This claim keeps coming up on the BBS and 200 chat. I frankly am getting tired of hearing it, and tired of the claimant's imperviousness to logic when its been discussed.
After posting a response buried deep in some other thread, I thought it might be worthwhile to get it more out in the open for general discussion. So, I'm reposting as a new thread....
Originally posted by Glasses
...snip...
Yeah and they know it'll remain the same,cus LW sucking =$$$$$
...snip...
This nonsense claim is driving me nuts.
Several LW proponents routinely claim that HTC deliberately porks LW because US customers wouldnt play if the LW were as "good as it was supposed to be."
That idea is 100% without basis in fact.
One. When I work with newbs, they often ask "whats the best plane?" Obviously there's no simple answer to that, but the implication is obvious: they want to know what plane gives them the best chance of success as a beginner. They dont care if I tell them the Soviet La-7 for speed, or the British Spit VIII for turning, the Japanese Nik for maneuverability+firepower, or the US P-51 for energy fighting. THEY JUST WANT WHAT WORKS, and they dont care about politics. HTC would lose no money if I they heard that the Fw-190D-9 was a good starting BnZ plane...newbs would just fly it (and gloat about their kills).
Two. Other VERY successful games have non- US uber weapons. Call of Duty's best gun is probably the MP-44, and the US BAR is heavy and slow. The Garand has less hitting power than it should. No one cares. CounterStrikes best guns are not US weapons. No one cares. Players want to succeed, and they want to learn each games' quirks on its own terms. Its not about nationalism playing a game, players just want to succeed.
Three. If anything, in the US market the WW2 German side carries a mystique that sells. For many years in the computer games press I remember reading that "nukes and Nazis" were slam dunk topics.
Panzer General introduced unit quality enhancement to computer wargames, and sold like proverbial hotcakes,
all from the german side. When they ported the idea to the allied side (
Pacific General), the game died -- because it was stale, not because of nationalism.
Steel Panthers succeeded even though it accurately modelled the overwhelming power of the 88mm AT gun, the power of the Tiger, and the wimpiness of allied armor. In general, being able to play the bad guy or underdog's side has a dark appeal, which is why (for example) many wished they could play the Alien side in
X-Com. I could go on and on, but the point is obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
You can criticize the modelling of the LW rides if you want, but leave out the "economic driven" slander. It's absolutely 100% illogical drivel.
If you still disagree, here's the challenge:
I've given multiple examples of games that succeeded despite haveing better German weapons. Show me an example of a well designed, well marketed game that failed BECAUSE OF a setup that favored the Germans.
