Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I know how tough it is to make games, I've always praised KT Racing for their passion for the sport and how much they've improved from their first WRC game.
I also know that KT doesn't have the same budget as big AAA companies, that's why I'm not complaining about stuff that usually costs lots of money like audio, car part brands, matching the car models perfectly to the real thing, and so on.
Stages and physics cost development time, which also costs money, but it is something that is more down to passion and good game design.
While the stages are beautiful and extremely detailed, the physics on the other hand seems to have taken a turn for the worse.
My complaint is how something that is down to intuition and can be somewhat fact checked by watching footage of rally cars has gone further away from reality, while they claim it's gotten better.
Sadly we don't have many rally drivers leaving their opinion in games.
So far, comments on how realistic the game is from real drivers can only be found in Nacon's official Youtube channel on videos almost 3 months old.
In this scenario, nothing guarantees a non biased and paid for opinion. When you have brand deals you need to uphold yours and their reputation even if you need to twist the truth a bit.
In other cases, like Cookie and Cars, her opinion seems mostly subjective about the game being fun and an interesting learning experience, not necessarily synonym to realism. Also, the possibility of it being a contractual agreement can't be discarded.
It may sound like I'm saying real drivers are wrong, but you can see the same thing with the F1 games. Real drivers usually avoid being negative towards the game on their public channels.
But I would also like to know why the people who think the game is realistic say that, to try to understand everyone's point of reference.
Exactly. There are so many people who likely don't even have a driver's license who are making claims about realism. You can kind of get an idea for realism with road racing if you've driven a performance car, but rally is something so different than what most people have done that it's funny how many people with zero experience will argue about it.
The things that "feel" good and realistic to someone, might be jarring and immersion breaking to others. This could be because of skill, experience, expectations, control input/hardware among many other factors beyond the developers control. (One example without mking this WRC vs DR, is a lot of people LOVE DR2.0, but personally the way the cars feel like they're pivoting instead of turning with the front wheels completely ruins the experience for me on an immersion standpoint. especially on tarmac surfaces, even if playing in VR can be great fun).
That being said, I think the devs have done a really good job at providing an immersive rally experience (disregarding a few bugs and omissions I would have liked to see included/fixed).
It comes the closest for me out of all the other games I've played to simulating the rally experience I expect.
The physics for the most part feel great and I can manipulate the car in a way that feels natural (other than the throttle bug, which hopefully will be fixed). Jumps are challenging and messing up the car position or taking too much speed will result in a crash, just as it would in real life (driving one of these machines in real life takes a huge amount of skill, expecting to just jump in and drive one at 100% pace and not crash as an amateur is unrealistic).
I've seen you complain about the brakes in other posts on the forums, but they behave how I would expect them too (with my only experience being riding dirt bikes and casual driving on the roads). If I come into a corner and slam the brakes on 100%, the car is gonna rotate, lose traction and be unable to slow down in a reasonable time, overshooting the corner. If I feather the brakes and try and get as much traction as possible, especially over rough terrain, using maybe 50-60% brake, then the car will slow down in a controllable manner, allowing me to angle it for the coming corner and get back on the power.
The courses themselves are (as many people point out) stunning, which greatly helps with immersion. They feel as though they could be real courses, flying through the swedish countryside at full throttle making tiny corrections to keep the car on course and hoping I don't bury it in a snow bank, feels challenging enough, without being completely inaccessible to people who just want to jump into the game with a control pad and have a fun time without being frustrated.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but "realistic" is a complex, subjective topic, as can be seen if you look at almost any other racing simulator. If it was an objective matter of making something "real" then I'm sure iracing, ams2, rfactor 2, r3e, assetto corsa and others would be basically redundant, but they aren't because they all provide people with options for what feels most natural and enjoyable to them.
The way the car feels in Generations is much closer to realistic than in prior games. It's more similar to Richard Burns than older WRC games, so if you like and feel like Richard Burns is realistic, then why wouldn't you also agree that in the new WRC game it's better?
The old game was as arcade as it comes. You could slam on the brakes at the last possible second into the corner, zero consequence for body roll or weight transfer, the braking distance on tarmac was the same as dirt and the traction changing directions was basically mario kart.
None of this is reflected in Richard Burns, which is probably the best imitation of real life rally that exists in the history of driving sims.
Dirt Rally felt great if you are talking about historic or group N/heavy cars, and WRC felt completely the opposite. When I say "great" im talking about the general sense of weight and needing to anticipate things like weight balance. There's lots of other issues with Dirt.
This new one feels somewhere in the middle, which is probably the sweet spot for rally games.
For one: Have you built any custom setups? This changes the car handling a lot.
Also: Have you adjusted the feedback or wheel settings? What wheel are you using?
The game requires a lot of tweaking to get it to feel good, but when you do it's quite decent.
You have to remember you're comparing onboard video of cars that were set up for the stage, it doesn't convey G forces and you're using your eyes to try to compare it to how the game feels with more than likely a default stock setup which is quite bad and who knows what kind of wheel settings.
It's not a fair comparison. Richard Burns also feels wayyy different depending on car setups, so this isn't uncommon.
Yeah the irony to me is the brakes are probably some of the best feeling brakes for realism and you see people crying about how weak they are.
Even if someone just drove a crappy little economy box in the snow they'd understand that braking in these kinds of conditions is extremely poor and inconsistent.
If they made this game completely realistic people wouldn't play it. There'd be like 100 of us. Which is what happens with Richard Burns, and Richard Burns isn't even 100% realistic either, although its a great impression of realism.
The closer this game gets to "real" the more people complain about it - which is great evidence for why you don't want to create a "real" rally game. The learning curve would be insane.
The scientific method is just that, observing behaviors of a said subject over a certain situation.
The proof is there, in real videos, that WRC Generations has glaring issues with how the cars' suspension reacts, how the tyres grip the surface, and so on.
The RBR NGP mod doesn't have the issue of suspension wobbling, two wheeling over crest turns (not talking about hitting a harsh bump), excessive wheelspin, and so on, while this game does.
WRC 10 also has tons of issues, but the cars don't drive like top heavy trucks nor is the wheelspin as ridiculous as WRCG.
@Licks
Jumps are challenging, but not for the same reasons as in this game.
In real life you're usually forced to take them carefully to avoid many things, from landing too harshly to flying off the track. In WRCG you need to slow down so the car doesn't two-wheel and potentially tip over.
DiRT Rally has its own list of issues, but WRCG has bigger issues.
On the topic of realism, saying it is a subjective topic is already missing the whole point.
Simulators don't need to be 100% realistic, but when there's a glaring flaw, the game developers should do their best to fix it. A good example is how real drivers who tested iRacing said the tyres slip angle wasn't right, but the player-base boycotted said real driver.
@Finn
Feeling G forces is just that, feeling. You can easily look at how the cars react in a number of situations and see the disconnect between WRC G and real life.
You also keep bringing low end cars to the equation, while in WRC most of the cars are purpose built competition cars. They're using different tyres, they have different centers of mass, different brakes, different aero, etc.
As I said in a previous argument we've had, it's like comparing oranges to apples. They're both cars, but built in very different ways.
Why do you think this is a good comparison?
I have built custom setups in WRC G and I even achieved an alright time on the Sweden shakedown. I haven't tried other stages simply because the car feels terribly non intuitive to me and I don't feel like learning this driving.
Still, no amount of tuning fixed the ridiculous amounts of wheelspin or the top heavy feeling.
Again, to reiterate, keep in mind my preference might be completely wrong too.
My problem isn't that I'm bad at the game, my problem is that the game is said to be more realistic while there's so much footage of these cars rallying that prove how two-wheeling over a crest or getting ridiculous amounts of wheelspin on a launch isn't realistic.
I don't mind WRC Generations forcing you to drive more carefully, but the reason why you have to do it isn't right.
I've found the cars in WRC:G to be highly intuitive to drive and it only took an hour or two of getting used to things before I could make any car dance however I wanted. The ffb communicates your grip level and tire load quite nicely, and once you're able to interpret the various feelings like sidewall flexing, it's like the car is continuously telling you how hard you can push. In real life, these cars are specifically engineered to be smooth intuitive drives, so the driver can focus on fighting the stage instead of fighting his car. But when it comes to sim games, so many people believe that harder = more realistic and everything ought to be a spinning deathbox of terror.
OP, you've repeatedly said that watching real video footage proves that WRC:G is unrealistic, but for all the writing you've done here you've actually listed extremely few examples of what exactly is unrealistic about it, especially with regards to handling. You repeatedly mention two-wheeling crests, and wheelspin at launch, and not a lot else. What else are you seeing in these videos that the game is completely butchering?
I feel like you're saying that you believe in real life that drivers don't have to be careful not to two-wheel and tip over?
The videos you are watching of WRC cars are being driven by professional WRC drivers. They are working with the car at all times to maximise it's stability. If an average person jumped into a WRC car in real life and ran down the Finnish countryside at race speeds, the ONLY way they wouldn't two wheel and roll it, is if they parked it in a tree first.
This is where the experience point of what I was saying comes in. If you have zero experience, even if other simulation games, and your expecting to drive like a pro WRC driver, there is definitely going to be a disconnect between what you experience and what you expect.
As far as the cars being top heavy and too easy to roll, it's not an issue I'm personally having, but feel free to post a quick video of the problem you're experiencing.
Because someone else was saying the same thing. I have seen a small bump completely upend a car in real life. This was a couple years ago. Also I've seen a car roll in a hairpin. I think that was this year in WRC. Might have been last year, I'd have to go look for it again. Just look at one of those "videos" and observe the massive amount of body roll that the cars have. It takes skill and balls to send a car over a jump. Why do you think they're trying not to jump them as much anymore? For example the Hyundai tends to get a bit unstable in the air in some cases. Also throttle input and brake input impacts how the car will fly. Rotational mass and all that. So many variables.
LOL at the "scientific method."
Observation isn't just watching videos. Otherwise nobody would go out and actually test and experience things. Look. It's really simple. If you could gain what you need to gain from watching videos then we would never have to actually go try anything. You could watch videos and then be the best driver in the world.
I remember my science courses in college - and specifically the word observation doesn't mean just watching. It means looking for results from certain things. Some of those things mean you actually participate in the process. Like observing the results from something you might touch. So it's not just a passive experience. You won't gain anything from cutting out just one aspect of the process.
Not how it works. Videos are two dimensional and don't give you a realistic experience. Please, don't start making that whole argument.
Go to a rally school. You can do a half day course. Then you'll see. There's a few in the US, one in the UK, a couple in Finland, one in Poland that I know of...
You can find them everywhere. No excuse if you want to know what "real" is like.
Or ride a motorcross bike, that will give you an idea of dealing with non-typical surfaces. You need to understand that driving like a WRC1 driver, even the bad one, is such a high level compared to even a decent sim only player that you can't compare them.
Basically you're saying that cause you watched Kalle do something in his car you should be able to do the same on the game. Well - that doesn't even factor in the skill difference between you and him.
So, not a very good observation, then. Also Richard Burns isn't perfectly real either. It does some things well, but it's mostly coded by one single guy who is just going with what he thinks the physics should be. You can find videos that produce almost every single result you want for a given scenario. Which is why rally is so hard in real life. Nothing is necessarily predictable.
Why don't you post some gameplay of the scenario you think is unreasonable and we can find some videos in real life that show similarities, if going just on video is that important?
The game isn't perfect. It's a game. But it's better than all the previous ones which were so far out of the bounds of reality it wasn't even fun.
This is a quick video of the Finland Shakedown, which has A LOT of jumps and crests over corners. (Time was 1.14.2, for anyone wondering, nearly 6 seconds slower than the top of the leaderboard.)
Yeah, the car gets pretty loose at the end after landing in the irrigation ditch, but I've seen cars in real life roll for less, like https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZuZ-mejU3F4 which shows Lappi rolling on a roadside just... going round a corner?
Like Finn said, videos can be found that show all sorts of 'freak' results. Rally is a SUPER tough discipline, and the game shows that, while remaining accessible and enjoyable to completely untalented hicks such as myself.
I was there and saw this roll, he actually kinda clipped the side of the road. He drops a back wheel into a small ditch off the road at speed and there goes the car. If they modeled cars to do that in the game people would be so pissed off at how hard it is...lol. But that's reality.
But I have seen a car catch a small rut while going sideways around a corner and actually just roll in the middle of the road. It wasn't a WRC car so you could argue that maybe the suspension wasn't capable of handling it, but still, it does happen. All sorts of weird stuff happens ESPECIALLY once you get into club rally and you see when there are some bad drivers (okay bad compared to WRC1/2 drivers) throwing cars around.
I think Rally is like golf. People think they can do it but in reality it's way harder than it looks.
I bet nobody in here has been on gravel or dirt or even snow at 100kph sideways. And if you did, it wasn't on a small road and you didn't drive away after.
Look, there's another thread where people are complaining that the automatic clutch doesn't work right. So clearly this game wasn't meant to be "realistic" in the simulation way. It's meant to also be able to play on a controller.
That should be enough said. But, it's still fun. And the best one they've made so far.