly pointed out, the 2D engine does give a lot more scope for complaint and a lot more chance for things to go wrong.

LFC Lloydy

Was the game better before 2d? No

Was it easier for the problems to go unnoticed before 2d? Yes

As Swarfega said, with commentary a spade was a spade where as nowadays if there is a problem you will see it. Just because you see them though it doesn't mean there are more of them. It simply allows SI to find them easier and improve the game even more.

I suppose there is more of a fun factor with commentary because it leaves the action to your imagination. At the same time though you don't suffer the same rollercoaster of emotions that you do when watching the match.

I guess it is like listening to a match on the radio or watching it on TV, which is better? The answer is probably different for everyone.

For me though, seeing the action is always better, regardless of the quality. I wouldn't pay to get into a stadium only to face away from the pitch, even if the team is playing badly.

Pim1984

If things get more complicated there is a higher risk for mistakes, that is entirely normal. Games are getting more complicated, but that is evolution. They are getting better in general as well.

The one problem with complex games is that developers have a deadline and bugs are kept in to meet the release date. Even bugs that the QA noticed, that is a shame but a reality. Then millions of people play it and above the ones already known there are more and more bugs, they try to fix and can create new bugs, aaah. It must be a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it :cool:

But the match engine itself is a good thing and needs to stay!