Vietnam-Based Shooters - A Suitable Topic?

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."

Comments

And how is this different from any other war game?

[arkham6]

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?

2 questions

[tomcio.s]

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.

Silly, stupid, and looney.

[crmartin]

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.

Re:And how is this different from any other war ga

[Chelloveck]

<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.

possible rationale

[deque_alpha]

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 people really touchy about Vietnam. Now, does that make a game about Vietnam in bad taste. Not in my opinion. I frankly think these people need to get over themselves, and stop living in the past. I am personally tired of being expected to treat every one who has had something bad happen to them with kid gloves, and having to kowtow to every special interest group on the planet. Suck it up, and get on with living.

Vietnam and play.

[The Old Burke]

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 historical correctness displays images that where not ment to be entertainment.

And there are plenty of other successfull wars that could have been covered instead of the Vietnam War. Take for example the American -Mexican war; a great historical drama and a proud moment in our contry's history that too few know about. Game developers should not make games on wars that resulted in great american losses and humiliating withdrawal, such games might destroy the moral of the country to wage war in the future. Instead they should seek to make historical correct games based on true success stories.

Vietnam game not in good taste

[PeteyG]

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.

Re:And how is this different from any other war ga

[n1ywb]

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...

Re:And how is this different from any other war ga

[PeteyG]

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 shoot at.

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.

Re:And how is this different from any other war ga

[rute20740]

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.

Wolverines!!!

[Otter]

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 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.

Re:2 answers

[crmartin]

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?

Re:And how is this different from any other war ga

[pmz]

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.

Double standard

[August_zero]

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.