>Its just letting you know ahead of time, what type of game it is. I prefer
>this type of "arcade" racing. I do like Nascar 2 also, but I do prefer the
>arcade type racing better. I just don't have all day to sit around trying
>to configure every little aspect of a cars setup for a simulator type game.
>For me, it takes the fun out of the game.
I don't have anything against your preferences as I myself
like to drive "light" (CMR, Daytona2, NFS1) as well as "heavy" (GPL,
GP2, etc.). However, EA's claims could be considered false and
misleading were it not for the vagueness supplied by the quotation
marks.
What is "raceable" exactly? Does this mean that every driving
simulation prior to Nascar Revolution consisted of nothing but
hotlapping? Race against other DRIVERS? Then what mysterious force
has been blocking my Lotus from taking the lead in a GPL race? And
"'flight simulator' conventions"? Could this be a clever euphemism
for "physics"?
As I haven't had the pleasure of downloading the 30MB demo and
trying it out, I can't comment on the actual game. But whether it
turns out to be the greatest thing I've ever played or not, the
marketing angle EA has taken is a very poor one. Better to admit to
catering to arcade-oriented drivers than to snidely dump on the
accomplishments of Papyrus.
Martin
Nigel Mansell RIP!