http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Military-Tank-Sim...#ht_2093wt_1163


does anyone know what this is

I actually had that long ago... a budget arcade tank game. Not no sim.

Yeah a crossover between WoT and Panzer Elite Action.A pure waste of money!!!

Just quoting from the box...:



Let me translate the Amazon product description:

We didn't have the time and talent to look into stupid details which you moron wouldn't understand anyways. It's got Tigers! And Shermans!
Rooooaaaawrrrrr! Boom! Tat-tat-tat-tat-tat! Pew! Pew!


It sucks so badly that we have to invent a description that isn't an outright lie but obfuscates the truth hopefully long enough that you click that "buy" button out of impulse. Remember the hopeless, salivating idiot in grammar school? The teachers said he was "special". Maybe that trick will work here too - let's try it!
Oh, and look! It's got Tigers! And Shermans!
Rooooaaaawrrrrr! Boom! Tat-tat-tat-tat-tat! Pew! Pew!


We mapped only three buttons to the game controller that even an amoeba could master this game. You can't do much that way, sure.
But look! It's got Tigers! And Shermans!
Rooooaaaawrrrrr! Boom! Tat-tat-tat-tat-tat! Pew! Pew!


"Virtually free" means "not really".
"Vast" is not a quantifiable statement and doesn't say anything about the quality either.

I feel like everything you just said is common practice for developers these days. Its not the quality of the game or features, but how you wordsmith the description.

To an extent, that's the job of PR & Sales people (I'm one of them, I should point out). And if maximization of sales figures was their sole aim, they probably delivered the best possible work. But it's also a true adage of advertisement that you can put as much lipstick on as you want, a pig is a pig, and that if the difference between how it's described in advertisement and how it's actually experienced by the customer can backfire real bad.
One of the problems is that computer games have usually a very short life cycle, and that computer game developers rarely have a brand name that is strong enough to create returning customers (not the least because there's usually two years between each title with a shelf life of only three to six months before it disappears from the public's mind and memory). You have returning customers for certain franchises of course, and there are exceptions to the rule like Valve or Blizzard who are well known by their work. These are (or were) however game developers who self-published their titles (and who were talented (or lucky) enough to build very strong titles completely from their own power).

With a C title that is never intended to sell at regular full price, but which enters the market at already half the normal price (or even less), it is clear that you invest only the bare minimum in its development, and spend nothing on advertisement except for the box design. It's clearly a lure for impulse buyers, the equivalent of a tourist trap that doesn't have to build a reputation at. It just depends on spontaneous walk-in customers, delivers enough service to evade the police being called in to shut down the scam - and that's it.

Military Tank Simulator looks like the worst current tank game out there - when things are made and marketed soulessly they seem to commit such gross cases of hypocrisy - its orwellian even - for a game to call itself a tank simulator as if its the definitive game to hold this title, it appears to not even offer in tank first person views, but is just 3rd person all the way with some lone tank blowing up stuff. Why not then Just go and play Desert Thunder for a "true experience" of the Gulf War!
appalling and offensive as such games just take people to be morons

The funny thing is the people who hawk this trash also have Steel Armor Blaze of War in their stable. Guess which game they officially support with a patch?