FM15 Post your Frustrations/Raaaage

[icetorres]

Its probably been said a thousand times.

The amount of crash dumps combined with the excessive saving times makes for a really frustrating campaign.

Totally addicted though.

 

[Subtle]

SI are one of only a few that i trust to actually patch things in the ways that the players demand. Loads of developers and even Sony themselves (PSN users have been consstnetly demanding to change their username since the online network was launched by Sony. As of yet, nothing) often just ignore their players and update in the way they see fit.

I have no doubt that SI will patch the game until it's in great shape, which is why they're one of 3/4 companies whose games I still buy at full price on launch. It's just an interesting topic to look at, especially when you factor in the addictiveness that the titles are famous for. The only other title I can really think of that's similar is Dota.

Spoiler

 

[tigertailz001]

It would be nice at least one year when you buy the new game, you didn't have to delete files and download edited database changes, to get real names of leagues, cups, clubs, national teams, real names of playing staff and non-playing staff etc.. I know it's because of licence's, but it is still a pain in bottom, having do so.

 

[Ranger81]

Watching the opposition pass their way quite happily from the edge of their own area until the ball is in the back of my keepers' net and not one player thought to put in a tackle (so much for 'Get Stuck In'). Except, of course, for Darren McGregor who slid in on....fresh air. The guy with the ball wasn't even close. What the ****?!

 

[GodCubed]

Oh, its monetisation would definitely be different, but that isn't really my point. Worth pointing out that Ubisoft do heavily patch their games as well.

Ubi only patch their games when there's a public outcry about it. They do it to save face, not to improve their games out of the goodness of their own heart.

I'm not sure that they do though. There's basically: A. morons that would complain about everything even if the game was perfect and B. people that sometimes moan but will always come back for another hit of delicious crack. Considering how successful the game is, it actually faces very little scrutiny from any reasoned argument, either from within the community or outside it.

Right, it doesn't come under much REASONABLE scrutiny, but I didn't think you were using that as a qualifier. Frankly, I welcome reasonably scrutiny of the game; if there wasn't any, the game wouldn't improve.

Which is my point really. It's just interesting to see how general goodwill towards SI and the lack of a real competitor change people's perceptions of what's going on. When they have fairly large issues with their product, it's explained away by the fact that they're ambitious and taking on a project of enormous scope. If a big studio does it, they're moronic for overreaching themselves on a completely unrealistic project. You only have to look at how people (myself included) hate Skyrim for spreading its budget too thinly (Width of an ocean, depth of a puddle) to see how critical others can be in that regard.

In general, people tend to accept that you're going to need to wait a couple of months before the latest FM is in a polished state, something that pretty much no either full price game gets away with. Look at the shitstorm Firaxis (rightly) got for releasing BE in what was essentially an advanced beta form for full price and basically saying "it's a playable game, we'll iron out the balance issues/bugs soon."

Do you think SI are overreaching themselves? I think the product they put out is of high enough quality to claim that, despite the huge scope, they aren't overreaching themselves just yet. It's close - that's why they hire temps every year at crunch for FM - but they just about get away with it.

Thing is, I think that year on year FM is actually in a reasonably polished state. There are some notable examples (looking at you, FM09) but generally it's released in a state of good playability. This year I think it's been a pretty successful launch; there's some tweaks that need to be made with the match engine and a few other bits and bobs, but generally it's actually a pretty well made game. Firaxis, on the other hand, releasing an expandalone of a highly successful game after FOUR YEARS of development. Unfortunately, said expandalone doesn't actually offer enough new content and is nowhere near polished enough to be worth the four year development cycle. That's why Firaxis are rightly catching flak.

That's a bit disingenuous really, given how studios actually function and how EA works as a business. It's not as if the whole company or even a sizable portion of it was developing the game: they put it out to one of the studios under their umbrella then gave them a budget and some help from central. Their game ended up getting cancelled because the ratios weren't good enough and EA are all about the quick buck. They didn't want to invest a serious chunk of cash into a new ME for the next few years when they weren't sure on returns, so it was canned.

You forget how much EA invested into FIFA Manager. It was a big project, they had long-term plans, and all of them were wrecked when they underestimated SI. Don't get me wrong, I don't think EA invested FIFA levels of cash and attention into it, but they kept it going for over a decade. If EA were truly all about the quick buck, they'd have bailed years ago, but they just assumed they could crush SI and take the entire market for themselves. They failed.

Don't get me wrong: I enjoy FM and I think SI generally do a very good job. I just find it interesting that they can get away with the general standard of their releases: it's an interesting reflection on the community.

You saying SI 'get away with' the general standard of their releases makes me wonder what you truly expect from SI. Do you want a totally polished, no-bugs game? Because with a turnaround of a year and multiple patches and support and updates to be done, that's so far past unfeasible it's ridiculous. Look at FIFA, the biggest and most well-funded football game series by far. That LOOKS polished but plays like a totally broken mess, and EA make maybe one patch a year, in between the demo and release. Other than that, they do transfers twice a year and that's it.

Do you want SI to try and make a better game, or a more polished one? This is an either/or, remember, because SI doesn't make enough money off it to hire enough people to even get close to that. SI could either try for a more well-rounded, higher quality title with a few bugs that need to be ironed out after release, or they could just phone it in and go for the FIFA route, with an awful, lopsided ME covered up by lovely presentation.

Frankly, I'm happy with the former.

 

[Jake]

It would be nice at least one year when you buy the new game, you didn't have to delete files and download edited database changes, to get real names of leagues, cups, clubs, national teams, real names of playing staff and non-playing staff etc.. I know it's because of licence's, but it is still a pain in bottom, having do so.

If we were all to pay probably double what we do for the game, then SI might get somewhere close to being able to take on EA for the licenses. Or they could negotiate with individual leagues/teams for license rights at crippling costs like Konami i suppose.

It's just the way it is. And one of the reasons the FM community is the thriving hotbed of add on content that it is. Facepacks, kits, badges, real names, etc, as well as tactics and short-lists, we are here to serve your every need

 

[GodCubed]

If we were all to pay probably double what we do for the game, then SI might get somewhere close to being able to take on EA for the licenses. Or they could negotiate with individual leagues/teams for license rights at crippling costs like Konami i suppose.

It's just the way it is. And one of the reasons the FM community is the thriving hotbed of add on content that it is. Facepacks, kits, badges, real names, etc, as well as tactics and short-lists, we are here to serve your every need

SI wouldn't even get close then, I fear. EA have so much money and power there is nothing SI could possibly do to unseat them.

 

[andretheshadow]

...you do realise that's the exact situation United are in in real life, right?

Oh, I'm not saying it's unrealistic or anything, just that I'm annoyed with it.

Isn't this a general moan topic?

 

[mersk]

You only have to look at how people (myself included) hate Skyrim for spreading its budget too thinly (Width of an ocean, depth of a puddle) to see how critical others can be in that regard.

How DARE you, Skyrim was - and is - a gem of a game!

 

[Toon Army 13]

Since the new update - 7 penalties in 3 games...WTF!

 

[WJ]

Oh, I'm not saying it's unrealistic or anything, just that I'm annoyed with it.

Isn't this a general moan topic?

You can understand the confusion. Legitimate frustrations are few and far between in this thread.

 

[Subtle]

Ubi only patch their games when there's a public outcry about it. They do it to save face, not to improve their games out of the goodness of their own heart.

It's kind of hard to distinguish that now: they're so big that any sup-optimal release from them generates outcry.

Do you think SI are overreaching themselves? I think the product they put out is of high enough quality to claim that, despite the huge scope, they aren't overreaching themselves just yet. It's close - that's why they hire temps every year at crunch for FM - but they just about get away with it.

I think that they probably do, or that they would if they were working for pretty much any other community. That's what makes it interesting, the dynamics of the community and their relationship/expectations with FM.

Thing is, I think that year on year FM is actually in a reasonably polished state. There are some notable examples (looking at you, FM09) but generally it's released in a state of good playability. This year I think it's been a pretty successful launch; there's some tweaks that need to be made with the match engine and a few other bits and bobs, but generally it's actually a pretty well made game.

It's passable. It works, but there are elements that are still pretty **** iffy. No one expects it to be AAA standard but lots of other projects are less ambitious but do polish the thing that they do to a much greater degree.

Firaxis, on the other hand, releasing an expandalone of a highly successful game after FOUR YEARS of development. Unfortunately, said expandalone doesn't actually offer enough new content and is nowhere near polished enough to be worth the four year development cycle. That's why Firaxis are rightly catching flak.

If you read their forums/Reddit etc most people are fine with it being Civ V in space. The issue that the majority of people have isn't to do with it's development of the series, it's with the fact that it's an unpolished rock of a game. Tech web, colonies, aliens, miasma, satellites, factions, dynamic launches, actual hindrances to just playing Tall, BE is full of new ideas. The problem is that they're all ridiculously rough.

You forget how much EA invested into FIFA Manager. It was a big project, they had long-term plans, and all of them were wrecked when they underestimated SI. Don't get me wrong, I don't think EA invested FIFA levels of cash and attention into it, but they kept it going for over a decade. If EA were truly all about the quick buck, they'd have bailed years ago, but they just assumed they could crush SI and take the entire market for themselves. They failed.

They definitely invested into it, I won't dispute that but ultimately it's not as if they would have been unable to create a game as good as FM, it's that they were never willing to put that much money into it. You're right when you say that they underestimated SI, which is where the problem arose. They thought that they could sweep SI away quickly, when they didn't and they realised that they needed a new ME at the very least they scrapped it for being too risky. It's seriously hard to dispute that EA only cares about making as much money as possible. You only have to look at the dozens of incredible (but not hyper profitable) studios that they've been murdering over the past decade to see that.

You saying SI 'get away with' the general standard of their releases makes me wonder what you truly expect from SI. Do you want a totally polished, no-bugs game? Because with a turnaround of a year and multiple patches and support and updates to be done, that's so far past unfeasible it's ridiculous. Look at FIFA, the biggest and most well-funded football game series by far. That LOOKS polished but plays like a totally broken mess, and EA make maybe one patch a year, in between the demo and release. Other than that, they do transfers twice a year and that's it.

I never said that the game should be free from bugs upon release, just that it was curious how little stick SI got from the outside world for their approach. FIFA is definitely more buggy but it gets serious amounts of **** for that on pretty much every release. It's often held up as being one of the worst examples of the yearly cash-in that's killing AAA gaming. Now I don't think FM is anywhere near that bad but I haven't even seen it mentioned.

Do you want SI to try and make a better game, or a more polished one? This is an either/or, remember, because SI doesn't make enough money off it to hire enough people to even get close to that. SI could either try for a more well-rounded, higher quality title with a few bugs that need to be ironed out after release, or they could just phone it in and go for the FIFA route, with an awful, lopsided ME covered up by lovely presentation.

Frankly, I'm happy with the former.

Ultimately, I would prefer a focus on the core mechanics of the ME above anything else but my personal preference isn't really the issue. It's more that there's currently a massive backlash against games being buggy on release/perhaps spreading their resources too thin, and SI is generally avoiding it. It's just interesting to see how people's affection for the game and the company are shielding it from that wave of criticism.

 

[andretheshadow]

You can understand the confusion. Legitimate frustrations are few and far between in this thread.

THERES TO MANY INJURSIES!

GOALS FRUM CROSSES!

CORNERS!

THEY SACKD ME CUZ I LOST!

Facetiousness aside, the crosses thing is annoying. Paired with the sticky ground the keeper seems to lay down in after a save, it's a guaranteed goal 97% of the time.

 

[Subtle]

How DARE you, Skyrim was - and is - a gem of a game!

I'm a fan of smaller RPGs that actually create an immersive world with depth and character. Skyrim's 300 hours of quests featuring the same 3 voice actors, largely **** rewards and a choice of: cave, tundra, slightly less snowy tundra, wood, generic fort no.1287, cave with bits of dwemer **** in it so you don't notice that's just another ******* cave, didn't really do it for me.

Great game with 200 mods though.

 

[mersk]

I'm a fan of smaller RPGs that actually create an immersive world with depth and character. Skyrim's 300 hours of quests featuring the same 3 voice actors, largely **** rewards and a choice of: cave, tundra, slightly less snowy tundra, wood, generic fort no.1287, cave with bits of dwemer **** in it so you don't notice that's just another ******* cave, didn't really do it for me.

Great game with 200 mods though.

Well I'm a fan of huge, open world RPGs where you can choose your appearance, your approach (Neutral Evil all the way) and what you want to do. I'm also a huge fan of exploring old civilizations that somehow exceeded the current one in terms of technology (dwemer), riding dragons and being generally badass.

They also employed over 70 voice actors, but when you have over 60,000 lines of dialogue then of course you're gonna recognize some of them from before. Don't really see what's so **** about the rewards. Almost all the best equipment in the game come in the form of quest rewards. As for the landscape, it's Skyrim. It's snowy and wintry. Come to Norway and walk around in the forest during winter, you'll notice there's not a huge difference. Better graphics maybe, but a helluva lot more boring.

 

[Subtle]

Well I'm a fan of huge, open world RPGs where you can choose your appearance, your approach (Neutral Evil all the way) and what you want to do.

I'll leave the rest of it for a PM but this is still vaguely on topic to the conversation I had with GC as it concerns what's important in a game: scope or ambition. I guess people just want different thing; I cannot understand why you would ever want a huge world over a detailed one. Skyrim did lots of cool stuff but it did the vast majority of it in a very half arsed way. I'd much rather have limited amounts of ultra high quality content over bucket loads of mediocrity.

 

[Ranger81]

My assistant telling me that I have players being played out of position. How, as my assistant, does he not know about the crippling injury list/fatigue due to a high number of midweek games?

 

[GodCubed]

It's kind of hard to distinguish that now: they're so big that any sup-optimal release from them generates outcry.

They might get away with it if they weren't money-grabbing dipshits!

It's passable. It works, but there are elements that are still pretty **** iffy. No one expects it to be AAA standard but lots of other projects are less ambitious but do polish the thing that they do to a much greater degree.

Well yeah, that's cause they're less ambitious. Problem with FM is it relies on so many different cogs, if one goes wrong the entire thing goes off kilter. This year, for example, the French researcher didn't send us anything, so the panic button was hit and they drafted in the temps to do a not quite as good job. That was a fun two days.

If you read their forums/Reddit etc most people are fine with it being Civ V in space. The issue that the majority of people have isn't to do with it's development of the series, it's with the fact that it's an unpolished rock of a game. Tech web, colonies, aliens, miasma, satellites, factions, dynamic launches, actual hindrances to just playing Tall, BE is full of new ideas. The problem is that they're all ridiculously rough.

****, if they just remade Alpha Centauri with nicer graphics I'd buy it right away. Problem is it's really quite bad for something that's been four years in development from a not-small company.

They definitely invested into it, I won't dispute that but ultimately it's not as if they would have been unable to create a game as good as FM, it's that they were never willing to put that much money into it. You're right when you say that they underestimated SI, which is where the problem arose. They thought that they could sweep SI away quickly, when they didn't and they realised that they needed a new ME at the very least they scrapped it for being too risky. It's seriously hard to dispute that EA only cares about making as much money as possible. You only have to look at the dozens of incredible (but not hyper profitable) studios that they've been murdering over the past decade to see that.

I'll dispute that, actually.

I think EA not only don't have the capability logistically to create a title to match FM, I think they don't have the culture within the company. They'd never rely on unpaid researchers across the globe. They'd never garner the kind of cult following SI have. They just wouldn't understand the logistics of creating a game of this complexity. I think they are literally unable to invest the time and effort and (bear with me) love that the SI team give on a daily basis into their game. They don't have the setup for it. That's why FM is unique, and partially why it's so good.

I never said that the game should be free from bugs upon release, just that it was curious how little stick SI got from the outside world for their approach. FIFA is definitely more buggy but it gets serious amounts of **** for that on pretty much every release. It's often held up as being one of the worst examples of the yearly cash-in that's killing AAA gaming. Now I don't think FM is anywhere near that bad but I haven't even seen it mentioned.

Wouldn't go that far. Eurogamer, PC Gamer et al were quite critical. Mainly the reason why people don't criticise SI too much - reasonably, anyway - is because the game is so complex it's hard to pinpoint the exact flaws.

Ultimately, I would prefer a focus on the core mechanics of the ME above anything else but my personal preference isn't really the issue. It's more that there's currently a massive backlash against games being buggy on release/perhaps spreading their resources too thin, and SI is generally avoiding it. It's just interesting to see how people's affection for the game and the company are shielding it from that wave of criticism.

I'm really not sure that's the case, honestly. I think there's plenty of complaints towards SI - too many, I feel, since this is such an entitled fanbase at times - and SI respond to it pretty well. ****, you only need to go and check out the main forums to see the ******** on a large scale. or even here, with this thread currently on 600 replies since release. I don't think you need to worry about SI not getting the criticism they deserve.

 

[tumppur]

Nice. A defence and a goalie that just shutout ManC, Arsenal and Tottenham is decimated by a guy with ridiculous attributes... What a joke! Yes, overconfidence does that...

View attachment 327802

 

[new era]

Other teams GK (doesn't matter who) is always on steroids.