Why no Vietnam Games? theres so much potential

just imagine what the graphics of a ps3 or any next gen system. the foliage could look real, ai could be smart if effort is put into it. just because the most recent vietnam games were epic fails, doesnt mean the iidea should be abandoned.

just imagine what the graphics of a ps3 or any next gen system. the foliage could look real, ai could be smart if effort is put into it. just because the most recent vietnam games were epic fails, doesnt mean the iidea should be abandoned.

jerkface96

Well the game is called Call of Duty:World at War and it's based on the vietnam war,so there you go...danciu

[QUOTE="danciu"]Well the game is called Call of Duty:World at War and it's based on the vietnam war,so there you go...BenderUnit22

where you can destroy the trees and burn stuff up:Pdeleny

They wont make it because the VW was a war the US sort of lost. They were suffering too many deaths and had to pull out. A very pointless war.

[QUOTE="deleny"]where you can destroy the trees and burn stuff up:PSonyMarksman70

They wont make it because the VW was a war the US sort of lost. They were suffering too many deaths and had to pull out. A very pointless war.

Ninten007

It had nothing to do with the deaths... the biggest problem with the Vietnam War was the politicians. Before Vietnam, war was left to generals. Around Vietnam, politicians thought they knew better. With the end results of that war and the needlessly complicated occupation of Iraq, we can see how this model is going.

REASONS YOU DON'T SEE VIETNAM WAR GAMES:
1) The Vietnam War wasn't organized as World War II was... sure there were offensives and key battles and such, but the VC mostly used hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. That sort of combat doesn't really mesh well with the run-and-gun mentality behind most FPS games... though a Rainbow Six-type stealth action game in Vietnam would be alright I guess.
2) There's a lot of Vietnam Vets still out there, and the war is often a sore spot for them, particularly because...
3) Vietnam wasn't the most popular war in American history... a lot of people disagree with why we were over there and such, and I think that sort of sensitivity may sway some people against buying into a game like this. I think this is one of the major factors behind there not being many Iraq War games.

Anyway, I'd like to see games really take chances with the venues they choose. If we're going to pick recent conflicts, let's pick more interesting locales... like all those missions we were doing during the Cold War, or just abandon the US military all together and give us a game based on these conflicts going on in Africa or all that craziness that went on in South America as I was growing up. Let's expand our horizons a little.

Cause america got its butt whooped in vietnam and no one wants to play a game where their country gets pwned

I don't think that the sensitivity of existing Vietnam veterans will affect the outcome of a game. If we do the numbers, most Vietnam veterans are around 50 years old already and either their children are old enough to buy games for themselves or these Vetereans have grandchildren too young to play video games. There is a very interested Poll going on in EA games about bringing back BATTLEFIELD VIETNAM for PS3/Xbox360. Its a request to EA games to do a similar translation of what they did for Battlefield 1943 for consoles. , .......................... POLL is here >>> http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/272516.page OX1DUS

They wont make it because the VW was a war the US sort of lost. They were suffering too many deaths and had to pull out. A very pointless war.

Ninten007

It's because the US lost that war, and they don't like bringing it up. There is no conclusion that makes sense for the game from their point of view because they LOST. Nobody wants to play a game where the war is lost at the end... except me. I'd love to see more nam games, Battlefield Vietnam was one of my favorite multiplayer games.

^Same here. Loved BF Vietnam and i love the music in that period toogollum007

yeah that game had such a bomb soundtrack, I have it on my computer.

Well the game is called Call of Duty:World at War and it's based on the vietnam war,so there you go...danciu

this statement = fail

also, what about the Korean War? maybe there not making one because so many people died in such a little time

That is not the issue, they will, when they will. Other wars besides WW2 and modern stuff won't be ignored all the time. Since they already did Vietnam, they might go for it again(BF team).

Because "super christian good guy america" didn't "win".

So they "pick and choose" what to sweep under the rug. That's why it was a "sensitive issue" for so long. Always "don't talk about Vietnam. Don't touch on the subject publicly!"

Such as this "Iraq war" will probably end up the same way.

Because "super christian good guy america" didn't "win".

So they "pick and choose" what to sweep under the rug. That's why it was a "sensitive issue" for so long. Always "don't talk about Vietnam. Don't touch on the subject publicly!"

Such as this "Iraq war" will probably end up the same way.

Denji

I hear the next Call of Duty game Treyarch produces will be set in Vietname and not World War 2 (thank the lord).

[QUOTE="Denji"]

Because "super christian good guy america" didn't "win".

So they "pick and choose" what to sweep under the rug. That's why it was a "sensitive issue" for so long. Always "don't talk about Vietnam. Don't touch on the subject publicly!"

Such as this "Iraq war" will probably end up the same way.

ryokinshin6x3

What success? Not to mention, just one game? Compared to the millions of WW2 games? Or "alternative" war games?

You're going to "counter" my arguement with one generally forgotten game?

Besides, my statement is about an issue on a much more grand scale. Something you obviously don't understand.

[QUOTE="ryokinshin6x3"][QUOTE="Denji"]

Because "super christian good guy america" didn't "win".

So they "pick and choose" what to sweep under the rug. That's why it was a "sensitive issue" for so long. Always "don't talk about Vietnam. Don't touch on the subject publicly!"

Such as this "Iraq war" will probably end up the same way.

Denji

What success? Not to mention, just one game? Compared to the millions of WW2 games? Or "alternative" war games?

You're going to "counter" my arguement with one generally forgotten game?

Besides, my statement is about an issue on a much more grand scale. Something you obviously don't understand.

I fully agree with you man, that IS why. I like being part of Canada, we don't lose wars just tag along and help win the ones that are WORTH FIGHTING. And the world doesn't hate us when we do.

Cause america got its butt whooped in vietnam and no one wants to play a game where their country gets pwned

xxgunslingerxx

no, we pulled out, we caused just as much damage to them as they did to us, only we didn't want to lose our youth fighting someone elses war.

communism was a stupid idea anyways.

[QUOTE="xxgunslingerxx"]

Cause america got its butt whooped in vietnam and no one wants to play a game where their country gets pwned

Cody13_2012

no, we pulled out, we caused just as much damage to them as they did to us, only we didn't want to lose our youth fighting someone elses war.

communism was a stupid idea anyways.

No, America lost. Horribly. They were pushed out of Vietnam. They made a bad call and they paid for it. Plain and simple.

[QUOTE="Denji"]

[QUOTE="ryokinshin6x3"] Obviously then this applies to BF Vietnam and it's success....... So fail.SmokinDankNugz

What success? Not to mention, just one game? Compared to the millions of WW2 games? Or "alternative" war games?

You're going to "counter" my arguement with one generally forgotten game?

Besides, my statement is about an issue on a much more grand scale. Something you obviously don't understand.

I fully agree with you man, that IS why. I like being part of Canada, we don't lose wars just tag along and help win the ones that are WORTH FIGHTING. And the world doesn't hate us when we do.

Actually, WW2 was the only recent war with a real threat and objective. If Hitler had full control of the United Kingdom, there was no doubt that we (North America) were next and he actually had the means to do so.

I made this point a few weeks ago in another forum about war games. What about the Korean War as well? Something different is a ll I ask. A vietnam game would be almost limitless. Especially with all the story lines involved.

I made this point a few weeks ago in another forum about war games. What about the Korean War as well? Something different is a ll I ask. A vietnam game would be almost limitless. Especially with all the story lines involved.

techzilla77

To be honest, when it comes to war games? I want a World War 1 game for a change!

also mgs3 is vietnam right?

REASONS YOU DON'T SEE VIETNAM WAR GAMES:
1) The Vietnam War wasn't organized as World War II was... sure there were offensives and key battles and such, but the VC mostly used hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. That sort of combat doesn't really mesh well with the run-and-gun mentality behind most FPS games... though a Rainbow Six-type stealth action game in Vietnam would be alright I guess.

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

They wont make it because the VW was a war the US sort of lost. They were suffering too many deaths and had to pull out. A very pointless war.

Generic_Dude

It had nothing to do with the deaths... the biggest problem with the Vietnam War was the politicians. Before Vietnam, war was left to generals. Around Vietnam, politicians thought they knew better. With the end results of that war and the needlessly complicated occupation of Iraq, we can see how this model is going.

REASONS YOU DON'T SEE VIETNAM WAR GAMES:
1) The Vietnam War wasn't organized as World War II was... sure there were offensives and key battles and such, but the VC mostly used hit-and-run guerrilla tactics. That sort of combat doesn't really mesh well with the run-and-gun mentality behind most FPS games... though a Rainbow Six-type stealth action game in Vietnam would be alright I guess.
2) There's a lot of Vietnam Vets still out there, and the war is often a sore spot for them, particularly because...
3) Vietnam wasn't the most popular war in American history... a lot of people disagree with why we were over there and such, and I think that sort of sensitivity may sway some people against buying into a game like this. I think this is one of the major factors behind there not being many Iraq War games.

Anyway, I'd like to see games really take chances with the venues they choose. If we're going to pick recent conflicts, let's pick more interesting locales... like all those missions we were doing during the Cold War, or just abandon the US military all together and give us a game based on these conflicts going on in Africa or all that craziness that went on in South America as I was growing up. Let's expand our horizons a little.

[QUOTE="techzilla77"]

I made this point a few weeks ago in another forum about war games. What about the Korean War as well? Something different is a ll I ask. A vietnam game would be almost limitless. Especially with all the story lines involved.

Denji

To be honest, when it comes to war games? I want a World War 1 game for a change!

Because "the good side" lost

Shellshock 2 is set in vietnam (and it has a zombie twist). Not that good though.

i think we should make up wars cause well ours are kind of boring now adays sorry to say for gameplay....id like a futuristic battle on pluto or somehing

Well the game is called Call of Duty:World at War and it's based on the vietnam war,so there you go... danciu

just imagine what the graphics of a ps3 or any next gen system. the foliage could look real, ai could be smart if effort is put into it. just because the most recent vietnam games were epic fails, doesnt mean the iidea should be abandoned.

jerkface96

The next CoD ( after Modern Warfare 2) is supposed to be set in Vietnam.