Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

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.

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.

284 Comments

  • Jock9

    Posted Jun 22, 2010 7:02 am GMT

    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

    Posted May 24, 2010 10:11 am GMT

    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

    Posted May 6, 2010 9:42 am GMT

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

  • kima999

    Posted May 3, 2010 4:57 pm GMT

    @ 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

    Posted May 3, 2010 5:48 am GMT

    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

    Posted May 2, 2010 9:51 pm GMT

    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?

  • Smallville417

    Posted May 2, 2010 9:09 pm GMT

    I'm excited about it.

  • BallisstiXXX

    Posted May 2, 2010 7:58 pm GMT

    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

    Posted May 2, 2010 7:42 pm GMT

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

  • Mr_Manikin52

    Posted May 2, 2010 6:37 pm GMT

    April 30 was "The Fall of Saigon".

  • iiTs_TheReaper

    Posted May 2, 2010 11:57 am GMT

    this game will be obviously better than mw2

  • chedder221

    Posted May 1, 2010 7:22 pm GMT

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

  • ObiWan86

    Posted May 1, 2010 5:09 pm GMT

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

  • realguitarhero5

    Posted May 1, 2010 11:45 am GMT

    ...will be what mw2 should have been...

  • wwwlp

    Posted May 1, 2010 10:54 am GMT

    (:

  • dducanh123

    Posted May 1, 2010 10:24 am GMT

    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

    Posted May 1, 2010 5:21 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 11:49 pm GMT

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

  • amari24

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:07 pm GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 1:17 pm GMT

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

  • AjaxsLastStand

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 10:46 am GMT

    @ 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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 10:29 am GMT

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

  • wytefang

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 9:13 am GMT

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

  • 100proofsoco

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 8:55 am GMT

    Treyarch all day

  • Richmaester6907

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 8:42 am GMT

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

  • halomonkey1_3_5

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 7:35 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 7:34 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 7:10 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 7:09 am GMT

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

  • QuatrixJ posted Apr 30, 2010 6:47 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    QuatrixJ

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:47 am GMT (hide)

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

  • Pete5506

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:44 am GMT

    Also long as there is more zombie killing im happy

  • somestupidloser

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:27 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:25 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:20 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:19 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:12 am GMT

    @ 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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 6:09 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 5:16 am GMT

    Oh yeah, some moron made me so angry I forgot to post this:
    http://www.callofduty.com/blackops/
    Rumor has it, this is the real new COD.

  • Plaidboy1

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 5:13 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:26 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:18 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:14 am GMT

    @Jock9
    @Tytan82

    Thumbs down for ignorance.

  • richioso posted Apr 30, 2010 4:09 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    richioso

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:09 am GMT (hide)

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:05 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 4:01 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 3:34 am GMT

    @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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 3:23 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 3:20 am GMT

    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

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 2:57 am GMT

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

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!