SI Inconsistency: Realism vs Escapism

[Metal (Inactive)]

13 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Kick It Out is about race equality. Women's football being added in the game is a sign of its rise in popularity, but a part of it is about gender equality. It's also a multi-year project and will mostly fund itself, so we're not missing out on other features because of this. Women's football is growing in popularity and it's addition to the game is not being released now, but in the future when it should be even more popular than it is now. I am sure SI will have taken that into consideration as well.

 

You're making the mistake of thinking only women will interested in the women's game. This isn't the case. 

 

Russia was banned by FIFA and UEFA from all competitions. Ukraine was not.

 

It's again about equality (like race and gender, but this time sexuality) and it's a very small feature.

The fact that nothing more happens is precisely the point. It shouldn't be a big deal that someone has revealed that they're gay. It shouldn't be headline news that carries on for weeks or months. A player reveals their sexuality and then things carry on as normal, as it should.

Regarding the bolded part, this was written yesterday:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61006717

This is about a footballer feeling the pressure of expressing himself by wearing clothes that's different. Clothes! 

"It's difficult for young players to express themselves and live a life which is under the magnifying glass. Sometimes you feel like you can't let your hair down or feel free as a human being."

If someone wearing different clothes doesn't feel free as a human being, imagine how someone who is gay feels like?

 

Can you explain what's being rammed down your throat?

A player coming out as gay will generate a single news item and then you don't see it again.

A rainbow flag is easy to ignore if it's not something you care about.

Women's football being added will done so as an addition to the living, breathing football world we already have.

Russia has been banned IRL, so SI is just reflecting that. I can see why people are upset about this and I can understand if this is what you feel has been rammed down your throat, but it has happened so the game mirrors that.

 

Hunter this isn't the 1900's where women are discriminated left right and centre. We're in 2022 and women have as much rights as men in the work environment, politics, sports and the divorce courts . SI don't don't have a moral obligation to go on a gender equality crusade in an effort to make things right.

I personally don't think women's football will take off due to the quality of the product which will never be as entertaining and engaging as men's football due to women footballers starting the game late and having to wait for generations to catch up to bridge the skill gap in quality. That's not me being sexist it's looking at objective reality. It's the same with women's boxing, there's a few top level women fighters that are on the undercard to men's fights, but the rest of the fighters that no one have heard of, bring in low quality fights. And  the reality is the audience come to watch the men fight not the women. Legendary promoter of boxing Bob Arum and ESPN came out recently and even said nobody cares about women's boxing just like the premier league.

 

The same can be said about women's football, you can be sure as hell I won't be playing and I don't know anyone who's been calling for it. Like I said before, anyone would struggle to name 10 female footballers without having to use google.

As for the player feeling pressure regarding their clothes, that's on them. If they want to dress like a clown to attract attention, don't be surprised if it's received with ridicule. I seen some of the way these footballers dress and most don't have any fashion sense. This can never be compared with a gay player feeling targeted or bullied due to their sexuality, just like commentating on someone's features doesn't compare to an individual being racially abused.

What's being rammed down our throats are political activist agendas that have nothing to do with football manager. If I want to know more about equal gender rights on women, I'd take a course in feminism, not spend £30 on a game where I hope to play as a football manager.

 Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay. In todays world people are a lot more open minded due to better education with same sex relationships added to schools curriculum and awareness raised on the political platform through the LGBT groups. If SI/Miles think adding players coming out gay through one news item on a football sim, is going to influence and make an athlete or gamer come out of the closet, then they're misguided.

SI's attention would be better served improving the gameplay regularly to ensure it's M.E  quality is on par with the latest other AA games on the market, instead of dishing out unfinished products while politics remain on top of their priority list

Edited April 7, 2022 by Metal

[Deisler26 (Inactive)]

23 minutes ago, Metal said:

 

Hunter this isn't the 1900's where women are discriminated left right and centre. We're in 2022 and women have as much rights as men in the work environment, politics, sports and the divorce courts . SI don't don't have a moral obligation to go on a gender equality crusade in an effort to make things right.

I personally don't think women's football will take off due to the quality of the product which will never be as entertaining and engaging as men's football due to women footballers starting the game late and having to wait for generations to catch up to bridge the skill gap in quality. That's not me being sexist it's looking at objective reality. It's the same with women's boxing, there's a few top level women fighters that are on the undercard to men's fights, but the rest of the fighters that no one have heard of, bring in low quality fights. And  the reality is the audience come to watch the men fight not the women. Legendary promoter of boxing Bob Arum and ESPN came out recently and even said nobody cares about women's boxing just like the premier league.

 

The same can be said about women's football, you can be sure as hell I won't be playing and I don't know anyone who's been calling for it. Like I said before, anyone would struggle to name 10 female footballers without having to use google.

As for the player feeling pressure regarding their clothes, that's on them. If they want to dress like a clown to attract attention, don't be surprised if it's received with ridicule. I seen some of the way these footballers dress and most don't have any fashion sense. This can never be compared with a gay player feeling targeted or bullied due to their sexuality, just like commentating on someone's features doesn't compare to an individual being racially abused.

What's being rammed down our throats are political activist agendas that have nothing to do with football manager. If I want to know more about equal gender rights on women, I'd take a course in feminism, not spend £30 on a game where I hope to play as a football manager.

 Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay. In todays world people are a lot more open minded due to better education with same sex relationships added to schools curriculum and awareness raised on the political platform through the LGBT groups. If SI/Miles think adding players coming out gay through one news item on a football sim, is going to influence and make an athlete or gamer come out of the closet, then they're misguided.

SI's attention would be better served improving the gameplay regularly to ensure it's M.E  quality is on par with the latest other AA games on the market, instead of dishing out unfinished products while politics remain on top of their priority list

Come on man, I don't agree with anything you've said, but these points are especially egregious. 

I watch live lower-league women's football on a regular basis and the standard of skill is probably higher than a National-level team.  Also, I attend football matches often and if you think that a gay player wouldn't suffer homophobic abuse, you're dreaming

[Junkhead (Inactive)]

1 hour ago, Metal said:

political activist agendas

Saying this isn't the "gotchya" that lots of people think it is. In fact, it makes their arguments look silly. People - footballers or not - being treated as people regardless of race, gender or sexuality isn't a "political activist agenda". 

It's not political at all. It's about human decency. It's a wider social issue about acceptance and living in a world where ultimately things like this don't need to be in the game at all. They do at the moment.

When I was a kid in the 80's there was a bloke in my area that used to dress in women's clothes. Everyone knew his name, and he used to get abuse shouted at him in the street. Now, 30 years on, people rightly wouldn't bat an eyelid. This is progress, and this is incredibly positive. It baffles me why people are so afraid of it.

Honestly, people say things like "it's not the 1900s anymore" and then make ridiculous sweeping statements on the quality of an entire world's worth of women's football and saying things like "nobody cares". It's patently not true.  You do realise that Chelsea women have a better average attendance than Livingston and Hamilton had in the 19/20 SPL season? That's not to mention the Northern Irish or Welsh premier divisions - Chelsea Women have a higher average attendance than any teams in those leagues. In Europe, I randomly looked at the Slovakian league - only three teams have a higher average attendance than Chelsea Women.

So using this logic of "no one cares", I don't get why as well as not wanting women or LGBTQ people mentioned in any way in the game, you're not also campaigning for them to get rid of 30-35 of the men's leagues because "no one cares".

Or maybe I do get it. 

 

 

[Freakiie (Inactive)]

I'll just leave this here....

https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/womens/womensworldcup/france2019/news/fifa-women-s-world-cup-2019tm-watched-by-more-than-1-billion

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

2 hours ago, Deisler26 said:

Come on man, I don't agree with anything you've said, but these points are especially egregious. 

I watch live lower-league women's football on a regular basis and the standard of skill is probably higher than a National-level team.  Also, I attend football matches often and if you think that a gay player wouldn't suffer homophobic abuse, you're dreaming

Pretty obvious he's lecturing on something he doesn't actually pay attention to. I'm not sure he even goes to matches, because if he did, he'd be appalled at how much homophobic/misogynistic language is common. He might also want to speak to some female matchgoers, they'll be happy to tell him how frequently grim their experiences can be

[kepz (Inactive)]

Women's football has already taken off, bud. I am sorry this threatens your worldview or whatever and you can't be bothered to accept it, but it has. 

3 hours ago, Metal said:

Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay.

bro this LITERALLY happened.

 

https://global.espn.com/football/melbourne-victory-ausmelbourne_victory_fc/story/4578872/melbourne-victory-fined-$5k-for-anti-gay-abuse-directed-at-josh-cavallo

 

Quote

Football Australia is fining Melbourne Victory $5,000 AUD for anti-gay abuse directed at Josh Cavallo by supporters during an A-League Men match earlier this month, as Victory's investigation closes in on the individuals they believe were responsible.

Adelaide United's Cavallo, the only openly gay top-flight male professional player playing in world football, took to social media the day after his side's 1-1 draw with Victory at AAMI Park earlier this month to reveal that he had been the subject of anti-gay slurs from the stands and on social media during and after the game.

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by kepz
Added quote from article

[enigmatic (Inactive)]

I can pretty much guarantee that when it makes it into the game, the Womens Premier League will have more people playing it than the average league in FM, never mind the Icelandic second tier and Northern Ireland's many semi pro cup competitions which draw tiny attendances and have no impact on elite football IRL (and yet are often absolutely loved by FM gamers precisely because it's very different to what they know)

It's more work to realistically simulate women's football than simply add another division which is why it's not there yet, but the idea nobody would care is just bizarre,

[JordanMillward_1 (Inactive)]

3 hours ago, Metal said:

Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay.

 Yes, it's really great that there's no homophobic abuse involved with football and that people are free to come out without prejudice, and it just so happens that footballers are a statistical outlier in that only 15 in the whole world from 1970 to the present day aren't heterosexual, compared to anywhere between 5-10% of the population IRL.

[rusty217 (Inactive)]

9 hours ago, Metal said:

I personally don't think women's football will take off due to the quality of the product which will never be as entertaining and engaging as men's football due to women footballers starting the game late and having to wait for generations to catch up to bridge the skill gap in quality. That's not me being sexist it's looking at objective reality. It's the same with women's boxing, there's a few top level women fighters that are on the undercard to men's fights, but the rest of the fighters that no one have heard of, bring in low quality fights. And  the reality is the audience come to watch the men fight not the women. Legendary promoter of boxing Bob Arum and ESPN came out recently and even said nobody cares about women's boxing just like the premier league.

huh? Women's football has already taken off.

Will it ever be as big/popular as men's football (maybe this is what you actually mean)? Probably not. But does that really matter? Cricket, tennis etc. will never be as popular as men's football either, they're still very popular though! Entertainment/engagement are purely subjective factors. Women's football is no doubt already miles ahead on those metrics for some people. Maybe not you, but you don't need to like it for other people to like it.

[rusty217 (Inactive)]

10 hours ago, Junkhead said:

See, it's the randomness I want. No doubt it would be infuriating at times, but then, so is life.

I thought the current season and it's clubs and rules are licensed each season so the rules have to stay static, although I could be wrong. Seem to remember the USA league start dates being impacted by this.

Some rules do change in future seasons already. Ligue 1 decreasing to 18 teams is an example in the current game, so they're not strictly locked into the current season's format. I'm not sure about random changes in the future. Given the existence of the editor, player controlled ones surely aren't a licensing issue at least.

As for clubs, takeovers can happen so the current board isn't static at least. I don't think there would be an issue with newly created clubs being added as the game went on either. Possibly in fixed leagues like the MLS and A-League (the licensing probably does include a bunch of fixed stuff there), but I doubt it'd be an issue for any country with a league pyramid, theoretically any team could get promoted in to them so I highly doubt the licensing would restrict it to current clubs only.

[deltablue (Inactive)]

12 hours ago, Metal said:

Hunter this isn't the 1900's where women are discriminated left right and centre. We're in 2022 and women have as much rights as men in the work environment, politics, sports and the divorce courts . SI don't don't have a moral obligation to go on a gender equality crusade in an effort to make things right.

As for the player feeling pressure regarding their clothes, that's on them. If they want to dress like a clown to attract attention, don't be surprised if it's received with ridicule.

 Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay. In todays world people are a lot more open minded due to better education with same sex relationships added to schools curriculum and awareness raised on the political platform through the LGBT groups.

The first and third bits here highlight a major flaw in your argument, which is an attitude that since things are nowhere near as bad as there used to be, that means there isn't really an problem anymore. In theory women have equality and being gay is more accepted, in practice though there are still far too many people holding on to the old attitudes and dishing out abuse and discrimination on that basis. In particular, to say that players (or anyone for that matter) just wouldn't get any abuse for coming out as gay these days is just mind-blowingly ignorant of the realities that these groups have to face.

As for the second bit... you really think it's ok for people to be ridiculed (and likely a lot worse) just because of how they dress? There's also how the problem judgemental you are that it's just about attracting attention, essentially engaging in 'victim-blaming'.

[Metal (Inactive)]

19 hours ago, Deisler26 said:

Come on man, I don't agree with anything you've said, but these points are especially egregious. 

I watch live lower-league women's football on a regular basis and the standard of skill is probably higher than a National-level team.  Also, I attend football matches often and if you think that a gay player wouldn't suffer homophobic abuse, you're dreaming

That's not particularly difficult considering the woman's Austrian National team  who were ranked 5 in the world who were Olympians were schooled and humiliated by a bunch of 14-15 year old little boys who were in eighth grade. They ripped them apart 7-0 without breaking a sweat

https://www.goal.com/en/news/13712/extra-time/2016/05/26/23937382/australia-womens-team-loses-7-0-to-under-15-mens-side

Here again a bunch for eighth graders 15 year old boys ripped the United states world champions woman's national team apart 5-2

.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4389760/USA-women-s-team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html#comments

So you can see the skill disparity between men/boys and women who are at supposedly at a world class level. This is why I say women's football will never ever be as good in quality as men's football, the skill gap and physicality is just too big no matter how much you want to put blinders on and will for Women's football to be better.

As for homophobic abuse, of course it still exists, of course there will be a minority of idiots hurling abuse, but it's no where near as rife as it once was, especially now it's considered a hate crime through law, so if a fan is seen doing it they will be banned and likely prosecuted by the police for their offences. 

https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/20051224.brighton-ban-fan-convicted-shouting-homophobic-abuse-amex-stadium/

17 hours ago, kepz said:

Women's football has already taken off, bud. I am sorry this threatens your worldview or whatever and you can't be bothered to accept it, but it has. 

bro this LITERALLY happened.

 

https://global.espn.com/football/melbourne-victory-ausmelbourne_victory_fc/story/4578872/melbourne-victory-fined-$5k-for-anti-gay-abuse-directed-at-josh-cavallo

 

 

It happens but its a minority and they are now punished. Look at Tom Daley who came out, he was supported as heralded as a hero for coming out gay and even received an OBE. Times and attitudes have changed, we live in a far more tolerant society

7 hours ago, deltablue said:

The first and third bits here highlight a major flaw in your argument, which is an attitude that since things are nowhere near as bad as there used to be, that means there isn't really an problem anymore. In theory women have equality and beingay is more accepted, in practice though there are still far too many people holding on to the old attitudes and dishing out abuse and discrimination on that basis. In particular, to say that players (or anyone for that matter) just wouldn't get any abuse for coming out as gay these days is just mind-blowingly ignorant of the realities that these groups have to face.

As for the second bit... you really think it's ok for people to be ridiculed (and likely a lot worse) just because of how they dress? There's also how the problem judgemental you are that it's just about attracting attention, essentially engaging in 'victim-blaming'.

No they wouldn't get as much abuse as in the past, where the player would be subjected to relentless abuse and crictism to the point where nothing was done about it to curb it. We now have laws in place and anti homophobic groups set up by the FA which raise awareness so people think twice before abusing someone who is gay.

I think it's unfair to scapegoat football fans and say they will come out in droves to abuse a gay footballer. There is no doubt the odd ignorant minority will undoutedly hurl buse but I don't see any reason to assume the worst of millions of people up and down the country here in the uk when there is no evidence to support. The modern has evolved from the days of the 90's and 80s where they had free reign to chant against the irish, blacks and anyone deemed homosexual.

I would assume the real reason why players are afraid to come out is due to their brands, sponsors and marketability. Agents aren't stupid they would clearly see it as being in the players and their financial interest to say nothing.

As for how people dress, I don't think it's the end of the world if someone is mocked for their dress sense. Happens all the time in Hollywood. If you dress shockingly bad the media or people around will jump on it. The person has a choice to either dress with better decorum or grow thicker skin and accept the weird looks and criticism. Nothing to do with any PC stance of victim blaming. The person isn't a victim they are someone who simply dresses badly and opens themselves up to ridicule 

18 hours ago, Junkhead said:

Saying this isn't the "gotchya" that lots of people think it is. In fact, it makes their arguments look silly. People - footballers or not - being treated as people regardless of race, gender or sexuality isn't a "political activist agenda". 

It's not political at all. It's about human decency. It's a wider social issue about acceptance and living in a world where ultimately things like this don't need to be in the game at all. They do at the moment.

When I was a kid in the 80's there was a bloke in my area that used to dress in women's clothes. Everyone knew his name, and he used to get abuse shouted at him in the street. Now, 30 years on, people rightly wouldn't bat an eyelid. This is progress, and this is incredibly positive. It baffles me why people are so afraid of it.

Honestly, people say things like "it's not the 1900s anymore" and then make ridiculous sweeping statements on the quality of an entire world's worth of women's football and saying things like "nobody cares". It's patently not true.  You do realise that Chelsea women have a better average attendance than Livingston and Hamilton had in the 19/20 SPL season? That's not to mention the Northern Irish or Welsh premier divisions - Chelsea Women have a higher average attendance than any teams in those leagues. In Europe, I randomly looked at the Slovakian league - only three teams have a higher average attendance than Chelsea Women.

So using this logic of "no one cares", I don't get why as well as not wanting women or LGBTQ people mentioned in any way in the game, you're not also campaigning for them to get rid of 30-35 of the men's leagues because "no one cares".

Or maybe I do get it. 

 

 

Exactly the modern world has moved on from 20-30 years ago from where a transvestite or gay person or black person can't walk down the street without being abused. There are enough political organisations raising awareness for these issues. Football manager is meant to be escapism, yet we're constantly being pushed real world political agendas that are already making progress without games getting involved.

Religious people are still subjected to abuse amongst the terraces, especially muslims with islamophobia with players being called terrorists and Christians being mocked. Why isn't there an agenda in the game for a player to come out and reveal their a muslim convert or born again Christian?

https://en.as.com/en/2019/04/11/videos/1555016733_359592.html

As for your last point regarding attendances, the reason why they have better attendances is because the majority of fans are given free passes and admission is usually free. I didn't say nobody cares about, that was Bob Arum who has a lot of experience in the world of sport and I think he knows a thing or two on what's profitable in sport considering he has a net worth of 300 million and usually works with women atheletes to know and understnd their levels, limits and marketability. Most dedicated hardcore football fans who have seen that a 15year old boy has more skill than an adult professional woman soccer player isn't going to pay full entry fee to watch women practice playing football for 90 minutes unless they are family relatives,friends or feminists supporting the movement along with former players who have daughters who aspire to be a female footballer.

If I had some free time with nothing better to do and was invited to a free game involving watching some females kick a ball around, sure I'd turn up 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Metal

[herne79 (Inactive)]

@Metal  There is a big difference between Political Correctness and Inclusion.  Being PC usually stems from external pressures, being forced into doing something.  Inclusivity simply means everyone has a fair voice.

SI aren't forcing you or any of us into doing something.  If you don't want to play the women's leagues when they are eventually released, then don't.  It's entirely optional.  You may feel "forced" into seeing the odd rainbow flag or the occasional newgen player coming out as gay, but in actuality it's just simple inclusion - everyone has a voice albeit in a very minor in game way.

And regardless of how popular women's football is or isn't - and statistics (as usual) can be used to "prove" both arguments lol - it is certainly on the increase and SI have made both a business and inclusivity decision to dedicated resource to it's development.  It's also worth noting this development is in addition to the current game and not at the expense of development there.  Funding for projects are ring fenced, they're never this or that.

Anyway, @phd_angel and everyone else who thinks SI's current stance is "" - what would you do instead?

[Junkhead (Inactive)]

1 hour ago, Metal said:

Religious people are still subjected to abuse amongst the terraces, especially muslims with islamophobia with players being called terrorists and Christians being mocked. Why isn't there an agenda in the game for a player to come out and reveal their a muslim convert or born again Christian?

Because that has already happened, Glenn Hoddle came out as a born again Christian 35 years ago and everyone was fine with it.  This is called what-aboutism, it's what people do when their bigotry is called out to make it look like they actually have non-bigoted arguements. 

You say it would be different now if someone came out and that it wouldn't be like Justin Fashanu, yet in this thread someone has posted evidence of homophobia in Australia last year. Indeed, Rashford, Saka and Sancho all got racist abuse on social media 9 months ago for missing penalties.

And again, you've mentioned "political" agenda. Being decent to other people isn't a political stance. Why do you think it is?

I am so here for the forum meltdown if players take the knee in the next version 

Anyway, this isn't what the thread was supposed to be about, I don't think.

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Anyway, @phd_angel and everyone else who thinks SI's current stance is "" - what would you do instead?

I would aim for as realistic experience as possible, however not to the detriment of playability and the user experience. I like to play realistically in a world that ends up growing and being fictional. If I want complete realism I'll look out of the window or watch the news. Not having covid but having war related indefinite bans is inconsistent.

[kepz (Inactive)]

2 hours ago, Metal said:

Times and attitudes have changed, we live in a far more tolerant society

I don’t doubt that you think this is true, but as myself and numerous others have demonstrated, gay people still receive abuse despite you claiming times have changed. And ignorant people like you aren’t making it any better. 

[grade (Inactive)]

I  prefer escapism then realism.

Not going to entre the subject of woman's football (the reason people say they are against it, is the same why they don't want an Stadium editor, they want SI employees focus to make this game better then it is, and the bugs to be fixed, etc, but the question is if SI Higher ups think they can handle another feature (massive one at that), then good for them), but here few things that I see pointless of adding:

VAR: why do we exactly need it, when we are in medium, that none of this is real... how does one program for a referee to make mistakes? Why are wasting my precious time in seeing a piece of 1s and 0s, running to a 1s and 0s TV to watch a gameplay written in 1s and 0s. Immersion? Realism? Don't really saw point of it. We didn't miss in prior FM editions. However adding it because they are doing in real life? Do you know why VAR was included, it was because to have a human referees to give proper calls in certain times of the matches, that is so fast, that is hard to keep track off. Sometimes it is difficult even for the VAR to decide. Like the offside, handball (if hand hit the ball or the ball hit the hand endless debate) and so on. It was needed. Not once I seen in these forums, prior the VAR implementation in real word, a user saying we need VAR.

There are others subjects regarding features to the game that simply doesn't add to the game. I usually said, don't add stuff just because or it makes a good excuse of announcing 1000+ features, or making the game harder or close exploits in the game. Just add features, that pushes the fun levels even further. 

I do always wonder where exactly SI draw the line between Escapism and realism.

 

On 05/04/2022 at 09:40, oche balboa said:

Correct. We need more editor features to create our world as well 

Or an Editor, that needs less hurdles to jump.

On 07/04/2022 at 13:00, HUNT3R said:

I'm not talking about the war. I am talking about the ban that's in place. UEFA and FIFA banned Russia indefinitely. We have no idea if and when the ban will be lifted.

In these regards, I was expecting was simple remove the Russian league as playable nation from the base game and have clubs and national Team be set like Crimea in game.  Never expected Si would do this length of changes, but leave it as playable nation. This still confuses my mind.

[destmez (Inactive)]

il y a 37 minutes, grade a dit :

I  prefer escapism then realism.

Not going to entre the subject of woman's football (the reason people say they are against it, is the same why they don't want an Stadium editor, they want SI employees focus to make this game better then it is, and the bugs to be fixed, etc, but the question is if SI Higher ups think they can handle another feature (massive one at that), then good for them), but here few things that I see pointless of adding:

VAR: why do we exactly need it, when we are in medium, that none of this is real... how does one program for a referee to make mistakes? Why are wasting my precious time in seeing a piece of 1s and 0s, running to a 1s and 0s TV to watch a gameplay written in 1s and 0s. Immersion? Realism? Don't really saw point of it. We didn't miss in prior FM editions. However adding it because they are doing in real life? Do you know why VAR was included, it was because to have a human referees to give proper calls in certain times of the matches, that is so fast, that is hard to keep track off. Sometimes it is difficult even for the VAR to decide. Like the offside, handball (if hand hit the ball or the ball hit the hand endless debate) and so on. It was needed. Not once I seen in these forums, prior the VAR implementation in real word, a user saying we need VAR.

There are others subjects regarding features to the game that simply doesn't add to the game. I usually said, don't add stuff just because or it makes a good excuse of announcing 1000+ features, or making the game harder or close exploits in the game. Just add features, that pushes the fun levels even further. 

I do always wonder where exactly SI draw the line between Escapism and realism.

 

Or an Editor, that needs less hurdles to jump.

In these regards, I was expecting was simple remove the Russian league as playable nation from the base game and have clubs and national Team be set like Crimea in game.  Never expected Si would do this length of changes, but leave it as playable nation. This still confuses my mind.

i totaly agree with about escapism in football manager

[Metal (Inactive)]

33 minutes ago, Junkhead said:

Because that has already happened, Glenn Hoddle came out as a born again Christian 35 years ago and everyone was fine with it.  This is called what-aboutism, it's what people do when their bigotry is called out to make it look like they actually have non-bigoted arguements. 

You say it would be different now if someone came out and that it wouldn't be like Justin Fashanu, yet in this thread someone has posted evidence of homophobia in Australia last year. Indeed, Rashford, Saka and Sancho all got racist abuse on social media 9 months ago for missing penalties.

And again, you've mentioned "political" agenda. Being decent to other people isn't a political stance. Why do you think it is?

I am so here for the forum meltdown if players take the knee in the next version 

Anyway, this isn't what the thread was supposed to be about, I don't think.

I would aim for as realistic experience as possible, however not to the detriment of playability and the user experience. I like to play realistically in a world that ends up growing and being fictional. If I want complete realism I'll look out of the window or watch the news. Not having covid but having war related indefinite bans is inconsistent.

 

 

 

People are not fine with muslims at all. Muslim fans and footballers get abuse worldwide and it's barely acknowledged on any football game. All I'm saying is where does all this activism stop and when does actually focusing on reinvesting in the main core mechanics of the game for the loyal customers begin who buy the game for what it already is.  If it makes me a bigot because I want SI to to fix what needs fixing in the game over spending millions on virtual signalling to appease the PC brigade while we're told the reason we've been given for poor graphics is it costs to much yet there's enough money to subsidise women's football which the majority of players will over look, then so be it. But I know I don't need a game to preach to me what's right and what's wrong while shoving down political agendas down my neck. .

And if you think SI are capable of making a better success of woman's football then fifa whereby only 2.5% of the gamers even touched playing a woman's football match then I want some of what you're smoking.

https://www.gamebyte.com/only-2-5-of-fifa-20-gamers-have-played-a-womens-football-match/

Do you understand how much time work, funds pumped and allocated dev department teams is going to take to recreate an entire new database from scratch, with remodelling graphics for women players, attributes, height etc? They could build entire revamped new ME if they really wanted to.  Instead it will go on a mode that will cater to a few niche audience who will lose interest after a few days/weeks meanwhile putting more load on our pc/laptops.

Yes I will have the option of turning off women's leagues, but do I have the option to turn off persistent bugs that have riddled the game for years? Sure pour millions into a feature I won't touch, instead of pouring then into features I and many others use and think would improve the game for the majority of its players. Because in your world, to want that then you must be an enraged sexist bigot who hates women.

 

 

[destmez (Inactive)]

il y a 22 minutes, Metal a dit :

 

 

 

People are not fine with muslims at all. Muslim fans and footballers get abuse worldwide and it's barely acknowledged on any football game. All I'm saying is where does all this activism stop and when does actually focusing on reinvesting in the main core mechanics of the game for the loyal customers begin who buy the game for what it already is.  If it makes me a bigot because I want SI to to fix what needs fixing in the game over spending millions on virtual signalling to appease the PC brigade while we're told the reason we've been given for poor graphics is it costs to much yet there's enough money to subsidise women's football which the majority of players will over look, then so be it. But I know I don't need a game to preach to me what's right and what's wrong while shoving down political agendas down my neck. .

And if you think SI are capable of making a better success of woman's football then fifa whereby only 2.5% of the gamers even touched playing a woman's football match then I want some of what you're smoking.

https://www.gamebyte.com/only-2-5-of-fifa-20-gamers-have-played-a-womens-football-match/

Do you understand how much time work, funds pumped and allocated dev department teams is going to take to recreate an entire new database from scratch, with remodelling graphics for women players, attributes, height etc? They could build entire revamped new ME if they really wanted to.  Instead it will go on a mode that will cater to a few niche audience who will lose interest after a few days/weeks meanwhile putting more load on our pc/laptops.

Yes I will have the option of turning off women's leagues, but do I have the option to turn off persistent bugs that have riddled the game for years? Sure pour millions into a feature I won't touch, instead of pouring then into features I and many others use and think would improve the game for the majority of its players. Because in your world, to want that then you must be an enraged sexist bigot who hates women.

 

 

I can't disagree , there is few things in the game needed to be updated since 2017 but i hope ressources will be well managed , A new ME Can open new perfective for the Game and for new customers  For years I have been trying to spread my ideas in interactive sport in order to make the game more lively by offering features that would make the game more immersive for the player. I noted negative points in the match engine, graphic quality, limited animations ( in progress )the redundancy of the stadiums, the cameras constitute a weak point not being able to move where you even want to replay, the audios

Edited April 8, 2022 by destmez

[phd_angel (Inactive)]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Anyway, @phd_angel and everyone else who thinks SI's current stance is "" - what would you do instead?

Pick a side. Be consistent: either assume the cartoonish sandbox of sameness (as the game currently is) or develop it towards a truly adult simulation of what football is in real life. I'd pick the latter.

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

2 hours ago, phd_angel said:

Pick a side. Be consistent: either assume the cartoonish sandbox of sameness (as the game currently is) or develop it towards a truly adult simulation of what football is in real life. I'd pick the latter.

But why? This isn't a playground, they don't have to pick a side, like the whole thing is black and white. 

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

My biggest issue with this thread is that it tries to boil it down into a simplistic A vs B - escapism vs realism, when there's actually a whole spectrum in between. Some facets might work better being more realistic, some work better with a more simple implementation

[phd_angel (Inactive)]

2 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

But why? This isn't a playground, they don't have to pick a side, like the whole thing is black and white

As I said in the opening of this thread, the problem is in the lack of consistency in decision making.  One day SI says the game is about realism, next day it says it's about escapism to justify the inclusion or exclusion of game features. This creates two problems:

1) the game becomes a Frankenstein of silly and mature features. And,
2) it shows lack of credibility in the SI leadership. The community can't trust what SI says.

I admitted in the beginning that I was being a bit picky. But I'm pretty surprised with the collective reaction in this thread. Did I inadvertently hit a nerve?... Apparently, yes...

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

2 minutes ago, phd_angel said:

As I said in the opening of this thread, the problem is in the lack of consistency in decision making.  One day SI says the game is about realism, next day it says it's about escapism to justify the inclusion or exclusion of game features. This creates two problems:

1) the game becomes a Frankenstein of silly and mature features. And,
2) it shows lack of credibility in the SI leadership. The community can't trust what SI says.

I admitted in the beginning that I was being a bit picky. But I'm pretty surprised with the collective reaction in this thread. Did I inadvertently hit a nerve?... Apparently, yes...

It's more because you're intent on making a simplistic argument on something that's actually on a sliding scale. It doesn't have to be A vs B, that's more why people are interjecting

[XaW (Inactive)]

11 minutes ago, phd_angel said:

As I said in the opening of this thread, the problem is in the lack of consistency in decision making.  One day SI says the game is about realism, next day it says it's about escapism to justify the inclusion or exclusion of game features. This creates two problems:

1) the game becomes a Frankenstein of silly and mature features. And,
2) it shows lack of credibility in the SI leadership. The community can't trust what SI says.

I admitted in the beginning that I was being a bit picky. But I'm pretty surprised with the collective reaction in this thread. Did I inadvertently hit a nerve?... Apparently, yes...

I really think you are trying to get a simple answer to a complex question, and if you end on anything it's bound to lack the depth needed to give a complete answer.

SI have said the game is about realism while still being a fun game. They've said often that they do strive towards realism, but not at the expense of this being an actual game. If they were to make it completely real, we would all lose every game since we are not that competent as managers are in real life. That would not be a fun thing to do, so the game is still being a game, while staying in the realism of the world it's based upon.

I think SI have been forthcoming with how they have handled some of the big issues that have had to deal with. Brexit, Covid, and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Neither of these are easy to translate into a footballing world. Brexit was not part of the game until it was determined that is would happen. The actual details were unknown, so SI invented a few variants based on assumptions and made them random. About as close as they could get. For covid they decided it would be best to not directly have Covid in the game. Covid was in the game, but not in all parts. Some lower leagues were not run the first seasons, the financial aspect was changed, to mention a few. So the real life impacts was in the game while the direct references to Covid was not. Now for the Russian aggression, FM are following what FIFA and UEFA have set. An indefinite suspension from continental cups for teams, and all matches for the national side. FM reflects that.

I would compare this to any type of realistic simulation game. No matter how realistic you make an FPS, you can still respawn at some point. In a realistic city builder, you don't go to hours upon hours of financial meetings, you get a quick note about how the financial side reads. Very few game would push the detail into a chore for realism's sake.

To me this shows decisiveness from SI, and a clear trend to try to mirror real life while still keeping the game as just that, a game.

[vishers (Inactive)]

For me, it’s not just a case of realism or escapism - or where decisions lie on the spectrum in between - but about choices 

when womens football becomes part of the game, the user can choose whether they incorporate that into their FM world but with the Russia situation, they are banned indefinitely. Perhaps at the beginning of each season, the question can be asked and the user can decide if Russia can become a playable league again 

 

[enigmatic (Inactive)]

I'm one of the biggest critics of some of the game's inconsistencies and weaker functionality, but the idea that removing a team banned from International football from international football and investing effort designing a feature to ruin the gameplay by having leagues and games randomly shut down for COVID are equivalent ways of handling current events is weird (actually tbh the way theyve handled it is basically the same: the latest update doesn't shut the Ukranian league down or transfer their players to the armed forces) and the "it's escapism" is a straw man when SI's actual stated position is "we don't want to spend time creating stuff we don't think is either an important part of football or should be part of football at all and would make the gameplay worse" . I mean, adding a bribery simulator is much closer to cartoonishness than "realism" anyway. Also. you might have noticed but they're licensing real people and real football teams' IP...

"Simplistic" is kind; it's a pure straw man. Generally if you think an argument is "a bit picky" and people say it's bad, it's because it's bad, not because you inadvertently hit a nerve. Most of the thread is a weird vice-signalling tangent anyway.

Edited April 8, 2022 by enigmatic

[USASoundersFan (Inactive)]

20 hours ago, vishers said:

For me, it’s not just a case of realism or escapism - or where decisions lie on the spectrum in between - but about choices 

when womens football becomes part of the game, the user can choose whether they incorporate that into their FM world but with the Russia situation, they are banned indefinitely. Perhaps at the beginning of each season, the question can be asked and the user can decide if Russia can become a playable league again 

 

I wouldn't leave it up to the user, but I would have it end in a random amount of time, whether the same for every save or more random like happened with Brexit a few years ago. Indefinite is not at all realistic. Yes, it's possible but extremely unlikely.

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

I think this thread is interesting. 

Firstly, my personal opinion is that it's perfectly valid to think that SI should fix playability issues before adding in presentation things like rainbows and players being gay etc. Thinking that does not make you homophobic or racist or whatever. It's a simple opinion on the parts of the game that you value most. I don't think it's right that views such as those attract criticism. 

The counter argument that "those changes are small" doesn't really matter, because in software development, no change is small. Everything requires testing. And the view that "it's only one message or one image, it doesn't really matter" works both ways. 

I think it's obvious that homophobic people exist in the world. No one is pretending they don't. But FM adding in stuff like this won't change their views on the world. And on the point about inclusion, FM doesn't say that a certain player is straight. It has never commented on people's sexual preferences before. You can pretend your entire squad is gay if you like. I'm not sure why it needs to be called out. Presumably the aim in the world is for there to be no differences between any race, religion or sexual preference, but by treating them differently via in game messages, you reinforce that difference. It has the opposite effect of what was intended. 

My one and only opinion about FM is that every single piece of work done on it should be about improving playability. People play games to escape and have fun. 

If I'm a Russian, and I want to play FM as a Russian side and win the Champions League or World Cup as Russia, I should be able to. I've got nothing to do with what's happening in the world. 

Give people a decent free editor and they can quickly remove Russia, or certain players accused of crimes from their game world, if they want to. 

Obviously all of the above is my own personal view. I'm aware no one cares about my view. People will probably seek to call me a racist or praising war or some other nonsense. I just want to play a game without any form whatsoever of politics. I want it to be 100% about football. I don't want to be blocked from doing something and wonder why, only for the answer to be something happening in the real world. Or to receive an in game message and wonder why on earth its telling me. 

 

 

[deltablue (Inactive)]

7 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I think this thread is interesting. 

Firstly, my personal opinion is that it's perfectly valid to think that SI should fix playability issues before adding in presentation things like rainbows and players being gay etc. Thinking that does not make you homophobic or racist or whatever. It's a simple opinion on the parts of the game that you value most. I don't think it's right that views such as those attract criticism.

Now this is an interesting argument but also a false one that came up regularly and was debunked in the thread announcing the future addition of women's leagues. It's not a case of 'either/or' as different teams and invididuals would be working on different things and SI are going to expand their team to do that. It's also a lot easier to make a business case for expanding the development team to work on something different than to just have more people doing the same thing, which is why it's not as simple as just hiring more staff to expand the existing teams. It's not something they can just do on a whim. The money has to be requested and approved to pay these extra staff so there needs to be enough of justification for it.

7 hours ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

If I'm a Russian, and I want to play FM as a Russian side and win the Champions League or World Cup as Russia, I should be able to. I've got nothing to do with what's happening in the world.

Except that's literally not how SI do things. What they put in the game is very much about what's happening in the world, especially the world of football. In this case, Russian teams can't play internationally in real life so they can't in the game. They also still actually give you the opportunity to play in Russia, which I think is a lot more than you can do in FIFA right now.

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

I understand its not what they do. I was only offering my opinion that they should. Absolutely no one is justifying any sort of war, and if there's sanctions against countries so you can't sell stuff there or whatever, then clearly, that should be followed. 

But it's a game. The second you press continue, it's not reality any more. Normal people play games. We're not talking about politicians or world leaders. Just normal people, living in countries where they probably hate their governments and they just want to escape and play a game involving their favourite sport. Their day to day lives are full of sanctions and stress and the rest of the world hating them for reasons behind their control, and now they play a game, and even the game "attacks" them by not letting them do various things. 

And on other topics - sexuality, race etc. People may have strong religious beliefs or anything else about things, you don't know why people have an issue with certain things. I'm clearly and absolutely not saying anyone should cater to the feelings of racists and homophobes and misogynists, but I'm just not totally sure if it needs to be included in a game about a fake world of football, especially when it adds zero playability functionality. Including certain stuff just to say its included feels like tokenism. 

On the subject of women's football, I hear the argument of "its not either or, its both" a lot. That may be true, if you have more staff. But I work in software development. There's always either this or that conversations. Even from teams dedicated to one area, they routinely get moved to other areas based on priorities. So it's probably not as simple as that. 

But anyway, if it adds playability to the game, I'm totally on board. If it improves the game and makes it more fun, then I have zero problems. 

If, however, adding something that feels like tokenism or pandering to a certain group of people, and the core game isn't great, or there's fundamental issues with how fun it is to play, then I'd argue the priorities are wrong. 

I don't think an opinion of "core game first, extras second" should be a controversial one. 

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

21 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

I understand its not what they do. I was only offering my opinion that they should. Absolutely no one is justifying any sort of war, and if there's sanctions against countries so you can't sell stuff there or whatever, then clearly, that should be followed. 

But it's a game. The second you press continue, it's not reality any more. Normal people play games. We're not talking about politicians or world leaders. Just normal people, living in countries where they probably hate their governments and they just want to escape and play a game involving their favourite sport. Their day to day lives are full of sanctions and stress and the rest of the world hating them for reasons behind their control, and now they play a game, and even the game "attacks" them by not letting them do various things. 

And on other topics - sexuality, race etc. People may have strong religious beliefs or anything else about things, you don't know why people have an issue with certain things. I'm clearly and absolutely not saying anyone should cater to the feelings of racists and homophobes and misogynists, but I'm just not totally sure if it needs to be included in a game about a fake world of football, especially when it adds zero playability functionality. Including certain stuff just to say its included feels like tokenism. 

On the subject of women's football, I hear the argument of "its not either or, its both" a lot. That may be true, if you have more staff. But I work in software development. There's always either this or that conversations. Even from teams dedicated to one area, they routinely get moved to other areas based on priorities. So it's probably not as simple as that. 

But anyway, if it adds playability to the game, I'm totally on board. If it improves the game and makes it more fun, then I have zero problems. 

If, however, adding something that feels like tokenism or pandering to a certain group of people, and the core game isn't great, or there's fundamental issues with how fun it is to play, then I'd argue the priorities are wrong. 

I don't think an opinion of "core game first, extras second" should be a controversial one. 

On women's football being added, they do have more staff. They are literally hiring specifically for it. As was mentioned in the womens football thread. They spoke about it in quite a lot of detail. 

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

And I don't have a problem with that. Like I said, it's great the game is being expanded. As long as everyone agrees that the core game is as good as it can be. You only extend when the core game is super solid. 

Otherwise, you could have taken those new staff, and put them on existing coding teams to improve that instead. 

Ringfenced staff isn't really an excuse, because they didn't have to be dedicated to that. If issues exist in other areas, put them on that instead. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by DamianJMcGrath

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

33 minutes ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

And I don't have a problem with that. Like I said, it's great the game is being expanded. As long as everyone agrees that the core game is as good as it can be. You only extend when the core game is super solid. 

Otherwise, you could have taken those new staff, and put them on existing coding teams to improve that instead. 

Ringfenced staff isn't really an excuse, because they didn't have to be dedicated to that. If issues exist in other areas, put them on that instead. 

You can extend whenever you feel it's necessary, otherwise we wouldn't have any extra leagues competitions ever. Or any new features ever. 

And being as good as it can be isn't really an argument, as nothing is perfect and can always be improved. 

the only people who need to agree is SI, which is a good thing, because you'll never get everyone  to agree about everything anyway, and SI are happy with the "core" ( something that hasn't actually really ever been defined tbh), but also believe the core can always be improved, and added to. Hence the women's game as a new core part. 

As for ringfencing staff. There's more staff being brought across the board as well so it's not just an expansion for one asset. Existing teams are also being expanded.

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

Tbh, even the word core is subjective. As that carries a different definition for everyone. And I'm not entirely sure SI have a definition for it. 

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

I guess I was referring to the core being the gameplay, match engine, transfers, player interactions. Things people would consider fundamentals. 

I haven't actually played the new version yet but there seems to be enough posts in here and Bug Tracker where it appears there's a few issues with those fundamentals. Whether they are deal breaking is a personal view. And whether they fall under the category of "Well, nothings perfect" is again a personal view. 

I would always support fundamentals being improved over the addition of new leagues, or women's football, or things like that. Even things like greater stats, or enhanced training etc. I reckon most people could decide whether something is fundamental or an enhancement. 

I think that's what people have mentioned in this thread. A message popping up saying a player is gay may not cost SI much development time but people will look at it and say "wow, I can't score from 1000 shots and miss every 1 on 1 chance but they've put that message in the game". It's just ammunition to those people for further criticism and questions over priorities. 

Anyway, this is drifting from the original topic. 

My view on the original question is - FM is a game and should be a game and should enable all people the fun of managing whatever football team they like in a fake world without a constant reminder of the awful real world we live in. 

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

I guess my point is that's its not about whether people decide, it's the fact that those decisions might be different for different people. And there are alway going to be issues. 

And everyone is going to have different priorities/fundamentals. For example I think adding women's football is pretty fundamental, and should be seen as a "core" part of the game, and I've been pretty critical of the high bar set against it and the time it's taken for SI to finally decide. I also see stats as something far more important than newgen faces for example, and yet newgen faces are a deal breaker for some. 

Ultimately everyone has a different view of what FM should be, and SI also have their own vision of what it should be. And often none of those things match up, hence this thread

[grade (Inactive)]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

On women's football being added, they do have more staff. They are literally hiring specifically for it. As was mentioned in the womens football thread. They spoke about it in quite a lot of detail. 

SI can say, they will add 1000 new staff members to the SI team, the reasoning of some fans still remains, those staff members are better use to make the game better, then to add new useless features to the game. The reasoning is used against every time someones suggest the Stadium editor. I can use it, to say that new staff would better of, to make FM Touch return for PC/Mac and Ipad platforms (I do know not gonna happen).

What i'm saying is no matter how much reasoning you put on why SI makes certain new features, this excuse we always be thrown. in certain variants are in play, it can be losing battle. I know we all want the same thing FM to be better game, but all of us have different opinions how to achieve that. We simply have to trust SI judgement, despite not agreeing with certain options they made (I was mad recent with one of them, it was not the best attitude from my part, I do that now).

[forameuss (Inactive)]

On 08/04/2022 at 15:31, Metal said:

As for your last point regarding attendances, the reason why they have better attendances is because the majority of fans are given free passes and admission is usually free. I didn't say nobody cares about, that was Bob Arum who has a lot of experience in the world of sport and I think he knows a thing or two on what's profitable in sport considering he has a net worth of 300 million and usually works with women atheletes to know and understnd their levels, limits and marketability. Most dedicated hardcore football fans who have seen that a 15year old boy has more skill than an adult professional woman soccer player isn't going to pay full entry fee to watch women practice playing football for 90 minutes unless they are family relatives,friends or feminists supporting the movement along with former players who have daughters who aspire to be a female footballer.

You could probably pick up on a million mental points you've raised, but it's probably not worth it.  Interesting part bolded though.  Not sure what team is right wing enough to deserve your support, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it isn't one of the really, really top teams in the world.  Right, so why is that?  Why wouldn't you support them?  They're better at football right?  Why would you ever want to watch anything else when you could go down the Etihad or Anfield and support them? 

I support Partick Thistle.  We're pish most of the time.  And yet I'd still rather sit through an entire season of us struggling on our absolute mess of a pitch than watch something that has a supposed better quality.  And believe it or not, some people might actually enjoy watching Women's football.  Shocking I know.

49 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I guess my point is that's its not about whether people decide, it's the fact that those decisions might be different for different people. And there are alway going to be issues. 

And everyone is going to have different priorities/fundamentals.

This is a point that's often lost.  Many have often said that if FM was a game that truly reflected the majority's wants and desires, it'd be an absolute Frankenstein's Monster of nonsense.  If it was even possible at all, as on any one feature, you can probably find two people so diametrically opposed that you can't possibly please both.

Ultimately - and rightly - they will do what they want to do.  Of course that is going to be partially guided by what they think people want, but if they didn't do what they wanted to do, who exactly do you listen to?  

And I say all that as someone who thinks he's probably done with FM as a series, as it's stopped being that interesting to me in its current guise.  I don't think they'll change course enough to change that.  And that's fine!  I'd far rather they stuck with their principles (which I mostly agree with away from the actual game experience) than try to pander, potentially to the wrong group.

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

I think everyone knows that SI will do as they want. No one here is egotistical enough to think they'll change company direction based on a few forum posts. 

It's purely an opinion post. I'm not expecting the world to change. 

I have areas of the game that I focus on. I buy and sell players and staff, set up a tactic, set up training, and play matches. I like squad building, dealing with player interactions, and trying to figure out the right tactical options to win a game. I want my players to do what I tell them and there to be nothing overpowered or exploitative etc. I like the immersive reality of my fake world, and having rivalries with teams, etc. 

I don't care so much for visual things, like different stadiums represented or political things like Brexit or Russia, messages about players private lives, or press conferences. 

I could go on. 

I recognise that everyone's different and you can't please everyone. 

It goes back to the original question. SI probably do pick reality sometimes and not other times. It's their call. They probably choose what will make the majority happy. 

People could ask "were the majority really clamouring for gay players" and even "were the majority really insisting Russia got removed or blocked from competitions in game?". I don't know the answer. I know some people would have been asking. But the majority? Maybe. 

I probably live in my own bubble where me and my friends don't care so I assume that's the common thinking. Maybe it's not. 

[enigmatic (Inactive)]

Ah... the gay players, a feature so straightforward to implement it's almost an Easter egg gets more criticism than every other cosmetic feature in the game put together...

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

28 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Ah... the gay players, a feature so straightforward to implement it's almost an Easter egg gets more criticism than every other cosmetic feature in the game put together...

To be super clear, I mention it because it was mentioned earlier in the thread. My overall opinion is "prioritise gameplay over cosmetics", and actually "prioritise gameplay over mirroring the awful political things of the real world like Brexit and Russia as well." 

 

It's a largely pointless conversation, as its done now, but I thought it was interesting seeing people's thoughts. 

[s1111 (Inactive)]

On 07/04/2022 at 19:49, Metal said:

 

Hunter this isn't the 1900's where women are discriminated left right and centre. We're in 2022 and women have as much rights as men in the work environment, politics, sports and the divorce courts . SI don't don't have a moral obligation to go on a gender equality crusade in an effort to make things right.

I personally don't think women's football will take off due to the quality of the product which will never be as entertaining and engaging as men's football due to women footballers starting the game late and having to wait for generations to catch up to bridge the skill gap in quality. That's not me being sexist it's looking at objective reality. It's the same with women's boxing, there's a few top level women fighters that are on the undercard to men's fights, but the rest of the fighters that no one have heard of, bring in low quality fights. And  the reality is the audience come to watch the men fight not the women. Legendary promoter of boxing Bob Arum and ESPN came out recently and even said nobody cares about women's boxing just like the premier league.

 

The same can be said about women's football, you can be sure as hell I won't be playing and I don't know anyone who's been calling for it. Like I said before, anyone would struggle to name 10 female footballers without having to use google.

As for the player feeling pressure regarding their clothes, that's on them. If they want to dress like a clown to attract attention, don't be surprised if it's received with ridicule. I seen some of the way these footballers dress and most don't have any fashion sense. This can never be compared with a gay player feeling targeted or bullied due to their sexuality, just like commentating on someone's features doesn't compare to an individual being racially abused.

What's being rammed down our throats are political activist agendas that have nothing to do with football manager. If I want to know more about equal gender rights on women, I'd take a course in feminism, not spend £30 on a game where I hope to play as a football manager.

 Besides that we're not in the days of Justin Fashanu where a player is going to cop abuse for coming out gay. In todays world people are a lot more open minded due to better education with same sex relationships added to schools curriculum and awareness raised on the political platform through the LGBT groups. If SI/Miles think adding players coming out gay through one news item on a football sim, is going to influence and make an athlete or gamer come out of the closet, then they're misguided.

SI's attention would be better served improving the gameplay regularly to ensure it's M.E  quality is on par with the latest other AA games on the market, instead of dishing out unfinished products while politics remain on top of their priority list

So much of this post is ignorant rubbish that it's hard to know where to start and if I said what I really think about you I'll be banned, but I'll just throw out the facts.

• More people watched in the UK watched England v USA in the 2019 World Cup than the men's FA Cup final
• The Euro 2022 final at Wembley sold out in two hours and will have a higher attendance than any men's Euros game ever
• Barcelona Femeni have sold out the Camp Nou multiple times
• Women's football is the world's fastest growing sport with incredible commercial potential and will probably become the biggest women's sport within 10-15 years with the top players earning close to their tennis counterparts

If SI ignored women's football any longer it would make them look increasingly out of touch and mean they'd be missing out on a huge long term potential market, as well as the enhancements it would bring to the game as a whole such as a deeper and more varied game world.

[tts0 (Inactive)]

To me this thread pretty much sums up the way that world goes nowadays. People on one side of the spectrum try to make a fuss about things that "normal" people should not care about like gender, sexual orientaton, religion, skin color of others and whatnot, so those on the other side get triggered and we can have a pointless argument for days, potentially causing some tention over nothing essentially. Thats a very good news for those, who want to rule the world and noone else. That being said, I dont like those kind on stuff in the game, so I guess I may prefer escapism, eventhough Im all for realistic rules, leagues alinement and so on. One thing I gotta say though - I dont find womens football in that category and if done correctly, that could be a nice way to experience some different gameplay in FM. Also someones mentioned OOTP. Their game is nowhere near FM in terms of complexity and whatnot, but... its somehow more fun. THe amount of customization you can make in real time is ridiculous. Turning on/off scouting, injuries, finances, developement, newgens; adding/removing teams, changing league rules/alinements and so on and so fort. I would be over the moon, if we had that in FM.

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

1 hour ago, s1111 said:

So much of this post is ignorant rubbish that it's hard to know where to start and if I said what I really think about you I'll be banned, but I'll just throw out the facts.

• More people watched in the UK watched England v USA in the 2019 World Cup than the men's FA Cup final
• The Euro 2022 final at Wembley sold out in two hours and will have a higher attendance than any men's Euros game ever
• Barcelona Femeni have sold out the Camp Nou multiple times
• Women's football is the world's fastest growing sport with incredible commercial potential and will probably become the biggest women's sport within 10-15 years with the top players earning close to their tennis counterparts

If SI ignored women's football any longer it would make them look increasingly out of touch and mean they'd be missing out on a huge long term potential market, as well as the enhancements it would bring to the game as a whole such as a deeper and more varied game world.

I think your facts are purposely ridiculous. 

The TV viewers for England v USA was based on it being on 1 free to air Channel and it was a World Cup, compared to a domestic cup match broadcast on multiple channels, of which only one has released viewer numbers. 

The Euro 2022 final attendance being higher than the men's is because the mens finals haven't been at a stadium as big.

When you misrepresent things to make a point, it just makes you look silly. 

 

I think if SI had the ability to record what leagues people choose to play FM with, it would be very interesting to see the % of people who choose women's leagues.

Edited April 11, 2022 by DamianJMcGrath

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

24 minutes ago, tts0 said:

To me this thread pretty much sums up the way that world goes nowadays. People on one side of the spectrum try to make a fuss about things that "normal" people should not care about like gender, sexual orientaton, religion, skin color of others and whatnot, so those on the other side get triggered and we can have a pointless argument for days, potentially causing some tention over nothing essentially. Thats a very good news for those, who want to rule the world and noone else. That being said, I dont like those kind on stuff in the game, so I guess I may prefer escapism, eventhough Im all for realistic rules, leagues alinement and so on. One thing I gotta say though - I dont find womens football in that category and if done correctly, that could be a nice way to experience some different gameplay in FM. Also someones mentioned OOTP. Their game is nowhere near FM in terms of complexity and whatnot, but... its somehow more fun. THe amount of customization you can make in real time is ridiculous. Turning on/off scouting, injuries, finances, developement, newgens; adding/removing teams, changing league rules/alinements and so on and so fort. I would be over the moon, if we had that in FM.

Personally, I think FM needs to slightly loosen its grip on being realistic and being a simulation, and allow players to customise things. I'll point to some incomparable examples but things like the F1 game allow you to turn off penalties, change the speed of other cars through difficulty sliders, etc. The WWE games allow you to change almost every single thing. 

If FM allowed you to customise everything - no injuries, or changing league rules, or even having player drafts every few years or whatever, it would be pretty fun. The gameplay would still be realistic, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with allowing users to create their own worlds with their own rules. 

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

I mean, its pretty obvious it's the fastest growing part of football, with attendances that make it less niche than some of the other leagues in the game. 

There are definitely leagues in FM that will have a low percentage of players using them. Should we get rid of them? Or should we realise it's a somewhat silly argument to make?

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

And I think it's very dangerous to call anyone who doesn't enjoy women's football sexist. It's just attacking people for no reason. 

It's a perfectly valid opinion to say that I watch football because I want to see the strongest, fastest, most skillful players play the sport I love. Currently, due to genetics or historical societal norms, men are the strongest, fastest and best at playing this sport, so I want to watch the best. If and when womens football is comparable, I'll watch that. 

I have no issue with gender, race, religion or anything. Nor does anyone sensible. 

My personal view is that FM has gone into women's football too early, because while it might be growing in some countries, it isn't the global thing that men's football is yet. It'll be like playing the F1 game and choosing to play a London Go Kart mode. 

There's no sexism at play here,and I think people on this forum jump to that too quickly

[themadsheep2001 (Inactive)]

1 minute ago, DamianJMcGrath said:

And I think it's very dangerous to call anyone who doesn't enjoy women's football sexist. It's just attacking people for no reason. 

It's a perfectly valid opinion to say that I watch football because I want to see the strongest, fastest, most skillful players play the sport I love. Currently, due to genetics or historical societal norms, men are the strongest, fastest and best at playing this sport, so I want to watch the best. If and when womens football is comparable, I'll watch that. 

I have no issue with gender, race, religion or anything. Nor does anyone sensible. 

My personal view is that FM has gone into women's football too early, because while it might be growing in some countries, it isn't the global thing that men's football is yet. It'll be like playing the F1 game and choosing to play a London Go Kart mode. 

There's no sexism at play here,and I think people on this forum jump to that too quickly

Again, given there are plenty of niche leagues that certainly don't feature the best in the sport, in the game, this is a false argument

[DamianJMcGrath (Inactive)]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

I mean, its pretty obvious it's the fastest growing part of football, with attendances that make it less niche than some of the other leagues in the game. 

There are definitely leagues in FM that will have a low percentage of players using them. Should we get rid of them? Or should we realise it's a somewhat silly argument to make?

Fastest growing is an odd statement to make, as its starting from a very low benchmark and men's football can't exactly grow much more than it is! 

I had £1 in my bank yesterday, now I have £2. It's the fastest growing bank account in the country! 

And I still think it would be interesting to see usage stats on leagues. I wonder if SI can do that. 

And its worth saying that underused mens leagues are part of the men's world overall, so you can make transfers etc. Apart from a few countries, women's football is still pretty small.