> : Of course we woudl have, its the natural flow of things, i am just pissed
> : at papy for not developgin F1 racing, instead going back to a racing
> : series they already made
> : icr2 should have been f1r v1.0
> : Lets face it they are biased to hick racing.
> Let's see. . . Following this logic MP shouldn't be doing a follow up
> to their own F1 racing sim. . .
Yes they shoudl, becuase Formula 1 games are logn due for an update,
indycar WASNT if they focused on F1R V1.0 and then did an engine upgrade
for ICR after F1R i wouldnt mind.
Microprose held no license as i understood, in fact to avoid a license
they made upa bunch of team names, and driver names.
If they coudlnt due to licensing how do you explain the few sucky loser F1
games that came out AFTER F1GP?
Because then you see some REALLY heavy competition and the result is two
products better than either company would have done before they went head
tohead.
I would buy F1GP v2.0 but then, i am eurpean born, and raised, besides F1
is SOOOOO much cooler than indycars (i hate ovals for example)
But thats just me
Hehe no but it coud fittingly be called
rec.sport.autos.simulators.advocacy with the flames we see there
> --
> **************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=