Question on Coding + the value of in-game commentary and stats

[MokBull]

I've asked around in the past regarding this question, and I don't think I ever really made myself clear because nobody really understood what I was saying. So, I'll try again.

Simply put - are in-game determinants, such as player ratings and the commentary that accompanies the animations (like "he should've done a lot better with that chance" or "he missed a sitter"), perfectly representative of what's going on with the game's code? For example, in real life a player can miss an opportunity that most of us would consider a "sitter" (and some might not, depending on your viewpoint), and that judgment is based off of a myriad of variables, such as the position and velocity of the ball, the position of the player, the degree of difficulty of the shot, etc. In Football Manager, I've often encountered situations in which a player misses an opportunity that I would never consider a clear goalscoring opportunity if it were to happen in real life, but the game does - and it spits out the commentary that reflects that. In this scenario, am I right to trust the animations I see and the buildup that I've witnessed, or the commentary that the game is providing? If player ratings are also determined by the extent to which a player contributes to / detracts from a win or a loss, should I trust the player rating over what I saw over the course of the match? Because in the end FM is just a huge computer game, and if my left-back got a 6.3 rating in a game where I firmly believe he played to a 7 or higher, I would think that despite my preconceptions, the number the computer comes up with is an accurate representation of how the player performed. It seems possible to me that the animations are just the program's best attempt at reflecting what's happening with the code, and can often be deceiving.

Does anyone know exactly how much thee objective variables can be trusted, in comparison to the more subjective visual cues that I get from watching the game? Sorry if the above doesn't make sense, it took me a while to write it out and it's still not very clear haha.

[forameuss]

The way I see it (and you're never going to get an official answer from the developers unfortunately), is that the ME code behind is the canonical, absolutely indisputable record of what is going on in the game. This isn't entirely visible though. The graphical representation is almost there, but sometimes has odd things in translation. The commentary is wrong even more often.

Thing is, back when it was text only, no-one knew of such things as ME bugs. Now that we have visuals, these two often don't agree. Which is correct? One? Both? Neither? The truth probably lies somewhere inbetween.

[Vinnyvagus77]

A good point that the OP makes. I have usually thought the same myself. Tryst what I see with my own eyes, or trust the ratings at half time, or at the end of the game?