Why haven't we seen more games based on the Vietnam War?
  • My opinion. Last gen consoles couldn't really render dense jungles and villages, flushed around bombed out urban villas. To all that say "The end of the game would be the Americans pulling out", the game doesn't have to center around the entire war.
  • BF:Vietnam fucking awesome! but trying to throw that on the next gen console could work if they did it right like cod4 copying BF2 itll be awesome
  • Good point. I do remember games like Platoon and Battlefield VietNam, but those games were never that great.

    It's an era much overlooked by history, the antics of WWII and the technology of the recent Desert Conflict (Modern War).

    I really don't have an answer. There are a lot of mysteries regarding that war also, like the many rumors of horrendous killings done by both sides (Imagine a Mission where you have to kill women and children; it's a simulation).

    It's only a theory. You can also ask a similar question regarding the Korean War.
  • Probably because of several reasons. It's a war where the US is considered to have lost (even though that's not entirely accurate). It was also not a very popular war, public outcry for stopping the war was enormous and many people saw returning vets as the villains, for the most part they not greeted with parades but rather with boos and our vets being spit on. Many times more unpopular that the current war in Iraq, or so it would seem.

    WWII had this evil regime that wanted to take over the world and eliminate those who weren't deemed fit to live, the "good guys" were a united front and there was little doubt that what they were doing was right. Vietnam was really a war to stop the "domino effect" of communism spreading. Of course, I wasn't even alive then nor am I a history guru.. these are just my impressions.

    Perhaps it just seems all other wars are looked over in favor of making yet another WWII game.. think of how many other wars have little or no focus on them. Vietnam, the Korean war (if it weren't for M.A.S.H, many wouldn't even have known this war went on), WW1, the Civil War, and a billion others that happened without US involvement.
  • Basically what Sirch said. The Vietnam War isn't as "sexy" as other wars. No Hitler's to go up against, no massive coalition of "the good guys." There was a lot more grey area. Personally, I think that could be made into a very interesting part of a war game, but I don't think that people want to touch it for those reasons. It's just not as marketable.
  • I see your point, but it's still a part of history, and if wars from the Civil War to present day conflicts have been emulated, the Vietnam war, without any political undertones should prove well. Besides, all the things that happened in Vietnam simply harden the fact that War is hell and bad, unavoidable things will happen. It was just the first war where the media had much coverage, and a lot of things were greatly exaggerated on both sides (claims from the army that we hadn't killed a single civilian in some points of the war, and claims from the media that embassy were being taken over by hostile forces when in reality that wasn't the case). If you were to read the first hand accounts of US Marines fighting on various Japanese-held Islands during World War 2, you would find that similar events occurred. In war, there are no good or bad guys. There are just soldiers fighting along side one another to fulfill the obligations of their commanders. Strategically, the war was a failure in the end, but again, if the game in question didn't serve to convey a political message, it would stand alone in emulating what it was truly like in the jungles and urban centres of Vietnam from the soldier's perspective.
  • Ready2Rumble said:
    [...] if the game in question didn't serve to convey a political message, it would stand alone in emulating what it was truly like in the jungles and urban centres of Vietnam from the soldier's perspective.


    Yeah, I would like to see it. I think the varied setting would be a refreshing change from all the WW II shooters out there.

    Ready2Rumble said:
    In war, there are no good or bad guys.


    This is off topic, but there are bad guys in war, and there are those who aren't nearly as bad.
  • For a period around 2002 there were a few FPS games about the Vietnam war which all seemed to come out around the same time, such as BF: Vietnam, Vietcong: Purple Haze, Line of Sight: Vietnam and Platoon. It was kind of like a miniaturised version of the recent fad for WWII shooters. It probably didn't take off for the reasons people said: the Vietnam war is a bit harder to sell as the issues it deals with are much less black and white than WWII.
  • Vietcong was a very good first person shooter at the time.

    I really don't have an answer. There are a lot of mysteries regarding that war also, like the many rumors of horrendous killings done by both sides (Imagine a Mission where you have to kill women and children; it's a simulation).

    There was a game that had exactly that aspect implemented, which caused a big outcry, because it was simply to violent and far away from actually being a game.


    t was also not a very popular war, public outcry for stopping the war was enormous and many people saw returning vets as the villains, for the most part they not greeted with parades but rather with boos and our vets being spit on. Many times more unpopular that the current war in Iraq, or so it would seem.

    According to a documentary on the Anti-War Opposition during the Vietnam War there has not been a single account of a vet being spat on. The documentary stated that it was mainly propaganda to discredit that opposition. In fact the vets werent the targeted at all. The leaders were blamed and frowned upon.
    The retreat of the US was partly caused by the bad morale of the troops. The opposition wasnt just back home but also in the army itself. In addition, drug consumption was quite substantial.

    Basically what Sirch said. The Vietnam War isn't as "sexy" as other wars. No Hitler's to go up against, no massive coalition of "the good guys." There was a lot more grey area. Personally, I think that could be made into a very interesting part of a war game, but I don't think that people want to touch it for those reasons. It's just not as marketable.

    WWII has also become somewhat of a classic. It has all the components you need, all in perfect balance. Infantry, tanks, Ships, Planes. A wide range of regions (and their terrain). Interesting war parties. Large scale. No super high tech which might spoil the immersiveness. As you say overall more "sexy".

    In war, there are no good or bad guys. There are just soldiers fighting along side one another to fulfill the obligations of their commanders.

    I really hope you dont believe that. The Germans were torn apart (not literally) for putting forward that argument in Nuremberg.
  • I'd love to play a Vietnam War game, but only if they made it less "ZOMG HYPER HEROIC" like WWII shooters, and tried to convey the feeling of dread that would go along with fighting in the Vietnam War.
  • Simply enough - The Vietnam war can't really be romanticized in the same way the Second World War can.
    The west used some absolutley horrendous tactics during the Vietnam war, ever hear about Agent Orange? Because the Viet Cong were using the Jungle to their advantage with guerilla warfare the army basically declared war on the trees, and dropped Agent Orange, a defoliant agent on the jungle basically to kill off all the trees.
    Agent Orange wasn't tested whatsoever, all they knew was that it killed foliage. and due to this caused terrible side effects. (Put Agent Orange into Google images and it'll show pictures of children born with no eyes / six legs etc.)

    Conditions were terrible for American soldiers too, 553,000 American soldiers died during the Vietnam war and countless more were injured or suffered terrible mental damage.

    I suppose they could make a game around Vietnam If it could be seen as thought provoking, like if you could see sympathy for both sides and the trauma involved, rather then the Americans and south Vietnamese being seen as super soldiers, slaying the puny viet cong. (*Cough* COD4 *Cough)
  • Simply enough - The Vietnam war can't really be romanticized in the same way the Second World War can.
    The west used some absolutley horrendous tactics during the Vietnam war, ever hear about Agent Orange? Because the Viet Cong were using the Jungle to their advantage with guerilla warfare the army basically declared war on the trees, and dropped Agent Orange - A defoliant agent, basically to kill of all the trees.
    Agent Orange wasn't tested whatsoever, other then that it killed foliage, and due to this caused terrible side effects. Put Agent Orange into Google images and it'll show pictures of children born with no eyes / six legs etc.

    Conditions were terrible for American soldiers too, 553,000 American soldiers died during the Vietnam war and countless more were injured or suffered terrible mental damage.

    I suppose they could make a game around Vietnam If it could be seen as thought provoking, like if you could see sympathy for both sides and the trauma involved, rather then the Americans and south Vietnamese being seen as super soldiers, slaying the puny viet cong. (*Cough* COD4 *Cough*)
  • FishFish said:
    Simply enough - The Vietnam war can't really be romanticized in the same way the Second World War can.
    The west used some absolutley horrendous tactics during the Vietnam war, ...


    I don't think that is the reason for it not being romanticized (as much), because the same could be said about the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki in ww2.
  • Jos Brink said:
    [quote=FishFish]Simply enough - The Vietnam war can't really be romanticized in the same way the Second World War can.
    The west used some absolutley horrendous tactics during the Vietnam war, ...


    I don't think that is the reason for it not being romanticized (as much), because the same could be said about the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki in ww2.[/quote]

    Which we have yet to see re-enacted in a videogame.
  • Maxim said:
    [quote=Jos Brink][quote=FishFish]Simply enough - The Vietnam war can't really be romanticized in the same way the Second World War can.
    The west used some absolutley horrendous tactics during the Vietnam war, ...


    I don't think that is the reason for it not being romanticized (as much), because the same could be said about the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki in ww2.[/quote]

    Which we have yet to see re-enacted in a videogame.[/quote]

    What a great game that would be. You play a hazmat guy who has to go through the radioactive hellish remains of one of 2 major Japanese cities directly following the bombing. In full 3-D!!!

    They'll be an option for parents to turn off the Flash Burned shadows on the walls, so it won't be to disturbing to the kiddies.

    :D

    -Ray
  • Because the US lost the war. Why the hell would you play a game if you KNOW that you would lose in the end? It's not even a twist ending, it's just "You lose, tough luck kiddo.".
  • because of what went on over there was depley disterbing napam and agent oringre and most of use would rather forget about it altho we realy cant afford to do that as it would be a massive disrespect for those who served

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week