Jump to content

DiRTy Gossip about DIRT Rally Games

PJTierney

 

Message added by PJTierney

Recommended Posts

Interesting to read how differently DiRT 4 was received by everyone. Perhaps that mixed view is the reason why, generally, D4 seems to be one of the least beloved entries into the series... 

...personally I was under the impression that D4 was trying to be a serious off road game, which aimed to appease both the serious and casual gaming audiences. I wonder if it is the latter point (i.e. the broader appeal) that is the reason why people don't consider it a serious rally title? However it contained a roster of real cars, racing in real rally locales, plus an assortment of licensed rallycross content as well. 

D4 was developed in consultation with several well known drivers and, as has been said above by @F2CMaDMaXX I thought D4 made improvements in several areas, specifically the 4WD handling and airborne behaviour of cars (the biggest flaw of DiRT Rally in my personal opinion). The RWD handling did seem to take a step backwards though. 

The initial trailer for DiRT 5 certainly does strike chords of DiRT 2 in my mind: it seems bright, colourful and tonally similar. Although some (perhaps many) will disagree with me, DiRT 2 is the only game in the series I don't see as a serious rally game. I personally struggled to adjust to that at the time, as I found D2 FAR better to play than D1, but found the presentation a little OTT for my tastes (issues that D3 would go on to address). 

It is early days, so I'll wait to see if D5 has enough content to appeal to me. No matter how it turns out though, I am relieved to see that DiRT Rally has done well enough to standalone as its own series, with its own future. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys more serious question why dirt 4 on xbox one x is blurred and very low quality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, tbtstt said:

Interesting to read how differently DiRT 4 was received by everyone. Perhaps that mixed view is the reason why, generally, D4 seems to be one of the least beloved entries into the series... 

...personally I was under the impression that D4 was trying to be a serious off road game, which aimed to appease both the serious and casual gaming audiences. I wonder if it is the latter point (i.e. the broader appeal) that is the reason why people don't consider it a serious rally title? However it contained a roster of real cars, racing in real rally locales, plus an assortment of licensed rallycross content as well. 

D4 was developed in consultation with several well known drivers and, as has been said above by @F2CMaDMaXX I thought D4 made improvements in several areas, specifically the 4WD handling and airborne behaviour of cars (the biggest flaw of DiRT Rally in my personal opinion). The RWD handling did seem to take a step backwards though. 

The initial trailer for DiRT 5 certainly does strike chords of DiRT 2 in my mind: it seems bright, colourful and tonally similar. Although some (perhaps many) will disagree with me, DiRT 2 is the only game in the series I don't see as a serious rally game. I personally struggled to adjust to that at the time, as I found D2 FAR better to play than D1, but found the presentation a little OTT for my tastes (issues that D3 would go on to address). 

It is early days, so I'll wait to see if D5 has enough content to appeal to me. No matter how it turns out though, I am relieved to see that DiRT Rally has done well enough to standalone as its own series, with its own future. 

agree 100%

I love D4, but it's definitely not for everyone.

I feel the same as you about D2 and 3. 

14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Dirt 4 is not a serious rally game. It attempted to be by ignoring every other aspect of the franchise and failed and got panned. Why would they return to that when they can go back to the old model that did really well and had a large fanbase?

Goal posts haven't shifted. D4 was not a very good rally game. And I didn't set those goal posts, you did.

I have listed the ways in which it was a serious rally game just a couple pages ago. ( https://forums.codemasters.com/topic/178-dirty-gossip/?do=findComment&comment=512255 ) it did many, many things better than DR1. what brought it down were the two most important: the sim handling (arcade handling is great albeit not drifty enough) and the rally stages, so naturally a lot of the DR fans hated it.

and panned? um... no.

image.png.2ad4e65a40f8a4574f32e8229f863fb2.pngimage.png.efdb02258595b4a253908ee078be2ec4.pngimage.png.09cc4308c70237eec4493ba8e6fac6e6.png

Edited by ianism
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 8:17 PM, ianism said:

they made a roadmap of when they're going to reveal different aspects of the game? my only question is 

Huh GIFs | Tenor

.... why?

It's not uncommon.

 

"When are you going to talk about ____" gets asked a lot for most games pre-release.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2020 at 1:48 PM, Jake Cushing said:

*pic*

FINALLY!!!

 

i MEAN REally and trulY, we have waited so long for a non-simulation driving game

NOW IT BE UPON US

The gates of heaven are SPARKLING HARD for this momentous event

Shine on you crazy DIAMOND go you crazy arcade game thing, we have NEVER seen such bravery go go go you brave sparkly pastel **** thing you

No, seriously. CM has been trying so well with the simulator thing as much as people want it to be as a competitive alternative to RBR. DiRT was more about off-road racing diversity rather than rally alone..

Edited by Darhour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

@JZStudios knows better than Paul Coleman.

It's amazing JZ isn't a project lead at Codies!

And you seem to know better than the entire community that collectively disliked D4. It got a lukewarm reception at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, tbtstt said:

...personally I was under the impression that D4 was trying to be a serious off road game

A serious off road game is not exactly equivalent to a serious rally game, since it was a Dirt title and had multiple motorsports, but I guess none of that actually existed. In any case, D4 did not do well and at failed at being so, despite whether or not it was trying to. But this argument is still really freaking stupid. The My Stage didn't pan out. It was too repetitive, didn't give enough variation, and the stages were still to wide for a "serious" rally game. That collectively hampered the experience for simmers and arcade racers.

But apparently we're now supposed to believe D4 was a masterclass. Despite the fact that on PC it got a 5.9, a 6.7 on Xbox, and somehow a significantly higher 7.5 on PS4. Which funny enough averages out to 6.7. Truly a master of video games.

7 hours ago, ianism said:

and panned? um... no.

image.png.2ad4e65a40f8a4574f32e8229f863fb2.pngimage.png.efdb02258595b4a253908ee078be2ec4.pngimage.png.09cc4308c70237eec4493ba8e6fac6e6.png

A 5.9 and a 6.7 aren't exactly shining stars of achievement. I don't know why the PS4 is rated so "highly."

As to your "serious" rally game list, I also disagree.

Quote

I would say Dirt 4 is in some ways a more serious rally game than DR:

  • many, many more times of day and weather effects
  • impossible to memorize stages
  • team management & sponsor targets each event
  • car repair system
  • part upgrades -> better parts last longer but are more expensive and time-consuming to fix
  • ability to drive for other teams (allows you to use almost any car in the game, but they take a big % of the prize money)
  • team facility upgrades
  • livery creator w/ sponsors
  • semi-dynamic weather. fog could pop up in stages where the weather was listed as "cloudy", not just ones with "fog" or "fog patches" (yes, those were different options)
  1. So does The Crew.
  2. Blatantly false.
  3. If we assume that Grid and the prior Dirt games aren't a "serious" racing/rally game, then no. Though it did seem more in depth, but that's a career thing.
  4. Seriously?
  5. Uhhh... okay, maybe? that's more for the "management" sim than rally, but whatever.
  6. What does that have to do with anything?
  7. Ditto.
  8. If we assume that Grid and the prior Dirt games aren't a "serious" rally game, then also no.
  9. Literally the same as 1.
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

But apparently we're now supposed to believe D4 was a masterclass. Despite the fact that on PC it got a 5.9, a 6.7 on Xbox, and somehow a significantly higher 7.5 on PS4. Which funny enough averages out to 6.7. Truly a master of video games.

Seriously, who the heck is saying this??

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Nobody is saying Dirt 4 was a perfect game, or a 'masterclass'.

Being a 'serious rally game' does not mean it was 'great', or heck, even 'good'. These words have different meanings.

I personally think D4 was a 'good' game, but not 'great'. I even pointed out its major flaws, ie the grip levels and MyStage not working out well.

The point being made was simply that Dirt 4 was a game that shifted the series into a serious direction. There was hope it may have continued. None of this is illegitimate. I point out to you the statements of the project lead about the game being an even stronger simulation than Dirt Rally 1 (and yes, that game was a simulation. Not a perfect one by any means, but still a sim). Yet that's just ignored, and @ianism pointed out how the game had serious rally options too.

It's all over now, we know the direction it's heading and that's fine and dandy. But let's not pretend facts are not facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jake Cushing said:

The point being made was simply that Dirt 4 was a game that shifted the series into a serious direction. There was hope it may have continued. None of this is illegitimate.

Every racing game is a simulation. Dirt Rally was never marketed as a sim and had very weird physics.

I don't know who hoped that would continue when it did very poorly and satisfied neither side of the playerbase.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2020 at 4:49 PM, kellemann said:

 

 Show Real driver for career mode 

Features dynamic weather, seasons tracks ect

23 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Dirt 4 is not a serious rally game. 

Dirt 4 have better pace note , the bump road effect in off road track (No jump , walles Australia )  Work ,rain coditions when you drive in off road track  if you  come fast you steering wheel  have bad effect, bad grass effect work on D4  , unlimited rally track (Yeah with limited road  and country part but drive in big rain or big fog you see nothing ), setup car for D4(full setup not only  5  choice same than D2 and d3 ) ,  and you said D4 is not serious game ,i no talk for tarmac because DR 2 have same problem

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIRT 5 chat can go here now 🙂 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PJTierney said:

DIRT 5 chat can go here now 🙂 

 

 

 

But what are we supposed to talk about here?

Tumbleweed GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Every racing game is a simulation.

I really don't know how you come to this conclusion. Surely there's a difference between simulating diff mechanics or suspension geometry or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, richie said:

I really don't know how you come to this conclusion. Surely there's a difference between simulating diff mechanics or suspension geometry or not. 

The previous Dirt games did and so does The Crew.

Does the game have Physics? Yes?

Then it's a simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

But what are we supposed to talk about here?

I'm sure you'll all find something, you always do 😉 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Does the game have Physics? Yes?

Then it's a simulation.

No, simulation is always in a context and means simulation of the real world. I don't know anybody who would use word simulation only for simulating something unreal in games. It's possible but not common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

 

A "sim" in the racing context attempts to simulate real-world motorsport, whether it be through physics, rules etc. 

Games can be "sims" with different levels of fidelity in their physics. While some r/simracing veterans may scoff at titles like F1 or Forza and how they are accessible to players of all skill levels, I still consider them "racing sims" because they make a good effort at replicating the feeling of real-world motorsport.

It's not a term exclusive to iRacing and rFactor 😉 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have arcade games, for me examples are dirt 2 and 3. With there own fanbase.

You have sim games like dirt rally 1 and 2. With there own fanbase.

And you have games that pretend to have both worlds. Mostly they fail to serve one of the fanbases. A good example is dirt 4.

Like any game developer Codemasters have decisionmakers who sometimes fail to see what the market wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Janneman60 said:

And you have games that pretend to have both worlds. Mostly they fail to serve one of the fanbases. A good example is dirt 4.

Yeah, DiRT 4 certainly had the intention of pleasing both audiences but, for various reasons, seemed to miss both. Jack of all trades, master of none...

37 minutes ago, Janneman60 said:

Like any game developer Codemasters have decisionmakers who sometimes fail to see what the market wants.

...certainly in recent years I think the DiRT franchise has correctly read the market, but the products haven't always hit the right note (specifically thinking of DiRT 4).

Thing is, I thought - and still do think - that the idea behind DiRT 4 was solid: build a game on realistic foundations (for the DiRT Rally crowd) and put an arcade facade on it (for the DiRT 2/DiRT 3 players). I wonder if D4 would have been better received by the serious racing fanbase without My Stage? (which, again, I thought was a superb idea on paper as it seemed to directly address one of the most common critiques of DiRT Rally)

I personally see DiRT 5 as acceptance from CM that you can't please everyone shoehorning everything into one title. DiRT 5 is free to be the mainstream arcade off road racer (which, based on the comments on social media, there definitely seems to be a market for), while DR 3 can be the focused simulator that most of us on the forum seem to want. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

The previous Dirt games did and so does The Crew.

Does the game have Physics? Yes?

Then it's a simulation.

Is that the criterion? So we have parts of the sim racing universe that say it's only a sim if it's hard to drive, and then apparently there's people who say as long as it has physics it's a sim. I think that's remarkable. 

Edited by richie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2020 at 10:34 PM, JZStudios said:

A serious off road game is not exactly equivalent to a serious rally game, since it was a Dirt title and had multiple motorsports, but I guess none of that actually existed. In any case, D4 did not do well and at failed at being so, despite whether or not it was trying to. But this argument is still really freaking stupid. The My Stage didn't pan out. It was too repetitive, didn't give enough variation, and the stages were still to wide for a "serious" rally game. That collectively hampered the experience for simmers and arcade racers.

But apparently we're now supposed to believe D4 was a masterclass. Despite the fact that on PC it got a 5.9, a 6.7 on Xbox, and somehow a significantly higher 7.5 on PS4. Which funny enough averages out to 6.7. Truly a master of video games.

A 5.9 and a 6.7 aren't exactly shining stars of achievement.

As to your "serious" rally game list, I also disagree.

  1. So does The Crew.
  2. Blatantly false.
  3. If we assume that Grid and the prior Dirt games aren't a "serious" racing/rally game, then no. Though it did seem more in depth, but that's a career thing.
  4. Seriously?
  5. Uhhh... okay, maybe? that's more for the "management" sim than rally, but whatever.
  6. What does that have to do with anything?
  7. Ditto.
  8. If we assume that Grid and the prior Dirt games aren't a "serious" rally game, then also no.
  9. Literally the same as 1.

a) top part I agree with, but just because a title has multiple motorsports does not make it a less serious rally game. that makes no sense. if it takes a motorsport seriously, then it's serious.

b) nobody is saying it was a masterclass. don't twist our words. those User scores are low because a lot of Dirt Rally "fans" gave it 0 because it wasn't what they wanted, which disproportionately brings down the average and is not representative. [for example, until ~150 years ago life expectancy in NA/Europe was between 30-45. it wasn't that low because most people died before the age of 50 - more did than now, but nowhere near as much as such a low figure might suggest -  but because like 20% of children died before the age of 5. that brings down the average a lot, and means that life expectancy scores weren't really representative of what the population actually looked like at any given moment]

most importantly, I posted those pictures to highlight the difference between user reviews and critic reviews for this reason. it shows that the critics are more trustworthy because they're going to make an effort to be unbiased, whereas users are more likely to give the lowest possible score because it wasn't what they wanted (or give the maximum possible score if they love something, even though they know it has flaws. interesting how you seemed happy to cherry pick the scores that suited you though - "I don't know why the PS4 is rated so "highly"" shows that you're incapable of even attempting to ignore your own bias.

so, if you're going to only look at the user scores, you should probably eliminate the top and bottom 15 or 20%, in other to mitigate those biases. it's not possible to actually do this with the hundreds of user scores, but those numbers would go up rather than down or stay the same. 

c)

Quote
  • many, many more times of day and weather effects
  • impossible to memorize stages
  • team management & sponsor targets each event
  • car repair system
  • part upgrades -> better parts last longer but are more expensive and time-consuming to fix
  • ability to drive for other teams (allows you to use almost any car in the game, but they take a big % of the prize money)
  • team facility upgrades
  • livery creator w/ sponsors
  • semi-dynamic weather. fog could pop up in stages where the weather was listed as "cloudy", not just ones with "fog" or "fog patches" (yes, those were different options)
  1.  I'm comparing to DR1, because people treat that as a serious rally game, and its success influenced the direction of D4.
  2.  lol if you generate a stage, it's not possible to know it beforehand. sure, you will recognize the turns, but you won't ever be able to do it blind like any other stage racing game
  3. ... that's not a point
  4. it was better than DR. that's my point.
  5. ...
  6. it's a good feature. deal with it.
  7. ditto
  8. again, I'm comparing to DR. and again, it's more realistic, and again, it's a good feature.
  9. nope. it means they built a certain amount of unpredictability into the weather conditions which isn't present in the DR games. that is a different thing from just having more weather conditions, and it's a really good, simple feature for a rally game.
13 hours ago, JZStudios said:

The previous Dirt games did and so does The Crew.

Does the game have Physics? Yes?

Then it's a simulation.

yes, we do use the word simulation when talking about the design of minutiae (such as the simulation of fabric moving with the air or springs rebounding).

however, when we're talking about games as a whole we don't extrapolate that definition to the whole thing. if we did, then we would talk about Horizon Zero Dawn being a hunting simulator or NFS being a police chase simulator. they're not. they contain many mechanisms that simulate things in hunting and police chases, but there is no attempt to wholly emulate realism in any meaningful sense in the way the game is designed to be played. 

Edited by ianism
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Johnnnn said:

No, simulation is always in a context and means simulation of the real world. I don't know anybody who would use word simulation only for simulating something unreal in games. It's possible but not common.

Physics, all physics, follow physical laws and rules, what are you talking about? Whether the game has suspension at 800 pounds or 3 million pounds doesn't mean it's not simulating physics.

 

5 hours ago, richie said:

Is that the criterion? So we have parts of the sim racing universe that say it's only a sim if it's hard to drive, and then apparently there's people who say as long as it has physics it's a sim. I think that's remarkable. 

It's simulating physical objects with the same mathematical equations and expressions. The only difference is how many elements are being simulated and what the input variables are. All I'm saying is that there's plenty of examples of arcade titles having adjustable variable inputs that produce simulated outputs and change the handling of the vehicle. Therefore stating that a game is "serious" or a "sim" because it has tuning options is disingenuous.

But yeah, there's a lot of people out there who think that cars are nearly impossible to drive despite every source of information saying the opposite. Sims are also typically woefully inaccurate. A big example for me is the Toyota GT86 in AC, which in reality is a great first gear drift car, as shown by Top Gear, MCM, and plenty of other auto blogs, yet the car in game sucks the big one.

 

3 hours ago, ianism said:

a) top part I agree with, but just because a title has multiple motorsports does not make it a less serious rally game. that makes no sense. if it takes a motorsport seriously, then it's serious.

Then I guess I'm confused as to what a "serious" game means. It seems like my definition is more that people perceive it as a sim, whereas your definition is if it's... trying to be serious? That leaves a weird area where an arcade game like Battle Gear or Auto Modellista could potentially be a "serious" racing game if it had tuning options and a damage system. Which I would still not consider a "serious" racing game, though still fun to play.

 

3 hours ago, ianism said:

b) nobody is saying it was a masterclass. don't twist our words. those User scores are low because a lot of Dirt Rally "fans" gave it 0 because it wasn't what they wanted, which disproportionately brings down the average and is not representative.

The user scores are low because people in both parties didn't get what they wanted. I'm disappointed in the game just from a lack of content. It was not a serious rally game and was not a good nor successful outing for the Dirt franchise.

3 hours ago, ianism said:

[for example, until ~150 years ago life expectancy in NA/Europe was between 30-45. it wasn't that low because most people died before the age of 50 - more did than now, but nowhere near as much as such a low figure might suggest -  but because like 20% of children died before the age of 5. that brings down the average a lot, and means that life expectancy scores weren't really representative of what the population actually looked like at any given moment]

Untitled.png.88b50b7dbcb07424c3784c2179a7ad1d.png

 

3 hours ago, ianism said:

most importantly, I posted those pictures to highlight the difference between user reviews and critic reviews for this reason. it shows that the critics are more trustworthy because they're going to make an effort to be unbiased, whereas users are more likely to give the lowest possible score because it wasn't what they wanted (or give the maximum possible score if they love something, even though they know it has flaws. interesting how you seemed happy to cherry pick the scores that suited you though - "I don't know why the PS4 is rated so "highly"" shows that you're incapable of even attempting to ignore your own bias.

Critic reviews time and time again have been shown to be incredibly biased and far more favorable than actuality. Look at how Jeff Gurstman was fired over Kane and Lynch or how IGN Italy (and other italian reviewers) gave the console port of Assetto Corsa near perfect reviews while everywhere else gave it a 5. Also think about the fact that for a long time mediocre titles like Call of Duty gets consistent 9s and 10s, and almost no review scoring site has anything below a 5, so anything at a 7 is more of a middle ground, like 3/5.

Ignoring my own bias is a borderline idiotic thing to say when the other platforms are significantly lower. It's a logical question. If the others are 60, why is the PS4 version 75?

So to sum up, game reviewers are unreliable, and gave it a middling score anyways. The community collectively rated it lower. This is why averages exist and are important. I would give the game a very low score. I played it for 8 hours and was thoroughly unimpressed, but I guess my opinion doesn't count because it's negative.

3 hours ago, ianism said:

so, if you're going to only look at the user scores, you should probably eliminate the top and bottom 15 or 20%, in other to mitigate those biases. it's not possible to actually do this with the hundreds of user scores, but those numbers would go up rather than down or stay the same. 

No, you should exactly not do that, that's not how averages work. And if you remove all the 0s and 10s, the average will be around the same, so it wouldn't make any difference. Aside from the fact that it's a community opinion. If the game wasn't enjoyed by someone, and they feel it deserves a zero for their lack of enjoyment, that needs to be factored in to the average, otherwise you're falsifying statistics. What you're looking for is a median, not an average.

4 hours ago, ianism said:
  1.  I'm comparing to DR1, because people treat that as a serious rally game, and its success influenced the direction of D4.
  2.  lol if you generate a stage, it's not possible to know it beforehand. sure, you will recognize the turns, but you won't ever be able to do it blind like any other stage racing game
  3. ... that's not a point
  4. it was better than DR. that's my point.
  5. ...
  6. it's a good feature. deal with it.
  7. ditto
  8. again, I'm comparing to DR. and again, it's more realistic, and again, it's a good feature.
  9. nope. it means they built a certain amount of unpredictability into the weather conditions which isn't present in the DR games. that is a different thing from just having more weather conditions, and it's a really good, simple feature for a rally game.

yes, we do use the word simulation when talking about the design of minutiae (such as the simulation of fabric moving with the air or springs rebounding).

however, when we're talking about games as a whole we don't extrapolate that definition to the whole thing. if we did, then we would talk about Horizon Zero Dawn being a hunting simulator or NFS being a police chase simulator. they're not. they contain many mechanisms that simulate things in hunting and police chases, but there is no attempt to wholly emulate realism in any meaningful sense in the way the game is designed to be played. 

  1. Okay... but that by definition doesn't make it a "serious" rally game.
  2. No one is running DR stages blind, and many would argue that seeing the same corners again and again in a single track is far more repetitive and you can still recognize the upcoming corners and take them the same way every time. Either way it's not really new or interesting.
  3. Ditto
  4. ditto
  5. ditto
  6. ditto
  7. ditto
  8. ditto
  9. ditto

You're acting like I'm saying these changes are a bad thing, and I hate that. You're incredibly biased yourself.

4 hours ago, ianism said:

yes, we do use the word simulation when talking about the design of minutiae (such as the simulation of fabric moving with the air or springs rebounding).

however, when we're talking about games as a whole we don't extrapolate that definition to the whole thing. if we did, then we would talk about Horizon Zero Dawn being a hunting simulator or NFS being a police chase simulator. they're not. they contain many mechanisms that simulate things in hunting and police chases, but there is no attempt to wholly emulate realism in any meaningful sense in the way the game is designed to be played. 

"Hunting" has little to do with physics, whereas vehicle and flight dynamics do. This is a terrible point. "Sim" games like racing and flying are only considered simulations because they simulate physics. Horizon Zero Dawn is not a racing game, though you can ride a mechanical bull.

 

Oranges are well, orange, and rather tangy. There's a good probability that there wasn't actually a term for the color orange until the fruit gained popularity. They contain a lot of juice and have multiple segments inside, typically 10. The annoying thing about oranges is that there's pips in the middle that are hard to avoid and the outer white can be tough and bitter.

Apples on the other hand, come in a variety of shapes and colors from dark greens to bright reds and have an equally varied flavor profile. Some are bitter or sour, while others are sweet and crisp. The skin can be a bit hard to bite through, but a solid crunch afterwards is nice. It also helps ease problems with dry mouth and can help lessen the effects of bad breath. The seeds are far more easily avoidable and thus pose no issue to the consumption of the fruit.

Overall I'm going to have to give it to the apples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PJTierney said:

It's not a term exclusive to iRacing and rFactor 😉 

I have seen quite some real drivers (who also do a lot of sim) have been complaining about iRacing. For example Supercars (Australia), where if you hit a curb a bit hard, you can turn the car upside down. Also mister Thiimm (who competed at the WRX esports events) even stopped an iRacing stream due to tyre model. 

Sometimes indeed a less "hardcore" sim like F1 does a better job overall. 

Possible the best sim current on the market is Asetto Corsa Competizione, both physics (best GT3 physics, dynamic weather, tyre model, etc) wise aswell as replicating the official series/cars/races and the tons of options you can do (livery editor, photo mode, set-up races for sprint or endurance with or without mandatory pitstops, share cars with other sim-racers, and much more). If I would take inspiration for a next DiRT Rally, I think currently ACC is the best platform to look at what I would like to have in the game. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×