Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Vietnam-Based Shooters - A Suitable Topic? 159

Posted by simoniker from the enjoyment-and-loss dept.
Thanks to GamePro for their 'Pro Vs. Pro' feature focusing on Vietnam-based combat games are justified in their choice of setting. Opinions vary from: "I can't say that I can ever look on Vietnam games as being in good taste", through: "..if it's handled with respect, not only to the soldiers but to the reality of the war and the people involved, then I'll be right there lined up", to: "If developers make the claim of 'historical accuracy', they owe it to the veterans, victims, and the audience to cast an unflinching look at the human consequences of war."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vietnam-Based Shooters - A Suitable Topic? More

Vietnam-Based Shooters - A Suitable Topic?

Comments Filter:

  • And how is this different from any other war game? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arkham6 ( 24514 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:11PM (#6747246)
    War sucks, yes. Without a doubt. I hope to never fight in one. But why are vietnam games in such 'bad taste' as opposed to the other war games? How is say, Vietcong (or whatever the name of that recent FPS is)different from MOH: Allied Assault? Is it ok to play a game where you shoot Germans, but not orientals?

    • <aol>Me too!</aol>

      I was going to make the same comment. Why should Vietnam be a less suitable topic than any other war in history? About the only thing I can think of is that there are more Vietnam veterans still around than, say, WWII vets. I don't think that changes anything morally, though.

      • i'm chipping in here too.

        and what makes games in this part any different from movies except those vets aren't likely to see those games even, if ever?

        and.. eh.. why .. umm. for example black hawk down(game) isn't that bad then but vietnam is? how is their traumatic event so horrible that it should be banned from culture(yeah, that's a real good way to handle such cultural-traumas, deny them totally).

        the wars in games aren't that spesific usually anyways(you could change it easily to some other war by jus

    • Re:And how is this different from any other war ga (Score:4, Insightful)

      by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:36PM (#6747520) Homepage Journal
      Word. War is hell. Why is Vietnam so taboo? Korea was awful and we got MASH. WWII was terrible and we got Hogan's Heros, BF1942 et al. I'm not saying that war should be taken lightly, quite the opposite. Maybe it's just that Vietnam is still fresh in our minds, while we've forgotten about much of the repugnance of our earlier wars...
      • Why is Vietnam so taboo? Korea was awful and we got MASH.

        MASH was a commentary on Vietnam, it's just that Vietnam was so taboo (especially at that time) that they set it in Korea. The simple fact is that helicopters (especially the types depicted in MASH) were not nearly as heavily used in Korea as in Vietnam (not to mention that it's been stated many times by the series' creators that this was the case).

        I'm not saying that we shouldn't be able to make games based on Vietnam, just that it does cause som
        • Actually, the helicopters in the film and TV show MASH were used extensivly in the Korean War by the United Nations.

          The bubble cockpit piston driven helo from MASH is the H-13 Sioux (model 47) from Bell Aircraft. It was produced from 1946 to 1973. They were used for medivac and recon starting in 1951 and they evacuated around 18,000 UN casualties during the conflict.

          The Sioux was replaced by the OH-6A Cayuse early in the Vietnam conflict.

          In Korea the Navy used the Sikorsky H-19 Chickasaw and the H-21 Sha
      • Vietnam is the only war we've ever lost. (well, as close to lose as you can get). Therefore it's a tragedy. Korea was a VERY similar war: we went to an asian country to halt the spread of communism and because of that war, there is a democratic south korea. Had we "won" vietnam, there would be a democratic South Vietnam with Saigon as its capital and we wouldn't mourn it.
        • Um, South Korea is democratic since 1987 due to constant protest of students, of whom several where arrested, some tortured and even killed.

          And I say the crippled newborns over decades, and the dead soldiers and civilians on both sides are the tragedy.

          I consider that the American public acchieved to get their goverment to withdraw from Viet Nam actually as a victory.
    • I think that the biggest difference between WWII and Vietnam games aren't the separation in time... or unresolved feelings... or the race of the peoples fighting. It was all about how black and white the situation was.

      WWII. Very black and white. Has there ever been a more black and white war in the past few centuries? Can't feel bad about shooting Germans or Japanese. And I don't feel bad about playing them, either, because I'll get to play as the Allies next round, and the Allies need someone to sh
      • Vietnam.... not so black and white. Pretty frickin' grey, actually. Do I feel good picking off some Vietnamese farmer with an AK-47? or even NVA regulars? Not nearly as good as I do picking off Nazis.

        You feel better about picking off Nazis? You shouldn't. Nazis aren't evil. Naziism as a movement might be evil, but Nazis are just people. Misinformed people perhaps, but I don't think that the majority of the Nazis deserved to "picked off". You probably would have been a Nazi too if you grew up in the r
        • Nope, pretty sure all Nazis are evil. If they aren't evil, than they aren't really a Nazi now, are they?

          You and I could probably have been warped into Nazis. But that doesn't make them any less evil.

          Besides... I was speaking of picking off Nazis relative to picking off Vietnamese. Allow me to illustrate:

          n is how good I feel after killing Nazis
          v is how good I feel after killing Vietnamese
          n > v

          There are no numbers assigned to those variables. You just know that one is greater than the other.

          If I
          • Fair enough, but then if we're only talking about your feelings, then that doesn't make a very good reason that Vietnam-Based shooters are in poor taste in general. After all, we are only talking about one person's feelings, which are not quantifiable, and there seems to be no concrete basis for these feelings, so they're completely subjective and illogical, which is fine for feelings, but doesn't support an argument well.
        • Nazis aren't evil... Misinformed people perhaps

          And I suppose supporting the nazi slaughter of 6 million jews, gypsies, handicapped and gays was simply "misinformation." Oh, and don't give me crap about how they didn't support it and all. In America*, there is no WAY we would sit back and watch the slaughter of half-a-dozen million of our citizens (go ahead... use a japanese internment camp analogy. make yourself sound like a fool by comparing the two). This isn't school-lunch laws - if you don't stan
          • The average Nazi or Nazi supporter knew nothing of the atrocities that happened in the death camps, the death camps were by and large run by the SS, so you could group all the SS into the evil category, but the Nazi movement was mostly a movement of national solidarity, with some people being purposely left out, The mothers at the rallies with their children might not have been happy with their neighbors being dragged out in the middle of the night, but the US did the same to it's Japanese, German, and Ital
          • I may have been unclear, because I think I agree with you on every point. The acts carried out by the Nazis, were, as far as I know, in the running for some of the most vile and heinous acts ever comitted by humans in the history of the world.

            They obviously wouldn't let a Jew in, but I don't believe your religion defines who you are. What I meant to say by the you would have been a nazi too comment is that if you had been born into a nazi family or whatever, chances are high that you would have been a na

        • hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LittleBigLui ( 304739 )
          Let me share something with you. I'm austrian, both my granddads were fighting in ww2.

          One of them was a teacher and had to join the NSDAP (national socialist german workers' party) or he would have been banned from teaching (he had a family to support, too), so technically he was a nazi without supporting the actual ideology.

          Being in the NSDAP still didn't save him from having to "defend his home soil" in africa (wehrmacht/regular army) once the war started. (Austria joined the german reich in 1938 in a s

    • Re:And how is this different from any other war ga (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rute20740 ( 567763 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:38PM (#6747541) Homepage
      First of all the correct term is Asians, not Orientals. Second of all, WW2 is widely recognized as a "just" war. Hitler was a terrible person and needed to be stopped. Vietnam on the other hand is something that the US should have never gotten involved in. This involvement hurt thousands and thousands of people on both sides. Ask any Vietnam veteran and any WW2 veteran how they feel about this issue about their prospective wars, and you'll most likeley get two different answers.
      • First, chances are you are not going to get different answers when you ask Vietnam or WW2 veterans who did real fighting about their war. We lost face in Vietnam, so it is a taboo subject among non-veterans. Furthemore, more Americans who were drafted (a relative percentage) did fighting in Vietnam than in World War II, so the answer is likely to be skewed there as well. Also, the critics of the Vietnam War were more likely to include drafties than the critics of World War II.

        Next, whether or not the U

      • Second of all, WW2 is widely recognized as a "just" war.

        There is no "just" war.

        • There is no "just" war.

          Damn hippie.
        • Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hope you're just trolling. There certainly is such a thing as a just war. We may disagree on which wars are just, but you cannot seriously claim that there is no such thing as a just war. Otherwise, how are innocent people to defend themselves from aggression?

          You might as well also say that there is no such thing as crime and that police are unnecessary. That stance works fine until it is your home that is robbed, or your family that is hurt.
          • I believe the thread you are responding to meant that there is no justification for war, because it is invariably worse than the problem it seeks to solve.
            Regarding your question in the first paragraph: The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent, so the answer is through nonviolent methods. You might find George Orwell's Reflections On Gandhi [k-1.com] relevant. Gandhi's comment regarding the Jews in Nazi Germany is distasteful and unpleasant, but most likely true. The last two sentences of your pos
            • Regarding your question in the first paragraph: The only lasting methods of social change are nonviolent, so the answer is through nonviolent methods.

              I seem to recall that a lasting change was made in Germany, rather directly by WWII, and that Germany has yet to revert back to Nazism. Heck, the US was founded on violent acts, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon. I'm sorry, this idea is very obviously wrong. War is a tool for affecting change, the fact that it is used so often to create a very b
      • WW2 is widely recognized as a "just" war. Hitler was a terrible person and needed to be stopped. Vietnam on the other hand is something that the US should have never gotten involved in

        There is a bit of political spin in that statement. The pentagon lied to the public about what was going on, but so did the communists. The only difference is that the pentagon got called on it and the communists largely did not. There is a large group that believe involvement was justified as part of the cold war anti-c
      • Ask any Vietnam veteran and any WW2 veteran how they feel about this issue about their prospective wars, and you'll most likeley get two different answers.

        Perhaps, but the answers don't reveal the truth. The fact is that WW2 vets were also widely affected by depression and guilt and greatly saddened by the waste, both their dead and the enemy dead. The difference is that the generation of the 60's was more willing to talk openly about such feelings. The generation of the 40's was not, they are more like
    • I fail to see the problem. Could it be the US don't like to be reminded that they lost this one?

      I don't see how a Vietnam game is in bad taste either. People are just being overly sensitive.

      What I find tacky is games coming out based on the recent bogus war on Iraq.

    • Re:And how is this different from any other war ga (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pmz ( 462998 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:47PM (#6747658) Homepage
      But why are vietnam games in such 'bad taste' as opposed to the other war games?

      WWII, for example, was a time of global insanity. It was the entirety of the free world in a blank-and-white battle for the future of mankind. Every game where Nazis get creamed and Kamakazis fall short is a celebration of good winning over evil. WWII veterans speak very proudly of that war, even though they went through hell during it.

      Vietnam, however, was just different. I'm young enough to only know Vietnam in history books and documentaries, but even today thinking of Vietnam conjurs images of Nixon and LBJ and government meddling. It isn't as black-and-white as WWII. Vietnam wasn't really a victory over communism, and it highlighted flaws in the American "War Machine".

      Vietnam, in the US, just doesn't have any video game appeal. However, a video game version of "Apocalypse Now" might be appropriate, because that movie was only partially about Vietnam and was actually based on a classic novel called "Heart of Darkness." Making "Platoon" into a video game would just be sad, period.

      • and a repeat, there was a platoon game for the NES, top down scroller if I remember correctly, like IKARI Warriors without the tanks.
      • So what youre basically saying is that because the USA didn't win the Vietnam War, we should treat that war with respect?

        How come all Germans, Italians and Japanese are evil, heck all Iraqis and Afghans are evil too, but not the ones who defeated Americans?

        The principles on which the Vietcong fought were just as 'evil' as the principles of Saddam and Bin Laden and Hitler at that time. All the soldiers on the enemy side in these conflicts were 'innocent'.

        Games that show conflicts like the Vietnam which st
        • The principles on which the Vietcong fought were just as 'evil' as the principles of Saddam and Bin Laden and Hitler at that time.

          Yes, the North Vietnamese were supported by China and the USSR, but the whole scenario was just very complicated, it seems. This entry at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] discusses things in more detail. If you follow some of the links, you'll see that the Vietnam war has its roots in efforts for indpendence from French colonization. If this doesn't leave Americans feeling somewhat conflicted over
          • You're right, but things arent so simple in Afghanistan either. Heck youve got everyone from India, China, France, USA, Britain, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan directly involved there. Are they any less respectable unless they win the war? Russians for one seem to respect Afghans a little more now.

            Noone is inherently 'evil'. The very use of this word seeps of ignorance. I hate to make it sound like a flame but the 19 suicide bombers on 9/11 were motivated simply because they thought they were right. They were never
    • The subject line of your post is the first thing that ran through my head.
      Wish I had mod points left for ya.
    • To turn a Vietnam game into an educational tool for teaching history, it needs to capture the complexities on both sides-- the North Vietnamese's incredible tunnel system, in particular, and on the American side the lack of insight and intelligence.

      So you definitely want to show warcrimes like My Lai, but you want the simulation/model to explain why things like that really happened, so that players learn from them.

      Incidentally, one of the most artistic pop songs of the 20thC was Kate Bush's "Pull Out the

    • Well in all fairness war is bad however WWII was seen as "black and white" and Vietnam not so much however if you thought about war in the manner of who your enemy is as an individual solider then you would never want to play any war game. Think about it do you really think every single german wanted to fight. In Band of Brothers they have a kid not more then 25 who was in America then his family moved to Germany to fight alongside the Germans, he did not want to himself. Some germans knew nothing about why
  • Yeah, everybody knows that the Nazis are way more evil than the communists on account of killing so many more people. Nazis are the appropriate subject of war games.

    Kidding aside, war is an especially brutal undertaking. Especially in the 20th century when modern warfare techniques began to involve far more civilians than combatants. I think that games should avoid glorifying war. Since they are art, they should still portray it but without the whitewashing.

  • 2 questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomcio.s ( 455520 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:14PM (#6747282) Homepage Journal
    1. Why is the Vietnam War a topic that should not be explored in games?

    I mean we have Battlefield 1942, countless historical battle games (Medieval Total War comes to mind here), Terrorist encounter games (Rainbow6 anyone?)
    They are all based on true events.

    How is it that the Vietnam War deserves different treatement?

    2. Why does the developer owe anything to the participants of those events, or to the audience.
    Its a game, not a reconstruction. If it were so, it would be _static_. I mean there would be no game here.

    I suppose that certain topics are harder for some to understand, but I am not seeing the difference between a game as Rainbow6 (very well received as far as I know) and something like the game proposed.

    I am not trying to be a troll, and this is not a flame, I am simply trying to understand the issue a bit better.

    • 1) Vietnam was an unsuccessful action.
      2) I don't want the people at the local Chinese restaurant spitting in my food (yes they are from vietnam).
      • 1) didn't stop people from making numerous movies set in the conflict

        2) wouldn't that make it a Vietnamese restaurant (as opposed to Chinese), or are you really getting Chinese food from Vietnamese people? (I guess that Vietnamese people can make Chinese food just as well as anyone else, but I don't usually buy Mexican food from non-Mexican people, and most of the Chinese places I eat at specialize in the region of the chef(s) or owner(s))

      • Re:2 answers (Score:3, Insightful)

        by crmartin ( 98227 )
        Odds are excellent that the people in your Chinese restaurant are most disturbed by the fact that we lost. Why do you think they're here?

    • my opinion (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BenSnyder ( 253224 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @05:53PM (#6748924) Homepage
      It seems to me that the question is one of how to tell a story. If you notice, Nazis are a common bad guy. They've earned that title. WWII was pretty clear. The Axis powers were the bad guys. So it's safe in a political sense to use Nazis as cannon fodder.

      Vietnam wasn't nearly as black and white. Moral clarity is absent from that conflict. So playing as the righteous American fighter has the distinct possibility of pissing off a lot of people. Which I think is a fine thing to do from time to time, but when trying to make a product that's going to appeal to a massive part of the gaming populace, there has to be NO question in the motives of the main character. Not unless you're interested in raking in the dough like Gigli.

      Sure, you can play a hitman in the Hitman series and nobody cares. But basing a game on a controversial subject does nothing but invite controversy.

      I'm guessing that this is a constant problem in storytelling. Nobody wants to be portrayed as the bad guy. We know Nazis are okay to rag on. The Russians are still okay but they were more devilishly portrayed during the Cold War. The Gulf War and the Gulf War Strikes Back have made it okay to demonize Arabs. But in the 80s, the WWF ran into problems with their character The Iron Sheik. So it hasn't always been okay to make Arabs the bad guys. White guys make good bad guys. They run things, so they're used to playing the bad role. Black guys only make good bad guys if they're selling drugs. I could go on, but I think you see my point. In order to be a bad guy, you have to be extinct, a culturally approved negative stereotype or so hated by everybody that it's okay. Of course, if the bad guys and good guys never really existed, then you can damn near get away with anything.

      As for your question about why the developers owe anything to the public, they actually don't. But they do want the public to buy their product. As such, it's a good thing to consider the sensitivities of the target audience. Personally, I think most people that buy Vietcong weren't alive when Vietnam was going on and couldn't care less if it's authentic or not. But if I were the developer, I'd have done my research to make sure that's true. Because the worst thing ever would be to develop a great game and then have it not sell because it was based on Vietnam and not on something less controversial.
  • If we can make countless games about WWII (BF1942, Allied Assault ...), and the vets of that major war are still living, then why can't we make games about a lesser (but of course, still serious) war? Does the fact that we lost change the 'appropriatness' of it?

  • But is it supposed to be fun? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:18PM (#6747337) Homepage
    I think movies about historical wars and conflicts are appropriate; Blackhawk Down was one of the most horrifying films i have ever seen. I enjoyed it only in the sense that the filmmaking was really good and the movie exposed (as much as a movie can anyway) the moral dilemnas that urban warfare, and war in general bring about. Contrast this with a game, which is explictly supposed to be fun and enjoyable, and I think one could say that playing as an American soldier firing on young armed Vietcong children, is not, or at least SHOULD not be fun. Again, it's the fact that this actually happened that makes it offensive to me; make a game about evil psycho kids from the cornfields and i'll blast em with a laser gun, but the pain and horror this game would try to emulate is REAL.

    anyway, just to be clear i don't think this should be legally prohibited or anything, i just think it's in bad taste.

    • Contrast this with a game, which is explictly supposed to be fun and enjoyable, and I think one could say that playing as an American soldier firing on young armed Vietcong children, is not, or at least SHOULD not be fun. Again, it's the fact that this actually happened that makes it offensive to me; make a game about evil psycho kids from the cornfields and i'll blast em with a laser gun, but the pain and horror this game would try to emulate is REAL.

      Here's a fact about another war which is portrayed is
    • games are forced to be fun(in a jolly good what a nice joke oh boy laughter sort of way)? nope.

      games are supposed to be fun in the this-is-intresting-enough-to-keep-me-playing(whic h , may, or may not, include comical aspects) way which is exactly the way movies are supposed to be intresting too except you don't get to do anything. i don't think they ever meant vietcong(game) to be a comedy either, rather a simulation of how crude war can be(and no the game isn't exactly about shooting kids either, not sur

    • I think then, that it should be clarified what we mean by bad taste. Making a game based in Vietnam, shooting at VietCong soldiars (or as VietCong, shooting at Americans & French) should, in theory be fine and unobjectionable. Despite all the controversy about the Vietnam war, the fact remains that by far the majority of any action seen in the conflict was of a 'clean' kind, i.e. straight-up soldiar vs. soldiar warfare. Why should a game that simulates this be more offensive than a game that does the s

    • About blackhawk down: I thought the movie aspect was excellent, but there wasn't really anything to say about the content. It is the director's best effort to portray what happened. When a movie is that accurate, what can you really say about it? Sure, you can talk about the ethics of the situation, and maybe question the portrayal. As someone who would know (though I have never been in combat) this movie was ridiculously accurate. I think part of why it wasn't more popular was for that reason.

      A vid

  • Silly, stupid, and looney. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:18PM (#6747339)
    Get a grip, guys.

    I'm Vietnam-age. My father was WWII-age. My friends have children in the Middle East theatre. My grandfather was crippled in WWI. I lost ancestors on both sides of the Indian Wars, and one of my admired adults when I was child fought among Pancho Villa's insurgents and lost an eye.

    The point: wars happen. Every generation. Viet Nam was no different. None. People die. Even civilians (when there's a realistic distinction: Sand Creek proves it wasn't considered much in the indian Wars.) No one expects considering the historical consequences of Castle Wolfenstein, WWI aerial combat, or the Punic Wars. Expecting a first-person shoot'em-up in Viet Nam to "consider the historical context" is idiotic.
    • i'd mod you up some more.

      it's almost funny though.. that the french have no national trauma about vietnam, and that the usa does seem to have(very unneeded, it almost seems that the civil war is more appropriate for discussion than vietnam which sounds just stupid) very severe cultural trauma about it, that they even continue to enforce for no real reason at all, it's not like the world condemns usa for it anymore or anything like that.

      (yeah, i haven't been in a war and i don't plan to either, no way in h
    • Well the whole "no different" statement in the above post is bizarre. Every war is horrible in it's own unique way. The thing about Viet Nam is that the particular way in which it was horrible refelcts incredibly badly on the US. Our forces were ordered to commit atrocities and did so. While there are debatable justifications for the war itself, there is little justification for some of the tactics we used, especially those meant only to inflate body count rather than achieve an objective. Those tactic
      • Every war is horrible in it's [sic] own unique way.

        That has to count among the stupidest things I've ever seen someone write.
        • You are correct about the apostrophe, but otherwise I have to wonder about the stupidity of the original comment.

          A brief example:
          WWI: huge scale long term trenches, gas, machine guns, etc. all never before seen

          WWII: massive bombing, tanks, nuclear weapons, kamikazes, etc. all never before seen

          Viet Nam: drug use common among troops, massively racially integrated military, non-propaganda journalism from front lines, Americans killing a lot of civilians and digging up graves for body counts, etc, all never
          • Nice bit of dancing, but you said "is horrible in it's own way." And, unfortunately, the horror or war is pretty much the same: wounds, burns, agony, disease, death and putrefaction. The difference between someone machine-gunned in a trench in WWI and a tunnel rat shot underground in Viet Nam is primarily tactical.
  • Every violence related game arguably has very bad taste. There is always someone who will be offended.
  • People were killed in any war that we've been in - including our own. Worrying about political correctness for a war game is like worrying that you're going to "blow up" mutants in half life.

    In otherwords, just calm down, it's only a game!

    • Hamas recently distributed a game where you assassinate Israeli leaders, lead suicide bombing missions, etc. Surely this is despicable. So, there is some moral line that can be crossed. The question is what the basis for that is.
      In that case, it is blowing up innocents and getting points for it, something that is actually going on and immensely horrifying. The game itself is a recruitment tool. I think we would be justified in being disgusted at any such game, whatever the political position. A "MaiLai" ga
      • If you are going to have a Vietnam game, then, you have to remove the massacres of civilians. Doing that risks whitewashing history. It is this whitewashing that is the question.

        Are there any WW2 games that let you take part in the Rape of Nanking?

        I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Vietnam games, but have we really treated WW2 games all that differently?
        • or Sim Japanese Internment camps or "Dresden Night Bomber" or SimAuschwitz, nope, they are considered to tasteless. Take me for example, I would love to have a MMORPG set in the age of exploration (1450-1754), but getting hookers, natives, catholic clergy, or slave traders/owners as player classes past the ESRB or off the wal-mart shelves would be damn near impossible. You'd have everyone from the Pope to Jessie Jackson chewing your ass.
  • I think the things that make people get so uppity about the Vietnam being portrayed in games are:

    1- Chronological distance - Vietnam is much fresher in the minds of people than other major conflicts.

    2- Controversy - Vietnam was a very controversial war that never had any good resolution.

    3- Psychological Healing - Most of the soldiers in Vietnam did not come home to heroes welcomes like their predecessors had. This makes it harder to get over the atrocities.

    I think these points (and many others) make peo
  • It makes me sad to see that all those game-developers tries to justify their desire to make good computer games by saying that they will trie to make the game "historical correct" or "with respect to the soldiers".
    Personally I think its way to early for these kind of games, the horrors of Vietnam is just too close and most games haven't digesed the World War II games yet. Think about all those children that are struggling to bear the emotional burden of playing these games that in their search for historic

    • It makes me sad to see that all those game-developers tries to justify their desire to make good computer games by saying that they will trie to make the game "historical correct" or "with respect to the soldiers".

      This is a good thing. I don't think that they're using these as excuses to justify their desire to make good computer games. If they didn't mention this at all, concerns would be brought up regarding historical accuracy and respect for the soldiers. It'd be wrong and disrespectful to make a

    • Personally I think its way to early for these kind of games, the horrors of Vietnam is just too close and most games haven't digesed the World War II games yet.

      The horrors of Vietnam too close? My dad was too old to serve in Vietnam (by a few months, granted...). I was born a few years after the last troops pulled out, and I'm 25. Even my education on Vietnam was divided based on the views of the teacher I had in a given year (and the only wars they talked about more than Vietnam were WW2 and the American
  • "How can you shoot women and children?" "Easy! You just don't lead them as much."
  • Jingoistic, revisionist movies like Red Dawn and Rambo tried to change the way people looked at the war and spin it into a falsely positive light.

    Red Dawn? Obviously he didn't even *watch* the movie... Red Dawn had nothing to do with Vietnam.
    • Rambo tried to change the way people looked at the war and spin it into a falsely positive light

      Rambo II and Rambo III, I'll agree with ya (generic actioners that made him into a War Hero). Rambo I was a DRAMA (with action elements) that portrayed a man who went to Vietnam (likely normal before he left) and upon his return he was haunted by the war, paranoid and (seemingly) he no longer had any friends or family to turn to. He was a loner and the Sherrif (Brian Dennehy) tries to push him out of town be

  • Vietnam game not in good taste (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PeteyG ( 203921 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:32PM (#6747474) Homepage Journal
    I do not think that a first-person Vietnam game is in good taste. I will not be playing any of them.

    I am slightly hypocritical, because I LOVE WWII shooters, and Rainbow 6, and Operation Flashpoint. I do feel sometimes guilty, though, at enjoying levels where I storm the beaches of Normandy. I mean, these were real people after all. Not those fake real people that you'll never meet... but real people that are still alive and you might run into. People I'm related to.

    It's a tough call for me. But I respect other people who want to play them. But if a game comes out tomorrow titled: "Operation Iraqi Freedom: The Hunt for Saddam", I won't be buying it. No matter how fun it is.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wolverines!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:39PM (#6747551) Journal
    Jingoistic, revisionist movies like Red Dawn and Rambo tried to change the way people looked at the war and spin it into a falsely positive light.

    Say what? Red Dawn [imdb.com] is arguably "jingoistic" but has nothing IIRC to do with Vietnam.

    Incidentally, it's certainly true that the Hollywood version of Vietnam combat is distorted but not so much in the way they think. Depictions of the Vietnam War invariably involve American troops (usually single platoons) fighting lightly armed Viet Cong in a village or a jungle ambush, before some planes show up and napalm everyone and Hueys carry out the wounded.

    In fact, the number one cause of US casualties in Vietnam was NVA artillery (followed by booby traps). How many movies show large NVA units, or artillery on either side? How many movies even mention the NVA? At this point, I think most people think the war was fought entirely between the US (French? What French? Aussies? Canadians?) and the Viet Cong.

    • How many movies show large NVA units, or artillery on either side? How many movies even mention the NVA? At this point, I think most people think the war was fought entirely between the US (French? What French? Aussies? Canadians?) and the Viet Cong.

      Interestingly enough I had a history prof who insisted that Viet Cong was an invention of the Americans who didn't really understand the Vietnamese Order of Battle. I wish I could remember his reasoning for that statement.

      At the risk of sending this totally

    • Say what? Red Dawn is arguably "jingoistic" but has nothing IIRC to do with Vietnam.

      I believe Red Dawn (which I watched recently and is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ever.) had a little text intro that described the alternate history that led to the U.S. being invaded by communists.

      I think it had something to do with the U.S. giving up really early on South Vietnam... so that led to the whole 'domino effect' where the communists kept knocking over country after country until the U.S. was the
  • Anyone remember the Platoon video game on the NES? or the more recent on on Windows?

    The games blew and really didn't focus on trying to create a Vietnam experience. Whenever developers are working on war games, I think it is necessary to make them responsible and faithful to the conflict be represented.

    An RPG would be an interesting way to showcase a war like Vietnam, thought I would hesitate to make it an MMORPG. In terms of a shooter, perhaps online squad play would be interesting - from both US/So

  • Double standard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @03:55PM (#6747776)
    War is war, if your going to complain about Vietnam being an inappropriate subject matter than you need in include all of them.

    My father fought in that war, and was active with a number of Vietnam veteran organizations when I was growing up. The impression I got spending time with some of the other families as to the reason that nobody liked to talk about the war had nothing to do with the moral ramifications or justifiability of the conflict, but rather it was related to Vietnam being the first war that America "lost". Many of the Vietnam veterans disliked veterans of other wars for not welcoming them home, and the other veterans disliked the Vietnam vets because they "lost".

    I would say that the Vietnam war changed the American perception of war and the rest of the world every bit as much as the first and second world wars, it removed that candy coating around what America was really about. We learned that we are not infallible or invincible, we learned that good and evil wasn't always black and white. It's no wonder that people are still so sensitive to the time.

    But the only way over it is through it, if we never talk about it or come to terms with it how are going to avoid a similar quagmire. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe games should only be about sunshine and kittens.

    • Re:Double standard (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Quill_28 ( 553921 )
      My dad also fought in Vietnam, and died from agent orange exposure years later(non-hogkins lymphoma for those interested).

      The reason Vietnam is so "disliked" is because it was/became a political war and over time the soliders figured this out.

      While I don't believe Iraq is a political war(i know many disagree no flames please), if the soliders ever started feeling this way, it could become like a Vietnam.

      • Vietnam also took place during huge changes in the socio-politcal environment of the US. The entire time period was an explosion of change and strife. When your entire home life is being turned upside down how can you go off and fight a war?

        How would things be now if we went into Vietnam? Since the war in Iraq started the American people have settled down. The world has settled down. I have not heard of millions marching in protest any more. Things have gone back to "normal".
  • People don't play games to learn things or get a better understanding of a situation. They play them to have fun. If the game is fun it'll sell no matter what the material. If the game sucks then it won't sell. Its as simple as that.

  • Sorry (Score:2)

    by pbox ( 146337 )
    I was not aware that the Vietnam War has officially become Taboo(TM). When did this happen? How did Ashcroft manage to shove it up to the Congress and the Senate (we know he can handle Dubiya) in such a short time?

    Anyway, free speech is free as in anything goes. There are court-set limits, where applicable (peadophilia, etc), but the rest is FREE (as in GNU).

    I would not even object to have:

    a. Vietnam War (we have)
    b. Vietnam War where you kill the Yankees as a VietCong
    c. US soldier occupying Iraq
    d. Bhaat
    • "d. Bhaat Party animal shooting at Yankees"

      Am I the only one here who had an image of Uday chanting "Toga! Toga!" flash through their head?

  • WWII (Score:2)

    by vitaflo ( 20507 )
    I'm not sure how the Vietnam war is any different from, say, WWII. In fact, if you do your reading, you'd know WWII was a much more bloody and brutal war than Vietnam ever was. The difference is that Vietnam was depicted as a horrible war through the eyes of the camera and media, while WWII was depicted through pro-war propoganda as a good thing.

    No war is romantic whatsoever, so singling out Vietnam as being a war we should be sensitive about over much more bloody wars is overlooking what war really is,
  • I could be wrong , but I get the impression that the people bitching about these games are not Vietnam vets, but others. While I realize that Vietnam was traumatic for some (my stepfather fought at Hue during the Tet Offensive, 101st Airborne, and he doesn't talk much about Vietnam), it was a WAR folks. And despite the stereotypes of vets going into a nervous breakdown when a helicopter flies overhead, I've found them to be well adjusted. That war helped define them, but doesn't rule their lives. Frankly, I
  • If anyone thinks a Vietnam themed game is inherently in bad taste, they MUST believe the same thing about WWII games and even GTA or they are hypocrites.

    Real people dying is a Very Bad Thing. A simulation of a situation of a real person dying is an exercise for the individual. If they die in Vietnam, if they die in France, if they die on Main Street USA they are all the same. If you shoot one simulated person, you have shot them all. To say otherwise is some sort of bizarre virtual racism. Its ok to s

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close