What I mean is, you often hear people say they want a simulation, something that represents football properly, yet expect robotic players who never, ever make a mistake and always score every goal.
Do we not see players miss open goals in real football?
Do we not see players misplace a simple pass, or lose control of a simply pass played to them?
At what point do you say "okay, I want fun and simplicity over realism"?
If we really, truly want an accurate representation of the beautiful game then do we have to accept the bad too?
Now, let me be clear, I'm not saying that E.A have intentionally added these incidents of "human error"; but if they had, and claimed to be using some kind of complex coding to ensure more life like behaviour, would we still complain?
Isn't real football messy and unpredictable, with a poor first touch or a botched free kick that hits row Z, as much as it is elegant tika taka and sublime dribbling?
I guess what I'm asking is, would we really want a simulation that makes these human mistakes part of the game, intentionally, I might add?
Is it more important to give the player ultimate control?
If so, why have player ratings at all?
Every player should be 75 rated and it should be 100% down to the player in that case.
But it's not.
Is there a way to strike a balance so that we get the best of both worlds?
Increase the casual fun factor at the expense of genuine realism or introduce human (A.I) error to the digital players and increase the skill gap?