FIFA 13

Placebo said:
He seems to hint that what happens in say season 12/13 will be relevant in season 14, ie if your player scores loads of Europa league goals this boosts his value for the next season, I hope I'm not reading more into it that it just changing the value and I'm hoping that some kind of simple history/record system is in place on players, it's really dumb that there's no log kept of their purchase fee then their goals/assists/cards/avg rating for each season, it's just a few bits of text.
Click to expand...

Club and competition history would also be nice.
 
It has to show you the last result versus the upcoming opponent for each fixture, absolutely nonsensical that they suddenly removed that about two Fifas back. Worst of all you can talk in the press to wind them up about the last match between the two teams but how the hell you supposed to remember what the result was!
 
The Calendar.

But yeah that's very inconvenient and they should definitely bring that back.
 
nabo78 said:
David Rutter won't let us down, he exactly knows where to focalize his attention. if he had had time, already Fifa 12 would have been perfect (I mean some minor adjustments). Anyway, I'm confident about Fifa 13
Click to expand...

I really don't get why people say that Fifa 12 needs only minor adjustments. It needs major and radical improvements to simulate what real football is like:

1. It needs to implement a realistic inertia-momentum-model.
2. It needs to implement proper footplanting.
3. It needs to introduce contextual offensive AI and defensive AI.
4. It needs to introduce comprehensive tactical possibilities and an intuitive way for setting and saving different formations- and tactic-settings and an intuitve way to select and load them quickly in-game without using a menu. And these tactics need to be felt on pitch.
5. It needs to better implement the already existent two-tiered stamina/fatigue-system.
6. It needs a quick ingame sub-in-menu.
7. It needs a complex every(not only first-)-touch-ball-control.

There is still a long way to go.
 
What I was supposed to say is that the game has its identity; I felt freedom, realism and AI response was ok IMO (with some adjustments like you wrote)...EA staff doesn't need to spend time rebuilding the game (in spite of Konami that has a very long way to walk)...what you list above needs time but I don't think that it takes more than one year of hard work and we will see lods of small but essential improvements in the upcoming version
 
nabo78 said:
What I was supposed to say is that the game has its identity; I felt freedom, realism and AI response was ok IMO (with some adjustments like you wrote)...EA staff doesn't need to spend time rebuilding the game (in spite of Konami that has a very long way to walk)...what you list above needs time but I don't think that it takes more than one year of hard work and we will see lods of small but essential improvements in the upcoming version
Click to expand...

The problem is that the first 4 Henry's hand listed and number 7 have been put in feedback for years and yet we haven't seen them implement these ideas. It gets frustrating.
 
People have typed the i-word and the m-word so many times on this forum that I might start to :PUKE: when I next read it.

My feeling at the moment - and this is a rant on sports games in general these days - is that we seem to be stuck in this rut of wishing and striving for 1:1 replication. If we aren't reproducing every Newtonian ounce then it's not enough.

And inevitably, because software development is a game of managing constraints, under the weight of this complex task other things get neglected. Things that might generate atmosphere, and immersion (which to me is an i-word people would be better to focus on), and gameplay depth/variety. The stuff that actually keeps the fun going.

The majority of the time, in almost any genre, the definition of 'good gameplay' can be boiled down to: frequently prompting the gamer to make meaningful decisions, allowing varied outcomes, with a clear feedback loop. (Games become boring when choices are not prompted, and repetitive when the outcomes are the same). Direct replication of the laws of physics might make you like the demo more, but is unlikely to be what will keep you playing FIFA/PES13 come next summer, if you ask me.

Ergo I would happily trade any amount of foot-planting, or Impact Engine and so on, in exchange for some well-designed development on things like strategy and personality instead.
 
Last edited:
The problem with Fifa is not that it doesn't directly replicate foot planting and physics, it's that it doesn't really attempt to model those things at all.
 
I don't think that's true, and even if it was, my point is that I don't think that is 'the problem' with FIFA.
 
If players can zig zag all over the place without enough realism, the gameplay gets boring real quick. No point having well implemented strategy or personality if I don't like the actual match experience.

I just get sick of the way a player can slalom around with touches that are that from the body that he'd be tearing his groin every match...
 
nerf said:
Ergo I would happily trade any amount of foot-planting, or Impact Engine and so on, in exchange for some well-designed development on things like strategy and personality instead.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I hear what you're saying and you make a good argument.

Still, I'd have to argue that the way players move (foot planting, momentum, etc.) and the way players behave (strategy, personality, AI, etc.) are both extremely important for the purposes of immersion.

Is one more important than the other? I dunno. But who cares? Personally I consider both to be top priorities for FIFA.
 
I completely agree with nerf, that was a very good post.
For me the most immersive football game around is still Football manager. If you look at the matches, they are rather clumsy, yet that doesn't stop it from being very immersive (of course FIFA is a completely different game, i'm well aware of that).
 
And Football Manager is a management game. FIFA is a game where you play as a team (or a player) and there's some aspect of management to it as a side dish. Predominantly, it's about you controlling the players on the pitch though. If that's the least impressive part of the whole package, then the focus of priorities has been wrong, since it's a game about gameplay first and foremost.

Some would say that FIFA is immersive due to the licensing, commentary, atmosphere, animations, physics etc etc. But until they can make the gameplay itself truly immersive, I'll still find it a game that bores quickly in any given session.
 
I must say that it doesn't bore me at all, but it simply isn't as immersive as FM.
Anyway, this is all very subjective.
 
CalcioCalabrese said:
If players can zig zag all over the place without enough realism, the gameplay gets boring real quick.
Click to expand...
I don't equate the two, personally. I suspect we've all played many football games over the years in which fun/boredom did not hinge on how realistically the players moved.

mfmaxpower said:
Still, I'd have to argue that the way players move (foot planting, momentum, etc.) and the way players behave (strategy, personality, AI, etc.) are both extremely important for the purposes of immersion.
Click to expand...
I would argue that immersion largely comes from the gamer being sufficiently engaged by a game-world that they feel they can affect. I would differentiate between that and realism/believability.

gerd's example of Football Manager is apt in the sense that it really is those qualities distilled. That game constantly engages you by prompting meaningful decisions, and the game-world constantly reacts to you with varied outcomes. It barely matters what the genre is, as long as those qualities are brought to the fore.

I'm not really specifically arguing against the i-word/m-word, I understand the benefit... it's just more a general concern about a lot of sports titles these days being driven too much toward physical matters and what your eyes tell you is wrong, rather than exploiting where the fun actually comes from.
 
nerf said:
I don't equate the two, personally. I suspect we've all played many football games over the years in which fun/boredom did not hinge on how realistically the players moved.
Click to expand...

Exactly, some of the best and most immersive football games ever made where hardly realistic. Kick Off 2, Emlyn Hughes, Microprose Soccer etc etc.
 
For me very important thing is brightness and turfs in this game - what should be very hardly corrected, its too dark during match. Also Bernabeu stadium is totally unrealistic. Some small changes will make big difference. I also hate no long-distance shooting from PC when I play with spanish teams. Also difficulty on professional level is too high, I mean playing with Barca you can win with Real away and lose at home with Malaga.
Fifa 12 is realy outstanding, we have to say. You always think about playing again.
Also 13 should be corrected for low-quality pc users (stuttering).
I cant imagine fifa13 when 12 will be improved, I realy love 12, 13 will kill our time totally.
 
Last edited:
nerf said:
I would argue that immersion largely comes from the gamer being sufficiently engaged by a game-world that they feel they can affect. I would differentiate between that and realism/believability.
Click to expand...

And I would counter that what promotes or detracts from the immersion of the game is quite subjective. Hell, you have michael4321 saying how important the quality of the turf is!

For me, what you described is very important for immersion. But if things like ball physics, collisions, player movement physics look wrong and behave unrealistically, that can kill the experience for me too.

So I would agree that being "sufficiently engaged" is critical to immersion, as you say. But if the "game-world" we are meant to "affect" is represented poorly, then it can also be difficult to feel fully engaged.

And like Calcio mentions, the core gameplay is so different in FM that comparing it with FIFA, at least when it comes to immersion, is of little value.
 
If you would have read my post carefully you would have seen that i wasn't really comparing both games. I was merely speaking about an immersive game and the clumsy way the match engine works (and i specifically said that both games can't be compared, that they are completely different games).
 
gerd said:
I must say that it doesn't bore me at all, but it simply isn't as immersive as FM.
Anyway, this is all very subjective.
Click to expand...

gerd said:
If you would have read my post carefully you would have seen that i wasn't really comparing both games. I was merely speaking about an immersive game and the clumsy way the match engine works (and i specifically said that both games can't be compared, that they are completely different games).
Click to expand...

apologies - it sounded to me like you were making a comparison with the bolded statement above.
 
I don't need ultra realism but I do find myself getting frustrated at how unrealistically some of the players move. And that kills the immersion for me. If I'm trying to corral a player before I make a tackle, yet he turns left then turns right without any regard for physics, I feel like I can't engage that part of the game. The real battle in defending. I just back off and wait for turnovers. It's a football game, not a basketball game.

And no dis-respect to you Nerf but it's this sense of immersion people get from JUST the visuals/audio that tells EA indirectly, they don't need to fix the core gameplay. There's a lot to like about FIFA, but if I can't get near players because they move unrealistically, then I don't want to play the game. We'll see what they dish up in the demo.
 
Scorpio said:
Little bit of good news for the Tottenham fans on here. Vertonghen did his headscan photoshoot for FIFA13. :)

http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/extra/opvallend/120731_opvallend_vertonghen_headscan
Click to expand...

Great stuff. Looking forward to playing as Tottenham - as always.

It's one thing that really stands out over PES. When I play the FIFA demo's, they seem great, but imagining playing with a full game and all teams unlocked including the team you support just makes the anticipation so much greater.

Can't wait.
 
The longer they hold back on the thing FSB were told not to reveal the more it's going to get built up, it's obviously something very minor IMO (I reckon it's Euro comps in the first season).
 
mfmaxpower said:
And I would counter that what promotes or detracts from the immersion of the game is quite subjective. Hell, you have michael4321 saying how important the quality of the turf is!
Click to expand...
Which I think is a classic example of 'what your eyes tell you is wrong', rather than ascertaining what will actually make the biggest difference to continued enjoyment. There's always some subjectivity involved, but my original point concerned allocating limited dev time to that of most value. Which would sustain your enjoyment of the game for longer: a deeper layer of things to think about and interact with, or (in this example) more detailed textures?

mfmaxpower said:
For me, what you described is very important for immersion. But if things like ball physics, collisions, player movement physics look wrong and behave unrealistically, that can kill the experience for me too.
Click to expand...
If you find that sort of thing sufficiently frustrating to make you not want to play at all, then I suppose it would. I guess I'm not in that boat. For me it's something that I see the benefits of improving, but it is not a contributory factor to why I'm not playing FIFA12 at the moment.

mfmaxpower said:
And like Calcio mentions, the core gameplay is so different in FM that comparing it with FIFA, at least when it comes to immersion, is of little value.
Click to expand...
But that's actually what I was trying to get across: that at an abstract level what is important to good gameplay remains the same.

CalcioCalabrese said:
And no dis-respect to you Nerf but it's this sense of immersion people get from JUST the visuals/audio that tells EA indirectly, they don't need to fix the core gameplay.
Click to expand...
I think I made it clear that's not the sort of immersion I was talking about, for the record.

The broader point I was trying to make was: across many sports titles these days, there's this drive toward making the game look and move more real than before. The danger is that you end up with something that behaves more real, but remains sterile and relatively shallow. And not only is that at odds with why people enjoy sport in the first place, which is about drama and precedent and challenge and emotion and all these other human factors, but you end up with a gaming experience that is not as deep or involving as it could have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom