Discussion in 'Championship Manager Forum' started by Tom, Mar 15, 2005.
i wouldnt totally abuse this game until the patch, seems it might be quite an improvement.
hahaha, this made me laugh:
haha.. so now results are shown in alphabets instead of numbers?
or by using some complicated roman numerals system
Turkey-Belarus 2-7 All those young Maxim's
what has eidos done
Eidos has only made the game worst by handing it to BGS..a wrong move..
thats an idiotic remark, BGS have done a good job to say they had a finance-conscious Eidos breathing down their neck all the time.
As ive said before, if people thought BGS were going to make a rival to FM in 1 year, when SI has had 10yrs having a go, then you are a bit of a retard.
Im sure no-one ACTUALLY thinks that though
To be honest, CM5 is a bigger achievement for BGS than SI achieved with FM 2005. Of course (according to my estimations) FM 2005 only had ~8 months development, of which probably no more than 4 with the full team, before release, and CM5 had well over a year.
true, but SI had 10yrs of work, BGS had 1
Yup, and FM 2005 does seem to be 20x as good as CM5.
03/04 was already 19x as good as it was though
I still think 03/04 is the best of the lot. Couldnt get into FM 2005 for some weird reason.
For me FM2005 is the best manager game ever despite of few annoying bugs (most have been fixed tho).
CM 01/02 over all
Yes but was FM2005 not a complete rewrite? [I could be wrong]
No. CM4 was, so it has been 3 years for SI. They did know where they were going with CM4, though (and still managed a lousy release version, in which Eidos' role isn't completely clear), BGS had to completely make up how to get CM5 'right'.
I "borrowed" CM5 for one day to see how it is and it SUCKS ASS!
*edited by TROD*
thats right you borrowed, BORROWED.
Ooh, smooth one, Tom.
Separate names with a comma.