PES 2018 PlayStation & Xbox Discussion Thread

dohboy1619 said:
Hello Everyone,
Just wanted to mention that I asked Adam on Twitter about the website's listed number of stadiums meant for Xbox One, and he said that it should be 36:

View attachment 1096
Seemed it had to be an error on the website...
Click to expand...
Praise the [insert what ever] for that.
Looks like I don't have to fire up the old C 64 for some action this fall then
 
PES94 said:
Ok go to FIFA. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
fregen said:
So, three more partnerships. But surely it will be teams already annonunced, not three new ones right?
Click to expand...

Looking at those FIFA 18 stadium and licenses(if they are true), i'd say top 3 possibilities are Ajax, Monaco and Celtic, but we'll have to wait and see, maybe the 3 were those national teams announced today lol.
 

So gents, I have watched the entirety of this video.

It finished 4-1 and do you know many first time strikes at goal there were in the entire match?

One.

One.The one Mr. Bond @Bond!JamesBond! pointed out as being an example of it being too easy to do first time shots successfully in the game. Yes. One.

This game was played by fairly skilled football videogames players. I know, because I have played against Graham Day. Surely, if it were that easy then two fairly skilled players would consciously and even sub-consciously try to play to this weakness if it were that glaring, and especially if it were that easy. Surely the FIFA dude, the EVIL FIFA DUDE, would maybe look to exploit such a glaring issue.

Can I tell you what else I picked up?

- Some (I repeat only some) of the shots on goal were dipping, even hard ones, which would admittedly be something I didn't see quite enough of in the beta. Considering shooting in general, I want to see that.

- Even though the game finished 4-1, it wasn't a match packed with easy, or even clear cut chances.

- I noticed after watching the entire game, and even though I was occupied with counting all the uber-frequent, easy, successful first time shots on goal (ONE) I thought the game looked pretty good.

Seriously, Mr. Bond, you've got to help me out here. It was Julian Draxler cracking one in from 7/8 yards out because he had a largely unobstructed view of the ball coming into him and had the right body position, the agility and technique, was the right bloody age, to score a goal for the GERMAN NATIONAL SIDE on the one, single occasion, that this type of chance presented itself to ANYONE in that match, which was a little over 12 minutes in duration..

What do you think should happen there, taking everything into account? Would that, a first-time shot a goal from close range, happening on one occasion in an actual 90 minute long real football match prove so completely objectionable? Let's say you watched two games back to back and it happened three times: would that also be too frequent an occurrence. Really? Three first time shots at goal in 180 minutes of football?

How about it, a well hit first time shot at goal from close range, happened 2000 times in 1000 90 minute matches: would a well hit first time shot at goal from close range happening 2000 times in 90,000 minutes, TWO THOUSAND TIMES IN SIX TWO AND A HALF DAYS OF BACK TO BACK TOP FLIGHT FOOTBALL, be considered too much?

Actually, have a think about how much football that is. If you added up every single competitive league fixture from the top division in say England, Spain and Italy in the 17/18 season you would have roundabouts 1140 fixtures: seventy-one and a quarter days of back to back top flight football. If you somehow managed to make it through every single match without dying and counted 2,280 (average 2 per match) instances of a player hitting the ball well-first time and from close range across all those fixtures would you consider that too much? Again, what do you expect? Tell us what you expect?

Can I just ask you all that if I applied the same logic and said: "Look at 5:57. Juggling. There is far too much juggling success" would you think I was onto something? Or would you rightfully think I was going absolutely mad?

But then, I did write this post, so maybe I am insane.

I'm sorry gents, I truly am, but I need to try call out some of these claims. Yes, I am calculating based on that one video, but then Mr. Bond used that video as example of there being too many well hit first-time shots in traffic in the game. He shouldn't have used it as evidence, plain and simple. It, a well hit first-time shot, happened once in the entire match, on target or otherwise. Once in just over 12 minutes of play. I'm not joking, there was only one occasion in which a player was able to get an effective first-time strike at goal off.

Do you know what? I won't even rule out it being a cause for concern, in much the same way I wouldn't rule anything out, but only once I have waaaaaaay more information than I, indeed all of us, currently possess.
 
curdstar said:

So gents, I have watched the entirety of this video.

It finished 4-1 and do you know many first time strikes at goal there were in the entire match?

One.

One.The one Mr. Bond @Bond!JamesBond! pointed out as being an example of it being too easy to do first time shots successfully in the game. Yes. One.

This game was played by fairly skilled football videogames players. I know, because I have played against Graham Day. Surely, if it were that easy then two fairly skilled players would consciously and even sub-consciously try to play to this weakness if it were that glaring, and especially if it were that easy. Surely the FIFA dude, the EVIL FIFA DUDE, would maybe look to exploit such a glaring issue.

Can I tell you what else I picked up?

- Some (I repeat only some) of the shots on goal were dipping, even hard ones, which would admittedly be something I didn't see quite enough of in the beta. Considering shooting in general, I want to see that.

- Even though the game finished 4-1, it wasn't a match packed with easy, or even clear cut chances.

- I noticed after watching the entire game, and even though I was occupied with counting all the uber-frequent, easy, successful first time shots on goal (ONE) I thought the game looked pretty good.

Seriously, Mr. Bond, you've got to help me out here. It was Julian Draxler cracking one in from 7/8 yards out because he had a largely unobstructed view of the ball coming into him and had the right body position, the agility and technique, was the right bloody age, to score a goal for the GERMAN NATIONAL SIDE on the one, single occasion, that this type of chance presented itself to ANYONE in that match, which was a little over 12 minutes in duration..

What do you think should happen there, taking everything into account? Would that, a first-time shot a goal from close range, happening on one occasion in an actual 90 minute long real football match prove so completely objectionable? Let's say you watched two games back to back and it happened three times: would that also be too frequent an occurrence. Really? Three first time shots at goal in 180 minutes of football?

How about it, a well hit first time shot at goal from close range, happened 2000 times in 1000 90 minute matches: would a well hit first time shot at goal from close range happening 2000 times in 90,000 minutes, TWO THOUSAND TIMES IN SIX TWO AND A HALF DAYS OF BACK TO BACK TOP FLIGHT FOOTBALL, be considered too much?

Actually, have a think about how much football that is. If you added up every single competitive league fixture from the top division in say England, Spain and Italy in the 17/18 season you would have roundabouts 1140 fixtures: seventy-one and a quarter days of back to back top flight football. If you somehow managed to make it through every single match without dying and counted 2,280 (average 2 per match) instances of a player hitting the ball well-first time and from close range across all those fixtures would you consider that too much? Again, what do you expect? Tell us what you expect?

Can I just ask you all that if I applied the same logic and said: "Look at 5:57. Juggling. There is far too much juggling success" would you think I was onto something? Or would you rightfully think I was going absolutely mad?

But then, I did write this post, so maybe I am insane.

I'm sorry gents, I truly am, but I need to try call out some of these claims. Yes, I am calculating based on that one video, but then Mr. Bond used that video as example of there being too many well hit first-time shots in traffic in the game. He shouldn't have used it as evidence, plain and simple. It, a well hit first-time shot, happened once in the entire match, on target or otherwise. Once in just over 12 minutes of play. I'm not joking, there was only one occasion in which a player was able to get an effective first-time strike at goal off.

Do you know what? I won't even rule out it being a cause for concern, in much the same way I wouldn't rule anything out, but only once I have waaaaaaay more information than I, indeed all of us, currently possess.
Click to expand...
just curious, did you happen to pick any first time misses in this match?
if any, how far off were they?
foot ? strong or week ?
 
Bond!JamesBond! said:
just curious, did you happen to pick any first time misses in this match?
if any, how far off were they?
foot ? strong or week ?
Click to expand...
i believe bondjames bond has the right to say what he says, and thats spot on, first time.shots are far too easy in this game which brings it to the main problem the shot variety which is still apparent the lack of it just like pes 2017, and animations i didn t like them at all in this vid, looks still robotic and stiff, and passes are way too fast and goes directly to player foot, they just can t give a better representation of passing like pes 5 and 6, thry just can t , its worse, and even the shooting they failed to make a better representation of feedback for the shots..
 
Does anyone know the limit of players per team on master league? There is no way it's 35 because Chelsea themselves have like 20-30 players loaned out.
 
Topaz said:
Does anyone know the limit of players per team on master league? There is no way it's 35 because Chelsea themselves have like 20-30 players loaned out.
Click to expand...
That's a good question,it's been 32 for a while.
I hope that players that are out on loan will return when loan spells are over.
Not gonna speculate,my guess is still 32
 
hey guys i'm not trying to cause a fuss, but all i say is what i see.
1. completely behind it's competition in animations
2. to easy to pass, AI just let's you do it
3. lack of shooting variety
4. shots are on target to often
5. lack of real life football errors
6. first touch to tight and getting control of ball is to easy
7. AI programming isn't up to par
8. commentary is repetitive even PES 5 is less repetitive
9. presentation is weak
10. stamina system isn't effective, pressing all game with no penalty
11. fouls are minimal
 
Bond!JamesBond! said:
hey guys i'm not trying to cause a fuss, but all i say is what i see.
1. completely behind it's competition in animations
2. to easy to pass, AI just let's you do it
3. lack of shooting variety
4. shots are on target to often
5. lack of real life football errors
6. first touch to tight and getting control of ball is to easy
7. AI programming isn't up to par
8. commentary is repetitive even PES 5 is less repetitive
9. presentation is weak
10. stamina system isn't effective, pressing all game with no penalty
11. fouls are minimal
Click to expand...
Cool story bro enjoy fifa and leave us in our ignorant bliss.
 
Bond!JamesBond! said:
just curious, did you happen to pick any first time misses in this match?
if any, how far off were they?
foot ? strong or week ?
Click to expand...

I said that there was one single instance of any player successfully hitting a shot, just a shot, first time towards the vicinity of the goal. There are literally no other first-time shots at goal in the entire match, apart from the goal you object to and hold up as evidence that first-time shots are too easy in the game. None.

How can you not see why there is a problem with your initial claim based on the evidence you provided?

A top flight match played over 90 minutes finishes 1-1, with both goals being headers. They were the only headers at goal in the entire match and they happened to end up being goals. You then post me the full match and tell me that it proves heading at goal is too easy and overpowered in the real sport because both headers at goal in that match resulted in goals. I'm I meant to ponder over your claim or instead try identify why there were only two headers at goal afforded in the entire 90 minutes?

I'll say it again: there was only one instance of a player being able to get off a first-time shot at goal; off target or on target; strong foot, weak foot, or penis in that entire match (though there was a "first-time" header).
 
I agree that first time shots are too "easy", I don't think there is much debate about that. When was the last time you saw a first time shot in PES baloon into row Z or skew horrible wide? You see this all the time irl. I think Konami look back at old PES games where first time shots were somewhat OP (but fun) and want to keep the sensation/feeling of hitting a first time shot that is missing in the other game. I think it does go a bit too far though, to the point that when I see first time volleys like that it doesn't feel impressive or remarkable.
 
curdstar said:
- Even though the game finished 4-1, it wasn't a match packed with easy, or even clear cut chances.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to take that. Could be seen as a two-ways-street.
Either the level of finishing accuracy is too high, which would be very worrying. Or all 5 goals were given by situations in which it would have been too hard to miss the target. Haven't watched the video, but I supposed it's the former.

One would think that if there haven't been many clear scoring chances, as you mentioned, then the accuracy is way too high. Should have been a tighter score.

ramgamer said:
yea it does look stiff animation wise compared to the other game, in 2017 we still have stiff animations from a japanese company known for great title releases....i don t know what to say...no comment
Click to expand...

I cannot believe this.
Can't comment on this unless I quote FIFA in the PES thread. But one of the most annoying things I'm picking up from watching FIFA 18 videos, is how bad players move. Good animations does not equate to good player movements. They look shaky and clumsy. Not to mention players look like they are suffering when they are in possession of the ball.
 
zeemeister said:
Cool story bro enjoy fifa and leave us in our ignorant bliss.
Click to expand...
not a story bro, it's reality. I don't play or want FIFA because of it's game speed and defensive flaws. I just want PES to have quality Japanese development they are known for.

zeemeister said:
Pes animations stiff?

No man this is plain old trolling. Are we supposed to head over to the fifa comparison thread and say it's not as stiff as fifa now?
Click to expand...
players still look stiff for a 2017 game. Animations in today's games are amazing compared to this. I think it's the game engine, because MG5 has robotic movement too.
 
Last edited:
curdstar said:
I said that there was one single instance of any player successfully hitting a shot, just a shot, first time towards the vicinity of the goal. There are literally no other first-time shots at goal in the entire match, apart from the goal you object to and hold up as evidence that first-time shots are too easy in the game. None.

How can you not see why there is a problem with your initial claim based on the evidence you provided?

A top flight match played over 90 minutes finishes 1-1, with both goals being headers. They were the only headers at goal in the entire match and they happened to end up being goals. You then post me the full match and tell me that it proves heading at goal is too easy and overpowered in the real sport because both headers at goal in that match resulted in goals. I'm I meant to ponder over your claim or instead try identify why there were only two headers at goal afforded in the entire 90 minutes?

I'll say it again: there was only one instance of a player being able to get off a first-time shot at goal; off target or on target; strong foot, weak foot, or penis in that entire match (though there was a "first-time" header).
Click to expand...
OK, so we need to test demo then.
 
curdstar said:

So gents, I have watched the entirety of this video.

It finished 4-1 and do you know many first time strikes at goal there were in the entire match?

One.

One.The one Mr. Bond @Bond!JamesBond! pointed out as being an example of it being too easy to do first time shots successfully in the game. Yes. One.

This game was played by fairly skilled football videogames players. I know, because I have played against Graham Day. Surely, if it were that easy then two fairly skilled players would consciously and even sub-consciously try to play to this weakness if it were that glaring, and especially if it were that easy. Surely the FIFA dude, the EVIL FIFA DUDE, would maybe look to exploit such a glaring issue.

Can I tell you what else I picked up?

- Some (I repeat only some) of the shots on goal were dipping, even hard ones, which would admittedly be something I didn't see quite enough of in the beta. Considering shooting in general, I want to see that.

- Even though the game finished 4-1, it wasn't a match packed with easy, or even clear cut chances.

- I noticed after watching the entire game, and even though I was occupied with counting all the uber-frequent, easy, successful first time shots on goal (ONE) I thought the game looked pretty good.

Seriously, Mr. Bond, you've got to help me out here. It was Julian Draxler cracking one in from 7/8 yards out because he had a largely unobstructed view of the ball coming into him and had the right body position, the agility and technique, was the right bloody age, to score a goal for the GERMAN NATIONAL SIDE on the one, single occasion, that this type of chance presented itself to ANYONE in that match, which was a little over 12 minutes in duration..

What do you think should happen there, taking everything into account? Would that, a first-time shot a goal from close range, happening on one occasion in an actual 90 minute long real football match prove so completely objectionable? Let's say you watched two games back to back and it happened three times: would that also be too frequent an occurrence. Really? Three first time shots at goal in 180 minutes of football?

How about it, a well hit first time shot at goal from close range, happened 2000 times in 1000 90 minute matches: would a well hit first time shot at goal from close range happening 2000 times in 90,000 minutes, TWO THOUSAND TIMES IN SIX TWO AND A HALF DAYS OF BACK TO BACK TOP FLIGHT FOOTBALL, be considered too much?

Actually, have a think about how much football that is. If you added up every single competitive league fixture from the top division in say England, Spain and Italy in the 17/18 season you would have roundabouts 1140 fixtures: seventy-one and a quarter days of back to back top flight football. If you somehow managed to make it through every single match without dying and counted 2,280 (average 2 per match) instances of a player hitting the ball well-first time and from close range across all those fixtures would you consider that too much? Again, what do you expect? Tell us what you expect?

Can I just ask you all that if I applied the same logic and said: "Look at 5:57. Juggling. There is far too much juggling success" would you think I was onto something? Or would you rightfully think I was going absolutely mad?

But then, I did write this post, so maybe I am insane.

I'm sorry gents, I truly am, but I need to try call out some of these claims. Yes, I am calculating based on that one video, but then Mr. Bond used that video as example of there being too many well hit first-time shots in traffic in the game. He shouldn't have used it as evidence, plain and simple. It, a well hit first-time shot, happened once in the entire match, on target or otherwise. Once in just over 12 minutes of play. I'm not joking, there was only one occasion in which a player was able to get an effective first-time strike at goal off.

Do you know what? I won't even rule out it being a cause for concern, in much the same way I wouldn't rule anything out, but only once I have waaaaaaay more information than I, indeed all of us, currently possess.
Click to expand...

Judging based on a video? :P :D
 
ramgamer said:
i believe bondjames bond has the right to say what he says, and thats spot on, first time.shots are far too easy in this game which brings it to the main problem the shot variety which is still apparent the lack of it just like pes 2017, and animations i didn t like them at all in this vid, looks still robotic and stiff, and passes are way too fast and goes directly to player foot, they just can t give a better representation of passing like pes 5 and 6, thry just can t , its worse, and even the shooting they failed to make a better representation of feedback for the shots..
Click to expand...

Hello mate, oh and of course hello to you too, @Bond!JamesBond! ...

So I decided to watch another full match from the demo lads. This one...


Number of times the player struck the shot first-time at goal: 12

Oh! That seems awfully high, no? Averaging about 1 per minute.

Number of times the resultant shot went on target: 8

So that is 66% of the time the strike went on target.

Number of goals as a result of first-time shots at goal: 2

25% of the time a first-time shot was struck at goal and was on target, it resulted in a goal in this match.

The final score was 2-2. 50% of the goals in this game were the result of first-time shots at goal.

Nothing but numbers there, lads.

One of those first-time shots at goal that resulted in a goal was a tap-in from six-yards. The other was just a good hit from Mane from just inside the area at an angle, with the keepers positioning contributing to the success of the strike.

In this match, it took both a tap-in and some questionable (but believable) keeper positioning in order for a first-time shot at goal to result in a goal.

It took twelve first-time shots to amass 2 goals.

That is a success rate of 16%

But first time shots are easy and overpowered?

16% success rate in that video, following the 100% success rate from the previous video that was down to it being the only time in that match where a player struck the ball first-time at goal.

1 first-time shot at goal from the first video. 1 goal as a result of a first-time shot at goal in the first video.

12 first-time shots in the second video. 2 goals as a result of first-time shots at goal in the second video.

Total number of first time shots across both videos: 13

Total number of goals as a direct result of a first-time strike at goal across both videos: 3

23% of the first-time shots struck at goal across both videos resulted in a goal being scored.

Now maybe go find out what percentage of goals in the real sport come as a direct result of the ball being struck first-time. Maybe then we'll see how accurate the game actually is, if we are all about realism. What if it proves to be around 23%? I would bet on it being much, much higher.

But do you know what is worth looking at beyond the numbers? The phases of play. I didn't go into the full context of the chances created. That is important. I haven't broken it down as to how many of those chances were from inside the box, for example, or how it would've been utter insanity for the player in question not to hit the ball first bloody time.

Total number of goals scored across both videos: 7

Total number of goals scored as a result of a first-time shot at goal: 3

42% of the goals.

Again, I wonder what percentage goals come as the direct result of a first-time strike at goal in the real sport?
 
rockstrongo said:
That's a good question,it's been 32 for a while.
I hope that players that are out on loan will return when loan spells are over.
Not gonna speculate,my guess is still 32
Click to expand...

Why is that even a limit? Can someone please explain me this bizarre limit? It's so frustrating to manage a team with a limit of 32 players especially when you take youth in the consideration. It's one of my biggest turn off in PES and it's surprising that not a lot of people have any issue with it being the limit.
 
Topaz said:
Why is that even a limit? Can someone please explain me this bizarre limit? It's so frustrating to manage a team with a limit of 32 players especially when you take youth in the consideration. It's one of my biggest turn off in PES and it's surprising that not a lot of people have any issue with it being the limit.
Click to expand...
I agree with you,it's always been around 30-32.
 
gabe.paul.logan said:
Judging based on a video? :P :D
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm using exactly what you and others are using when you make your wee series of claims. The difference is I break it down in full and don't cherry pick stuff and go "look at XX:YY in this video!"

Christ! Imagine trying to discuss what is being claimed about something by actually using the something as point of reference when discussing the something.

You don't like this, do you? You and some others just want to make a claim, hope it sticks and believe it shouldn't be challenged. It is so ridiculously hypocritical, as you and others are challenging what others are seeing in the first place. You can't have it all your own way if you want to discuss something on a forum that contains lots of different opinions. You should expect to be challenged on your assertions. You should actually demand it because it is differing views that drive the conversation. Not everybody needs to agree with you or simply trust you. If you or others, anyone, want to say something about a video, then expect people to actually watch the damn thing. Saying you are hardcore or whatever isn't enough to validate your views.
 
stupidusername said:
I agree that first time shots are too "easy", I don't think there is much debate about that. When was the last time you saw a first time shot in PES baloon into row Z or skew horrible wide? You see this all the time irl. I think Konami look back at old PES games where first time shots were somewhat OP (but fun) and want to keep the sensation/feeling of hitting a first time shot that is missing in the other game. I think it does go a bit too far though, to the point that when I see first time volleys like that it doesn't feel impressive or remarkable.
Click to expand...

To that in bold:

About twenty minutes ago.

5:10 in this video. The video I have already posted...


Or was that row w and therefore not high enough?

I mean, ffs! Do you dudes stop watching as soon as you see something you don't like in the first few seconds?

The claim that shots never go horribly over: DEBUNKED

Oh, and there clearly is a debate.

EDIT: I appreciate my example is in isolation but a question was asked and I answered it ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom