FIFA 12 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter danyjr
- Start date
Seeing as your post has been bought in to the fray again, I might as well take a stab at responding.
Microsoft understand security, very well. The problem is that you can't cover all the vectors nor can you write it perfect first time every time or even at all in some cases.
The same as Jose Mourinho "understands football" does not mean he is a terrific player.
It comes back to how you translate what is a real game in to a 2d (3d is just a depth of field calculation because we play on flat screens) representation of that using only the physics and tools you have created.
Let's flip it round and say we all understand football to a good level, where would you start in terms of representing that in code?
It's debatable as to whether the phrase "definitive football simulation" is "utter bollocks" as well because to be honest, having 11 v 11 human players by de-facto makes it the most advanced simulation to date. We can argue over the execution, we can argue over the physics but the fact of the matter is at present it offers (rightly and wrongly) the potential for the most definitive football experience. Do I like or agree with that experience.....mostly no. Do I think it needs a lot of improvement or re focusing. Yes I do.
Having 11v11 doesn't make it de facto anything. It's a great feature but it's ridiculous to claim that this means it is the most advanced simulation to date, anymore than saying that the number of stewards the game represents concurrently makes it the most advanced. It certainly makes it the most advanced in specific areas to date, but nothing more. FIFA is simply too flawed at this stage, in so many areas which have been done so much better before (in some cases by FIFA, in many cases by PES) to be definitive. It's PR, and it's working.
Last edited:
CalcioCalabrese
Weekend warrior
This is the biggest problem with FIFA at the moment in my opinion. EA have the technology to make FIFA a great footballing experience, yet they come out every year with more sizzle, while the underlying steak is still mutton dressed as lamb.
Konami's A.I. is far more enjoyable in terms of gameplay and if they had the technology for animations and licensing etc that EA has, then I dare say they'd be closer to the definitive football experience than EA is at the moment with FIFA.
The proof in the A.I pudding is for me in the fact that human vs CPU on FIFA is more annoying than it is enjoyable. Whereas I find I can play against the CPU on PES with more enjoyment than annoyment.
If EA focussed their vast resources on fixing the core gameplay (which they may have started to do with the supposed improvement in defending) instead of more marketing trash, then we wouldn't be as opposed to Rutter's comments.
that's my 2 cents lol
TikTikTikTikTik
*****
- 7 August 2004
- Liverpool
You do realise that flipping it around means you are no longer talking about football but software development. And if anything, most of us are complementing them on their technical skills.
Not getting, or not wanting to adress glaring issues and sentences like the following...
...remindes me of some posters who will look at a youtube clip from a player and declare him the next Pele. Playing the game and seeing what get's done every year combined with the above just makes it more and more clear that they look at single aspects of football and try to represent that...but they never seem to be able to understand the basics or the bigger picture. Does anyone believe that the new features will "really" improve the game and not just fix a few issues here and create another bunch of them there?
Look at the new "innovations", if they just added decent momentum to players, their skills (Messi vs Carra) would be obvious and you wouldn't need precision dribbling because each players rating would already make the difference. Same with the defense, if they just turned off the ridiculous pressure and automated systems you wouldn't need ProDefending (or whatever they are calling it..) as you would need to close off passing lanes and time you tackle to win the ball back. Not use some button combination...
Instead they see Messi with close control and they start working on complex tech to recreate it. They see Vidic not defending like a headless chicken by going straight for a defender and they think, hey we need to build a new system. No they don't, just get rid of a poorly implemented earlier system.
Last edited:
And here's the goals I enjoy watching - full manual highlights:
YouTube - FIFA 11 - Online manual goals vol. #25 (June 20 - July 5)
Not as 'spectacular', but IMO requires much more skill than skill moves.
His videos make me want to try out manual again.
Last edited:
nerf
Forming triangles
Somewhat let down by being a relentless one-two spammer. When 9 out of 10 passes are done with L1 held down, even deep in midfield, there's something not right.
Edit: I wonder if a better balance could be obtained by making one-twos automatic, as in: the return ball is automatically played first time into the path of moving player. Right now it's a 'release ball and sprint forward' command, rather than an actual 'execute a wall-pass' command. If the ball was returned first time you would only use it where you genuinely want a one-two to occur. In that system you would perhaps also retain control of the original player and perform the run yourself, rather than it just being a forward sprint.
Edit: I wonder if a better balance could be obtained by making one-twos automatic, as in: the return ball is automatically played first time into the path of moving player. Right now it's a 'release ball and sprint forward' command, rather than an actual 'execute a wall-pass' command. If the ball was returned first time you would only use it where you genuinely want a one-two to occur. In that system you would perhaps also retain control of the original player and perform the run yourself, rather than it just being a forward sprint.
Last edited:
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Newcastle United
They're no better.
romagnoli
Misses Retri
- 7 August 2004
You're proving my point.
Mourinho understands football not in terms of application of specific technical skills - as is the case to varying degrees with Sir Alex Ferguson, Andre Villas Boas, Herbert Chapman, Jimmy Hogan, Helenio Herrera, Rinus Michels etc - but in terms of tactics, in terms of cancelling out the means in which the opposition utilise their specific technical and physical skills, in terms of making the most of his own side's abilities. There is a deep understanding in how the game moves, how to make his players move, how to stop the other team from getting through. The specifics of technique or physicality are very much down to the various members of coaching staff he employs.
Most pertinently of all though, these people have all proven their football knowledge through their actions. We know these people understand football because they've demonstrated their knowledge and their ability to create .
What deeper, non-cosmetic aspect of football, besides having 22 human controlled players on the pitch, does FIFA represent faithfully/authentically/definitively?
Again, the game is the only way EA can demonstrate football knowledge. It's their outlet, in the way that Mourinho's biggest outlet is his tactics in matches. If EA hold up the FIFA series in its current state and proclaim they are very satisfied that they have made the definitive sim, and they genuinely believe it, then it almost defies logic to argue that they arent talking utter bollocks..
I'm not going to retype one or more of the hundreds of posts I've made over the past few years where I've explained in depth what the key aspects of a football sim are.
No it doesn't.
No it doesn't.
Literally all Konami need to do is upgrade their servers to handle 10 v 10 rather than 4 v 4 and they're already pretty much cancelled that advantage out. For argument's sake, add a button that randomly either saves shots brilliantly or runs away from goal and you've match Be A GK. Suddenly the technology - again, it's generic game technology that any other big budget dev studio could handle - is not the decisive factor.
It would not take long at all for Konami to get this done. It's just a matter of having the online infrastructure and net code to handle 20-odd players. How long would it take for EA to add the depth of a PES, particularly considering that the two most significant areas - passing and personality - were evidently ticked off as great successes by EA after FIFA 11?
Thespeedster84
Champions League
- 4 October 2010
Hmmm.. i really praise the amount of animation variety in FIFA. I got pc version by the way.
I am still not sure why i personally are not type of "wow".. look at that. When the flow of the match changes from slow to fast, pass pass pass to counter attack it feels they are at the same pace,flat.
Their sprint and dribbling look organic and fluid but are not authentic to me. Let alone from close up. their head and body are like separate entity
. dont tell me when they are doing first time volley or screamer shot, it just does not feel right. Confused. 
Okay enough rant.. i like their heading and keeper animation though
.
mfmaxpower
International
- 29 July 2010
I just finished watching the PES producer video blogs with JM and, for me, the difference between it and the FIFA producer blogs are a striking example of what's endearing about Konami and, conversely, frustrating about EA: whereas EA are all about focusing on whatever has the most potential for a good headline and creating a big splash, Konami are focused on how so many little aspects intertwine together to represent the dynamic game of football, and thus seem more interested in building their game from the ground up rather than coming up with dramatic new features and forcing it on the game engine from the top down, like EA.
Now, having said that, I loved what I heard leading up to PES 2011 but in the end was disappointed with much of its implementation and ultimately still preferred FIFA this past year, so I am not ready to prematurely announce my re-allegiance to PES. But right now there is one football game that I'm excited to get my hands on, and it's not the one being made by EA.
Oh, and before anyone thinks to label me a FIFA-hater, consider that a top-drawer showing from PES this year would be anything but a bad thing for FIFA. Competition, after all, breeds quality, and hopefully Konami will blow us away with their advances in AI and force EA's hand for 2013.
Now, having said that, I loved what I heard leading up to PES 2011 but in the end was disappointed with much of its implementation and ultimately still preferred FIFA this past year, so I am not ready to prematurely announce my re-allegiance to PES. But right now there is one football game that I'm excited to get my hands on, and it's not the one being made by EA.
Oh, and before anyone thinks to label me a FIFA-hater, consider that a top-drawer showing from PES this year would be anything but a bad thing for FIFA. Competition, after all, breeds quality, and hopefully Konami will blow us away with their advances in AI and force EA's hand for 2013.
TikTikTikTikTik
*****
- 7 August 2004
- Liverpool
...hater...
Rom are we talking about imaginary sims that don't exist or the ones we can actually play?
Cause I only see FIFA and PES on the shelfs.
If that's the case then FIFA is the top sim through brute force. It does offer more than pes if you take a holistic view. Gameplay, implementation are both lacking but as a package it offers thee football fan more
Cause I only see FIFA and PES on the shelfs.
If that's the case then FIFA is the top sim through brute force. It does offer more than pes if you take a holistic view. Gameplay, implementation are both lacking but as a package it offers thee football fan more
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Newcastle United
Yes, it offers the fan more; just doesn't simulate football. 
romagnoli
Misses Retri
- 7 August 2004
We're talking about an imaginary one. The definitive football sim. All we have are FIFA and PES.
Jamezinho
Golden Boot Winner
FIFA is the top football game through brute force and a lot of technical innovation, but calling it a top simulation is laughable to be honest.
StuartCulli
College Dropout
- 25 July 2006
- Newcastle United
It's not the definitive simulation of football like they say, let's put it that way.
nerf
Forming triangles
I don't think anyone should really care what either company does or doesn't say. They'll tell you whatever they think will make people want to buy their product, according to their current marketing strategy. Truth or accuracy doesn't really come into it. Try both demos and buy the one you like best, and take any press release, dev diary, interview or sizzle video etc with a pinch of salt.
Imagine if EA actually made a simulation, you know what i don't think the reviewers would like it to be honest. They would say it's too hard
.
Jamezinho
Golden Boot Winner
Imagine if EA actually made a simulation, you know what i don't think the reviewers would like it to be honest. They would say it's too hard
The trouble is, simulations - in the truest sense - are niche products, whether it be sports sim, driving sim or flight sim. They don't have mass-market appeal if they are too hardcore.
That's why the best simulation games tread a careful line between offering enough depth and realism with accessibility. Like I've said before, easy to learn, hard to master, with enough layers to peel away for those wanting something deeper. PES5 was a great example of this in the sports game genre, Forza 3 and GT5 are good examples in the driving game market.
EA don't seem to be prepared to make enough concessions to move in a more sim-orientated direction. It seems like they consider it a massive risk to do so.
mfmaxpower
International
- 29 July 2010
Sweet jeezus, enough with the sim mumbo-jumbo already. Neither game is a sim, neither game wants to be a sim, and neither game will ever be a sim - this sim debate is a complete waste of time and energy.
Both PES and FIFA are video game representations of football and the greater footballing world, nothing more, and both games are better at representing different aspects of the sport. You choose your game based on which aspects are most important to you.
To say that one game is more a "sim" than the other is pointless, and you're arguing just for arguing's sake. Rutter and EA have every right to claim that they've made the most realistic football game ever blah blah blah, and from certain perspectives they have. And Konami likewise has every right to claim that they've accurately portrayed the sport like no-other. But like nerf said, hello, it's all just marketing, get over it and talk about something that matters.
What I think a sim is, what nerf thinks a sim is, what Rom thinks a sim is, what Tik thinks a sim is... we'd all have somewhat varying opinions, which is why this "sim" debate is stupid and a black-hole.
Some fans out there believe the better sim would involve accurate hair cuts and boot designs, while another demands accurate team strategies and tactics, while another wishes for perfect physics or realistic ball-control; many consider "sim" to refer how accurate gameplay is to the real thing while others consider aspects beyond core gameplay mechanics, like league structures, stadium representations, licenses, etc. Each game chooses which areas to focus on but neither will ever be the total package, and if you expect them to be the total package then you're setting them up to fail from the get go.
Arguing which game is a better sim gets us nowhere. All that matters are our personal preferences, but saying we prefer a sim is essentially meaningless. I for one prefer an emphasis on realistic gameplay mechanics, like passing, first touch, and deep AI and tactics. But I also have this weird issue with hating the generic boots in FIFA, to the extent that sometimes I'll not play a guy in my CM if he's got generic black boots, while I also cringe at some of Konami's stylistic choices, those elements that can't make you forget that you're playing a Japanese video game.
Who the hell cares who said which game is more realistic overall? I know I don't, and neither should you. Because in the end each game represents football and the footballing world in different ways, and emphasizes different aspects to different degrees. So when realism is the topic of discussion, it's only worthwhile discussing the specific aspects of the game, because each game will try to be a better representation of football in different ways.
Oh, and to argue that Rutter and co said that FIFA is an accurate representation of football thus he and EA must not know anything or enough about football is moronic and instead makes you look like the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Rutter is PAID to make EA as much money as he can. If you're livelihood was dependent upon marketing FIFA as best you could, what would you say? (And that is meant as a rhetorical question - nobody cares what you or me thinks he should have said, it's irrelevant.)
/rant complete
Both PES and FIFA are video game representations of football and the greater footballing world, nothing more, and both games are better at representing different aspects of the sport. You choose your game based on which aspects are most important to you.
To say that one game is more a "sim" than the other is pointless, and you're arguing just for arguing's sake. Rutter and EA have every right to claim that they've made the most realistic football game ever blah blah blah, and from certain perspectives they have. And Konami likewise has every right to claim that they've accurately portrayed the sport like no-other. But like nerf said, hello, it's all just marketing, get over it and talk about something that matters.
What I think a sim is, what nerf thinks a sim is, what Rom thinks a sim is, what Tik thinks a sim is... we'd all have somewhat varying opinions, which is why this "sim" debate is stupid and a black-hole.
Some fans out there believe the better sim would involve accurate hair cuts and boot designs, while another demands accurate team strategies and tactics, while another wishes for perfect physics or realistic ball-control; many consider "sim" to refer how accurate gameplay is to the real thing while others consider aspects beyond core gameplay mechanics, like league structures, stadium representations, licenses, etc. Each game chooses which areas to focus on but neither will ever be the total package, and if you expect them to be the total package then you're setting them up to fail from the get go.
Arguing which game is a better sim gets us nowhere. All that matters are our personal preferences, but saying we prefer a sim is essentially meaningless. I for one prefer an emphasis on realistic gameplay mechanics, like passing, first touch, and deep AI and tactics. But I also have this weird issue with hating the generic boots in FIFA, to the extent that sometimes I'll not play a guy in my CM if he's got generic black boots, while I also cringe at some of Konami's stylistic choices, those elements that can't make you forget that you're playing a Japanese video game.
Who the hell cares who said which game is more realistic overall? I know I don't, and neither should you. Because in the end each game represents football and the footballing world in different ways, and emphasizes different aspects to different degrees. So when realism is the topic of discussion, it's only worthwhile discussing the specific aspects of the game, because each game will try to be a better representation of football in different ways.
Oh, and to argue that Rutter and co said that FIFA is an accurate representation of football thus he and EA must not know anything or enough about football is moronic and instead makes you look like the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Rutter is PAID to make EA as much money as he can. If you're livelihood was dependent upon marketing FIFA as best you could, what would you say? (And that is meant as a rhetorical question - nobody cares what you or me thinks he should have said, it's irrelevant.)
/rant complete
Well said
On some level I agree with your sentiment, but on others I'm not sure I do. I don't being a sim think it is as subjective as you imply. It's fairly easy to look at something and say that it is, or isn't realistic, whether we're talking about passing mechanics or boot authenticity, or even graphical simulation. So, when the word 'sim' is paraded around, it is saying that the game is attempting to recreate football. That's a claim which can be validated or invalidated. Every single thing which I bolded from your post is undeniably a feature of a 'sim'. A good sim should simulate every one of them, though obviously there are limits to how well this can be done, and preferences about which bits you should attempt to implement with highest priority.
Obviously it's not a sim to the point where everything is bang on, and they never will be or can be, but, I'm not so sure that the concepts of what a sim is are so divergent. We may have different concepts of what should be a priority - you've just admitted a minor boot fetish, and that is something I barely notice at all. But I'm not sure it's that difficult to state what is, and what isn't a 'sim'.
When it comes to gameplay, which is probably the biggest issue for most people on Evo Web, I think it's pretty easy to objectively analyse whether the game is realistic or not. There isn't much subjectivity as to what kind of gameplay a 'sim' would be... but there are probably two particular ones which will differentiate between one person's view of a sim or another.
Those two things are, first, how do you condense a 90 minute match into 10 or 15 minutes: this is quite a difficult hurdle. Second, what level of interactivity do we grant to the user? At some level, however much control you take (and you have to take some control for it to be a game), you are already breaking the bounds of a simulation. While making a racing sim is possible to do to an extremely high level, when talking about PES/FIFA we're talking about a concept which is inherently unrealistic - controlling 11 people like some kind of puppeteer is inherently not realistic.
Those two questions are ones which I think there can be some divergence on, but in most other senses gameplay wise a sim is a sim is a sim.
At the end of the day, semantics aside, I think that FIFA would improve from almost any perspective if it took into account quite a large range of improvements to make the game more realistic, and that if EA are going to claim FIFA is a definitive football sim, then they should take those steps. If EA were looking to improve precisely the things which are bolded and weren't being overly timid, they'd produce a better game. This I am sure of.
Last edited:
romagnoli
Misses Retri
- 7 August 2004
Agree with Rod. There are certain aspects of max's argument which do hold water, but for the most part I really don't think that what constitutes a sim is as ambiguous as it has to be for that argument to stand. It's an argument that has been stated on here a number of times and I still post about sim and arcade because I don't think it stands up to scrutiny.
And nerf, if we were operating from the perspective of just being involved in these games once the demos come out, or if we were back in the days when there were several football titles on offer, then perhaps I'd agree. But considering there are four GCs on this site who are all more or less singing from the same hymn sheet about getting more depth in the gameplay, if we just let EA talk nonsense like this without ever questioning or contesting it then that's when people - EA included - start to believe their own BS, and it builds a wall up in front of our demands for change. If you try to tell EA they need the gameplay to be more realistic when they already believe it is the most realistic gameplay in football game history, then it's an even harder sell than it already is.
And nerf, if we were operating from the perspective of just being involved in these games once the demos come out, or if we were back in the days when there were several football titles on offer, then perhaps I'd agree. But considering there are four GCs on this site who are all more or less singing from the same hymn sheet about getting more depth in the gameplay, if we just let EA talk nonsense like this without ever questioning or contesting it then that's when people - EA included - start to believe their own BS, and it builds a wall up in front of our demands for change. If you try to tell EA they need the gameplay to be more realistic when they already believe it is the most realistic gameplay in football game history, then it's an even harder sell than it already is.
Last edited:
nerf
Forming triangles
You're assuming there that what they believe and what they spout in press/marketing are the same.
Even if you were to sit down this afternoon with Mr Rutter and convince him (if necessary) that he should fully adopt your opinion on what needs to change, he's hardly going to go into the next preview interview admitting "we've still got a long way to go".
It's down to the creatives within the dev team to be critical and analytical and stay aware of what needs improving. It's down to those whose job is largely PR, like Rutter, to go out there and tell everyone how brilliant it is (whether it is or not). I just don't think the two are connected.
Even if you were to sit down this afternoon with Mr Rutter and convince him (if necessary) that he should fully adopt your opinion on what needs to change, he's hardly going to go into the next preview interview admitting "we've still got a long way to go".
It's down to the creatives within the dev team to be critical and analytical and stay aware of what needs improving. It's down to those whose job is largely PR, like Rutter, to go out there and tell everyone how brilliant it is (whether it is or not). I just don't think the two are connected.
It's a question of confidence more than anything. There is a lack of confidence among most of the GCs I talk to that EA have the right attitude to provide the game that we want. We could be wrong, but at the moment there is slight sense of helplessness. There are areas the GCs/the community seem to get listened to about, and areas we don't. Gameplay is naturally the big thing for most people, and it just feels a bit detached. I'm seriously fearing that for the second year in a row, we're going to see a situation where they've gone out to really renovate two or three things which need renovation, but then don't succeed in doing so through a lack of courage. Monday is a big day I guess.
Last edited:
mfmaxpower
International
- 29 July 2010
What constitutes a sim may not be ambiguous but because different people - from those of us here, to the devs, to those on the official forums - use the term in such varying ways, its meaning has basically become ambiguous. Communication is only effective when people use and interpret language similarly. When a concept such as a sim becomes so loaded with different interpretations, it becomes useless and a hindrance to effective communication.
Clearly, based on the divide between preferences between the two games, people have different ideas of what's most important in representing football in a video game. If all we do is talk about these games in terms of a "sim" then we alienate ourselves from the devs and the rest of the market who are all looking at a bigger picture of what representing football should entail, and effectively only makes us less relevant to the discussion.
If we're more interested in realistic passing or first-touch mechanics, then that's what we should say. Likewise with player models, stats, stadiums, control responsiveness, etc. Tossing around the term "sim" gets us no where. Even more so when it's used in the same discussion as each game's marketing hype.
I understand what you're saying, that evo-webbers tend to be on the same page when it comes to what constitutes a sim, and what differentiates sim from arcade. I think my issue is that I'd argue that FIFA has progressed far enough from years past to make the arcade vs sim discussion somewhat outdated and irrelevant. It's time that our language reflect that, because what is now needed tends to be more nuanced changes in comparison to where we were last gen. Simply put, more specific changes require more specific language to describe it. Otherwise, we - and I include the devs, the official forums, everyone - aren't speaking the same language.
mfmaxpower
International
- 29 July 2010
So true. Never would've imagined but the GC forum is more depressing than this one.
- Staff
- #1,770
New Screens 
