Call of Duty: Vietnam 'confirmed,' debunked

[UPDATE] Silicon Valley blog VentureBeat claims to have learned title of suspected Treyarch installment in series, long rumored to be set in Southeast Asian conflict; Activision reveals title is actually Call of Duty: Black Ops.

[UPDATE] Early Friday morning, Activision launched the site for the next Call of Duty game…titled Call of Duty: Black Ops. Information from UK retailer GAME confirmed the title will be set "in locations such as Cuba, Vietnam, and the Arctic." The original article is below. [/UPDATE]

For over a year, rumors have circulated that Treyarch's installment in the Call of Duty series would be set during the Cold War, or the Vietnam War specifically. Today, Silicon Valley blog VentureBeat claims that the game's title will indeed be Call of Duty: Vietnam when it is revealed on SpikeTV late Friday night/Saturday morning.

35 years after the Vietnam War ended, Treyarch is reportedly taking Call of Duty back to the conflict.

The reported confirmation caps speculation that began in October 2008, when senior producer Noah Heller said the best seller World at War would be the Call of Duty set during World War II. Then, last May, a That Videogame Blog article cited a "reliable" source as saying Activision was looking to license Vietnam War-era tunes, as well as Cuban, African, and Soviet music for "Call of Duty 7." Call of Duty 7 had long been the name for the project used internally at Activision.

Though the article was quickly pulled, rumors have persisted that either Treyarch's first-person shooter or Sledgehammer Games' third-person adventure title would be set during the Vietnam War, which US Armed Forces were involved in from 1961 until 1973. Some noncombat troops remained in the country until it fell to the North Vietnamese in January 1975.

Given the Vietnam War's ignominious ending and lingering trauma from the conflict, previous games that used it as a subject were not Call of Duty-level hits. A wave of Vietnam-set titles was released from 2003 to 2005, including Line of Sight: Vietnam, Vietcong, Conflict: Vietnam, and ShellShock: Nam '67. The best reviewed of these, Electronic Arts' 2004 effort Battlefield Vietnam, sold over 500,000 units on the PC in the US, according to the NPD Group.

Written By

Want the latest news about Vietcong: Fist Alpha?

Vietcong: Fist Alpha

Vietcong: Fist Alpha

Discussion

287 comments
Jock9
Jock9

dducanh123 give over, war is not pretty. Duty is something that can only be attached to some theatres of war in WW2. I don't think it was to nuke Japan, or other crimes of war that occured after the Allies were victorious. The Vietnam War is like The 2nd Iraq War, a stain on not just the US but also the UK. Plus Modern Warfare 2, come on could you not see old stereotypes there with the Russians and such. Its a video game, so you really gonna burn it because it depicsts a timeline of your nation you ain't proud of? Join the club.

mrpuppy89
mrpuppy89

I asked myself if the game was about Vietnam, what would they give us the fear, killing, "duty", "sick"..... If that's true I think Vietnam side'll be the better choice.

Vishanseru9
Vishanseru9

I would rather want them to come up with more modern warfare!

kima999
kima999

@ lyricalsoldierb please don't brag about dropping nukes on other countries and laugh about it afterwards. Bombing civilians is one of the worst things that happens in wars.

syafiqjabar
syafiqjabar

All this war talk below... Dropping nukes on civs in Japan means the victory was a phyrric one, ultimately, by the standards of humanity.

tytheman16
tytheman16

Yeah it should be really tight I am excited to see the guns they choose. Also what the Arctic is all about? made up war?

BallisstiXXX
BallisstiXXX

Hm. Well as long as it is properly developed and has beta testing before release to have time to hammer out bugs, I'm in.

usmc031
usmc031

@ObiWan86 they will add dedicated servers on cod:bo and also coop and other features that was on cod 5

chedder221
chedder221

It said somewhere that it was going to be about the SWAT

ObiWan86
ObiWan86

this will be great or epic fail... hope they created dedicated server on cod:bo

dducanh123
dducanh123

I thinks this is a bad move of activision cuz from the first COD version this game let us experienced the feeling of duty,the justice as a allied soldier or an anti-terrorist soldier...so mention about VN war is not right...What is duty and just when U invade another country...Anyway even i'm a big fan of COD,i can not allow my self to play a game that turn against my own country...Sorry my english is bad...

steelmouth
steelmouth

i love war movies so i have a thing for war games as well so here is to hopping for an epic engaging cut throat graphics war game, i wish they make the player feel over whelmed over powered and like a tiny lil insignificant person in a massive battle ground and please enough with the "go destroy that missions" they always make me think am missing out on the real war, so put the player at the center of battle were the most important thing is survival and not missions and orders those should come second

guzzie482
guzzie482

@richioso i'm assuming you're from some european country, right? thumbs down for pretending like anyone was innocent in WWII...

lindseyiluvyou
lindseyiluvyou

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

amari24
amari24

This changes things ALOT and it will finally be a COD that will have something new to offer. The last war game I played that was in Vietnam was Conflict:Vietnam. That was a 3rd person shooter though; so it will be interesting to see something like that in a 1st person format. Im not really a fan of COD games or FPS games in general but this may be one Im going to get if the reviews turn out good.

Roger_Smith
Roger_Smith

Well AjaxsLastStand, you've proven that you know how to use wikipedia.

AjaxsLastStand
AjaxsLastStand

@ halomonkey1_3_5 Do you have ANY sense of history? The Russians needed the Western Front to divert troops, because they couldn't head toward Germany without it. Their manpower largely didn't count for anything until almost 1944. If not for North Africa, Italy, and then the Western Front, Russia would have never been able to break out. Stalingrad stopped the momentum for Germany in the East. Kursk, though, was what actually broke the German offensive. Still, even after Kursk, German soil hadn't been touched. And given when Kursk was (1943), which means Italy was already underway to further divert Germany's attention, your idea is totally wrecked. Get your facts right, buddy.

railroberto2007
railroberto2007

too bad they didnt let france burn ALL the way to the ground

wytefang
wytefang

Ugh, Treytarch's CoD games have been average at best, crappy at worst. Time to move on from this once-amazing franchise. Sigh.

Richmaester6907
Richmaester6907

It will sell on the call of duty name alone forget the setting lol

halomonkey1_3_5
halomonkey1_3_5

@plaidboy1 actually if the allies had lost the western front then modern day Germany would have been pushed back to where France is because the Russians had enough men that they could have just kept throwing themselves at Germany and gotten to Berlin(probably not as fast as they did but they still would have gotten there in a reasonable time frame) but as soon as the Russians got past Germany(into France and the surrounding nations) the Germans would have been far too entrenched to push out before Russia ran out of resources.

FanboyzAnnoyz
FanboyzAnnoyz

lol it would be cool if you could play as Captain MacMillan (when you played as Price in the flashbacks) more epic stealth missions ftw!!

Plaidboy1
Plaidboy1

@Ubersin I never said the US was the sole reason for the Allied victory in WWII. The Soviets made a huge contribution as did many other countries. In fact at very least 8 million Soviet soldiers died in that war and most likely that number is very low. My point being that if the US had not gotten involved there would not have been a Western front. As someone pointed out, the Germans made the mistake of fighting a war on 2 fronts. The Soviets pretty much just threw their men at the Germans with no regard for their lives. You can't win a war by sending your men to be slaughtered like sheep. In time, the Germans would have beaten them by using superior tactics and technology. Both countries were vital in the Allied victory.

mertonparka
mertonparka

Are they going to re-write history and allow the U.S to triumph over a bunch of farmers this time?

QuatrixJ
QuatrixJ

Zombies don't belong in war games. But multiplayer is for losers anyway.

Pete5506
Pete5506

Also long as there is more zombie killing im happy

somestupidloser
somestupidloser

By the way, guys. Russia had maybe a week's worth of involvement against Japan. Their only goal was to to gain a foothold on Asia... and they got it through Korea. The United States nuked Japan so that Russia would not be able to demand concessions from Japan beyond what they already took.

Ubersin
Ubersin

Here we go. Around 9 out of 10 Germans killed in WW2 were on the eastern front. But NO, We all owe America and America only. Patriotic turd. "You can't win a war like that" Yeah, I think the history books will tell a different story there. Numbers usually win.

StealthUS1
StealthUS1

@richioso You are a complete MORON! Yup that pretty much sums up our war with Japan, 2 nukes!!! WTH man. Do you know how many men the US lost invading every little piss ant island to come to that 2 nuke end. The Japanese campaign was some of the worst fighting ever for the marines on those islands. Read a History Book!

Ubersin
Ubersin

Plaidboy... The U.S helped, but you check how many Germans were killed by U.S soldiers, then check the Eastern front to see how many Germans were killed by Russians then come back to us. approx 75-80% of Germans were killed there ( excluding POW's ) The eastern front is considered by some to be the most brutal warzone in human history. Also, the U.S weren't the only ones fighting the Japanese. The war may of been won already, but Japan would certainly of taken a lot longer than a couple of months without the bombs, considering practically everyone on the Island would of fought any foreign incursion on their land. You talk as if it was and would of been some kind of cakewalk for the U.S. in the Pacific. Hoorah, lets win another one B.S. I hear everyday. @another_drew. I said the only game I've OWNED, I've played them all ( finished both MW's on hardest difficulty ) and other than a few gimmicks they all are nothing more than a slightly evolved medal of honour, which I've incidentally been playing since the first. So excuse me if I think their getting stale.

Soul_Revanous
Soul_Revanous

@ Plaidboy1: Why dont you think like that " if it weren't most of German soldiers died because of USSR army, US would had been lost WW2". Germany lost because they had to fight in 2 front. If there weren't USSR, do you think that US could had a chance against German and Japan ?

somestupidloser
somestupidloser

@richioso The last time I checked the history books, World War II was a victory. Just because other nations had a part in it doesn't change the fact that the United States was a pivotal part in the defeat of Germany. They helped create a second front, keeping the ever tenuous USSR from quitting the war. Sure, without Russia, the war with Germany would of been a stalemate, but without the United States, the USSR would of lost a hell of a lot more than a couple million people. Also, that Japan comment is absolutely ridiculous, Japan was on its last legs before we dropped the bomb on them. The decision to drop the nukes was purely made as a fear tactic against the Soviet Union... a flexing of military muscle, if you will.

Plaidboy1
Plaidboy1

@richioso Read a history book. If it weren't for the US all of Europe would be speaking German right now. The only reason Russia won any battles was because they were willing to lose 5 of their soldiers for every one German they killed. You can't win a war like that. Japan was beaten by the time we dropped the nukes. They just prevented the needless deaths of countless Americans and ended the war a few months early.

Eat_My_Shorts35
Eat_My_Shorts35

@richioso I'd love to see you become leader of whatever country you're from and have 2 nukes dropped on it and say "You think thats gonna stop us, you p*ssies!!!!" Any one above the mental capacity of someone with down syndrome can make that choice

lyricalsoldierb
lyricalsoldierb

@richioso let me guess....not from the united states huh? and yes....dropping two nukes does count as winning a war....especially if the war stops right after you drop em...hahaha.

richioso
richioso

@Jock9 @Tytan82 Thumbs down for ignorance.

richioso
richioso

@David_Kniffin "Vietnam is always a touchy subject for a lot of people because it's a war we didn't win. " I find that statement to be rather hilarious since the last war the US won was against itself, and before you start your yap about WWII look to the effect that Russia had on the German lines, and no! dropping 2 nukes on Japan does not count as winning a war. Good luck for Vietnam2 AKA Afghanistan. 1 quick tip though, if you want to eventually win a war again, stay out of other peoples countries and have another civil war.

mrzero1982pt2
mrzero1982pt2

seriously. dont get me wrong. infinity ward made call of duty. then when they joined activision they let treyarch make these games. treyarch was known for making the SPIDER MAN GAMES for gods sake. i am not saying any of their games are bad, heck, i own world at war(never beat it, got bored) but you have had a cod game every year almost. modern warfare, then after that world at war, a year after that modern warfare 2) i have 3 call of duty games on my cd shelf and it is like madden, or live, or nba 2k. it is an annual series and it is no longer intriguing series anymore. it has burned me out. i cant go and say "DUDE, A CALL OF DUTY GAME! SWEET" its now, you expect it, and for me, its like "another call of duty game? really?" actihell needs to stop for a few years. we know there will always be a game based on a historic moment in war, only thing we can imagine is this will end with the iraq war from the early 90s. call of duty: desert storm? i could live without it. i think personally, call of duty should calm down and GO AWAY for a few years. actihell needs to lay off already killing a dead franchise. ill wait till this game becomes a darn platinum hits game, or games on demand on xbox live. heck, world at war and modern warfare are slated for a release as a game on demand before the end of the year.

Jock9
Jock9

@Tytan82 True enough man, im happy with my 360 as it is and I just want to play games online. I've only JUST got my xbox live working again after 4 months, im on BC2 a lot.

Tytan82
Tytan82

@Jock9 Why would they NOT make this for 360? I mean, there is no game out now that would make me buy a PS3 either, and I doubt there ever will be....let the fanboy argument commence XD

Jock9
Jock9

Also I will angry as hell if they do not make this for 360, I am not gonna fork out more cash for a PS3 too.

Jock9
Jock9

I loved WaW, I enjoyed the basic mulitplayer to it and stats and ranking system. The Nazi Zombies was just a bonus which was good, but yes a Vietnam styled COD would be good, fast paced gunfights in tunnel systems and the jungles. Also if the guys from Modern Warfare, or at least a few of them come in on this project it would be beneficial for the franchise.

bluespire1
bluespire1

If they make it with the same team that developed C.O.D. World at War I'll give it a chance.