Jump to content

DiRTy Gossip about DIRT Rally Games

PJTierney

 

Message added by PJTierney

Recommended Posts

PaloSamo said:
Yeap, for more and more content turn your heads towards modded RBR. No money involved = happy rally geeks :)
Unless if you are an environment lover, quit rallying then. You will end up crashing into a tree. ;)

KevM said:
My old laptop could manage the full RSRBR Ouninpohja stage.  I know its not groundbreaking visually, but its an absolutely awesome stage to drive!  I don't care how off a tree looks, when I am jumping past it sideways at 125mph :p 
Well, visually, you won't be part of it as long as it is just 2D when you stare at the screen for minutes. :)

Lovely game, it makes you immerse in proper realism and simulation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dgeesi0 said:
It's been said loads, but it's worth repeating a lot of peoples' wishes for 'entry level' rally cars in the game; it would be amazing to rag them round the stages. 

I think it would be a massive, massive shame for the guys and girls not to build on the game we have already been given with the implementation of significant DLC packs. The foundation is set to have even more of an incredible game with incredible longevity.

It's ultimately down to their own ambitions, and what they have planned for their own careers post console release, but this game could be untouchable for x amount of years to come.   
  the only problem is the word you mentioned " Longevity " .

thats a game companies nightmare. they want you to play and buy the game but not have enough depth to keep you going long after the new release comes out. if it is that good and still fun to play many might pass up the new offering.

for us gamers we want it all in one package.

the thing is games with all content in one pack can work and can sell aswell as three or four games if done well. cod 4 aka modern warfare for eg.

i would love for content keep being added to this game. really is the best rally game i played.
Yep. That's why I said it would depend on the plans and ambitions of the dev team, but if they did decide to take the EA DICE approach and have the same main title for at least 2 years with a bunch of generous DLC I would absolutely adore them for it, even more than I do now. 

That would be the sort of middle-ground plan between longevity and progression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing with stages and environments is that they are by far and way the most expensive and time consuming part to create.
Which is why if we do get something, I think it'll be Rallycross only, being a much smaller, confined area.
RX tracks are a lot more suited towards DLC.
Rally stages are just such a massive undertaking, which is why only three of them got added throughout the whole 8 months of Early Access.
Even 'just' creating a new stage in an existing environment is going to be more work hours than just about anything else that could be added, and it's those work hours that make it so expensive as opposed to gathering material or adventuring around the world.
Let's put it this way. It wouldn't be unreasonable to think that if the entirety of Rallycross had never been developed, those resources might have gotten us a single new rally environment of 2 long stages.
Maybe, very maybe, two.

Cars is variable. It depends if Codies have pre-existing source files that can be updated to DiRT Rally spec, which would be the case with the Renaults, an Evo IX, etc, or if they have to be made from scratch like the Lancia 037, VW Polo etc were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the thing is make a smaller rx course is false in longevity .

why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.

the time would be better spent just making new zealand or additional wales tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dgeesi0 said:
why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.
Can you quantify "majority" and "most"? I'd be interested in knowing what the breakdown is across all players (especially after the console release) for time spent in each discipline. I was playing rallycross last night and would love to have more circuits (and more stages). It wouldn't be pointless at all as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dgeesi0 said:
why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.
Have you thought that maybe the lack of content in those modes is the reason that people play them less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dgeesi0 said:
the thing is make a smaller rx course is false in longevity .

why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.

the time would be better spent just making new zealand or additional wales tracks.
...that's not the point I was making...
What I was saying is that the time spent making a new RX course wouldn't be anywhere near enough on its own to make a new rally stage.
It's not a case of a new RX track or a new rally stage.
Its a case of a new RX track or nothing.
Call me crazy, but something is usually better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being presumably the first time the devs have tackled stages in this particular manner, I'd hope they learned things as they did each location to make the process more efficient. If not, I do hope they are looking at ways to streamline it. I think even the most diehard "quality over quantity" supporters will only stay onboard for so long. If the process is hindering their ability to deliver more unique KMs, then the process needs to be changed in my opinion. Personally, for all the work they put into the stages, I can't help but feel they missed the mark on at least a few locations as to what makes those  particular locations challenging/fun for drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely disagree.  Finland could be different but the driving spirit is spot on.  It's a roller coaster and all about finding the line over a series of jumps, I love it!

Sweden, it's one of the most challenging and rewarding locations in the game.  So varied, fast & technical.  It's awesome!

Wales is just an old classic, great fun to drive.  Certain Welsh stages really draw you into pushing the boundaries a little more every time you drive them!

Because of the V2 handling, no 2 runs are ever like-for-like!  That's the major success in this game and really gets what Rally is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didzis said:
dgeesi0 said:
why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.
Have you thought that maybe the lack of content in those modes is the reason that people play them less?
The thing with RX is that you need opponents so either need cracking AI or a great multiplayer experience both of which are massively challenging and a number of race sims struggle with both. Competing against the clock be it online or setting target times is much easier to achieve a realistic and challenging competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didzis said:
dgeesi0 said:
why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.
Have you thought that maybe the lack of content in those modes is the reason that people play them less?
The thing with RX is that you need opponents so either need cracking AI or a great multiplayer experience both of which are massively challenging and a number of race sims struggle with both. Competing against the clock be it online or setting target times is much easier to achieve a realistic and challenging competition.
Last time I checked, the reason why RX is gaining on popularity is because the drivers are not competing against time, but against other drivers while still retaining the rally style driving.
Sure, give players a leaderboard and let them bore themselves to death after a short while is the easy, and let's be honest, cheap way of going about competition, but definitely something that should be more of an addition rather than the main form of multiplayer. A lot of people don't even care at all about leaderboards. I personally care only about few stages I like and that's about it. And even then I usually stop checking the times on those rather quickly.
Proper multiplayer where you actually compete with others, like you can in RX PvP (although broken right now), allows people to be motivated when it comes to aiming for a good result since there are only 4 players at the track at any given time (a lot more interesting then seeing yourself on a 568th position etc.). At the same time, they still have the ability to just drive for the fun and don't care much about result. In other words, they have competition and pure driving experience all in one, which is something you don't get in Rally or Hill Climb. In the case of Hill Climb, it's like someone here said, something that will always be asked for but isn't really a game mode on its own. It just has to be and once it is, people stop asking for it.

Also, define what you mean by realistic competition? Because aside from time itself I can't see a single thing about leaderboards that is... realistic. You're racing against time, not other opponents. The only competition that is happening is in your head. You may say the times have been set by other people, but they won't re-drive those times on their next try. It's just learning the stage and seeing who can get closer to a perfect run through thousands of restarts. And that is definitely not realistic at all. Unless you both are going through the stage at the same time, the competition is non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
function9 said:
Being presumably the first time the devs have tackled stages in this particular manner, I'd hope they learned things as they did each location to make the process more efficient. If not, I do hope they are looking at ways to streamline it. I think even the most diehard "quality over quantity" supporters will only stay onboard for so long. If the process is hindering their ability to deliver more unique KMs, then the process needs to be changed in my opinion. Personally, for all the work they put into the stages, I can't help but feel they missed the mark on at least a few locations as to what makes those  particular locations challenging/fun for drivers.

It's not the first time. 
There's only so much that can be streamlined.
The only way to really get it done more quickly, or get more stages done, is to throw more people at it.
The work hours remains the same, but more people gets it done in less time.
That requires a bigger budget though.

Should more quality be lost in favour of quantity?
Well, SLRE made more use of digital/satellite data compared to the CM approach of going through with tape measures etc,.
Based on the reactions of people watching videos and playing the demo, pointing out that those stages are missing significant details (Sweet Lamb water splash), or that the roads are very flat and lacking camber...
Well, draw your own conclusions if that's a price worth paying for sheer milage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, the reason why RX is gaining on popularity is because the drivers are not competing against time, but against other drivers while still retaining the rally style driving.
Sure, give players a leaderboard and let them bore themselves to death after a short while is the easy, and let's be honest, cheap way of going about competition, but definitely something that should be more of an addition rather than the main form of multiplayer. A lot of people don't even care at all about leaderboards. I personally care only about few stages I like and that's about it. And even then I usually stop checking the times on those rather quickly.
Proper multiplayer where you actually compete with others, like you can in RX PvP (although broken right now), allows people to be motivated when it comes to aiming for a good result since there are only 4 players at the track at any given time (a lot more interesting then seeing yourself on a 568th position etc.). At the same time, they still have the ability to just drive for the fun and don't care much about result. In other words, they have competition and pure driving experience all in one, which is something you don't get in Rally or Hill Climb. In the case of Hill Climb, it's like someone here said, something that will always be asked for but isn't really a game mode on its own. It just has to be and once it is, people stop asking for it.

Also, define what you mean by realistic competition? Because aside from time itself I can't see a single thing about leaderboards that is... realistic. You're racing against time, not other opponents. The only competition that is happening is in your head. You may say the times have been set by other people, but they won't re-drive those times on their next try. It's just learning the stage and seeing who can get closer to a perfect run through thousands of restarts. And that is definitely not realistic at all. Unless you both are going through the stage at the same time, the competition is non-existent.
i also play RX only with pvp. because i enjoy  driving real time with others.   it's not so bad as i tough at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didzis said:
dgeesi0 said:
why main people play rally or majority not rally x or hillclimb. so making extra content for them while maybe quicker is pretty pointless if most of us are rallying in wales/finland and so on.
Have you thought that maybe the lack of content in those modes is the reason that people play them less?
The thing with RX is that you need opponents so either need cracking AI or a great multiplayer experience both of which are massively challenging and a number of race sims struggle with both. Competing against the clock be it online or setting target times is much easier to achieve a realistic and challenging competition.
Last time I checked, the reason why RX is gaining on popularity is because the drivers are not competing against time, but against other drivers while still retaining the rally style driving.
Sure, give players a leaderboard and let them bore themselves to death after a short while is the easy, and let's be honest, cheap way of going about competition, but definitely something that should be more of an addition rather than the main form of multiplayer. A lot of people don't even care at all about leaderboards. I personally care only about few stages I like and that's about it. And even then I usually stop checking the times on those rather quickly.
Proper multiplayer where you actually compete with others, like you can in RX PvP (although broken right now), allows people to be motivated when it comes to aiming for a good result since there are only 4 players at the track at any given time (a lot more interesting then seeing yourself on a 568th position etc.). At the same time, they still have the ability to just drive for the fun and don't care much about result. In other words, they have competition and pure driving experience all in one, which is something you don't get in Rally or Hill Climb. In the case of Hill Climb, it's like someone here said, something that will always be asked for but isn't really a game mode on its own. It just has to be and once it is, people stop asking for it.

Also, define what you mean by realistic competition? Because aside from time itself I can't see a single thing about leaderboards that is... realistic. You're racing against time, not other opponents. The only competition that is happening is in your head. You may say the times have been set by other people, but they won't re-drive those times on their next try. It's just learning the stage and seeing who can get closer to a perfect run through thousands of restarts. And that is definitely not realistic at all. Unless you both are going through the stage at the same time, the competition is non-existent.
Simply that developing high quality AI or scheduling multiplayer events with sensible driver groupings to enable a log in and race capability aligned with decent netcode so drivers can race wheel to wheel is far from trivial. I have yet to try PvP so it may have addressed those points but there are race sims that have been in development for years that still have poor AI and laggy multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RookieOne said:
I stilll want a Reliant Robin Rally Edition, and some other gimmicky rally cars in this game. Maybe as bonus cars when you upgrade all cars in a certain era or drive-train. 
What about a tank like CMR3?
No I am talking bout cars that are somewhat not very rally-ish, but they have a rally edition. The Relian Robbin has some unofficial rally editions by people who love Reliants and rallying. Just google for pictures. It needs to stay serious ofcourse, not arcadish. 
Just as long as they strap big 3stage space shuttle engines onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KevM said:
Completely disagree.  Finland could be different but the driving spirit is spot on.  It's a roller coaster and all about finding the line over a series of jumps, I love it!

Sweden, it's one of the most challenging and rewarding locations in the game.  So varied, fast & technical.  It's awesome!

Wales is just an old classic, great fun to drive.  Certain Welsh stages really draw you into pushing the boundaries a little more every time you drive them!

Because of the V2 handling, no 2 runs are ever like-for-like!  That's the major success in this game and really gets what Rally is!
For me Finland, next to Germany, are the biggest let downs in the game as far as stages go. Was really looking forward to Finland and after running it quite a bit after it was released, it's meh. There's no flow to the stages. The differences between the real stage and in game combined with v2 physics makes it a jumpfest. If you like it cool, for me it was disappointing.

Germany was another location I was excited for. Different surface types with different levels of grip, some of it being quite dirty and busted up. In the game, however, other than the cobble stone intersections, there's no difference in grip between surfaces. It's not bumpy or busted up, no slippery corners or bends with dirt strewn over the road.
BrySkye said:
It's not the first time. 
There's only so much that can be streamlined.
The only way to really get it done more quickly, or get more stages done, is to throw more people at it.
The work hours remains the same, but more people gets it done in less time.
That requires a bigger budget though.

Should more quality be lost in favour of quantity?
Well, SLRE made more use of digital/satellite data compared to the CM approach of going through with tape measures etc,.
Based on the reactions of people watching videos and playing the demo, pointing out that those stages are missing significant details (Sweet Lamb water splash), or that the roads are very flat and lacking camber...
Well, draw your own conclusions if that's a price worth paying for sheer milage.
SLRE is a bad example, the quality of just about every aspect of that game is suspect. So the caliber of stages fits in well with the rest of the game. But, to say there's no middle ground between the SLRE stages and what's in DR is a bit crazy. It's like the people that think the current damage system is good because there's no way to implement proper soft body physics like in BeamNG. Either an all or nothing view, and I don't think that's right. If they were doing exact recreations of the stages, that might be one thing, but they're not. We can see that with Finland. So no, for me, I don't care if they don't get every single, tiny change in road camber correct or even included if it means more unique km. And again, I'd find it hard to believe the only way to achieve that is going to a SLRE level of detail (with the current team/budget).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RookieOne said:
I stilll want a Reliant Robin Rally Edition, and some other gimmicky rally cars in this game. Maybe as bonus cars when you upgrade all cars in a certain era or drive-train. 
What about a tank like CMR3?
No I am talking bout cars that are somewhat not very rally-ish, but they have a rally edition. The Relian Robbin has some unofficial rally editions by people who love Reliants and rallying. Just google for pictures. It needs to stay serious ofcourse, not arcadish. 
I happened to stumble upon another 'gimmicky' addition: The BMW M1 was rallied in group B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YulVFnFyWyw). Since CM already has licensing for bmw that aspect shouldn't be troublesome... Sourcing an m1 for gathering information I imagine will prove troublesome though to say the least, unfortunately X). The Lotus Exige R-GT  Might be another option (same class that the current porsche's rally in).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Mafkees89 Pretty sure they only have the license for the E30. They'd need different licenses and permissions and whatnot to add the M1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Mafkees89 Pretty sure they only have the license for the E30. They'd need different licenses and permissions and whatnot to add the M1.
I was referring more to the ease at which they could possibly obtain the license for it. CM already having the license for the E30 at least tells us that BMW is more willing to agree than Renault for instance (such a shame we couldn't get the 5 or the Alpine...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, define what you mean by realistic competition? Because aside from time itself I can't see a single thing about leaderboards that is... realistic. You're racing against time, not other opponents. The only competition that is happening is in your head. You may say the times have been set by other people, but they won't re-drive those times on their next try. It's just learning the stage and seeing who can get closer to a perfect run through thousands of restarts. And that is definitely not realistic at all. Unless you both are going through the stage at the same time, the competition is non-existent.
Why would you need to run at the same time, with controlled conditions the elapsed time of the event is at the discretion of the organiser. That is the key difference between time trialling and racing. That really is the point organising scheduled racing with matchmaking and managing driver behaviour so it isn't a wreckfest is a major undertaking before you add in netcode to the mix.

Of course time trialling on computers is different to real world because the conditions are static and we can practice indefinitely, that is the nature of the beast without some form of unique stage generator with limited runs.

If you look at a racing game like Gran Turismo the AI is pretty poor, the multiplayer low quality whilst the GT Academy competition has gained credibility in the motor sport world even though it is unique to computer based racing exactly as you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simply that developing high quality AI or scheduling multiplayer events with sensible driver groupings to enable a log in and race capability aligned with decent netcode so drivers can race wheel to wheel is far from trivial. I have yet to try PvP so it may have addressed those points but there are race sims that have been in development for years that still have poor AI and laggy multiplayer.
First, AI in multiplayer mode? Oh come on, everyone knows that AI in racing games has to cheat to be competitive. And I haven't really heard anyone who would say "I would love to play with bots in multiplayer mode". You're playing multiplayer because you don't want to race against bots -_-
Second, never did I say it was easy and/or cheap. In fact it isn't. Matchmaking, netcode and what not takes a load of time to do, test and make sure it works. Granted, they already have the netcode side done when it comes to racing, so you literally can do PvP. When it comes to ramming or players that have lag... for the latter you have ping limit, for the former you can't do much other than "vote to kick". Ramming is due to human input and when something is down to that (when it comes how they race), you can't really do much about it in a racing game.
Thirdly, how can you even talk about the online mode in DR when you haven't tried it? You're basically saying "I know everything even though I don't know shit". Netcode in DR when it comes to racing itself is really good.
TonyRickard said:
Why would you need to run at the same time, with controlled conditions the elapsed time of the event is at the discretion of the organiser. That is the key difference between time trialling and racing. That really is the point organising scheduled racing with matchmaking and managing driver behaviour so it isn't a wreckfest is a major undertaking before you add in netcode to the mix.

Of course time trialling on computers is different to real world because the conditions are static and we can practice indefinitely, that is the nature of the beast without some form of unique stage generator with limited runs.

If you look at a racing game like Gran Turismo the AI is pretty poor, the multiplayer low quality whilst the GT Academy competition has gained credibility in the motor sport world even though it is unique to computer based racing exactly as you describe.
You never spoke about events and racing, you spoke only about leaderboards. We have Leagues in DR which when setup correctly provide a good competition (no restarts effectively changes this from a time attack to actual event), but again, only when you set them up in a correct way. As long as you can infinitely restart a stage, it becomes nothing more than a time attack, which is effectively a leaderboard.

Time Trialling IRL is completely different. For example, Sebastien Loeb scored a new WR for Pikes Peak... in a practice run, which means it didn't count. Then he run on the actual event and he didn't beat the time. And same goes for every single other event. Time Trial? You can do it, but your times are put into a garbage, regardless of how good they are. The only times that are counted are the ones done in the actual race. Leaderboards in a racing game take the fastest time from wherever, simply because you can re-drive it as many times as you want even in a mode that would "count" the time  IRL. And it's not about limited amount of runs as well. Some people can spend more time and participate more times IRL in an event to have more chances to score a WR time. And that's the issue with leaderboards, it's not an event. It's just a question of how close you can get to a perfect line. Pointless when it comes to competition in a long time run.

GT Academy competition runs on completely different rules, along of which is being at least 18 years old (or was it 20? Can't remember right now) and having a driving license. On top of that you have a rather epic reward there and the very process is used by Nissan to scout for potential racing drivers for their team. But that of course had its issues, whereas on the first rendition of that event, there was a massive amount of wallriding and wallbouncing to it. The leaderboard format works there for few reasons:
- time restraints of the competition make it almost impossible to perfect the lines, which makes it more of a skill based, than practice based
- amount of participants makes it impossible to create any form of ladder based eliminations due to ability to participate in the competition without having a console
- from what I remember, they've been using the track generator for the competition ever since, so track knowledge goes *poof* which again makes the leaderboard format more skill based, than practice based

After the leaderboard phase, they have more eliminations going on anyway which are no longer based on leaderboards at all. Those are there only on the first "online" phase to sort through the "wannabes" and find the people with actual potential. Which is exactly what leaderboards are good for, sorting through the "crap". They are not a viable form of long term healthy competition.

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

×