There has been word of the next Call of Duty being placed in Vietnam. Is this a good idea? I think it's a good change, and noone's made a good Vietnam game yet.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Treyarch is considering a Vietnam setting for Call of Duty 7. We'll just have to wait and see if that's what they choose.
The problem with the Vietnam Conflict as a center for a game is that the combat would not really be game-friendly. Most of the combat that took place was either unopposed bombing runs (that'd be fun, fly a plane, drop some napalm, turn around with no enemy return fire), or ambushes that instantly killed most, if not all of the soldiers involved. There really isn't room to maneuver or strategise...one of the reasons we lost the conflict, and one of the reasons it wouldn't really make a good game.
The problem with the Vietnam Conflict as a center for a game is that the combat would not really be game-friendly. Most of the combat that took place was either unopposed bombing runs (that'd be fun, fly a plane, drop some napalm, turn around with no enemy return fire), or ambushes that instantly killed most, if not all of the soldiers involved. There really isn't room to maneuver or strategise...one of the reasons we lost the conflict, and one of the reasons it wouldn't really make a good game.
SonicDivision
I disagree with the setting not being game freindly. There are cities, streets, beaches and buildings in Vietnam just like any other country. The way america lost the war should have nothing to do with game setting.
[QUOTE="munchlax99"]
Call of Duty 7:Civil War would be cool
BLAS1AN
installing gunpowder into your guns and cannons after every shot would be so much fun, lol :P
i got it
Call of Duty 7:Civil War with Modern Warfare:P:P:P
[QUOTE="munchlax99"]
Call of Duty 7:Civil War would be cool
BLAS1AN
installing gunpowder into your guns and cannons after every shot would be so much fun, lol :P
I sense an awesome mini-game coming on :P. Hell, they could even release it with project Natal and you could literally bite the top off a pack of gun powder and load your musket manually :P.[QUOTE="munchlax99"]
Call of Duty 7:Civil War would be cool
BLAS1AN
installing gunpowder into your guns and cannons after every shot would be so much fun, lol :P
Imagine Call of Duty 7: Revolutionary War.
What happened toCoD 5 n 6? but really, I don't really like the old games like WW2, I only want to playModern Warfare.
I would love to see a well done Vietnam War game, or a Korean War game.Froce712Same, but Korea is very simlar to WW2, most of the same weapons. In vietnam, you get the old and the new. For example, the m1 was used in Nam, and so was teh AK and m16. Best of both worlds.
[QUOTE="Froce712"]I would love to see a well done Vietnam War game, or a Korean War game.ieatnoobs18Same, but Korea is very simlar to WW2, most of the same weapons. In vietnam, you get the old and the new. For example, the m1 was used in Nam, and so was teh AK and m16. Best of both worlds. Ah, but the terrain was quite different. Also, I think since most of the weapons were from WW2, it would be easy for Treyarch to do as like an easing out of WW2 not just instantly jumping from WW2 to Vietnam.
[QUOTE="SonicDivision"]
The problem with the Vietnam Conflict as a center for a game is that the combat would not really be game-friendly. Most of the combat that took place was either unopposed bombing runs (that'd be fun, fly a plane, drop some napalm, turn around with no enemy return fire), or ambushes that instantly killed most, if not all of the soldiers involved. There really isn't room to maneuver or strategise...one of the reasons we lost the conflict, and one of the reasons it wouldn't really make a good game.
I disagree with the setting not being game freindly. There are cities, streets, beaches and buildings in Vietnam just like any other country. The way america lost the war should have nothing to do with game setting.
technically we never really lost. it was more like we got really pissed and finally decided to leave and let veitnam settle it. But i think it would be a great setting. The ambushes and napalm you talked of could be just like the airstrikes and choppers in modern warfare. the more kills without dying and you get to use them. The setting would also be much more brutal. imagine being able to set traps in the jungle for the enemy just like laying a claymore. the enemy would of course have to be able to see it and disarm it or something of the sort though. i think its a very good idea.[QUOTE="BLAS1AN"][QUOTE="SonicDivision"]
The problem with the Vietnam Conflict as a center for a game is that the combat would not really be game-friendly. Most of the combat that took place was either unopposed bombing runs (that'd be fun, fly a plane, drop some napalm, turn around with no enemy return fire), or ambushes that instantly killed most, if not all of the soldiers involved. There really isn't room to maneuver or strategise...one of the reasons we lost the conflict, and one of the reasons it wouldn't really make a good game.
Slinky_Turtle
I disagree with the setting not being game freindly. There are cities, streets, beaches and buildings in Vietnam just like any other country. The way america lost the war should have nothing to do with game setting.
technically we never really lost. it was more like we got really pissed and finally decided to leave and let veitnam settle it. But i think it would be a great setting. The ambushes and napalm you talked of could be just like the airstrikes and choppers in modern warfare. the more kills without dying and you get to use them. The setting would also be much more brutal. imagine being able to set traps in the jungle for the enemy just like laying a claymore. the enemy would of course have to be able to see it and disarm it or something of the sort though. i think its a very good idea.That idea might work, but what he is saying is that the war was more of a run and gun, he wasn't really talking about all of that. Esentially he was saying that Vietnam was a quick paced war and unless they pushed the facts around a bit. It'd consist of you running in to a fortification and shooting at as many people as you can before running back.
It'd not be that exciting.
Knowing Treyarch though, they'll find a way to screw it up. I haven't enjoyed either CoD 3 or 5. Both created by them. Hopefully this time they work a bit harder on it and try to be a bit more... well, good at recreating these battles.
COD :11 - The Cold War!! COD: 18 - The Hundred Years War!! COD: 23 - The Crusades! COD: 29 - the 100 hours war!SpYkMo
CoD300: sparta!!!!
WW1 anyone? Trench wasrfare would be sick. Just give me my trusty Kar98K and an arillery strike or two.
[QUOTE="Slinky_Turtle"][QUOTE="BLAS1AN"]
I disagree with the setting not being game freindly. There are cities, streets, beaches and buildings in Vietnam just like any other country. The way america lost the war should have nothing to do with game setting.
technically we never really lost. it was more like we got really pissed and finally decided to leave and let veitnam settle it. But i think it would be a great setting. The ambushes and napalm you talked of could be just like the airstrikes and choppers in modern warfare. the more kills without dying and you get to use them. The setting would also be much more brutal. imagine being able to set traps in the jungle for the enemy just like laying a claymore. the enemy would of course have to be able to see it and disarm it or something of the sort though. i think its a very good idea.That idea might work, but what he is saying is that the war was more of a run and gun, he wasn't really talking about all of that. Esentially he was saying that Vietnam was a quick paced war and unless they pushed the facts around a bit. It'd consist of you running in to a fortification and shooting at as many people as you can before running back.
It'd not be that exciting.
Knowing Treyarch though, they'll find a way to screw it up. I haven't enjoyed either CoD 3 or 5. Both created by them. Hopefully this time they work a bit harder on it and try to be a bit more... well, good at recreating these battles.
oh alright. sorry about that. i took what he was saying the wrong way. but if they managed to avoid making it a run n gun game i think the setting and the whole brutality and everything would be freaking epic. it would definately be much different from the other CODs and probably pretty fun yeah i definately agree there. i would leave this one to Infinity Ward lolThey also did a Conflict Vietnam on Xbox. Anyway isn't it a bit early to be discussing CoD 7 when Modern Warfare 2 aint even out yet?Liberator72
Was there a cod 6 and 7?
Or 5? It doesn't matter. No one calls them by their proper names. That's cause no one cares. I hate it when people correct other people when they say COD5 or whatever.[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="crambles"]Or 5? It doesn't matter. No one calls them by their proper names. That's cause no one cares. I hate it when people correct other people when they say COD5 or whatever. me to. Even though it is titled CoD:WaW does not mean that it is not also the 5th CoDWas there a cod 6 and 7?
scarymovie5
COD :11 - The Cold War!! COD: 18 - The Hundred Years War!! COD: 23 - The Crusades! COD: 29 - the 100 hours war!SpYkMo
More like
COD 11: WWIII
COD 18: WWV
COD 23: WWVIII
COD 29: WWX
COD 50: WWXXX
That's cause no one cares. I hate it when people correct other people when they say COD5 or whatever. me to. Even though it is titled CoD:WaW does not mean that it is not also the 5th CoD Yeah actually it's technically not the 5th COD but really, who cares?[QUOTE="scarymovie5"][QUOTE="vashkey"] Or 5? It doesn't matter. No one calls them by their proper names.Dawq902
[QUOTE="Dawq902"]me to. Even though it is titled CoD:WaW does not mean that it is not also the 5th CoD Yeah actually it's technically not the 5th COD but really, who cares?[QUOTE="scarymovie5"] That's cause no one cares. I hate it when people correct other people when they say COD5 or whatever.scarymovie5
Actually, it is Call of Duty 5. Activision made that clear.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment