well i only just downloaded the F2k demo last night and there is a difference. I can only speak for gameplay cause the demo doesn`t allow anything else.
In comparison to F99 2k has:
Better facial/hair renderings
Better Playing kit`s
Worse Field detail
Worse Stadium detail
worse goal and net graphics
Disgusting Music
Worse commentry
And i hope the demo is set on amature level because bieng up 8-0 at halftime is boring.

Fifa 2000 is a soccer game
Fifa 99 is a high speed pinball game

ZZUB, you're kidding right?
How can you say that Fifa 99 is a high speed pinball game and that Fifa 2K is a soccer game, you must be playing some other game.

Fifa 2K is a ping pong game, thanks but I'll stick to UEFA STRIKER and THIS IS FOOTBALL!

I only get to play on the playstation and while Fifa 2000 is still too fast on world class level it is a thousand times better than the joke that Fifa 99 was. However Im really enjoying This is Football and UEFA Striker at present. If only someone would take the best bits out of all three games and make the perfect game.

How can you call FIFA 2000 a soccer game when it is virtually impossible to play a game which has less than 8 goals scored and 40 to 60 shots taken on 8-10 minute setting?
I don't know what sport they are simulating but for sure its not soccer as it is being played in the world today.

Did you even even come close to 2-1 or 1-0 or god forbid 0-0? In FIFA 99 I got scores like that all the time on 10 minute setting. I could actually simulate a season and get pretty realistic results!

Is it just me or does FIFA 2000 suck in comparison to FIFA 99? Your thoughts?

Yeah, I agree with Polish. The feel and the results were a lot closer to the real thing in 99. (Zzub are you sure you don't have them mixed up?) It was much more competitive to get away with a win and like the real thing sometimes you were relieved to get the draw. Now in 2K I have to play conservative intentionally if I want the results to be realistic.

Toning down the attacking (IGMs) in 2K gets better scores, but you still don't get 2-1, 1-0, or 0-0. The scores I've had are more like 2-2, 3-2, 4-2 or 4-3. And I've cut my game time from 8 or 10 min. halves in 99 to 6 minute halves in 2K. Did they forget to playtest this or what?

And another thing, what is with the HAT-TRICK? It seems like there is a hat-trick (if not 2) in every game! How often do you see that in real life!! Damn EA CANADA, THIS IS NOT HOCKEY YOU DOPES!

If you took the better rendered graphics (players, kits, etc.) and put them into 99, you would have a much better game.

Who was responsible for the 99 version if EA Canada did the 2K one? They knew what they were doing and it's obvious EA Canada doesn't.

LOOK THEY ARE ALL CRAP.MOST OF THE TIMES WHEN A GAME COMES OUT WE SAY COOL THIS CRAP THAT.NOBODY CAN MAKE A COOL GAME UNTIL THEY TAKE OUR IDEAS FOR REAL.

Fifa 99 and Fifa 2000 are NBA SOCCER!
It´s like a grand Prix in a soccer field.

I miss the 109 ways to score in RTWC.
We made a torunament with RTWC, and it was very fun because every one had a way to score. One like to use his wings, another like to pass, pass, pass, waiting a spot. One like to run with the ball and try to pass the defender. It was very fun to try to neutralize their plays.

But it was just possible becuase they could practice their way to play againts the AI. And that´s what make us angry about Fifa 99 and Fifa 2000. There are some ways to score, and that´s it. If you try to run with the pass, making few passes...

It's funny...when realism is the subject of a game then the whole point of the game is lost. If the game has to truly be authentic then go for the 45 minute halves instead of the default 4 minutes.

I personally think FIFA 99 is much more fun to play than FIFA 2000. FIFA 2000 players seem to be on steiroids or queloods. Also, in comparison to FIFA 99 the players seem to be starved POWs (prisoners of war)--not soccer players.

Much of the fun with FIFA 99 was lost in FIFA 2000 because I think this title was rushed to get the Thanksgiving and Christmas rush. For God's sake I even think it was never playtested.

[This message has been edited by CyberKid (edited 12-14-1999).]

I think EA never playtest any Fifa game.
How could they miss the cecond Half problem from RTWC?!?!?! (When the cpu was losing at the second half when he gets the ball he shoots, from midfield, from defense... everywhere...

Yeah, I play with Bayern Munich and I play 2 forwards, and switch off 3 of their players and they at 16 games have:

Jancker: 17
Elber: 17
Zickler: 16

They are doubling the nearest high score in the League! THIS IS AT 4 minute setting!!!!
It sucks!

I was reading a review of EA Sports hockey game before FIFA2000 was released and EA admitted that it "juiced" the hockey game up to make it play like something between a realistic game and an arcade game. If that's what their beancounters have decided is going to sell the most games, then why would they take a different tack with F2K? For all of us die-hards who want to look at the computer screen and buy into the idea of "suspended belief" (the concept in movie making that the audience will allow itself to accept the characters/action on the screen as real), there are probably ten buyers who want to score-score-score!!! EA has had years to tighten up the play for the sake of accuracy and realism. It's clear they choose not to. If I play a baseball simulation, I don't want to see Mark McGwire hit 120 home runs, BUT some casual gameplayer who put the game on with his buddy wants McGwire to knock one over the fence every single time. Same here. It offends us the Overmars can lead a league in scoring by double, but for every one of us there are 9 others saying to themselves, 'I'm Overmars, and I just scored a hat-trick against Parma!'

Fifa98 was much better than fifa2000.

Yep you are right about the unrealistic scores etc.
However I think Fifa 99 was the biggest joke EA have put out. I cannot see how anyone can look past the fact that Fifa 99 was ping pong on high speed. The fact you got realistic scores, accurate stadiums, accurate player rosters, better commentary is completely lost when what you are playing is so far removed from soccer because of a stupid speed.
Both games have been a let down, hopefully EAsports might take note of This is Football (the actual gameplay side of things) and with luck ISS Evolution will make complete fools of them.
To make it clearer I think Fifa 99 was a waste of money and Fifa 2000 is not far behind.
Im wondering why this website has reviews of other soccer games but hasnt bothered to show any reviews or previews of This is Football?
I mean its www.soccergaming.com Its not www.soccergamingFifa 2000.com

In FIFA 98 you could avoid that problem with cpu by turning off the catch-up logic, at least in the Playstation version.

I agree that EA probably felt the need to juice up the scoring, I read over and over how in NHL 99 it was virtually impossible to score etc. Still, despite all the bad things about 99(no long range goal, fast speed)it was still better than FIFA 2000. They took a game which was almost right, needed just a few tweaks here and there and turned it into something completely different, and ruined it!

If This is Football is released in USA(no one has been able to answer this question) I and it is as good as some say it is, I say about time EA had some competition.

A few things that were better in Fifa 99 than in Fifa 2000:

The chants when scoring a goal: In Fifa 2000, it sounds like there's a few hundred people there, while in Fifa 99, there was much better chants when scoring a goal!

The grass graphics in clear mode. Tip: you can use the graphics from Fifa 99! just replace the files http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

Changing of buttons: I want Q to be hard tackle and "jump-with-the-ball" again!

...and things that didn't even exist in Fifa 2000:

The option that you could choose which matches you wanna see in tournaments. In Fifa 2000, you can only watch the matches with your team.

Some important national teams are missing!
Take a look at the teams which are qualifyed to Euro 2000, and see how many who's missing...

I can't choose which stadium to play on!

I can't think of anything else important differences right now...

Things I really miss:

The alien soccer from World Cup 98.
The indoor stadium.
To see the replays after the match, like in Fifa 97.

Polish...

I have NHL 99 for PSX... it is far too easy to score in it... I was playing as Ottawa and Yashin had almost 100 goals by the end of the season... and that was on the hardest level...

FIFA 2000 is the most visible playstation soccer game I've seen... I didn't see FIFA 99 anywhere last year... but 2K is everywhere...

have you even tried playing a game with 45 minute halves? i have once and the score was something like 36 - 27. shows how unrealistic and easy it is.

I don't see how people who used to say when FIFA99 first came out as the fastest soccer game ever and as they thought it was far from being realistic... and now when they seem to be having no problem with FIFA99 or its speed!!

Many people are repeating what they have said about FIFA99's speed when it first came out!


other than that... thank GOD that you are not still playing FIFA97!!!!!!!!!!!!


[This message has been edited by aRaB (edited 12-15-1999).]

I think the general idea for these games is you should get realistic scores on 20 minute setting, for example in the old NHL series bck in 95, 96, it was at 10 minute period setting where you got realistic scores etc.

As for those who get FIFA 2000 i would tell you to return it and get 99 instead, but you can't do this as 99 is no longer available! at least not in major retailers.

Also if you have chance read the review of 2000 in this months Computer Games Magazine, they sum up all the things that are wrong with this game very nicely: www.cdmag.com

Ok. It was quite a time since I played F2000 now because I got fed up with the ****. So I decided to try Fifa99 again, it had been a while since I played it.
To my surprise I thought it was quite fun. Ok, I admit it is a lot like ping pong but I really think that the passing is better - and that is not so difficult to understand when u have played Fifa2000 with the worst gameplay there is...

I meen, there is nothing in this game u could call realistic passing or realistic ballmovement...
Why oh why...I don't even like 99 either...so I keep to NHL2000, even if the scores there is unrealistic...17-0....

Well if I will play I soccer game now it would be with FIFA99, cuz of the better scores and the little better gameplay(but I miss the shielding..)

//David (..is still hoping for a really good soccergame..)

Just a quick side note:

Both fifa99 and fifa2000 were developed by EA Canada.

Just a quick side note for FIFAFreak

Both fifa99 and fifa2000 were developed by EA Canada.

Exactly, no matter how realistic a game tries to be, a game is a game. The unfortunate part about it all is that FIFA 99 was fun and FIFA 2000 is not.

BTW, FIFA 99 is still available at EBX.

Well it's hard to believe the same group is reponsible for 2K but I checked the credits and some of the same folks are in there for 99 and 2K. I think the marketing people probably ruined this game, putting Foudy in there and rushing it out before anybody could critique the damn thing, Oh well...