Colin Mcrae Rally '07

What doesn't impress is that we know deep down that the physics of Colin McRae games don't offer much depth. It's a rally-lite series for the average guy that just wants to feel like a rally driver. The cars still have that awful simplistic feel like they're rotating about some predetermined pivot in the centre of the car, without giving any sense that all 4 wheels are working truly independently. This was great for the PS1 era when CPU load was a big problem, but it just hasn't progressed hugely, unfortunately. Colin 3 had awful physics (worse than 2), it was fixed somewhat for Colin 4 (the car still rotated around the centre of the car for easy powersliding, but it was less obvious). Colin 5 was just more of the exact same thing for no real reason other than to milk the franchise.

Compared to something like Richard Burns Rally, the Colin games are very simplistic, with no regard for real rally driving techniques. For instance, the brakes work like magic, even on ice. No slide is ever truly out of control. The road surfaces are way too consistent in smoothness and grip level, too. Its a game that is much too easy to master, and then become aware of just how simple the physics are. There just isn't the depth I crave.

That's mainly why I don't care about Mcrae, they could make it LOOK as realistic as they wanted, it would still be a simple arcadey style game like Ridge Racer (not to that extreme, but you get the idea) though... It's an awful simulation of how rally cars behave (although fun for most people). It gives a better idea of how cars react on dirt than GT, but that says more bad things about GT's rally implementation than how amazing Colin is, IMO. You want to find out how to make a rally physics engine, go buy RBR.

Plus, Codies haven't innovated or expanded the gameplay in the last two or three Colin games much whatsoever. They're pretty much the same game! Maybe this is why its hard to get excited about a new one. It'll be more of the same with better graphics. Plus, we have seen 2 proper car models from GT5, and I frankly expect MUCH more from Colin's cars considering they only have to render one car on-screen at a time! The lighting on the car looks too simple, also. They still don't look like they're made out of metal really. The track also looks too flat, other than the rocks, which look too much like they're simply static objects stuck to the road for my liking. I want proper marbley rocks rollin' around! Its just NOT next-gen in terms of what I feel is possible...

We're not fanboys of GT and just dislike anything else... what a silly thing to randomly accuse people of! I like RBR, LFS, GTR, GTL, GT4 etc... All these games have much better sim cred than Colin, which lands squarely in the arcade racer camp. Its about as much of a sim as Gotham, IMO.
 
^^^ Just a word, but there isn't one rally game on the market that correctly depicts the movement of a car on a gravel/dirt surface. Ever.

In fact, to this day I have yet to experience a true simulator for any autosport, mainly because I do it often for fun and hobby.

Fact is, you will never get the rush, excitment, and feeling that you do in a real car, so for me, comparing which game has "better physics" or "more realism" is simply a lost quest, because there are always instances in real life that no game can ever accurately recreate.

With that said, it's about the fun and enjoyability of a game.


And to add, difficulty has nothing to do with "accurate physics". I know you did not say that, but a vast majority of this forums members seem to reflect that opinion, and it is simply not true.
 
In that case the pursuit of realism in car games should just end, tell PD to go make Motor Toon GP3. Tell all the sim-developers to give up now! Have you ever thought that Colin is just a very lonely, dull game? The arcadey physics don't mean its more playable like you might think, it just makes you bored of it faster. I'd like some more subtlety to the controls to get my head around...

Play Richard Burns with a good force feedback wheel on the PC and then say it isn't decent. My point was that it was a damn sight better than Colin, especially racing against people online. Of course we'll never reach reality! The bar will just get raised higher and higher, but I think we should at least aim to GET IT HIGHER, as opposed to give up.

When the hell did I even start to infer that realistic phyisics are harder (more elite you're infering?) than arcadey physics? I made no such point. It's up to how the dev balances the game... Unrealistic physics I find harder, because I have nothing to refer to (real life) when it comes to predicting what's gonna happen. I find gotham very hard, its just really strange to me. I simply enjoy sims more than arcadey-type games. I simply think Colin could and should get a lot more believable in its car physics before it loses its mass appeal, as we agree, good physics doesn't have to be harder to control... just more believable, which helps everyone in the end, no matter what you want out of a game experience.
 
I didn't say you said that more difficulty = better physics, I was simply mentioning it.

As far as trying to reach reality, I never said they should end the pursuit, I simply said it's pointless to expect that from any game, or judge it based on reality, because it's the enjoyability that really makes it a factor.

I participate in SoloII Auto-x Races yearly every spring/summer, and I participate in many unsanctioned Rally Races (technically not legal) and I can tell you I do not come to play any game expecing it to even closely reflect realism, I'm simply looking for a fun experience that I can enjoy and use some real life application in. i.e. use references for braking techniques, or knowing driving lines, etc, as long as all of that plays a role, then I'm more than fine, I'm not going to cry my ass off if it doesn't swing the right way during such and such of a turn on such and such track.



Also, this isn't directed at you, more of just a crazy vent of mine...but why on gods green earth do so many members of this community complain about physics when they rarely even have a drivers license, or have even participated in races or even autosports for that mater? It just boggles my mind how someone can complain without having done it and without having an understanding of it.
 
tha_con
^^^ Just a word, but there isn't one rally game on the market that correctly depicts the movement of a car on a gravel/dirt surface. Ever.

In fact, to this day I have yet to experience a true simulator for any autosport, mainly because I do it often for fun and hobby.

Fact is, you will never get the rush, excitment, and feeling that you do in a real car, so for me, comparing which game has "better physics" or "more realism" is simply a lost quest, because there are always instances in real life that no game can ever accurately recreate.

With that said, it's about the fun and enjoyability of a game.
👍 Great post, no game is really close to reality and it never will be, if a sim is enjoyable but happens to not be the most realistic sim on the market, so what, it's enjoyable. On the toher hand, I do strive for realsim in racing games, lapping the ring at night in GTL is a fantastic feeling, but I can still enjoy Burnout games, I can still enjoy Ridge Racer games etc.
 
tha_con
^^^ Just a word, but there isn't one rally game on the market that correctly depicts the movement of a car on a gravel/dirt surface. Ever.

In fact, to this day I have yet to experience a true simulator for any autosport, mainly because I do it often for fun and hobby.

Fact is, you will never get the rush, excitment, and feeling that you do in a real car, so for me, comparing which game has "better physics" or "more realism" is simply a lost quest, because there are always instances in real life that no game can ever accurately recreate.

With that said, it's about the fun and enjoyability of a game.


And to add, difficulty has nothing to do with "accurate physics". I know you did not say that, but a vast majority of this forums members seem to reflect that opinion, and it is simply not true.


An excellent post (and rep given for it as well), but I would have to agree with James on one point, and thats in regard to this part.

tha_con
Just a word, but there isn't one rally game on the market that correctly depicts the movement of a car on a gravel/dirt surface. Ever.

While still far from perfect (I'm certainly a firm member of the computer sims are never going to be 100% right) you might be pleasently surprised by Richard Burns Rally.

As far as depicting the movement of a car on gravel and dirt it is without a doubt one of the most accurate (note not 100% accurate) on the market, and does justice to the sport of Rallying.

Its certainly a fitting tribute to the man himself and a product that I know he was closely involved in during his last few years. Unable to rally he threw himself into making RBR the most accurate rally sim possiable, within the confines of current technology. It used to be well documented on his web-site, however a lot of that was taken down after his death.

Regards

Scaff
 
^^^ Yea, that's my whole take on it. I mean, realism is grand, but I'm not going to let it take away from a game I want to play if certain things don't react the way they should.

Like a huge grip in GT4 that everyone has is that if you hit a wall your car slides like an ice cube right off of it. Well, granted this is true, but I'm not spending my time when I play it running into walls, I'm trying to enjoy it and go as fast as possible.

Or LFS, I absolutely love LFS, but to me, it's an entirely different game from GT, or any other sim, each has their strengths and weaknesses, but I'm not going to enjoy any particular one just because of certain factors, I love to compete going fast and trying to beat the clock, it's about moving whatever you're driving at a high rate of speed, as long as that's involved (and it's controllable, unlike say, NFSMW, which is horrible) then I will play it to death, regardless of it's "physics" etc...because in reality it's the fun you have, not how much you can brag about the physics.
 
Scaff
An excellent post (and rep given for it as well), but I would have to agree with James on one point, and thats in regard to this part.



While still far from perfect (I'm certainly a firm member of the computer sims are never going to be 100% right) you might be pleasently surprised by Richard Burns Rally.

As far as depicting the movement of a car on gravel and dirt it is without a doubt one of the most accurate (note not 100% accurate) on the market, and does justice to the sport of Rallying.

Its certainly a fitting tribute to the man himself and a product that I know he was closely involved in during his last few years. Unable to rally he threw himself into making RBR the most accurate rally sim possiable, within the confines of current technology. It used to be well documented on his web-site, however a lot of that was taken down after his death.

Regards

Scaff

Oh I've played Richard Burns Rally, and I'm not argueing that either one is better than the other, they are both amazing Rally games, leaps and bounds more enjoyable than GT4 to me (the only reason I don't enjoy GT4's rally mode is because it's too unpredictable as far as computer behavior and control, it doesn't have any consistency to it really, it's just not fun to me).

But again, I'm not going to argue which is better, because having driven in unsanctioned rally races myself, none of them are really that close, they appear close, and are extremely fun, but compared to how cars really behave from expierence, it's really a lot farther than you think.

But, with that said, both are still extremely enjoyable.
 
I have to add that I don't disagree with tha_con at all in regard to enjoying games that are simply really entertaining games, I'm not saying I haven't or can't enjoy arcade style games. I completely agree about what makes games fun, which is simply the challenge that they present and the fun of beating that challenge. This is why I still love Wipeout, Burnout, etc.

But perhaps why I care about realistic physics (or at least a good illusion of realistic physics - which colin doesn't have, IMO), is that it simply helps everyone get more immersed in the game, especially if the game is presented and marketed as a realistic depiction of rallying. If it was presented like an arcade game (like Sega Rally), I wouldn't have those same expectations.

My gripe is that Colin is presented as a sim. I think they need to lighten it up a bit (the presentation), its too stark and clinical for what the game really is, IMO.

I did love playing Colin 2.0 on PC, racing against mates over the college network, and also doing time-trials of Colin 4 on PS2 against mates (the two best games in the series IMO). They are really fun, but to me wear thin fairly fast because of the lack of depth in the physics (you master it too easily). I suppose its not even about wanting ultimate realism, its just that realism is perhaps an easy way to add immersion and depth to the experience. You COULD make up a fun physics model that was completely un-realistic like WipEout Pure, that still presents a huge challenge and is complex enough to maintain some longevity. When the game is presented as a sim, I expect to at least get fooled that I can drive a rally car (maybe, perhaps... in real life).

Onto tha_con's points about why do mainsteam gamers who don't necessarily drive a car in real life want realism? Easy, realism adds immersiveness. People want the physics to be realistic enough (ie not obviously doing a ridge-racer slide around the bend) so that the game can at least TRICK you into thinking you can really drive! This is where GT4 shines, the replays really do look like cars really driving around a track (provided they don't crash into anything) with very believable physics, it gives the impression that we can really guide an F1 car around Monaco! If a game features obviously unrealistic physics, we feel like it's obviously nothing to do with real life. We want to feel like we can really drive an F1/rally car/drift a Supra etc etc. If it looks and feels believable enough, we really think (albiet wrongly, as you mention) that we might be able to do the same in real life!

I haven't driven in a proper rally, but I have decent experience in how a car reacts on dirt, been in some lowish speed drifts (I don't want to die), I understand how careful you really have to be - braking etc.

It's about "suspension of disbelief". Colin has suspension of desbelief, but its actually the suspension! HAW HAW! We always know Colin is inherently unrealistic. Kids want to believe they can really race an F1 car with two little thumb-sticks and it at least LOOKING and feeling possible to the kid.

This is why I think people want realism, even if we know its still just a game. I LIKE to get sucked into thinking I can really drive a yellowbird around the nurb without crashing!
 
Back