Rumor: Next Call of Duty In 'Nam?

[XJ-0461]

Meh I'm stick of playing some damn Yank all the time, there where a lot of wars involving a lot of countries lets play as them for a change. Like how about being an African in the Border war or being in the Russian Civil war or the Rwandan civil war. I want some damn variety.

True, but you know how America is with it's wars.

 

[Dalisclock]

still think a game set in the korean war would be a breath of fresh air

They've got enough there to make it work. the defense of Pusan, the Incheon landings , Chosin Resevior. Korea was intense enough to make a good game with both defeats and victories enough to be dynamic.

Granted, it'll eventually end in a stalemate, so there won't be the feeling of ultimate victory.

 

[electric_warrior]

that could be awesome if infinity ward do it, think of the soundtrack!!

 

[m_jim]

Fuck Treyarch.

There are so many ways that they could make a game about the american vietnam war interesting, but they probably won't. All evidence so far points to them not having any imagination to speak of.

Have you played Nazi Zombies?

If I may interject:

Castle Wolfenstein.

I am talking about the gameplay mechanics, not the concept. IMHO, it's a better zombie game than Left 4 Dead.

 

[RebelRising]

"This isn't name, Smokey. There are rules."

Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to perhaps bring up the possibility that some video game companies are moving for elbow room in terms of subjects and themes. Certainly, developers need to think about what makes a profit, but I condider several games from the past year as indicators of people becoming more and more comfortable with events like the Vietnam War. It'd make for some very interesting gameplay. It's not archaic and overdone like World War II, but not as fresh in our memories and clean as modern warfare.

Vietnam was a counter-point in American military culture. Some might argue for the Korean War, but Vietnam is arguably the point from which war lost all its class and glory. A burgeoning media exposed the battlefield in ways that are commonplace in our times with stuff like Abu-Ghiraib and Chechens executing people, etc. I would endorse that they do this war, because they could provide a more mature look at the horrors of war than Treyarch.

But, you know, considering the trailer and everything, It's probably Modern Warfare, as in a direct sequel.

 

[Tehpwnsauce]

Like that's gonna happen.

Americans are never gonna make a game about a war they got so fucking owned in that they had to drop napalm at innocent people.

I read somewhere that at the height of the war it cost America $5000 for everyone person they killed, they were that pathetic.

 

[Ilosia]

Let's be fair to Treyarch, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

Aww come on Mr Funk, someone always trots out unit 731 when it's suggested that you can make World War 2 Japanese soldiers too evil. There were human beings among them too you know.
In WaW they may as well have come at you screaming "Blood for the Blood God!" at the top of their lungs while a pair of Defilers climb out of a pit to provide fire support.

I'd expect Treyarch to give a similarly well considered treatment to the NVA and Vietcong as well.

Sorry. While I do understand that they were certainly human beings, studying the Sino-Japanese conflict from the Chinese perspective - and learning about the particular brands of crazy that went on in the Japanese army of the time - really does not make them particularly endearing

Honestly, a lot of the things that they were shown doing in WaW is stuff that largely, they actually DID do.

And America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan without good reason and made a habit of fire-bombing residential districts. There is never a "Good" side in war and WW2 was no exception.

 

[John Funk]

"This isn't name, Smokey. There are rules."

Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to perhaps bring up the possibility that some video game companies are moving for elbow room in terms of subjects and themes. Certainly, developers need to think about what makes a profit, but I condider several games from the past year as indicators of people becoming more and more comfortable with events like the Vietnam War. It'd make for some very interesting gameplay. It's not archaic and overdone like World War II, but not as fresh in our memories and clean as modern warfare.

Vietnam was a counter-point in American military culture. Some might argue for the Korean War, but Vietnam is arguably the point from which war lost all its class and glory. A burgeoning media exposed the battlefield in ways that are commonplace in our times with stuff like Abu-Ghiraib and Chechens executing people, etc. I would endorse that they do this war, because they could provide a more mature look at the horrors of war than Treyarch.

But, you know, considering the trailer and everything, It's probably Modern Warfare, as in a direct sequel.

This would be the game AFTER Modern Warfare 2.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I stopped reading when I saw Treyarch.

It was like "After publicly announcing that Treyarch"-Shit!

 

[John Funk]

And America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan without good reason and made a habit of fire-bombing residential districts. There is never a "Good" side in war and WW2 was no exception.

It's true that there is no good side in war. But the atrocities committed by the Japanese - and the extent to which they ignore them to this day - are on a completely different level.

 

[bad rider]

Ahh I can see the post game lobbies:
"that was awesome when you swooped in with the helicopter and saved us."
"Damn that sounds awesome"
"You don't know what it was like man, you weren't there."

 

[RebelRising]

"This isn't name, Smokey. There are rules."

Now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to perhaps bring up the possibility that some video game companies are moving for elbow room in terms of subjects and themes. Certainly, developers need to think about what makes a profit, but I condider several games from the past year as indicators of people becoming more and more comfortable with events like the Vietnam War. It'd make for some very interesting gameplay. It's not archaic and overdone like World War II, but not as fresh in our memories and clean as modern warfare.

Vietnam was a counter-point in American military culture. Some might argue for the Korean War, but Vietnam is arguably the point from which war lost all its class and glory. A burgeoning media exposed the battlefield in ways that are commonplace in our times with stuff like Abu-Ghiraib and Chechens executing people, etc. I would endorse that they do this war, because they could provide a more mature look at the horrors of war than Treyarch.

But, you know, considering the trailer and everything, It's probably Modern Warfare, as in a direct sequel.

This would be the game AFTER Modern Warfare 2.

Oh, crap, this is Treyarch?! Never mind, they are going to mess that up, too.

 

[Kogarian]

I think this would make for an intersting game. Any war game based between WW2 and now, run by the CoD's recent engine, would look good. Doubt it'd come out well though.

Like that's gonna happen.

Americans are never gonna make a game about a war they got so fucking owned in that they had to drop napalm at innocent people.

Since when did a liberal, Western country's entire population decide to get together and choose what game their citizens can or can't make? Or are you just being difficult?

 

[Ilosia]

And America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan without good reason and made a habit of fire-bombing residential districts. There is never a "Good" side in war and WW2 was no exception.

It's true that there is no good side in war. But the atrocities committed by the Japanese - and the extent to which they ignore them to this day - are on a completely different level.

I don't remember most Americans accepting responsibility for causing two nuclear atrocities in close succession either, the only people who should be blamed and carry shame for such actions that have been committed are the people directly responsible for causing them to happen, the general populace is never directly guilty of these crimes.

 

[nova18]

Apocalypse Now the game.
Yes please.

I've been praying since COD4 that someone would make a Vietnam game using the COD4 engine. I'll probably buy it, get drunk, smash up a hotel room, cry, pop some acid, play through the single player whilst listening to the doors.

It cant fail.

 

[Arcyde]

I really hope so.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Damnit Treyarch, make a Mujahideen videogame.

 

[Liverandbacon]

And America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan without good reason and made a habit of fire-bombing residential districts. There is never a "Good" side in war and WW2 was no exception.

It's true that there is no good side in war. But the atrocities committed by the Japanese - and the extent to which they ignore them to this day - are on a completely different level.

Also, dropping the atomic bombs prevented the need for a full-scale invasion of Japan, which could have claimed just as many lives, if not more.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Like that's gonna happen.

Americans are never gonna make a game about a war they got so fucking owned in that they had to drop napalm at innocent people.

A war where we never lost a battle. The Americans were hardly owned, there was just no reason for fighting and the North Vietnamese used pungee pits and the like.

We were never defeated in open battle this is true, but that was irrelivant. We broke all of Sun Tzu's rules. Yes, I watched that special on the history channel. Very enlightening. Especially since we're doing the same goddamn thing right now.