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

Karant

Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
606
You sure did miss out on a great game. In it's day, it was great. Far better than BF2 in my own opinion.
Undoubtedly, am actually looking forward to receiving my CPU in the mail so I can try this game again, as I haven't played it for a good two-years.
 

SAW

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,467
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.

So, why should what you say and or read be "the truth"? Or is it the "truth" they want you to know? The "truth" they teach you day after day, year after year for at least 21 years of your life.

But you are right about one thing. You can either accept the evidence or not accept it. Truth is what happened yesterday and today, not the day before or tomorrow.

Its common for history to be rewritten to suit the views and philosophies of others and just the same, its also common for "truths" to be hidden, forgotten......for the "good of the public". So, because this IS this case, we of the now will never know of the yesterday.
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
Its common for history to be rewritten to suit the views and philosophies of others and just the same, its also common for "truths" to be hidden, forgotten......for the "good of the public". So, because this IS this case, we of the now will never know of the yesterday.

Its common for everything to be rewritten to fit someones views. In todays age, information is distributed almost instantly. Its easy to see past most bias and most historians that are competent do enough research to weed through it.

Which is probably why the vietnam war won't be a full fleged game anytime soon. There is far too much bias that it will certainly touch off chords of emotion with people on either side of the debate same with wars like the persian gulf and persian gulf 2. same for why there won't be an Indian wars game. In issues such as these you polarize the enemy as some horrific war machine.

For WW2 it is easy to polarize the nazi regime because it was evil which is why it is such a common theme in games and why it will still be used, because lets face it. Killing nazi's is a great premise, add a hot female character and its better, make that hot female a sexy vampire and you got a kick ass game and another script for Uwe Bol to massacre.
 

gesicht

Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
865
i like WWII games because they are not so intense. sure you have machine guns but nothing like modern times.

i would like to see some new style of games. WWII is overdone as of 3 years ago. i dont think the WWII era has a lot of due with the success it is just the pace of the game. they are fun, more balanced and slightly slower pace.
 

BladeVenom

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
....: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.

The Battle of Plattsburgh, the Battle of the Thames, and the Battle of Baltimore were all American victories.
 

The_Law

Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
842
So, why should what you say and or read be "the truth"? Or is it the "truth" they want you to know? The "truth" they teach you day after day, year after year for at least 21 years of your life.

But you are right about one thing. You can either accept the evidence or not accept it. Truth is what happened yesterday and today, not the day before or tomorrow.

Its common for history to be rewritten to suit the views and philosophies of others and just the same, its also common for "truths" to be hidden, forgotten......for the "good of the public". So, because this IS this case, we of the now will never know of the yesterday.

Stay off acid.

Back OT: A Vietnam game would be tough. Like others have said, nobody won. It really was a war that we had no business being in. I do like the idea of a Vietnam-inspired game that takes place in a fictional war. With a fictional setting, it also gives the devs more freedom to add in stuff that otherwise wouldn't fit.
 

aFive

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
3,637
I'm actually thinking about buying this game, think theres still alot of people playing it?

I loved the game too. It was a bit buggy when I played it, so I really do not think there are a ton of folk left in it, if any...

Call Of Duty 4 is sort of fun, I prefer WW2 era games due to me liking the guns and the war itself in general, I really enjoyed COD1/UO.

A Vietnam game would be good, fighting in the jungles would be hella fun. I think that MOH:S had some interesting enviroments to it, they overdid it a bit though.
 

Azureth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
5,325
I'm curious, but do you think a nuke would've made the Vietcog surrender like Japan? Morality aside, would have using a nuke on them really won the war easily?
 

leSLIe

Fisting is Too Mainstream for Me
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
13,925
I'm curious, but do you think a nuke would've made the Vietcog surrender like Japan? Morality aside, would have using a nuke on them really won the war easily?

the problem nowadays in deploying nuclear weapons is the radiation that they left behind, so u target Vietnam, but then the wind carrying the radiation would've affected the surrounding countries. that's the problem. otherwise US would've bomb the hell outta Vietnam
 

squishy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
1,209
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

Battlegrounds.

FREEEEEDOM!!!

Best. Drunk. Game. Ever.
 

The_Law

Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
842
LOL Why would you say that?

Just joking with you. You just seemed a little paranoid in your last post and acid might just send you over the edge. :p

yes, something new, like WW3 !!! :eek: a war between the US, China, Europe and Russia. that would be nice :)

I actually think that would be kind of cool. It would give endless options as to scenery of battles (desert, mountains, forest, islands, cities...) and the story could go however the devs wanted it to. They could also take license with what weapons and vehicles to create.
 

krameriffic

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
3,214
Are you saying M.A.S.H wasn't popular? because I think the series finale to this day was the most watched anything in America, including the superbowl.

That is correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean that conflict would make for an interesting gameplay dynamic. People today love modern guns and they love WW2. Nobody brags about being a Korean War buff or a Vietnam aficionado, there was absolutely nothing about those wars that can be placed in a really positive light, with the possible exception of M.A.S.H. Unless they want to make their next game Call of Duty 5: Kent State Warfare, I don't see a Vietnam based game occurring.

I know! They can do Call of Duty: The Civil War! We can run around with muskets and bayonets, firing cannons at each other from cover and engaging in epic wooden galley battles!
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
The Battle of Plattsburgh, the Battle of the Thames, and the Battle of Baltimore were all American victories.

Land battles. We won most of the naval engagements. Thames isn't considered a standing engagement as the british were on retreat the whole time and left their indian raiders behind to fight the americans.
 

Luthorcrow

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2002
Messages
1,241
One simple reason, it wouldn't sell. Battlefield Vietnam was a trukey. Vietcong was a turk. Vietnam is pretty much a dead zone for good games.

Given the success of COD4, it would a safe beat that COD5 will still be modern combat.
 

leSLIe

Fisting is Too Mainstream for Me
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
13,925
CoD 5: Medieval Warfare

you're gonna play with swords, axes, shields and all that stuff. Just like Oblivion
 

LawGiver

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
2,060
because it killed more soldiers than the the worst plague ever did? i personally would like to see a Iran-Iraq war themed game. you know, the one started around 1980 to 1988. Complete with Saddam using chemical weapons and cut scenes showing Donald Rumsfeld selling chemicals weapons to Iraq. That would be great fun!
 

damonposey

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
2,320
Fighting in the flat desert is boring though. and fighting in buildings and streets in iraq will just look like more de_dust. bleh.

In vietnam you have diverse jungle environments, underground tunnels, small villages, and urban areas to pick from, making for a truly diverse and colorful gameplay experience. Call of duty: Vietnam. Buy it today!

and imagine a scene from COD:V where things are looking grim for your squad, and all of a sudden napalm roars across the jungle in true dx10 glory. with jets flying overhead. and part of your squad gets burned too. there are so many great moments in hollywood vietnam movies that would make for some great moments in a game.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,638
Becuase we lost. Also because in order for them to make it accurate they would have to throw in some women and children bombing you with grenades.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
Becuase we lost. Also because in order for them to make it accurate they would have to throw in some women and children bombing you with grenades.

And amped up/high US soldiers slaughtering villages because of expected VC presence or because they were to tweaked to realize what they were doing.
 

damonposey

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
2,320
nice! sign me up for 2 pre-orders on that one! an FPS game that actually is disturbing and doesn't hold back.
 

Chombo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
3,320
Fighting in the flat desert is boring though. and fighting in buildings and streets in iraq will just look like more de_dust. bleh.

In vietnam you have diverse jungle environments, underground tunnels, small villages, and urban areas to pick from, making for a truly diverse and colorful gameplay experience. Call of duty: Vietnam. Buy it today!

and imagine a scene from COD:V where things are looking grim for your squad, and all of a sudden napalm roars across the jungle in true dx10 glory. with jets flying overhead. and part of your squad gets burned too. there are so many great moments in hollywood vietnam movies that would make for some great moments in a game.

The one thing that I hate about Vietnam movies is that most of them never served in Vietnam. In fact only Stanley Kubrick did. Ironically Full Metal Jacket is really the only Vietnam film that doesn't show atrocities that Americans allegedly committed.

nice! sign me up for 2 pre-orders on that one! an FPS game that actually is disturbing and doesn't hold back.

Shellshock '67 or whatever was pretty disturbing.

I'm curious, but do you think a nuke would've made the Vietcog surrender like Japan? Morality aside, would have using a nuke on them really won the war easily?

No, because not even two nukes caused Japan to surrender. What would have worked is if we weren't scared of China we actually could have fought Vietnam to win it. Instead of allowing them to constantly retreat.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
and imagine a scene from COD:V where things are looking grim for your squad, and all of a sudden napalm roars across the jungle in true dx10 glory. with jets flying overhead. and part of your squad gets burned too. there are so many great moments in hollywood vietnam movies that would make for some great moments in a game.

Here in lies some of the problem; too many people confuse the 'Hollywood Vietnam' with the actual conflict. Hollywood tends to glamorize everything to an N'th degree to spin it in one direction or another.

"When War is waged the definition of right and wrong is written by the victor."
 

Volume

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
4,010
oops i meant to include this in my post. WW1 and korea were never popular among hollywood, or pop culture in general, so they wouldn't sell well. vietnam on the other hand. and i know i might sound like a douche to vets reading this, but i mean no disrespect, just stating the facts!

I think that with the Call of Duty name, it will sell without a problem.
 

WhiteGuardian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
421
The one thing that I hate about Vietnam movies is that most of them never served in Vietnam. In fact only Stanley Kubrick did. Ironically Full Metal Jacket is really the only Vietnam film that doesn't show atrocities that Americans allegedly committed.



Shellshock '67 or whatever was pretty disturbing.



No, because not even two nukes caused Japan to surrender. What would have worked is if we weren't scared of China we actually could have fought Vietnam to win it. Instead of allowing them to constantly retreat.

What the US was trying to do with the nukes was to get an unconditional surrender, which we never got.

Also, the US weren't "scared" of China. They had to play their cards right and not give too support because then both China and Russia would join in DIRECTLY to support the communist regimes, which probably would have led to a nuclear war.
 

Chombo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
3,320
What the US was trying to do with the nukes was to get an unconditional surrender, which we never got.

Also, the US weren't "scared" of China. They had to play their cards right and not give too support because then both China and Russia would join in DIRECTLY to support the communist regimes, which probably would have led to a nuclear war.

Thanks for agreeing:)
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
No, because not even two nukes caused Japan to surrender.

Just out of curiosity what did then? I know the Emperor wasn't going to surrender but his commanders were pretty adamant about surrendering.
 

CodeX

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
2,879
In all honesty I am pretty fucking sick of games based on historical wars... I play games to escape reality not relive some of the worst moments in our countries history... Whether we "win" or "lose" war is not something to glamorize, sometimes it is necessary but it should always be entered into reluctantly and prudently. I am not a tree hugging hippie, I know the importance of exercising our collective might to shape the world for the better (what we think is better, "better" is relative...) and to protect our own interests but basing games off of historical and sacred events in which real people suffered and died and sacrificed so much seems wrong to me. Killing in a game is make believe but when you try to model it as closely as possible to real events it devalues it. Enjoying killing German soldiers in a WWII game (and it is a game, so you are enjoying it, or why are you playing) seems wrong. Maybe I'm a lunatic, and I have played BF1942 and BF:Vietnam but it just seems like if people are going to make war games they should make them fictional with fictional armies fighting fictional battles
 

WhiteGuardian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
421
Just out of curiosity what did then? I know the Emperor wasn't going to surrender but his commanders were pretty adamant about surrendering.

Japan never really truly surrendered. The commanders were ready to surrender because they knew they couldn't win, but the people were so patriotic that many committed suicide along with their children rather than surrendering. If you go to Japan today, many people still won't admit that they surrendered, which is partly true, because when war was declared upon Japan, everyone agreed on an UNconditional surrender, the "surrender" turned out to be anything but.
 

Chombo

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
3,320
Japan never really truly surrendered. The commanders were ready to surrender because they knew they couldn't win, but the people were so patriotic that many committed suicide along with their children rather than surrendering. If you go to Japan today, many people still won't admit that they surrendered, which is partly true, because when war was declared upon Japan, everyone agreed on an UNconditional surrender, the "surrender" turned be be anything but.

Part of that was due to the fact that the emporer was considered to be somewhat of a deity. So the people would have slaughtered themselves to the last man if he asked. If I am not mistaken.
 
Top