Jump to content
DIRT 5 - Chat about the game and get support here. Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  

Three Things RBR Still Does Better than DR2.0

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

- Photographic look

- Replays

- Head/Car movement during in-car view

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jake Cushing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It seems to me that people have an emotional connection to this game. They had a great time back then, it was new and it was exciting, and thus start romanticising everything around this game. It looks terrible, it sounds terrible, it's old and the tech is outdated. Pretty similar to what's been happening in the Forza community. They glorify Forza 4 because they had a great time, the racing was great and they made lots of friends. All the epic races and leaderboard battles. It was the last Forza game with what the community would consider essential features like custom public lobbies, clubs and a store front where you could present your own or buy liveries etc. but from an objective perspective it's an old and outdated game on old and outdated tech. It has reached cult status among Forza fans and that's it. 

So, what does RBR better than DiRT Rally 2.0? It gives you more memories, that's all. Let the damn game finally rest in peace, goddammit :classic_laugh:

Edited by richie
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@richie There is an argument in the opposite direction:

That because the game is old, some people overlook genuinely good things about it which are still top-of-the-class

And end up disregarding those things, even when pointed out in a forum topic, instead re-iterating the fact it's old... 😉

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

They glorify Forza 4 because they had a great time, the racing was great and they made lots of friends. All the epic races and leaderboard battles. but from an objective perspective it's an old and outdated game on old and outdated tech. It has reached cult status among Forza fans and that's it. 

Not necessarily. There's a guy on YouTube I've been watching called ColourShed and he's been reviewing a whole bunch of racing/driving games he'd never played, Forza included. He only recently played FM4 for the review for the first time and he thoroughly enjoyed it. It's actually kind of neat to see someone play old nostalgic games like Midnight Club and Burnout and come to the conclusion that they're still actually pretty fun.

 

RBR though? RBR is not very good now, and has been outclassed for a while. It's mostly only alive because there's mods and there hasn't been too much other in terms of rally games, especially with such open/easy modding. If DR 1 or 2 had modding support it would replace RBR instantly.

Anyways, to address the initial points;

  1. The "photographic" look is really easy when the game is so low res and literally everything is just a picture with flat lighting. Like... there's no shadows at all. And I wouldn't agree that it looks more "photographic" than DR2.
  2. Eh? Dunno. Frankly, duncare.
  3. The in car movement isn't that great? I hate it either way.
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

The "photographic" look is really easy when the game is so low res and literally everything is just a picture with flat lighting. Like... there's no shadows at all. And I wouldn't agree that it looks more "photographic" than DR2.

The photographic look of RBR was a design decision. It's easy to criticize or dismiss a game simply because it is 15 years old and its tech did not allow large numbers of polygons or advanced lighting.

There are other games which have chosen a photographic appearances as a design choice: see Kingdom Come Deliverance vs most other first-person RPGs

DR2.0 has chosen a non-photographic overall look, in favour of a moody but gamey look. Some stages look a little more realistic than others, however.

The result is a loss of immersion - I sincerely hope the specialisation of Dirt rally in the upcoming games will see a realistic direction taken.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jake Cushing said:

The photographic look of RBR was a design decision. It's easy to criticize or dismiss a game simply because it is 15 years old and its tech did not allow large numbers of polygons or advanced lighting.

There are other games which have chosen a photographic appearances as a design choice: see Kingdom Come Deliverance vs most other first-person RPGs

DR2.0 has chosen a non-photographic overall look, in favour of a moody but gamey look. Some stages look a little more realistic than others, however.

The result is a loss of immersion - I sincerely hope the specialisation of Dirt rally in the upcoming games will see a realistic direction taken.

Finally someone understand what I've been trying to say for so long.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2020 at 2:59 AM, Jake Cushing said:

@richie There is an argument in the opposite direction:

That because the game is old, some people overlook genuinely good things about it which are still top-of-the-class

And end up disregarding those things, even when pointed out in a forum topic, instead re-iterating the fact it's old... 😉

That argument isn't very convincing because the evidence against it is there, you posted it yourself. I watch these videos and I see an outdated game that might've been impressive at the beginning of the century but there's nothing that is still top of the class or state-of-the-art. The game is cult and the fans glorify it, and it might deserve it. That's about it, though. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. 

Yes, it's easy to criticise a game that's 15 years old with old tech that did not allow large number of polygons or advanced lighting because, you know, it's 15 years old with old tech that did not allow large number of polygons or advanced lighting. You're making a point against your argument. 

 

 

Edited by richie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@richie

Ermm, pointing out some *elements* of an old game that might be useful to consider is hardly 'glorifying' a game or calling it 'state of the art'. 

Ever heard of a 'straw man argument'? Worth looking up! Can save people a lot of wasted mental energy and forum typey-typeys... 

Share this post


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

@richie

Ermm, pointing out some *elements* of an old game that might be useful to consider is hardly 'glorifying' a game or calling it 'state of the art'. 

Ever heard of a 'straw man argument'? Worth looking up! Can save people a lot of wasted mental energy and forum typey-typeys... 

A little hyperbole is no straw man. Anyway, there are some really bizarre notions circulating mostly in echo chambers that do not reflect reality, one of them is, RBR is still the king of rally and 'top of the class' but the 'arguments' to back that claim are based on nothing. I don't know why that pill is so hard to swallow and why people feel provoked every time someone praises DR2.0 as the best rally experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Photographic look' Lol wut? You must be blind if those washed out, bland, **** graphics look 'photographic'.

At best its simcade, car doesn't handle naturally at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And thank you Mr LusiaF5 for addressing the specific points originally raised, in such a cogent and eloquent manner. You truly are a battering-ram of logic and argument. The times, nay, the very epoch desperately needed a voice such as yours, and so righteously have you appeared as a champion of the lost art of fine, nuanced debate. Our entire planet salutes you! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

And thank you Mr LusiaF5 for addressing the specific points originally raised, in such a cogent and eloquent manner. You truly are a battering-ram of logic and argument. The times, nay, the very epoch desperately needed a voice such as yours, and so righteously have you appeared as a champion of the lost art of fine, nuanced debate. Our entire planet salutes you! 

Such a dumb initial argument doesn't deserve a debate

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 9:40 PM, Jake Cushing said:

The photographic look of RBR was a design decision. It's easy to criticize or dismiss a game simply because it is 15 years old and its tech did not allow large numbers of polygons or advanced lighting.

There are other games which have chosen a photographic appearances as a design choice: see Kingdom Come Deliverance vs most other first-person RPGs

DR2.0 has chosen a non-photographic overall look, in favour of a moody but gamey look. Some stages look a little more realistic than others, however.

The result is a loss of immersion - I sincerely hope the specialisation of Dirt rally in the upcoming games will see a realistic direction taken.

That doesn't even make sense. The game has basic flat lighting with little to no shadows and photographed textures. It literally can't be anything other than "photographic." Unless you're talking about... cinematic or something. I'm assuming you're talking about the graphics, and I'm telling you that with basic flat lighting and photographed 2d tree sprites it will only look "photographic" unless you do something like Auto Modellista and do cel shading. And I can verifiably prove that.

Kingdom Come Deliverance is using the Cryengine, which still has by far the best rendering engine of any commercially available engine. I might even argue of any engine, except maybe Frostbite. Which literally utilizes photogrammetry. Other first person RPGs just don't have the visual fidelity of KCD because it runs freaking terribly. Comparatively. It actually runs pretty well for the fidelity displayed, but it struggles on console. I guess you could call that a "design" decision, but it's more of a technical limitation. Other companies like Bethesda have always looked ****. The Ego engine is sorely aging. It's not a design decision, it's just an old ass engine, which is why so many things had to be cut, like track lengths and multiple cars on track.

DR2 and D4 adopted a PBR pipeline and a better lighting system. Honestly, I don't really play either anymore, but I'm looking at random pictures and DR2 looks pretty realistic. Trees are 3d, instead of 2d sprites, it has actual lighting and shadows, the materials react to the environment lighting and colors... I honestly don't know what you want. Hills in the distance have an appropriate sense of scale and atmospheric haze, dust clouds look high resk, soft, and pillowy, the sky looks natural with appropriate cloud coverage, which again affects lighting and materials...

Could you explain what you're actually talking about? Because I genuinely have no idea. Could you point out what about RBR looks more "photographic" than DR2?

dirt-rally-2-a.jpg

On 8/20/2020 at 10:19 PM, RGgiac said:

Finally someone understand what I've been trying to say for so long.

Could you explain it? Because I seriously don't get it. RBR literally has no shadows in all 3 videos he posted. Environment lighting has no effect on colors. Trees are 2d sprites. There's barely any grass, and it doesn't have shadows. How is that more photographic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favourite bit in RBR was where you watched Richard do the rally school stage pre-recorded, it felt like watching a champion at work, compared to how I'd been driving!

Share this post


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

Kingdom Come Deliverance is using the Cryengine, which still has by far the best rendering engine of any commercially available engine. I might even argue of any engine, except maybe Frostbite. Which literally utilizes photogrammetry. Other first person RPGs just don't have the visual fidelity of KCD because it runs freaking terribly. Comparatively. It actually runs pretty well for the fidelity displayed, but it struggles on console. I guess you could call that a "design" decision, but it's more of a technical limitation. Other companies like Bethesda have always looked ****. The Ego engine is sorely aging. It's not a design decision, it's just an old ass engine, which is why so many things had to be cut, like track lengths and multiple cars on track.

KCD's designers made a deliberate design choice to utilise photographed rather than drawn textures wherever possible. The upcoming Flight Simulator 2020 has done the same.

Codies have opted for a less realistic look in DR2.0, with oversaturated colours, trees and objects which do not look realistic in texture mapping, and lighting which emphasises 'moodiness' rather than realism. This is unlikely to be due entirely to limitations of the engine.

If you can't see this, then I'm afraid there is no point further debating the matter.

I've no doubt that the EGO engine is a major constraint (lighting at night for example) however it will remain to be seen whether Codemasters opt for a photographic look or a 'gamey' look for DR3.0. The point of the thread is to encourage the former (along with an improved in-car view which imho could also do with a major immersion upgrade, and replays, in which respect I believe RBR remains the king of all rally games. And for certain other contributors to this thread, please note I said in respect of replays, not the king overall. Amazing that I have to stress that) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is an example to illustrate. This looks 'nice', but it also looks drawn. It's so obvious it shouldn't need explaining. Look at the grass, trees, rocks, pretty much everything except the clouds. It ain't realistic, period.

85188472_3449880121751198_485488629100052480_o.thumb.jpg.e16f108e16af87b08b764faf21c073be.jpg

 

Edit

Please note, as nuance seems difficult for some on this forum:

This is not say DR2.0 is a poor looking game. Or that RBR looks better overall. DR2.0 is the graphically superior game (I mean, duh). But RBR had a photographic overall look, that you cannot say is the dominant aesthetic in DR2.0

 

 

 

Edited by Jake Cushing
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a sterile discussion here, DR2. = is great! But it is a company decision not to make a pure simulator like RBR, in my opinion, I enjoy both ... the permanent updates of the RBR community make it unique today, the amount of physical parameters it has is not see on track simulators of today ... in my case I really enjoy both without having to define which is better, although I am clear about which one is in each place. (SORRY FOR MY ENGLISH)

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

KCD's designers made a deliberate design choice to utilise photographed rather than drawn textures wherever possible. The upcoming Flight Simulator 2020 has done the same.

I don't mean to be rude, but yeah, no ****. It's not like the textures in DR2 aren't taken from actual photographic reference material. Why would they send scouting teams with cameras to locations to just not utilize any of it? Unless you're doing something with a specific art style or the physical object doesn't exist you'll be using photographic references and textures. The only difference here is once again that RBR has no shadows.

13 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

Codies have opted for a less realistic look in DR2.0, with oversaturated colours, trees and objects which do not look realistic in texture mapping, and lighting which emphasises 'moodiness' rather than realism. This is unlikely to be due entirely to limitations of the engine.

If the colors are "oversaturated" then turn the saturation down. Problem solved. But I'll tell you with 100% certainty that they aren't. I don't understand everyones fascination with either a complete lack of color, or blatantly over saturated. The lighting and materials are physically based, and possibly IBL based. It doesn't emphasize "mood," it emphasizes accurate lighting conditions.

13 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

If you can't see this, then I'm afraid there is no point further debating the matter.

You explained literally nothing. You just gestured at it and said "SEE! SEE!"

13 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

it will remain to be seen whether Codemasters opt for a photographic look or a 'gamey' look for DR3.0.

But frankly, it's a complete moot point when , once again I don't really mean to be rude, but you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

 

10 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

Here is an example to illustrate. This looks 'nice', but it also looks drawn. It's so obvious it shouldn't need explaining. Look at the grass, trees, rocks, pretty much everything except the clouds. It ain't realistic, period.

85188472_3449880121751198_485488629100052480_o.thumb.jpg.e16f108e16af87b08b764faf21c073be.jpg

Looks drawn? The hell does that mean? RBR looks like a photo collage. I mean sure, the trees in DR2 are a bit dark, but everything else you just said makes no sense. You literally explained nothing. I'm a mild photographer and a fan of 3D animation and graphics and I have no ******* clue what you're talking about.

But yeah, I get what you mean. That image looks nothing like this. Except in basically every way. Look at the grass, rocks, pretty much everything looks drawn.

WRC Rally GB Great Orme stage cancelled as divers cannot get close ...

WRC - Wales Rally GB: Sixth win of the season for Ott Tanak | SnapLap

Upon further image research, the trees actually aren't all that dark compared to reality either.

010 - Managing Forests for Water Quality: Forest Roads | USU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are forgetting the most important thing RBR does better. 

Which is it does a better job to immerse the player into the rally championship. You can see the competitor personalities and how much budget the teams have. It's the little things that help one get into it and really care about the driving to win.

20161008185902_1.jpg

20171010170424_1.jpg

20171010170428_1.jpg

20171010170433_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I be clear and just state that I think DR2.0 is an amazing looking game...

I mean, I've enthused all over this forum about the graphics, even started threads about it

But the moment you suggest that maybe, just maybe, a change of aesthetic direction might be worth considering, it's triggerama and 'I literally don't see how that is possible!' etc etc

Share this post


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

Bingo!!

So you want the game to actively look like misplaced objects? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

2 hours ago, Jake Cushing said:

But the moment you suggest that maybe, just maybe, a change of aesthetic direction might be worth considering, it's triggerama and 'I literally don't see how that is possible!' etc etc

It makes no sense. Nothing in RBR blends in together in a realistic fashion. It doesn't look "photographic" or photorealistic. DR2 looks pretty photorealistic. A photo collage by definition is just a bunch of random pictures mashed together that basically have no correlation, and thus are explicitly not photorealistic.

I still don't understand what you're talking about, other than I guess DR2 should just say "**** lighting and realistic materials for a photorealistic look, let's just do flat shading and simple, shadeless models." Nothing about that makes any sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JZStudios I'm not a "graphics expert", so I don't know how to point out exactly what's wrong, but when I look at DR2.0 graphics I see a game more "cartoony" than others.

Let's forget RBR and try to compare DR2.0 with newer games.

For example, look at this image below (DriveClub vs DR2.0), I tried to find images with similar environment and time of day:

image.thumb.png.d2429a7c6f4aad3559f7f5a5f06b7cc1.png

Can you see how the lighting and colors look way more natural and realistic in DriveClub? DriveClub looks more like a photo, while DR2.0 looks like a drawing. Look at the trees, imagine DR with those colors and lighting, how howesome it would be.

Again, I'm not saying that DR2.0's graphics looks bad, but when I compare it with other games it always looks less realistic:

image.thumb.png.81a42b0185212cac8667cd7429014144.png

image.thumb.png.0ede69b0ec6e3ad93230259c7ca17256.png

image.thumb.png.995666ad082bf6677798784671692d77.png

I don't know if it's an artistic decision or an EGO Engine limitation, but If it's an art decision I honestly think that a more realistic direction would improve the immersion and overall experience. Everyone wants realistic physics, realistic sounds, realistic damage model... why not realistic graphics?

 

By the way, do you know what looks realistic? Finland promocional screenshots:

image.thumb.png.2ea0105a77b6e3c65d2434ddb8eb7c7c.png

 

But when they released the DLC...

image.thumb.png.7d6ec57c90034ba85f2c73c0f32ee137.png

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

@JZStudios I'm not a "graphics expert", so I don't know how to point out exactly what's wrong, but when I look at DR2.0 graphics I see a game more "cartoony" than others.

Let's forget RBR and try to compare DR2.0 with newer games.

By the way, do you know what looks realistic? Finland promocional screenshots:

-snip-

But when they released the DLC...

-snip-

uh, read the topic title. they're not comparing DR2 to Driveclub. they're comparing to RBR. also does it look a little less photoreal than other sim games? yes, probably. do I care? hell no. the aesthetic works (except for Finland).

on that note, your second screenshot is not really a fair comparison to the promo shot - it's obviously a screen grab from youtube where the image is compressed to ****. like, yeah Finland looks pretty bad - even considering that the shot below is probably not at full graphics, but it looks better than your garbage screengrab.

(I almost always play it at Sunset/Dusk/Night if I can, because it's not foggy).

DiRT Rally 2.0 - Version 1.10 Bug Reports - Page 6 - DiRT Rally ... Finland Rally – Available Now in DiRT Rally 2.0 | Codemasters Blog

Edited by ianism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ianism said:

uh, read the topic title. they're not comparing DR2 to Driveclub. they're comparing to RBR.

I know. But JZStudios said that DR2.0 looks photorealistic, and I just wanted to bring into discussion other games to help me prove why I disagree.

2 hours ago, ianism said:

does it look a little less photoreal than other sim games? yes, probably. do I care? hell no.

That's the point. I care.

2 hours ago, ianism said:

(I almost always play it at Sunset/Dusk/Night if I can, because it's not foggy).

same 😂

  • 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
Sign in to follow this  

×