Why does Activision(Call of duty) avoid the vietnam war like the plague?

BladeVenom said:
We clearly won all the major battles. The war for the USA ended in January 27, 1973 with the Paris Peace Accords. Henry Kissinger even won a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the truce. We ended it with a draw. The South may have lost when the North Vietnamese came back almost two years later and took over, but we were no longer a combatant then.
Click to expand...

two years later?... they were evacuating people by helicopter onto ships, running out of room and throwing choppers off the ships to fit more ppl at the last second...

the north completely took over and the country is entirely communist to this day...

for me, this constitutes a loss
 
There is nothing about Vietnam that would make it more exciting than a current shooter.
 
Man, kudos to the people who ignored the posters trying to shove political rantings down everyone's throats. Really sours the whole conversation and gets people all worked up and flaming each other. Makes for a rather unpleasant read, imo - there are probably other forums with people who want to do that.

I still love BF1942 more than any other online FPS, and back when Vietnam came out, I didn't want to go to it because I just really thought it would ruin the charm. Then when BF2 came out, I figured I had no choice since the servers started drying up and the graphics were getting old.

As for COD, I think I'd be cool with a Vietnam game, but they would have quite a job to top COD4, which I honestly think so far has been the height of the FPS genre. Whatever it is, I really really really don't want it to be another WW2 game, which I think has been so overdone that it might be boring people to the point of being detrimental to our view of the history. It's just too much of the same WW2 settings over and over again, and so close to popular treatments in cinema and literature.

I do agree with Obi_Kwiet though - I don't think they are avoiding Vietnam at all. I just think they were into WW2 for a while, and now they changed it up. What they do next has just as good of a chance to be Vietnam as it does anything else.
 
I think Vietnam is too close to the moderen era to be worth messing with. Besides M16's without EOTech's and ACOG sights just aren't that interesting.

I prefer games set in the modern era. BF2 was one I really used to like, but since I got COD4 I haven't played it.
 
Dan_D said:
I think Vietnam is too close to the moderen era to be worth messing with. Besides M16's without EOTech's and ACOG sights just aren't that interesting.

I prefer games set in the modern era. BF2 was one I really used to like, but since I got COD4 I haven't played it.
Click to expand...

No nightvision either!:(
 
I want to see a really good, tactical trench warfare game where every shot counts. Even a civil or revolutionary war game would be good.
 
I agree! Something different like that would be awesome and would most likely force some innovative gameplay features to make sense.
 
simon741 said:
I want to see a really good, tactical trench warfare game where every shot counts. Even a civil or revolutionary war game would be good.
Click to expand...

A tactical game with muskets? I can't even to imagine how frustrating that would be. Your shots don't go where you aim. Reloads take 30 seconds. Etc...
 
lopoetve said:
because vietnam isn't a "good" war. Korea would be better.
Click to expand...

and technically it wasn't a 'war' most history books refer to it as the Vietnam Conflict; technically.

Dan_D said:
I think Vietnam is too close to the moderen era to be worth messing with. Besides M16's without EOTech's and ACOG sights just aren't that interesting.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this; if I remember correctly EA caught a lot of flak after or during the publishing of BF: V. That one hits a bit to 'close to home' as it were based on what it did to the people that were still stateside, (never went to war,) and what it did to those that survived and came home to a less than war welcome.

It's the same reason why you see very few FPS 'war' games take place on US soil, people, (US citizens), don't like to think that things like that can hit that close to home. For some reason other game types, (RTS etc...) can more easily get away with this because it's not as personal on some levels.
 
FallenMystic said:
It's the same reason why you see very few FPS 'war' games take place on US soil, people, (US citizens), don't like to think that things like that can hit that close to home. For some reason other game types, (RTS etc...) can more easily get away with this because it's not as personal on some levels.
Click to expand...

Historically there just haven't been that many interesting campaigns or battles on US soil. The only one even remotely intriguing is Attu island. Do you really want to play The War of 1812?
 
Yeah I don't need anymore games based on specific wars. Some of the best FPS's weren't based on specific wars, probably why they were so good and did so well. Counter Strike anyone? Quake? Team Fortress? Do I have to come up with a list? :)
 
counter strike is the war on terror :p

how about something completely different for the next call of duty: the war on drugs! navigate through fields of marijuana and kill the evil farmers
 
Viper87227 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

I thought it was confirmed, but it seems to be a pretty strong rumor based on a job posting for Treyarch, looking for people skilled in FPS's and a fan of WW2.

I've also heard the game will be set in the Pacific.

It was all on Kotaku / Joystiq / a few other sites.
 
Chombo said:
A tactical game with muskets? I can't even to imagine how frustrating that would be. Your shots don't go where you aim. Reloads take 30 seconds. Etc...
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD, you are talking about that one steam mod! Its amazing! I forget what it is called, you get a musket with a bayonet on the end, sometimes a knife, and maybe a sword. It is so damn frustrating, all you do is run around reloading and missing! hahhah
 
Roufuss said:
I thought it was confirmed, but it seems to be a pretty strong rumor based on a job posting for Treyarch, looking for people skilled in FPS's and a fan of WW2.

I've also heard the game will be set in the Pacific.

It was all on Kotaku / Joystiq / a few other sites.
Click to expand...

Well, I may be on my own here, but I thought Treyarch did a decent job with COD3. Not as groundbreaking as COD2 or COD4, but they did well enough. If COD5 were back to WWII, in the pacific, I would absolutely buy it. And, in a way, Treyarch working on it is a good thing. This leaves IW open to work on a successor to COD4.
 
J-Mag said:
Historically there just haven't been that many interesting campaigns or battles on US soil. The only one even remotely intriguing is Attu island. Do you really want to play The War of 1812?
Click to expand...

True enough, but there's nothing saying it has to be a real war, fictional wars have the ability to sell, (as long as its well made). ;)
 
Why would you want to play a game where you can only lose.

Really though, some people call Vietnam a 'tie', I think most would agree it was a miserable loss fort the US. Best to leave it to the history books, and never mention it again.

I want to see someone make a War of 1812 remake, where you have Toronto Canada going up against New York US again. Bring out the muskets and the old coal based naval vessels again.
 
Chombo said:
A tactical game with muskets? I can't even to imagine how frustrating that would be. Your shots don't go where you aim. Reloads take 30 seconds. Etc...
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between the firearms of the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. The Revolutionary war was fought with muskets, but the Civil War wasn't. The most common Civil War rifles were kind of slow to load, but there were also plenty of more modern guns with breech loaders, lever actions, metallic cartridges, and revolvers that could sustain a much higher rate of fire. Rifles like the Sharps were noted for their accuracy. While not used much, the Civil War also had the first machine gun, the Gatling Gun.

A Civil War setting would allow a good range of gun upgrades, which is always popular in shooters.
 
BladeVenom said:
A Civil War setting would allow a good range of gun upgrades, which is always popular in shooters.
Click to expand...

yeah, but the fact that you would only be able to shoot, like 3 times per minute, (if u are a good shooter) with one of those muskets, makes a Civil War FPS, very unappealing. Besides the Civil War history is rather unknown for non American players
 
Breech laoders, revolvers, and lever action guns offer a high enough rate of fire for a tactical game. Just keep the rifled musket use to a minimum or mostly for bots.

Civil War rifles were more accurate and powerful than the guns in GoW.
 
There's a reason no one doing games about the Chechnya War, or the Six Day conflict between Israel and Palestine, or Japanese takeover of Manchuria. They are too controversial, or maybe the sides are too similar, or maybe there are no clear bad and good guys.

With WW2, its easy. There were the good guys, the US and the British (well, sometimes they care to remember that the Soviets were somewhere there too, but honestly, who cares about them commies), and the bad guys, the evil, violent Nazi's. Everyone knows Nazi's were bad, so they go with it and they have no moral qualms about slaughtering thousands of them.

Now Vietnam war is too controversial to begin with. Who were the bad guys? Why did America join the war? Who won? Who lost? etc etc etc Plus, there are many living Vietnam vets who wouldn't take to the game too kindly if it swayed anywhere from "Amerika [sic] pwned" POV.

leSLIe said:
yeah, but the fact that you would only be able to shoot, like 3 times per minute, (if u are a good shooter) with one of those muskets, makes a Civil War FPS, very unappealing. Besides the Civil War history is rather unknown for non American players
Click to expand...

Which is why no one outside of US will buy it.
 
Well, many of the 'nazis' fighting for germany were just young men that were forced to fight like americans, that didn't have any strong political backbone that drove them to fight. many of them just wanted to survive to get home to their families. not every german soldier was a an evil jew-hating satan worshipper.

The vietcong seem more villainous to me. They would torture our troops, set up really nasty spike traps that were meant to maim, strap bombs onto themselves and blow themselves up. I personally have more fun killing VC than germans, but thats just me.
 
damonposey said:
Well, many of the 'nazis' fighting for germany were just young men that were forced to fight like americans, that didn't have any strong political backbone that drove them to fight. many of them just wanted to survive to get home to their families. not every german soldier was a an evil jew-hating satan worshipper.
Click to expand...

indeed, most of them just did what they were told to, i know that oh too well.:(

damonposey said:
The vietcong seem more villainous to me. They would torture our troops, set up really nasty spike traps that were meant to maim, strap bombs onto themselves and blow themselves up. I personally have more fun killing VC than germans, but thats just me.
Click to expand...

yeah the Victor Charlie seemed vicious to me, but it payed off, they've won the war. Punji traps FTW !!!
 
As long as Activision makes it realistic 'nam game. If I can experience Angent Orange, come back to the US and go postal with no chance for a job...I will be buying it!
 
J-Mag said:
Yeah, I wouldn't mind a "Red Dawn" survival/rebellion type FPS.
Click to expand...

Extra points for that reference.

Maybe they can even get Charlie Sheen to do voice acting. Although that was pretty much what Freedom Fighters was...
 
simon741 said:
I want to see a really good, tactical trench warfare game where every shot counts. Even a civil or revolutionary war game would be good.
Click to expand...

J-Mag said:
Historically there just haven't been that many interesting campaigns or battles on US soil. The only one even remotely intriguing is Attu island. Do you really want to play The War of 1812?
Click to expand...

You guys should try out Battlefield: Pirates, they do muskets right and it's a really fun game.

I wouldn't mind another Vietnam game as long as I can air drop tanks on to snipers heads. And the loud speaker propaganda!!!... "your planes fall from the sky like broken birds"!
 
ZenOps said:
Why would you want to play a game where you can only lose.

Really though, some people call Vietnam a 'tie', I think most would agree it was a miserable loss fort the US. Best to leave it to the history books, and never mention it again.

I want to see someone make a War of 1812 remake, where you have Toronto Canada going up against New York US again. Bring out the muskets and the old coal based naval vessels again.
Click to expand...

....:confused:

You are aware we lost every single land battle in the war of 1812? The only battle we won, technically occured two weeks after the peace treaty was signed, when Andrew Jackson annilated the British in New Orleans.

Just thought I would toss that out there since you're not a fan of wars we lost.
 
Climber said:
....:confused:

You are aware we lost every single land battle in the war of 1812? The only battle we won, technically occured two weeks after the peace treaty was signed, when Andrew Jackson annilated the British in New Orleans.

Just thought I would toss that out there since you're not a fan of wars we lost.
Click to expand...

The problem with History, esp 100yr+ history is that anything could have been written down as "what happened" but no one will ever know for certain of ANYthing.
 
SAW said:
The problem with History, esp 100yr+ history is that anything could have been written down as "what happened" but no one will ever know for certain of ANYthing.
Click to expand...

That's why you read primary sources.
 
SAW said:
The problem with History, esp 100yr+ history is that anything could have been written down as "what happened" but no one will ever know for certain of ANYthing.
Click to expand...

Like Eb said, primary sources are the best place to go. Oh but wait, those are probably not trustworthy, so then what to do?? Guess we can just stop studying history since its worthless and biased anyways.

That is perhaps the biggest and trite story I hear all the time. It has about as much truth in it as Tom's hardware has good reviews.

The fact is, history is fairly easy to judge and and present the evidence. The more sources available the more easy it is to paint a picture, especially military history. Now whether or not one chooses to accept the evidence as evidence, then well, move on to the next step which is generally archeology, and so on and so forth.

But int he case of the War of 1812 we have more then enough evidence to stand any sort of rebuttal. We have the date the treaty was signed, we have the date the british ships set sail, we have the date Andrew Jackson set up base outside of New Orleans (from the letters to his wife, as well as letters from many of the soldiers), and so on and so forth. So your point is moot anyways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top