[QUOTE="Artosa"][QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Vietnam is a bad bad bad setting. Add that this is Treyarch+Activision again and it's enough for me to pass on this game until it hits the bargain bin.Black_Knight_00why is it bad setting? there were many intense battles in vietnam, saying it is bad setting makes you look ignorant, and plus, there was quite a variety of weapons used in vietnam. While in WW2 the US army was fighting another military, in Nam they were basically fighting untrained civilians defending their homes and families. None of the rules of war applied, both sides did horrible things to prisoners and it was a long war of attrition with hits and retaliations. Entire villages were destroyed just to smoke out a few guerrilla members. As far a videogame morals go, while shooting nazis kinda makes me feel like I'm fighting the "bad guys", vietnam doesn't.
Yup, well I guess it's all a matter of perspective and WWII was arguably a bit more black and white, in the "good vs evil" sense, albeit if you were "liberated" by the Soviets you may have a different perspective on who the good guys were.
I've recently played and reviewed a swag fullof Vietnam based games ... there are certainly some good titles and the ones that I ranked in my top three pretty well capture the shades of grey that was the Vietnam conflict. Equally there are shades of grey in the recent Iraq invasion/liberation and the war in Afghanistan. Certainly your description of the Vietnam war is similar to what did happen and still happens in guerrila wars ... yes, there is no front line and it can be a fine line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter and what is "acceptable collaterall damage".
Anyway, enough moralising ... while one would like to see a new Vietnam game I'm pretty sure that the stories that need to be told have been in the games already available and we would basically be served up with same old Hollywoodised missions with the only"new things" being far better graphics and the need to stay online for DRM purposes.
I agree that we already have enough modern era (hypothetical) FPS titles available and indeed some companies do a better job than others in balancing narrative and fireworks. It is pretty much a case of Tom Clancyesque of Robert Ludlumesque views of modern war ... the nightly news certainly tells us its still gritty and ugly out there in our current real conflicts. I prefer historical, rather than hypothetical shooters, but some topics, even Vietnam, still resonate with many people in negative ways. Personally,I'd like to see a Falklands 1981 game, but only if told from both sides ... probably won't happen. I guess hypothetical games are less controversial, that isunless it's your country or race that is cast as the bad guys: China, Arabs, etc these days replacing the Reagan era Soviet bogeymen and those evil Nazis. Ooops, moralising again.
Log in to comment