Viet- Goddamn! -Nam!

[Pyro Paul]

you won't see a very good rendition of a Vietnam War game because the Vietnam war was a political war above all else. and making political games is not a very lucritive move in the end. you always piss off the wrong people and bad publicity for games can be the death knell for a company.

 

[bad peanut]

Shellshock? I have no idea if its good but its a Vietnam game.. and Tunnel Rats.

Yeah I played Shellshock years ago and I thought it was pretty awsome, up till you went from grunt to Spec Ops then it kinda got shit for me. Still, a nice fun game. I thought it was quite immersive and it had a real nice "of the era" touch to it. I would recommend Shellshock if you want a good 'Nam game. BF Veitnam on the other hand was complete shit bollocks.

 

[Haro]

I think the time has come for Vietnam games. there was a weird period a few years back where a slew of them came out, but the only one that I really got into was Battlefield Vietnam. It introduced a lot of good gameplay, though in hindsight I didn't enjoy it as much as other BF games because it was taxing on my computer.

Now, we have the Crysis engine and the like, so it seems like the graphical portion of the game is easily covered. And of course, I think there could be some more innovative gameplay additions.

Most of all, however, I think the context of the whole conflict would make for a game, but in a different way than the utterly unstoppable patriotism of WWII in the US. The moral conflict of the war, along with how personal the accounts of Vietnam can be would really add a layer of depth to a first person shooter, which I honestly don't think I've ever seen. As long as it doesn't try to integrate story and combat like, say, medal of honor games or Call of Duty 3, I would go for this game. Less shooting lots of stuff and not giving a damn about the characters, more thrilling small-time firefights and meaningful storytelling.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Whether they can pull it off or not, I doubt any American game company will try to recreate an illegal war which they lost.

War is never illegal, just wrong depending on the cirumstances.

Why don't you look up Military law and then tell me the war was not illegal dumbass

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

 

[Vek]

Men of Valor, Shellshock, Purple Haze, Conflict: Vietnam, Vietcong, Vietcong 2, Shellshock 2, Vietnam War: Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Those are only the ones I can remember that haven't been mentioned.

There was a Platoon game back on NES. There've been plenty of Vietnam games.

 

[neuromasser]

Battlefield Vietnam was pretty good (IMO of course). I liked the different weapons and vehicles, and the music you can play while on the vehicles.

I agree and.... actually nothing more :/

 

[Flying-Emu]

There's no difference between Vietnam War games and World War games except for the timeline and the enemies.

So basically it boils down to whether or not you can stomach another war game.

You could easily play World at War and pretend it's Vietnam.

Instead of Japanese, they're Vietnamese.

Instead of Nazis, they're very, very confused Germans.

To be honest, I didn't realize that WaW was a WWII game until I randomly popped up in Russia.

 

[raemiel]

Because the majority of Vietnam was spent either slogging though the jungle, dodging hit and run attacks and not being able to fight back for political reasons, being forced to kill women and children being used as human shields, or being ordered to give up territory you lost half your men trying to capture. Try to make THAT into an entertaining game experience.

Don't forget committing atrocities and other such war-crime related activities and then turning your back on a whole country you've contaminated with dioxins.

There did seem to be a slew of Vietnam-based games a while ago, I have fond memories playing Battlefield Vietnam with a mate of mine - awesome soundtrack to boot!

 

[squid5580]

Shellshock? I have no idea if its good but its a Vietnam game.. and Tunnel Rats.

Shellshock 2 is Vietnam meets RE4. It is very average, quite short and has a terrible story. Although it did have a couple crap your pants moments, it has no multiplayer and some of the worst QTE's I have ever seen in a game.

 

[NoDamnNames]

I think they should make a realistic Vietnam game, where you play as a cunning VC who knows the terrain and sets up booby traps for bumbling motley American soldiers armed with inferior rifles and tactics, wearing on them psychological and physically them until they give up and pull out.

You know, like what actually happened.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

I'm praying for a Call of Duty: Vietnam made by Infinity Ward.

 

[Low Key]

I was just thinking this today. Why the HELL hasn't there been a Vietnam shooter?

Conflict: Vietnam for the PS2. Decent game, but Conflict: Global Terror was better.

 

[Fingerprint]

Whether they can pull it off or not, I doubt any American game company will try to recreate an illegal war which they lost.

War is never illegal, just wrong depending on the cirumstances.

Why don't you look up Military law and then tell me the war was not illegal dumbass

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

Yes but the American's weren't defending themselves. So the war was illegal. And because Vietnam didn't become a member of the U.N. until 1977 (two years after the end of the war) it was illegal for the Americans to go to war.

 

[Haliwali]

Whether they can pull it off or not, I doubt any American game company will try to recreate an illegal war which they lost.

War is never illegal, just wrong depending on the cirumstances.

Why don't you look up Military law and then tell me the war was not illegal dumbass

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

Yes but the American's weren't defending themselves. So the war was illegal. And because Vietnam didn't become a member of the U.N. until 1977 (two years after the end of the war) it was illegal for the Americans to go to war.

I believe the war was justified. We were protecting our interests (spread of communism) and helping our allies (South Vietnamese/French.) Besides, militarily we owned that war. However, much like today the press had a very anti-war slant, which caused a huge loss of public support.

 

[Fingerprint]

Whether they can pull it off or not, I doubt any American game company will try to recreate an illegal war which they lost.

War is never illegal, just wrong depending on the cirumstances.

Why don't you look up Military law and then tell me the war was not illegal dumbass

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

Yes but the American's weren't defending themselves. So the war was illegal. And because Vietnam didn't become a member of the U.N. until 1977 (two years after the end of the war) it was illegal for the Americans to go to war.

I believe the war was justified. We were protecting our interests (spread of communism) and helping our allies (South Vietnamese/French.) Besides, militarily we owned that war. However, much like today the press had a very anti-war slant, which caused a huge loss of public support.

I agree about the press and the military parts. Numerically speaking the U.S., Australians, French, A.R.V.N. did a much better job that the press let the public believe. However I can't agree with your justification. As I see it, America only went to war for two reasons:
1)They were backing the French armed forces in Vietnam in the early 50's and as the French lost the American government sent in troops to try to win the war on communism so that the American people wouldn't see what a massive waste of their money it had been.
2)The Domino Theory of Communism: first China, then Korea, then Vietnam, Laos, etc. was their idea of what might happen. In reality this theory would be pretty unlikely to happen and you can't go to war on based on assumption.

 

[Haliwali]

Whether they can pull it off or not, I doubt any American game company will try to recreate an illegal war which they lost.

War is never illegal, just wrong depending on the cirumstances.

Why don't you look up Military law and then tell me the war was not illegal dumbass

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

Yes but the American's weren't defending themselves. So the war was illegal. And because Vietnam didn't become a member of the U.N. until 1977 (two years after the end of the war) it was illegal for the Americans to go to war.

I believe the war was justified. We were protecting our interests (spread of communism) and helping our allies (South Vietnamese/French.) Besides, militarily we owned that war. However, much like today the press had a very anti-war slant, which caused a huge loss of public support.

I agree about the press and the military parts. Numerically speaking the U.S., Australians, French, A.R.V.N. did a much better job that the press let the public believe. However I can't agree with your justification. As I see it, America only went to war for two reasons:
1)They were backing the French armed forces in Vietnam in the early 50's and as the French lost the American government sent in troops to try to win the war on communism so that the American people wouldn't see what a massive waste of their money it had been.
2)The Domino Theory of Communism: first China, then Korea, then Vietnam, Laos, etc. was their idea of what might happen. In reality this theory would be pretty unlikely to happen and you can't go to war on based on assumption.

Well, the domino theory was sort of right, wasn't it?

 

[Shotgunbunny]

There's dozens of Nam shooters. Too bad they all suck ass.

 

[Pyro Paul]

oh...kay.
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Article 51.

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, nor for her allies to come to their aid.
NATO and the warsaw pact also exploit this loophole which is why countries subscribing to those charters can respond with agressive force with out having to consult the UN. although the need for as such has yet to occure. and even then it comes under the un-easy eye of the worlds nations.

Yes but the American's weren't defending themselves. So the war was illegal. And because Vietnam didn't become a member of the U.N. until 1977 (two years after the end of the war) it was illegal for the Americans to go to war.

okay...

lets say that again in a manner you can understand

it is not illegal for a nation to defend herself, NOR FOR HER ALLIES TO COME TO THEIR AID

South vietnam was an Ally to the US, being a democratic state.
there for it is not illegal for the US to come to the aid of their Ally in defence of the sovergnty of the nation. further more a nations sovergnty is not defined by weither or not it is acknowledged by the United Nations.


the United States went to the Aid of an ally.
hence why it is not an illegal war.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Better question why are there no fps on the Falklands War that would be alot more bloody interesting.

 

[Undeed]

WW games are big because that was the last time America was obviously the good guy. Vietnam wsa seriously ambiguous. There's no audience for a war game where you play the bad guys. That's actually why there's no game for any wayr: the wwar was too small or unpopular, and there's no percieved gain from making such a game.

snip

snip

snip

snip

If we wern't a member of the UN while we were in the war we can't be expected to follow their rules. And I know of no rule stating we'll only fight in self defense. It's expected, and kind of a promise, but not a law that I know of.

I think they should make a realistic Vietnam game, where you play as a cunning VC who knows the terrain and sets up booby traps for bumbling motley American soldiers armed with inferior rifles and tactics, wearing on them psychological and physically them until they give up and pull out.

You know, like what actually happened.

The US Government gave up and pulled out because the media got involved and the VC broke a truce. They have a holiday in Vietnam called Tet that's analougus to Christmas, and it was agreed that during these holidays we wouldn't fight. This meant it was a prime time for the media to do broadcasts and show everyone the heros abroad and whatnot. The VC launched an ambush, giving the American publis a thorough look at what war was, and the people decided they didn't like it. People, including notable celebrities of the time, started to rally against the war, and because the government felt incredibly pressured by the turning tide of public opinion they decided to withdraw.