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

[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

[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: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.