Why aren't there many Vietnam War games?

[futurefields]

Ha, has there ever been one? I don't know if the comment was serious, but it's an interesting one. Probably someone tried it and found that climbing up out of the trench and getting shot to pieces immediately wasn't as fun as they thought it would be, and adding some variety in the form of being torn apart by shells or rendered a gasping hulk by mustard gas didn't help the play much.

Because we all know not a single soldier survived trench warfare...

 

[coffeejunkee]

The Bad Company expansion was pretty cool as well, but if memory serves didn't have choppers or planes, just tanks, boats and jeeps. I was super excited when it was announced, but the actual game was kind of a let down as I was hoping for more of what I was used to with BF Vietnam.

There was a chopper, but no planes (logical, no jets in BF BC series). But I agree, although fun at first it lost its attraction fairly quickly. Probably also has something to do with the reduced amount of weapons compared to what is available in modern times. Also, the maps were fairly open, not much of the jungle crawling that's usually associated with Vietnam war.

 

[shortylickens]

It's a distasteful conflict fueled by blatant BS from the White House resulting in troops who were just doing their duty being treated like scum when they came home during a time of national turmoil and ch ange. Nobody wants to play a game that's that distasteful I guess.

Yeah, we had one (Battlefield Vietnam) and it fared poorly.


I would like more WWI games, and maybe some Korean games.

 

[futurefields]

thought BF Vietnam was well received

 

[JamesV]

BF Vietnam was a great game; and imo the last good BF game, before the wide open maps became rat mazes. I absolutely loved being able to pick up things like tanks with helicopters via the chain... added so much strategy to be able to plop down a tank by air delivery. The only thing that sucked was the invincible helicopter circle-strafe.

While I would like to see another Vietnam game, I have no faith whatsoever that it would be a good game, because it would have unlocks, levels, and everyone would not be using the same equipment (which is my biggest gripe).

 

[Markbnj]

Because we all know not a single soldier survived trench warfare...

They tried that game mode, too. After everyone else was killed you ended up in an iron lung in a hospital ward in Paris, and had to solve puzzles to get out. I don't know why people didn't like it.

 

[Skott]

Everywhere I look, I only see modern era or futuristic games. Why aren't there anymore Vietnam War games? Also guys, can you please vote? Thanks if you guys do!

If you have to ask why then you shouldn't be posting questions here. I smell troll thread.

 

[StinkyPinky]

It also wouldn't sell as well. No one outside of the US cares about the Vietnam War.

A WW1 game could be interesting if done well. However the problem with WW1 is a lot of the modern weapons we take for granted in gameplay weren't really in use.

 

[TheSlamma]

Ha, has there ever been one? I don't know if the comment was serious, but it's an interesting one. Probably someone tried it and found that climbing up out of the trench and getting shot to pieces immediately wasn't as fun as they thought it would be, and adding some variety in the form of being torn apart by shells or rendered a gasping hulk by mustard gas didn't help the play much.

Toy Soldiers and Valiant hearts off the top of my head.

But I agree there is not enough WW1 games

 

[Anon_lawyer]

Vietnam doesn't have anywhere near the same public awareness as World War 2. Almost everyone knows the basic outlines of World War 2. And even if you don't the basic idea is pretty easy. Battle of Moscow: Germans trying to take Moscow etc. What's the most famous battle of Vietnam, the Tet offensive? What happened there? Well... it's actually a little complicated and most people don't know without looking it up. So it's a tougher sell.

Also lots of developers like to build their own fictional world. It gives them more freedom to tell their own story. Or add in zombies or some crazy plague or give you an excuse for a big battle in a place that one never happened. There are so many ideas to play with that aren't historical that a historical game needs a compelling something to get it made.

tldr: so many other things to make games about and many of them are more popular.

 

[escrow4]

Either that is sarcasm or you don't know much about WWII.

The Germans and Russians and Japs were not the only ones robbing and raping. The US wasn't some god given force that did no wrong.

 

[Sulaco]

That was the "Good" war! In which the US so didn't do anything naughty or kinky behind the lines fighting those evil Germans.

Actually where is the WW2 game where you play as a German?

Um, there are countless ones. What a silly question.

Any number of strategy and simulation games where you can control any side of the conflict, or specifically axis.
Just because these aren't big budget "Call of Duty" clones where you run around mindlessly in something Uwe Boll and Michael Bay would have worked together on doesn't make them any less relevant or real.

 

[pcgeek11]

That was the "Good" war! In which the US so didn't do anything naughty or kinky behind the lines fighting those evil Germans.

Actually where is the WW2 game where you play as a German?

Either that is sarcasm or you don't know much about WWII.

The Germans and Russians and Japs were not the only ones robbing and raping. The US wasn't some god given force that did no wrong.

I didn't say they did no wrong. You did.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why aren't there any good historic war games? To hell with the 20th century, I want to live through the Crusades, or the Gallic Wars, or Hannibal crossing the Alps, or the Persian Wars, or the conquests of Alexander the Great, or the Mongol invasions, or the Battle of Hastings, or whatever. Give me a sword and a horse and thousands of NPCs wildly hacking away at each other while I cut a swath of destruction through their ranks. Anything would be preferable to more mindless gray shooters.

 

[Gibsons]

I wonder why there is no WWI game....

Sitting in a trench for days doesn't sound like fun.

Seriously though, might be fun to be a sniper, or hose down an infantry charge with a maxim, do a stealthy night raid, etc.

 

[Ampersand38]

Arma 2 and 3 both have a few Vietnam war mods.

 

[Imp]

Vietcong was a pretty good game. The weapons were way too damn inaccurate at range though.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sitting in a trench for days doesn't sound like fun.

Seriously though, might be fun to be a sniper, or hose down an infantry charge with a maxim, do a stealthy night raid, etc.

if by stealthy night raid you mean blundering around in the dark listening to your friends get torn apart by mines, artillery, or walking into barbed wire as thick as your thumb, sure.

 

[Blitzvogel]

I think it's a combination of bad politics, sheer unpopularity with citizens, and the horrible experience servicemen got from being their and being received with unwelcoming arms when they came home

However, it's a good era for flight sims since there was so much intense air combat and so many classic fighters were used in the conflict. I hope Gaijin lifts the 1953 cut off date and starts including later 2nd and 3rd gen fighters

 

[HeXen]

How about another countries war game? Why do all modern war games have to have American's in a war? ......oh it's cause we're nibshits and are involved in everyones war.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

For the same reason their aren't more Desert Storm games. Only "youts" think anything that happened before they were born is ancient history.

 

[Skott]

How about another countries war game? Why do all modern war games have to have American's in a war? ......oh it's cause we're nibshits and are involved in everyones war.

From 1776 onward that is pretty true. Sadly.

 

[orbster556]

How about another countries war game? Why do all modern war games have to have American's in a war? ......oh it's cause we're nibshits and are involved in everyones war.

#SmartTake

 

[Craig234]

I think it's a combination of bad politics, sheer unpopularity with citizens, and the horrible experience servicemen got from being their and being received with unwelcoming arms when they came home

On the other hand, if your country does a 'wrong war' and your fellow citizens go and kill good people for no good reason other than 'the government told me to', there's a real question how much you celebrate that and praise it. There are issues of 'they didn't understand what they were doing was wrong', and our view and understanding of the war changed over time - Kerry first volunteered before becoming a leader of veterans opposing the war - but others who faced those moral issues chose not to kill.

It's becoming more and more accepted to condemn those who looked badly on people who chose to participate in the war, but they had a point also, following their morals.

It's easy to feel badly for the soldiers who sacrificed so much being treated poorly when they get back, but there are prices for moral disasters. It was awfully hard for all the Vietnamese killed for no good reason also. If a nation is going to stand for some moral standards, there are prices to pay when it falls short.

'So blame the leaders and not the grunts'. Except that the leaders can't do the wrongs without the 'grunts' who do the violence on their behalf.

Is there never a point at which the citizens should refuse to serve in a wrong war? And is it always required to praise the people who kill wrongly following those orders?

I'm for a pretty sympathetic view to young people who got caught up in the situation and went and killed. But part of opposing a wrong war is discouraging participating in it. And part of that discouragement can be the removal of that sort of 'your country all says it's just great that you did that killing', giving people less reason to do it, more reason to ask if it's wrong. Some people want it to be simple - just always praise all troops for everything all the time who followed orders. But is that really helpful in opposing wrong war?

It's hard enough for citizens to build an opposition movement to a wrong war against those who will blindly support it or who don't care about the wrongness.

 

[MongGrel]

Ha, has there ever been one? I don't know if the comment was serious, but it's an interesting one. Probably someone tried it and found that climbing up out of the trench and getting shot to pieces immediately wasn't as fun as they thought it would be, and adding some variety in the form of being torn apart by shells or rendered a gasping hulk by mustard gas didn't help the play much.

Probably not.

Other than air based things with Bi and Tri planes.