I have LOVED seeing all of the discussion this video has generated. And I definitely know there are some great older Vietnam games that I have not played. I kind of want to pick some up and give them a shot. I wanted to ask you, how should I go about playing some of these games in a way where you can see/interact? Should I stream them? Would there be an audience for that? Or should I make videos on whichever ones I play? I wanna know what you think! Thanks again for watching, this has now become my best performing video so far!
Why did you beat around the bush about it call of duty black ops and the cod black ops 2 flashback missions are right there and you used black ops gameplay footage like dude just admit that activision and treyarch got ballsy and made a banger game involving Vietnam and other controversial topics
I agree it's a war that's been overlooked by games companies. However the reason I reckon it hasn't been touched upon is because WW2 weapons were still being used during the Korean War. Developers would just see it as a rehashed WW2 game just in a different setting
@@ashcookson2810 So true. That's why they don't make that many games set in the 1930's, like Spanish Civil War or Winter War between USSR and Finland. That's a shame, so many conflicts are overshadowed by WW2 tbh. Corean War was actually the third in the death count after WW2 and WW1 in the 20th century.
@@ashcookson2810 Understandable, but honestly pretty much all games taking place in modern war use the same weapons. It may not be for everyone, but I feel a good amount of people would like a Korean War game imho.
Battlefield Vietnam WAS a thing, sadly not anymore. Would be nice if they could remake that game or make a Vietnam 2, though I doubt that's considered even remotely profitable by EA.
my dad and I have literally obsessed over the idea of a vietnam game for 6 years, black ops cold war trailer got us hyped until we found out it wasnt just vietnam
Yeah, Call of Duty cuts it close. But really doesn't put enough of its narrative on the conflict for it to count towards the type of narrative experience I think Vietnam as a conflict could provide. I hope they do tackle it someday,.Treyarch could be the perfect studio for the type of game I'm thinking about.
There are not videogames about Vietnam war except... - The flight of the Intruder (1990) - NAM (1998) - Vietnam MED EVAC (2002) - Platoon (2002) - Line of Sight: Vietnam (2003) - VietCong (2003) - Battlefield Vietnam (2004) - Wings over Vietnam (2004) - Men of Valor (2004) - Shellshock 'Nam 67 (2004) - Conflict Vietnam (2004) - VietCong 2 (2005) - Elite Warriors Vietnam (2005) - Shellshock 2 Blood trails (2009) - Men of War Vietnam (2011) - 7554 (2011) - Vietnam '65 (2015) - Rising Storm 2 Vietnam (2017) - ARMA III DLC S.O.G. Prairie Fire (2021) - Campaign Series: Vietnam (2022) ... and so on.
Rising Storm 2 and Military Conflict Vietnam are some contemporary examples of Vietnam games, both being multiplayer-focused. Back in the day we had Conflict: Vietnam (confusingly similar name to MCV, I know), Shellshock, Vietcong and Vietcong 2, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam, and a few others. But overall, it seems to be the least explored "modern" war in video games
@damnits2200 Oh nevermind, RS2, yes. I thought you said RO2. RO2 is better about that for some reason. RS2 has some actual servers that download viruses on your PC.
I was playing Battlefield Vietnam multiplayer, even to this day the environment is so beautifully made, sadly there was no single player but I am a multiplayer player anyway : )
I love how NO ONE mentioned Vietcong (2003) and Vietcong 2 (2006). These are kind of obscure but are extremely unique bcoz the 1st one is the 1st game to feature aim down iron sights.
I've said this for years make it with information and depth because my grandfather was in Korea I would love a game that tells the story of the conflict.
@@jerrypeters9850 its just a very short, conventional war, through the united nations, with little guerrilla warfare or commando elements to the war which means it could never be a "Black Ops" game. i honestly just wish there were more historically accurate movies about the korean war, id prefer that to a video game.
@@4evrane342 or a mini series like band of brothers but I don't care what media I just want it to get the attention it deserves but a game would be sick even if I'm the only one playing it
It would play like every other WW2 shooter because the technology is mostly the same. It would just end up being a WW2 game that just happens to take place in Korea. As much as I'd like to see a Korean War game as well, franchises like Call of Duty or Battlefield wouldn't do the conflict justice, in my opinion.
Putting here cuz lack of comments, so I’ll be seen. What OP is asking for is impossible in today’s culture. He wants a triple A studio to release a game that makes a profound political statement about the nature of war? Never gonna happen. I’ll tell you why. We live in an HR culture where offending anyone for any reason is considered unacceptable. This includes exposing people to real political issues that effect them, but are too ugly for discussion in polite society. It’s unfortunately unacceptable today. This has created a phenomenon where giving an accurate portrayal of something that was bad will be seen as promoting something bad simply because it was offensive. It’s the same reason why Bethesda will never remaster Morrowind. Aside from being too lazy to rework the janky ass controls, the world of Morrowind just wouldn’t fly in a video game today. The things that made it interesting were slavery, genocide, racism, colonization, and tribalist feudal politics. It was a world of strife and that’s what made it fascinating. But today, it would be seen as promoting all these terrible things, instead of just giving an accurate portrayal of them. The studios capable of making a Vietnam game that shows the war for what it really was are the kinds of studios that care about mass market appeal. They want to make a game that offends no one because it stands for nothing and makes no statements about anything important. In order to make a good Vietnam game, you have to talk about the Vietnam war. You have to talk about the imperialist agenda of both the US and China in wanting to control Vietnam as a puppet state. You have to talk about the racism and classism involved in choosing who was sent to Vietnam. Of course you have to talk about the war crimes and the genocide. You even have to touch on how the whole escalation was based on a lie because Tonkin bay was a false flag; meaning we sent young boys to go kill other young boys for absolutely nothing. But when you give an accurate portrayal of those things in your game, game journalists will lambast you for promoting those things. Then people won’t buy your game because people will take the game journos at their word. It’ll be ill received by the shitty HR culture of today where you’re not allowed to talk about real shit.
If Vietnam War is neglected in game industry, Korean War is truly "forgotten". Just imagine how many different options in equipment alone there would be as thats when old WW2 tech collided with modern innovations like jet planes, mass use of individual automatic weapons and of course the constant threat of nuclear war (as there was no specific political doctrine for its use yet). Plus it's an untouched territory in the world of media so automatically generates a lot of interest.
It would make the US look like the bad guy. They deliberately targeted dams and farms. Curtis Lemay admitted that they killed 20% of the North Korean civilian population. There is a reason they are still distrusting of opening to the west.
Putting here cuz lack of comments, so I’ll be seen. What OP is asking for is impossible in today’s culture. He wants a triple A studio to release a game that makes a profound political statement about the nature of war? Never gonna happen. I’ll tell you why. We live in an HR culture where offending anyone for any reason is considered unacceptable. This includes exposing people to real political issues that effect them, but are too ugly for discussion in polite society. It’s unfortunately unacceptable today. This has created a phenomenon where giving an accurate portrayal of something that was bad will be seen as promoting something bad simply because it was offensive. It’s the same reason why Bethesda will never remaster Morrowind. Aside from being too lazy to rework the janky ass controls, the world of Morrowind just wouldn’t fly in a video game today. The things that made it interesting were slavery, genocide, racism, colonization, and tribalist feudal politics. It was a world of strife and that’s what made it fascinating. But today, it would be seen as promoting all these terrible things, instead of just giving an accurate portrayal of them. The studios capable of making a Vietnam game that shows the war for what it really was are the kinds of studios that care about mass market appeal. They want to make a game that offends no one because it stands for nothing and makes no statements about anything important. In order to make a good Vietnam game, you have to talk about the Vietnam war. You have to talk about the imperialist agenda of both the US and China in wanting to control Vietnam as a puppet state. You have to talk about the racism and classism involved in choosing who was sent to Vietnam. Of course you have to talk about the war crimes and the genocide. You even have to touch on how the whole escalation was based on a lie because Tonkin bay was a false flag; meaning we sent young boys to go kill other young boys for absolutely nothing. But when you give an accurate portrayal of those things in your game, game journalists will lambast you for promoting those things. Then people won’t buy your game because people will take the game journos at their word. It’ll be ill received by the shitty HR culture of today where you’re not allowed to talk about real shit.
Now thats a conflict no-one dares to cover in a video-game! There is a serie that just started here on youtube that follows the war week by week. Its made by 'Indy Nidell'
@@rockymontanamane its similar, the weapons are slightly more advanced since in WW2 weapons changed a lot. and in Korean War US used the M-14. it was like the M1 grand but more to an assault rifle. tank vrients were a bit more advanced and planes did change a lot, missiles were a new thing
In the Winter of 1969, an elite force of the US Army was sent on a top secret assignment in Southeast Vietnam. The objective: rescue Sgt. Four Leaf Tayback from a heavily guarded NVA Prison Camp. The mission was considered to be near-suicide. Of the ten men sent, four returned. Of those four, three wrote books about what happened. Of those three, two were published. And of those two, only one got a movie deal. This is the story of the men who attempted to make that movie.
Funny this shows up in my recommended. I was working on a vietnam FPS game for a bit (had to stop since I'm a solo dev without the money to fund such a heavy endeavor). A big part of my idea was making a historically accurate game that showed the horrors of war without demonizing the soldiers forced into it. It would've ended with the player's character going back home to a country that hated them. I still want to make this game a reality some day. I really like your video. You deserve more subs and I wish you the best of luck!
I don't know anything about game development. With that being said, it looks like you have a plan for what the game should be like. There are a couple ideas I have. 1) Copyright a story, if you have one planned out. Then go to different developers and try to get hired as the lead designer. 2) Get a group of passionate developers together and find a publisher who likes your idea and is willing to fund it. P.S., if you don't have a large budget, maybe focus on a slower-paced survival game over an action fps. Since I'm not a game designer, I have no idea if that's good advice, but I hope to see you succeed 👍
Conflict: Vietnam was really good and the characters had a surprising amount of depth. Their banter during missions showed some of their personal opinions and perspective of the war.
Imagine that your character dies in combat, then it shows the politician. When the perspective returns to the soldier, you're the dead soldiers squad mate.
😳 that could honestly make for an amazing game mechanic When the squad of characters all die (from you messing up) the campaign restarts. To finish the supposed campaign you need at least one member remaining. And obviously there would be different endings based on how many survived.
Probably the best Vietnam game we've had IMO. Influenced heavily by Platoon. Brilliant weapons, combat mechanics and soundtrack. The only thing it doesn't really focus on is the politics. Worth playing for anyone interested in the Vietnam conflict. Not sure if this video even acknowledges/shows it.
"Shellshock 'Nam '67" on the PS2 was one of my favourite games of all time. Absolutely brutal and really didn't hold back portraying on the grittiness of war. I would highly recommend it.
I think if a game like that were to be made it would have to be from several prospectives. Not just a US Infantrymen. But also from the Vietnamese’s perspective.
Australian and South Vietnamese perspectives would also be good Only 1 game to my knowledge has ever done that, Rising Storm 2 Vietnam. And it's basically dead if I'm not mistaken
How about a psychological horror set during Vietnam War. The monster could be Vietnamese folklore monsters, or it could be a representation of trauma and drug addiction.
VietCong (1) though. Miserable patrols, tunnel crawling, ambushes and traps, useless victories, overall decaying situation, dying comrades, M16s with 18 rounds per magazine and depressive ending. It does mostly everything on point iirc.
Hi great video, subscribed! I know im not a triple A studio but I too have noticed this phenomonon and started developing my game "The American War" a few years ago. It is a diffifcult balancing act to tell a story in this setting but there is so much that can be learnt and mistakes that need never repeating! I personally have tried to balance this by not shying away from the attrocities in the main story and having a museum in the game where you can learn more about the events. Really thought provocing video and it is so important people learn about the Vietnam War I have learnt so much while developing the game myself.
The story he said but with elements from the "crazy" and the "mind bending" of Far Cry 3 with a strong story like those of Ezio Auditore in Assassin's Creed. You got yourself a good Vietnam game.
The few Vietnam War games with campaign modes that I have seen in both old game magazines are the Shellshock games, the Vietcong games, Tunnel Rats and Men of Valor. After those came out, total silence on Vietnam War games. It's quite an horrific conflict but non the less a very interesting one.
There have been a fair number, I think the real issue is that by the time the computer technology to have a more realistic depiction was around, there were other conflicts that just lent themselves more to the genre. And before that you were dealing with things like Catacombs and Lethal Tender that were completely fictional. Presumably part of that was that fictional conflicts and stories could be written with the limitations of the technology in mind.
I think it the lack of demand for it, as a Vietnamese, i love playing Vietnam war game because i want to experience the brutal conflict that my family once have to live under. From my pov, alot of the big studio that can make AAA game doesn't want to touch politically sensitive area that is hard to justified for the general public, most of this company are in the west and so naturally it hard to make a Vietnam war game awhile portraying the US as the good guy while historical they lose the war and were seen as the invader. It the bad reputation that make making game revolving around Vietnam difficult for the big market. Cod black ops and cold war go into the battle here and there but never really go deep with the story because it simply can't, it will have to start portraying the US losing or as a bad guy, making it a PR problem. Game like Rising storm Vietnam or BF Bad Company 2 Vietnam are multiplayer focus and avoid the tangling with the story, just focus on the boom boom part. I feel like a story focus vietnam war game can only come out of Vietnam or a bold western studio.
@aveteranplayer6403 War are won by completing it set goal, North Vietnam wanted to unite the country, South Vietnam want to defend their holding, the US want to props up the southern government. The US suffer more losses than their people can accept, they lose on propaganda and morale, ultimately forcing the US government to pull out completely or risk further instability. The US and South Vietnam (being 2 of the major participants) lose their objective, and ultimately lose the war. The idea a nation need to be destroy to lose a war is kinda unreasonable, example for a war that didn't end in total destruction is the war of 1812 in the US history, the war result in practically no border changes but the US capital was destroyed, no one would say the US win that war, yet the US still exist as a nation, everyone agree it was lost because one side achieve their objective and the other didn't. Another example is the war of 1870 (also known as the Franco-Prussian war), France was defeated in combat and lose some territory and influence, however their government remain the same, the nation still exist, if going by your word, France didn't lost the war but no one would say that. Korea is different than Vietnam, it was stalemate instead of a clear winner. You can say their 4 major party in the Korean war, China, NK, SK, and US. NK, SK and US didn't achieve their goal, they were stuck in a prolonged conflict with no gain. Only China really won the war because they just want to keep a buffer between them and the US, meaning they the only victor of this conflict. In technicality it still a ongoing war but it practically defused for now. The US goal was always to props up the southern government, if they were to be destroy, the US would lose because that their goal the entire war. Here a almost exact example, the Soviet union invasion into Afghanistan, the Soviet help props up the local government, the government still get defeated in the end but soviet retreated 4 years earlier. Would you then say the Soviet lose the war or did they just didn't lose and didn't won.
@aveteranplayer6403a withdrawal=surrender 😂😂 you Americans never want to admit it....yet you make fun of the French...for doing the same exact shit the U.S did TWICE lololol stop bruh y'all lost, because the U.S did not accomplish what they set out to do there.
@aveteranplayer6403 " It is the same thing with the Korean war, south vs north and the fact that the north won against the south people seem to say that USA is the one who lost the mos" - Hold up, that's nonsense. The North essentially had to be rescued by Chinese forces. Seoul was recaptured by the UN. South Korea has more territory above the 38th parallel than the North has below it. The deployment of PLA troops in Korea prevented a landing in Taiwan. Mao Zedong's son also perished in the conflict so a Mao dynasty was prevented. As a whole, the Korean war was a stalemate largely favoring the South and UN forces.
@@spookyengie735 The nuance is that the North was brought to the negotiating table. They later broke the peace treaty when it was safe to do so. A better analogy is the 2021 withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban signed a peace deal and then broke it when the US left. If anything, the Taliban advanced right behind the US's heels to defeat ANA forces while North Vietnam had to wait 3 years to invade the South.
Before watching I thought you were saying we haven't had a game FROM Vietnam and thinks "well, we had a FPS game called 7554, a horror game called Thần Trùng and HOA, a platformer"
I would like to mention that briefly there was a call of duty game being made by sledgehammer games called call of duty vietnam which would've been a cod game entirely based on Vietnam however it was canceled by Activision
I’ll have to admit, part of the reason I’ve taken an interest in historical strategy games is because they mostly offer to play as whatever controversial faction/scenario you want. First person shooters, especially on the historical front, always feel focused on the same ‘good guys’ perspective repetitively, during the same ‘safe’ historical events repetitively. Trying to immerse myself into the same thing is such a dead horse.
My uncle was drafted from prison. They gave him a choice. 30+ years, or go to war. He went to war. Came back a very different person, to this day his head still messed up. Crazy shit happened in that war. At one point his CO went AWOL, started ordering strikes on civilians and freindlies. My uncle drew the short straw, saluted his CO, then put a round in his temple and lead the swuad back to base. Another time he was given a few weeks RnR. He said he had some things to handle, loaded up ammo and some MRE, went back into jungle. Over the next 3 weeks he ran a solo onslaught agaisnt the VC forces, stopping at mash units and FOBs to reload, eat, and go back. He then denied every award the army gave him. I mean he has them, but only because they didnt give him a choice. They are hidden in his attic never to ne seen again until his death. While he was solo he took out several VC operation posts, alone. Except on one occasion he ended up running into another guy doing the same thing, some crazy ass Australian between the two of them they took out an entire village of VC combatants. Leaving only the women and children, every last man with a weapon was taken out. They order the women to run with the kids, after the village was cleared, they burned it to the ground, ammo, food, everything torched. It was a fucked up war.
Vietcong was amazing and a cult classic in the country of its origin (Czechia). It didn't really get into the political controversy and psychogical damage of the war, but it created a very immersive paranoid experience with deadly enemies hidden in jungle vegetation. I still remember the mission where you have to crawl through a vietcong tunnel, one of the scariest non-horror videogame moments.
Very good point about making the stories "feel good". Up until "World at War", there really wasn't any WWII games that explored even remotely the really bad sides of conflict, most early 2000s WWII games, as good as they were, essentially boiled down to 'Band of Brothers" simulators.
Part of it probably does come down to the fact that the US was almost certainly on the wrong side of the Vietnam conflict and got stuck there because Kennedy had us mostly just securing and protecting air bases and didn't leave a sufficiently clear rubric about how long to stay in or to what end when he was assassinated. Politically, a good chunk of potential buyers back in the '80s and '90s were opposed to it, unlike the wars that have more games associated with them.
@@sasquatch7234 Well of course it is, but when you contrast it’s telling to something like The Pacific it relatively isn’t dark. Which is why I think WAW was so effective at portraying war so brutally, due to them picking The Pacific Theater and The Eastern Front.
Men of Valor is the only shooter I know of other than Battlefield that tackled Vietnam. Men of Valor is absolutely worth playing today. It plays well and for the time the environments were very well done. It was well received at the time but was a single player game and it got dinged hard on that. It had a solid story and you should absolutely give it a look if you haven't. It's on Steam and GoG for $10 and routinely goes on sale. It's a very challenging game but I loved it and still go back to it from time to time.
One of my favorite war games of all time. The plot was out not a movie. It surprised me that it was never big but you might have nailed why. Another theory i have is at the time because of post-911 and the War on Terror people didn't want to play a video game based off a war we lost.
Hear me out, a Vietnam war game where it takes you through Basic training all the way to the last operation you take part in. Your character is drafted and goes to war. He starts out as a fine, sane man, but throughout the war, he starts seeing the horrors of war and starts having hallucinations. He loses all of his friends he made, one by one, like in All Quiet On The Western Front. Near the end of the game, he loses a leg or arm and is sent back stateside. When he got back, he was getting harassed (sort of) by the protesters. The epilogue could be him in the states having flashbacks of the war and starts shouting in a store or house. With such intense PTSD, he commits suicide. Then the credits roll. This is a simplified version just because I’m writing this in a rush. Thank you for your time for reading my crappy comment.
funnily enough one of the first games developed by guerrilla games was a vietnam war game callled shellshock nam 67 where you play as a us soldier during the vietnam war and in that game you essentially are not the good guy, and neither your squad mates
Arma 3 with the SOG Prairie fire DLC. There are servers where you can fight the Vietnam war with over 60-80 other players against the Vietcong and NVA. In maps that are no joke 13 by 13 Miles. Thick jungle, guys who play as pilots, soldiers, Special forces and more! It’s incredible and highly underrated
I've been wondering this for years now. Like, I could easily see a CoD or even Battlefield game set in the Vietnam War that would go extra hard and be super interesting as it delves very deep into the mindset of the soliders and how the war as it was affected them.
There are thousands of historical wars that can be interesting. Obviously Americans think of American wars for games. I would love to see a Civil War, or Revolutionary war game.
The Conflict game series was very underrated & unappreciated back in the day. Having a 4 team squad you had full control over throughout the course of 3-4 different games was ahead of its time. No other game has come close to its concept. You had Vietnam, Desert Storm, & Global Storm or Global Terror(can’t remember which one exactly). I loved playing those games. Hopefully someone anyone can pick up the rights & remaster them.
I've asked myself this question a million times, and lamented the fact that very few companies/studios have never touched the Vietnam War. On top of that you also have the Korean War! These are both conflicts that I feel genuinely deserve more attention. There are stories out there that we aren't getting to understand on even a basic level, and I think that's a major missed opportunity.
My grandfather was stationed at fort benning and he was deployed as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam both the huey and the chinook and he won’t even talk about it but when I saw pictures I understood why a lot his men and civilians he was trying to help were lost it was a sad sight one day someone get promoted or they attended church with all their guns and friends and the next day they didn’t make it back a lot of the civilians were grateful he supplied medical supplies to them evacuated them but I always wanted to play a game like that because of history and to tribute for those that served and have a better understanding of what they went through
Before you comment he is talking about a big budget modern game and not talking about the past so an old 6th gen game or black ops are out of the conversation.
I feel like a big part is that the historic FPS genre is mainly dominated by COD and Battlefield. This is a problem since they are pretty much U.S. Military propaganda, especially COD which is literally recieves funding from the U.S. government. They will pretty much never make a game focused on Vietnam, because they'd HAVE to acknowledge it's contorversiality. With the eception of Battlefield 1, and maybe a few other games, they are practically always a black in white tale in which the U.S. are the good guys, who fight Nazis or Terrorists or Commies. You can't do that with Vietnam. The Mai Lai massacre was a massive atrocity that they couldn't just sweep under the rug (like they do with their attrocities in the middle east). What I'd say is almost even more important than that, is that the U.S. LOST. Even ignoring the attrocities, you can't glorify the U.S. military as great heroes of democracy, if they LOSE. This is why so many military nuts will try and find reasons to paint the U.S. as the winners, because they can't accept that the great U.S. military could lose. TLDR; Triple A studios won't make a vietnam game because due to the attrocities of the war, and the U.S.'s defeat, it's a lot harder to turn into propaganda.
I mean: 1. US is not the good guy here 2. too sensitive 3. too complex to make, jungle warfare is hard to design Vietnam war is already been made into games, have you ever seen a game surround Korean war between US/UN vs NK/China? Never......
Yeah but see that could be the whole context and premise for the game like you go sent in as a regular soldier assigned to a unit and then as you go through the game you see almost every body killed in front of you by traps and messed up stuff to depict to audiences the true devastation of war and the feelings left with the people FORCED by our government for the most part to go out and fight.
@@rafox66 not really. besides Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, the US has won a great majority of its wars where our soliders were directly deployed.But you cant really argue that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were not supported by the public, that was immediately post 9/11 and possibly the most united the country ever was, at least until Bush was out of office. Sure there were some people that would have preferred the US to just stay on our own land but every war is like that. Vietnam however, was directly opposed to the public's opinion. Nobody wanted us to be there because there was no point. It was another pointless war in the pointless attempt to "end communism". Honestly if the government really wanted communism to fall they would've been far more successful instating/funding a right wing dictator like in Chile and Bolivia or supporting counter revolutionary forces like the Contras.
@@soberrelativelyspeaking I wasn't truly being serious but it made me think about it. You're right about the public support by the way. And I must admit I thought the statistics were a lot worse, but I guess that's because you tend to only remember the recent wars. But out of the major wars the results are: Victory: American revolution, Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, Gulf war Inconclusive: war or 1812, Korean war Defeat: Vietnam war, Iraq war, Afghanistan war Inconclusives are not outright defeats but I kind of consider the war of 1812 a defeat because you were the agressor. And I'm not counting the American civil war because that was fought against yourself, or the world wars because there's so many that participated in those.
We didn’t lose per se but we certainly didn’t win either. Just like with Afghanistan, we were thoroughly winning on the battlefield but didn’t finish the job
@@timhefty504 Winning the battle does not mean you win the war. If for example you have multiple costly victories you can be defeated in the long term, it's called a Pyrrhic victory. And Afghanistan is a bad example for battlefield warfare anyway because the enemy uses guerilla warfare where they just hide among the civilians, lay traps and ambush you, they try to avoid actual battles. Even if you win the battles, a traditional army has no good counter to this style of warfare because they have to abide to the Geneva convention which the enemy does not follow. People tend to complain when you just carpet bomb the whole town.
same thing with modern war games. game companies are so scared of 2 specific wars: Vietnam and the early 2000s Iraq war both of which have barely been touched by AAA studios and no niche games or DLCs dont count Im talking call of duty type budget but the ENTIRE game is centered around vietnam or the war in Iraq. And to expand further having the enemy force actually be called the vietcong or Republican guard/Al Queda/Taliban not some made up para-military organization that is like ran and funded by russian terrorists and receiving additional support by Chinese black ops agents. and for the american forces actually playing as just a normal infantry battalion and not some spec ops special operators in plain clothes with plate carriers and heavily modified guns running in like a 4 man team that looks like they can win the war on their own but a regular 11 Bravo infantryman with an m4/m16 with the only attachments being a foregrip and an ACOG scope.
Same bro most young people probably never heard of the game all, so Flash Point Dragon Rising was awesome, too, but so ridiculous realistic most people couldn't understand, so the game went under the Radar.
I just had this conversation w/ someone. When i saw the thumbnail for your vid, i knew my phone was eavesdropping on me again. But when you added Sabbath i had to hit the like button!!🤘
I mean if I was a developer making a generic corridor FPS, the last setting I'd want to set it in is Vietnam. A linear FPS has zero use for all those carefully made jungle environment assets, coupled with the usual controversy it's a no-go for AAA publishers. And unless you are playing as North Vietnam/Viet Cong, the narrative really only ends one way and that's with you losing. I guess you could do a Spec Ops: The Line sort of thing, problem is there's an Oscar-winning elephant in the room with that option. Depends on what you want out of your shooter. If you just want your usual linear FPS, I guess play Vietcong (2003)? But personally, the setting and time period are entirely lost on that style of game. About six months ago I discovered ArmA 3: Antistasi Ultimate, and I'll never go back. Last night after hiking two kilometers into the jungle in the dead of night, me and my AI squadmates ambushed an ARVN patrol just outside their outpost. The whole battle, an entirely unscripted event that I fully planned, instigated, and then carried out, took a real-time two hours. I ran out of flares halfway through and had to scrounge crappy grenade-fired ones while tracers are lighting up the entire jungle around me. I emptied four 30-round magazines, dunno if I hit anything. Now granted, ArmA has a reputation of "drive around doing nothing for two hours, die suddenly from a sniper half a kilometer away, rinse and repeat" because it is a proper milsim, and Antistasi is notoriously difficult and ridiculous, so I understand this is not an answer that works for many people, but I have not had anything even close to that experience in any other video game and it was entirely organic. When I raid the same outpost again in a few hours, it will be a totally different experience, the only constant that I can count on is that it will most certainly devolve into utter, unpredictable chaos in the jungle almost immediately. If that doesn't give you just a taste of what the real soldiers felt, I do not think a linear corridor shooter will do it either. So if you're a game developer, why even put those hundreds of hours into backbreaking work anyways? Just set it in the Middle East again, then every map can be sand-colored traditional square (easy to model) buildings or sand-colored sand.
A war in Vietnam game will end with the character going home because a tour is 12 months. Going to Vietnam is not that much different from a prison sentence.
It's one of the reasons why I love treyarch so much for making that game. It wasn't modern warfare, but it wasn't ww2. it had some modern warfare elements and Mechanics from the modern warfare franchise. But felt old too. I love it when treyarch makes historical games. I like it when call of duty focus on real events.
I remember discussing with a friend this year that a Vietnam or Pacific set entry in the "Sniper Elite" series would be interesting. Admittedly, those games are more of the "adventurous" spirit of warfare, but I do believe the oppressive jungle environments and the right amount of tension and reflection could really make those imaginary entries stand out.
There were a lot of Vietnam games in the early 2000s. Conflict: Vietnam and BFBC: Vietnam are two that come to mind but I remember there being others. It's my favorite war.
My mother used to tell me stories about her life in Vietnam. She also told me about how she fled, what it was like, how horrifying the entire experience was.
I played a couple of Nam games but I've been playing games for a long time, I thought Shellshock: Nam 67 was pretty intense at the time have Vietcong as well. Personally I do think jungle warfare in general, and incapsulating the chaos and the scale of things is a very hard and possibly very expensive project. Trying to mimic experiences in movies like Platoon and Hamburger hill is very ambitious. I do think that counts for more than a reason than anything else.
What we really need is a game set in the Korean War. Completely overlooked. Battlefield 1 showed that people will play a game set in WW1. Now we need the Korean War.
I have LOVED seeing all of the discussion this video has generated. And I definitely know there are some great older Vietnam games that I have not played. I kind of want to pick some up and give them a shot. I wanted to ask you, how should I go about playing some of these games in a way where you can see/interact? Should I stream them? Would there be an audience for that? Or should I make videos on whichever ones I play? I wanna know what you think!
Thanks again for watching, this has now become my best performing video so far!
I'd love a good vietcong let's play.
I mean the first mission of Advanced Warfare takes place in Korea in a new Korean War😭
Why did you beat around the bush about it call of duty black ops and the cod black ops 2 flashback missions are right there and you used black ops gameplay footage like dude just admit that activision and treyarch got ballsy and made a banger game involving Vietnam and other controversial topics
old school battlefield Vietnam was amazing
Search for Line of Sight Vietnam
I've played quite a few games, but honestly, I'd rather the Korean War. I can't think of a single Korean War game. It truly is the "Forgotten War."
fr
I agree it's a war that's been overlooked by games companies. However the reason I reckon it hasn't been touched upon is because WW2 weapons were still being used during the Korean War. Developers would just see it as a rehashed WW2 game just in a different setting
@@ashcookson2810 So true. That's why they don't make that many games set in the 1930's, like Spanish Civil War or Winter War between USSR and Finland. That's a shame, so many conflicts are overshadowed by WW2 tbh. Corean War was actually the third in the death count after WW2 and WW1 in the 20th century.
@@ashcookson2810 Understandable, but honestly pretty much all games taking place in modern war use the same weapons. It may not be for everyone, but I feel a good amount of people would like a Korean War game imho.
Spanish american war is interesting to
Black Ops be like: hey I was obviously mentioned.
The numbers what do they mean
Best missions in campaign were the Vietnam parts
Hot take: Halo: Vietnam Wars.
"wort wort wort 9/10" - IGN
"It has nothing to do with Halo 5/7" - The verge.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 Had Vietnam Dlc
@@MikeHunt-gz9dwoh definitely the rest of it is meh
A battlefield game with the atmosphere of bf1 but set in vietnam would be insane, riding in a huey with an m60 into battle would go hard
Battlefield Vietnam WAS a thing, sadly not anymore. Would be nice if they could remake that game or make a Vietnam 2, though I doubt that's considered even remotely profitable by EA.
Battlefield Vietnam Remastered.
"Get some, get some, get some....."
Bad company 2 had a Vietnam expansion. The Huey's had songs playing on a speaker as well.
With Fortunate Son playing all the time
my dad and I have literally obsessed over the idea of a vietnam game for 6 years, black ops cold war trailer got us hyped until we found out it wasnt just vietnam
Yeah, Call of Duty cuts it close. But really doesn't put enough of its narrative on the conflict for it to count towards the type of narrative experience I think Vietnam as a conflict could provide. I hope they do tackle it someday,.Treyarch could be the perfect studio for the type of game I'm thinking about.
@@DeadBeat_Dave me and my dad like rising storm but thats not the same
Far cry 5's DLC called Hours of Darkness was pretty good but short
@@bigbigs7187 yeah we played it, its good just not a full game
Conflict: Vietnam was on the PS2 back in the day. I liked that one.
hear me out, a soviet afghan game
The og the sands are speaking afghani
Pretty sure Project Reality has a map or two of that
Black Ops 2 have done that in a mission.
@@Destroyer_21 Afghans speaking Dari and pashtun
Included civil wars through the 1990s in Afghanistan
There are not videogames about Vietnam war except...
- The flight of the Intruder (1990)
- NAM (1998)
- Vietnam MED EVAC (2002)
- Platoon (2002)
- Line of Sight: Vietnam (2003)
- VietCong (2003)
- Battlefield Vietnam (2004)
- Wings over Vietnam (2004)
- Men of Valor (2004)
- Shellshock 'Nam 67 (2004)
- Conflict Vietnam (2004)
- VietCong 2 (2005)
- Elite Warriors Vietnam (2005)
- Shellshock 2 Blood trails (2009)
- Men of War Vietnam (2011)
- 7554 (2011)
- Vietnam '65 (2015)
- Rising Storm 2 Vietnam (2017)
- ARMA III DLC S.O.G. Prairie Fire (2021)
- Campaign Series: Vietnam (2022)
... and so on.
But do any of those make an impact on the mainstream? You're not finding people like The Act Man covering much of any of that...
would definitely recommend Rising Storm 2: Vietnam, still has about 500 player peak daily so you wont have any problems having fun
Men of valor was one of my favorites when i was younger
@@toasty_7233 once black orchestra drops im sure that player count will rise as well
And a DLC for Far Cry 5
Rising Storm 2 and Military Conflict Vietnam are some contemporary examples of Vietnam games, both being multiplayer-focused. Back in the day we had Conflict: Vietnam (confusingly similar name to MCV, I know), Shellshock, Vietcong and Vietcong 2, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam, and a few others. But overall, it seems to be the least explored "modern" war in video games
I wanna see video games focused on the Korean War
The Korean War is even less focused on.
RS2 is no longer updated and most of the remaining multiplayer servers are essentially copy paste unlimited ticket servers with like 5 hour rounds
@@damnits2200 That's not true. Matches last maybe 30 minutes.
@damnits2200 Oh nevermind, RS2, yes. I thought you said RO2. RO2 is better about that for some reason. RS2 has some actual servers that download viruses on your PC.
We need a Battlefield Vietnam game, not the BC2 dlc but a full game
There is one. It came out in 2004. It just didn’t do as well as BF 1942
I was playing Battlefield Vietnam multiplayer, even to this day the environment is so beautifully made, sadly there was no single player but I am a multiplayer player anyway : )
Play Rising Storm 2 Vietnam
I really expected it to be Vietnam after BF1 because everyone had been doing WW2 constantly
Battflield style lol😂 that franchise is dead
I love how NO ONE mentioned Vietcong (2003) and Vietcong 2 (2006). These are kind of obscure but are extremely unique bcoz the 1st one is the 1st game to feature aim down iron sights.
Viet cong was amazing when it came out. The graphics, your team ai was actually useful. Good times 👍
@@Pokey_Turtle this game was wayyy ahead of its time
To samý bráško✊🇨🇿
operation flashpoint had aim down sights.
I remember those games. Wish the game play and graphics were better.
what about the Korean war, i can’t name one game that takes place during the Korean war
Yeah, that’s just because we forget about it. It’d be an interesting conflict to cover. It’s nicknamed the “Forgotten War” for a reason
I've said this for years make it with information and depth because my grandfather was in Korea I would love a game that tells the story of the conflict.
@@jerrypeters9850 its just a very short, conventional war, through the united nations, with little guerrilla warfare or commando elements to the war which means it could never be a "Black Ops" game. i honestly just wish there were more historically accurate movies about the korean war, id prefer that to a video game.
@@4evrane342 or a mini series like band of brothers but I don't care what media I just want it to get the attention it deserves but a game would be sick even if I'm the only one playing it
It would play like every other WW2 shooter because the technology is mostly the same. It would just end up being a WW2 game that just happens to take place in Korea. As much as I'd like to see a Korean War game as well, franchises like Call of Duty or Battlefield wouldn't do the conflict justice, in my opinion.
Battlefield Vietnam is a game I really want remastered so I could play.
Thats fire
It was
As a dlc for Bad Company 2
Well you can play it, just use and XP virtual machine if it doesn't work on newer systems.
@@AnotherGuyTheXone yeah it ain't ok the PS5 though and if it was I wouldn't be able to find a match like bf4
@@peterwallis4288 damm
Most people don’t know that Battlefield Vietnam existed in 2004. And it was an AWESOME game.
Fye
This kid probably wasn't even born
Putting here cuz lack of comments, so I’ll be seen.
What OP is asking for is impossible in today’s culture. He wants a triple A studio to release a game that makes a profound political statement about the nature of war? Never gonna happen. I’ll tell you why.
We live in an HR culture where offending anyone for any reason is considered unacceptable. This includes exposing people to real political issues that effect them, but are too ugly for discussion in polite society. It’s unfortunately unacceptable today. This has created a phenomenon where giving an accurate portrayal of something that was bad will be seen as promoting something bad simply because it was offensive.
It’s the same reason why Bethesda will never remaster Morrowind. Aside from being too lazy to rework the janky ass controls, the world of Morrowind just wouldn’t fly in a video game today. The things that made it interesting were slavery, genocide, racism, colonization, and tribalist feudal politics. It was a world of strife and that’s what made it fascinating. But today, it would be seen as promoting all these terrible things, instead of just giving an accurate portrayal of them.
The studios capable of making a Vietnam game that shows the war for what it really was are the kinds of studios that care about mass market appeal. They want to make a game that offends no one because it stands for nothing and makes no statements about anything important. In order to make a good Vietnam game, you have to talk about the Vietnam war. You have to talk about the imperialist agenda of both the US and China in wanting to control Vietnam as a puppet state. You have to talk about the racism and classism involved in choosing who was sent to Vietnam. Of course you have to talk about the war crimes and the genocide. You even have to touch on how the whole escalation was based on a lie because Tonkin bay was a false flag; meaning we sent young boys to go kill other young boys for absolutely nothing.
But when you give an accurate portrayal of those things in your game, game journalists will lambast you for promoting those things. Then people won’t buy your game because people will take the game journos at their word. It’ll be ill received by the shitty HR culture of today where you’re not allowed to talk about real shit.
If Vietnam War is neglected in game industry, Korean War is truly "forgotten". Just imagine how many different options in equipment alone there would be as thats when old WW2 tech collided with modern innovations like jet planes, mass use of individual automatic weapons and of course the constant threat of nuclear war (as there was no specific political doctrine for its use yet). Plus it's an untouched territory in the world of media so automatically generates a lot of interest.
It would make the US look like the bad guy. They deliberately targeted dams and farms. Curtis Lemay admitted that they killed 20% of the North Korean civilian population. There is a reason they are still distrusting of opening to the west.
Untouched territory in media
Well M.A.S.H. is a thing
Putting here cuz lack of comments, so I’ll be seen.
What OP is asking for is impossible in today’s culture. He wants a triple A studio to release a game that makes a profound political statement about the nature of war? Never gonna happen. I’ll tell you why.
We live in an HR culture where offending anyone for any reason is considered unacceptable. This includes exposing people to real political issues that effect them, but are too ugly for discussion in polite society. It’s unfortunately unacceptable today. This has created a phenomenon where giving an accurate portrayal of something that was bad will be seen as promoting something bad simply because it was offensive.
It’s the same reason why Bethesda will never remaster Morrowind. Aside from being too lazy to rework the janky ass controls, the world of Morrowind just wouldn’t fly in a video game today. The things that made it interesting were slavery, genocide, racism, colonization, and tribalist feudal politics. It was a world of strife and that’s what made it fascinating. But today, it would be seen as promoting all these terrible things, instead of just giving an accurate portrayal of them.
The studios capable of making a Vietnam game that shows the war for what it really was are the kinds of studios that care about mass market appeal. They want to make a game that offends no one because it stands for nothing and makes no statements about anything important. In order to make a good Vietnam game, you have to talk about the Vietnam war. You have to talk about the imperialist agenda of both the US and China in wanting to control Vietnam as a puppet state. You have to talk about the racism and classism involved in choosing who was sent to Vietnam. Of course you have to talk about the war crimes and the genocide. You even have to touch on how the whole escalation was based on a lie because Tonkin bay was a false flag; meaning we sent young boys to go kill other young boys for absolutely nothing.
But when you give an accurate portrayal of those things in your game, game journalists will lambast you for promoting those things. Then people won’t buy your game because people will take the game journos at their word. It’ll be ill received by the shitty HR culture of today where you’re not allowed to talk about real shit.
Need a Vietnam game like Hell Let Loose for console
Rising Storm 2: Vietnam
@@xXMapleVodkaXx ya but I said on console
@@xXMapleVodkaXx one thats not functionally dead
@@misfit492that one has peak 500+ can’t help people have goldfish attention spans now can we.
@@TheProrage509 I've got 3k hours in the game but somehow the others with the same time have zero awareness of the objective
Give us a Korean War game
This needs to be heard.
Now thats a conflict no-one dares to cover in a video-game!
There is a serie that just started here on youtube that follows the war week by week. Its made by 'Indy Nidell'
no like someone already said its just ww2 but in north korea the technologies the same 🤦♂️
@@rockymontanamane its similar, the weapons are slightly more advanced since in WW2 weapons changed a lot. and in Korean War US used the M-14. it was like the M1 grand but more to an assault rifle.
tank vrients were a bit more advanced and planes did change a lot, missiles were a new thing
it would be like Iraq 2003 compared to Modern warfare 2019. similar but slightly advanced and new gear
In the Winter of 1969, an elite force of the US Army was sent on a top secret assignment in Southeast Vietnam. The objective: rescue Sgt. Four Leaf Tayback from a heavily guarded NVA Prison Camp. The mission was considered to be near-suicide. Of the ten men sent, four returned. Of those four, three wrote books about what happened. Of those three, two were published. And of those two, only one got a movie deal. This is the story of the men who attempted to make that movie.
Rising storm 2 is like hello.
Did you watch the video
Funny this shows up in my recommended. I was working on a vietnam FPS game for a bit (had to stop since I'm a solo dev without the money to fund such a heavy endeavor). A big part of my idea was making a historically accurate game that showed the horrors of war without demonizing the soldiers forced into it. It would've ended with the player's character going back home to a country that hated them. I still want to make this game a reality some day.
I really like your video. You deserve more subs and I wish you the best of luck!
I don't know anything about game development. With that being said, it looks like you have a plan for what the game should be like. There are a couple ideas I have.
1) Copyright a story, if you have one planned out. Then go to different developers and try to get hired as the lead designer.
2) Get a group of passionate developers together and find a publisher who likes your idea and is willing to fund it.
P.S., if you don't have a large budget, maybe focus on a slower-paced survival game over an action fps. Since I'm not a game designer, I have no idea if that's good advice, but I hope to see you succeed 👍
Shellshock: Nam 67' was my first and favourite.
was so good
Conflict: Vietnam was really good and the characters had a surprising amount of depth. Their banter during missions showed some of their personal opinions and perspective of the war.
Battfield Vietnam...Man of Valor...Vietcong...Vietcong Purple Haze...Vietcong 2...Shellshock 'Nam 67...Shellshock 2: Bloodtrails...
Conflict: Vietnam too
@@ArchVile98 Ah yes, the Conflict series, the Great Value of military shooters
Imagine that your character dies in combat, then it shows the politician. When the perspective returns to the soldier, you're the dead soldiers squad mate.
😳 that could honestly make for an amazing game mechanic
When the squad of characters all die (from you messing up) the campaign restarts. To finish the supposed campaign you need at least one member remaining. And obviously there would be different endings based on how many survived.
Shellshock 2 be like: Am I a joke to you???
Yes, actually you are a joke. Bad zombie game.
Vietcong released in 2003 was pretty good from memory. Had a really good cover system and quite a bit of tension
Probably the best Vietnam game we've had IMO. Influenced heavily by Platoon. Brilliant weapons, combat mechanics and soundtrack. The only thing it doesn't really focus on is the politics. Worth playing for anyone interested in the Vietnam conflict. Not sure if this video even acknowledges/shows it.
"Shellshock 'Nam '67" on the PS2 was one of my favourite games of all time. Absolutely brutal and really didn't hold back portraying on the grittiness of war. I would highly recommend it.
I have that game and I played the shit out of it. It really kept your attention throughout the entire game
I think if a game like that were to be made it would have to be from several prospectives. Not just a US Infantrymen. But also from the Vietnamese’s perspective.
Australian and South Vietnamese perspectives would also be good
Only 1 game to my knowledge has ever done that, Rising Storm 2 Vietnam.
And it's basically dead if I'm not mistaken
@@kingwolf9447 its alright but we need something fresh and big.
@@kingwolf9447 I’d like to see a squad of South Koreans too.
Of course, gotta have a campaign where you play as the winning side
@@vitoc8454 it would be boring since the vc lose every battle and have 1k:4d kd
How about a psychological horror set during Vietnam War. The monster could be Vietnamese folklore monsters, or it could be a representation of trauma and drug addiction.
That would be pretty damn cool 😎
So shellshock 2
Dude, you should play Spec Ops: The Line then.
That's pretty much Shellshock 2 😂👌
Oh wow another all in le head game, how original
VietCong (1) though.
Miserable patrols, tunnel crawling, ambushes and traps, useless victories, overall decaying situation, dying comrades, M16s with 18 rounds per magazine and depressive ending.
It does mostly everything on point iirc.
Hi great video, subscribed! I know im not a triple A studio but I too have noticed this phenomonon and started developing my game "The American War" a few years ago. It is a diffifcult balancing act to tell a story in this setting but there is so much that can be learnt and mistakes that need never repeating! I personally have tried to balance this by not shying away from the attrocities in the main story and having a museum in the game where you can learn more about the events. Really thought provocing video and it is so important people learn about the Vietnam War I have learnt so much while developing the game myself.
I’m still desperate for a game set in the congo wars where we can either play as PMC’s or local rebels
"Spec Ops: The Line" showed how a game depicting the Vietnam War could be done.
I've now been looking for this one.. Seen it recommended to me enough times here to get me interested. Someday I'll get around to it!
@@DeadBeat_Daveyou gotta stop not knowing about Spec Ops the Line and Start knowing it Real Fast.
Welcome to Dubai.
@@TagardMC Yeah, I'm getting pretty excited to check this out. Ya'll keep hyping me up for it 🤣
There are Vietcong and first Shellshock games
The story he said but with elements from the "crazy" and the "mind bending" of Far Cry 3 with a strong story like those of Ezio Auditore in Assassin's Creed. You got yourself a good Vietnam game.
I very much agree 👍
The few Vietnam War games with campaign modes that I have seen in both old game magazines are the Shellshock games, the Vietcong games, Tunnel Rats and Men of Valor. After those came out, total silence on Vietnam War games. It's quite an horrific conflict but non the less a very interesting one.
There have been a fair number, I think the real issue is that by the time the computer technology to have a more realistic depiction was around, there were other conflicts that just lent themselves more to the genre. And before that you were dealing with things like Catacombs and Lethal Tender that were completely fictional. Presumably part of that was that fictional conflicts and stories could be written with the limitations of the technology in mind.
I think it the lack of demand for it, as a Vietnamese, i love playing Vietnam war game because i want to experience the brutal conflict that my family once have to live under.
From my pov, alot of the big studio that can make AAA game doesn't want to touch politically sensitive area that is hard to justified for the general public, most of this company are in the west and so naturally it hard to make a Vietnam war game awhile portraying the US as the good guy while historical they lose the war and were seen as the invader. It the bad reputation that make making game revolving around Vietnam difficult for the big market. Cod black ops and cold war go into the battle here and there but never really go deep with the story because it simply can't, it will have to start portraying the US losing or as a bad guy, making it a PR problem.
Game like Rising storm Vietnam or BF Bad Company 2 Vietnam are multiplayer focus and avoid the tangling with the story, just focus on the boom boom part.
I feel like a story focus vietnam war game can only come out of Vietnam or a bold western studio.
@aveteranplayer6403 War are won by completing it set goal, North Vietnam wanted to unite the country, South Vietnam want to defend their holding, the US want to props up the southern government. The US suffer more losses than their people can accept, they lose on propaganda and morale, ultimately forcing the US government to pull out completely or risk further instability. The US and South Vietnam (being 2 of the major participants) lose their objective, and ultimately lose the war. The idea a nation need to be destroy to lose a war is kinda unreasonable, example for a war that didn't end in total destruction is the war of 1812 in the US history, the war result in practically no border changes but the US capital was destroyed, no one would say the US win that war, yet the US still exist as a nation, everyone agree it was lost because one side achieve their objective and the other didn't. Another example is the war of 1870 (also known as the Franco-Prussian war), France was defeated in combat and lose some territory and influence, however their government remain the same, the nation still exist, if going by your word, France didn't lost the war but no one would say that.
Korea is different than Vietnam, it was stalemate instead of a clear winner. You can say their 4 major party in the Korean war, China, NK, SK, and US. NK, SK and US didn't achieve their goal, they were stuck in a prolonged conflict with no gain. Only China really won the war because they just want to keep a buffer between them and the US, meaning they the only victor of this conflict. In technicality it still a ongoing war but it practically defused for now.
The US goal was always to props up the southern government, if they were to be destroy, the US would lose because that their goal the entire war. Here a almost exact example, the Soviet union invasion into Afghanistan, the Soviet help props up the local government, the government still get defeated in the end but soviet retreated 4 years earlier. Would you then say the Soviet lose the war or did they just didn't lose and didn't won.
@aveteranplayer6403 US lost the war and that's the truth😂
@aveteranplayer6403a withdrawal=surrender 😂😂 you Americans never want to admit it....yet you make fun of the French...for doing the same exact shit the U.S did TWICE lololol stop bruh y'all lost, because the U.S did not accomplish what they set out to do there.
@aveteranplayer6403 " It is the same thing with the Korean war, south vs north and the fact that the north won against the south people seem to say that USA is the one who lost the mos" - Hold up, that's nonsense. The North essentially had to be rescued by Chinese forces. Seoul was recaptured by the UN. South Korea has more territory above the 38th parallel than the North has below it. The deployment of PLA troops in Korea prevented a landing in Taiwan. Mao Zedong's son also perished in the conflict so a Mao dynasty was prevented. As a whole, the Korean war was a stalemate largely favoring the South and UN forces.
@@spookyengie735 The nuance is that the North was brought to the negotiating table. They later broke the peace treaty when it was safe to do so.
A better analogy is the 2021 withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban signed a peace deal and then broke it when the US left.
If anything, the Taliban advanced right behind the US's heels to defeat ANA forces while North Vietnam had to wait 3 years to invade the South.
Before watching I thought you were saying we haven't had a game FROM Vietnam and thinks "well, we had a FPS game called 7554, a horror game called Thần Trùng and HOA, a platformer"
hahah oops, didn't mean to create confusion there lol
I would like to mention that briefly there was a call of duty game being made by sledgehammer games called call of duty vietnam which would've been a cod game entirely based on Vietnam however it was canceled by Activision
The US military canned that real quick
@@whah-nah-nahjack-bandit5867 Now way to give that shit the captain America treatment
This is why I will always love bo1. Only game that had the balls.
@@pajamapantsjack5874 Hi Jack
WaW had balls
Answers his own question in the first 10 seconds
As soon as i read this title my first thought was:
Call of Duty Black Ops 1: "Am I a fucking joke to you?"
I’ll have to admit, part of the reason I’ve taken an interest in historical strategy games is because they mostly offer to play as whatever controversial faction/scenario you want.
First person shooters, especially on the historical front, always feel focused on the same ‘good guys’ perspective repetitively, during the same ‘safe’ historical events repetitively. Trying to immerse myself into the same thing is such a dead horse.
My uncle was drafted from prison. They gave him a choice. 30+ years, or go to war. He went to war. Came back a very different person, to this day his head still messed up. Crazy shit happened in that war. At one point his CO went AWOL, started ordering strikes on civilians and freindlies. My uncle drew the short straw, saluted his CO, then put a round in his temple and lead the swuad back to base. Another time he was given a few weeks RnR. He said he had some things to handle, loaded up ammo and some MRE, went back into jungle. Over the next 3 weeks he ran a solo onslaught agaisnt the VC forces, stopping at mash units and FOBs to reload, eat, and go back. He then denied every award the army gave him. I mean he has them, but only because they didnt give him a choice. They are hidden in his attic never to ne seen again until his death. While he was solo he took out several VC operation posts, alone. Except on one occasion he ended up running into another guy doing the same thing, some crazy ass Australian between the two of them they took out an entire village of VC combatants. Leaving only the women and children, every last man with a weapon was taken out. They order the women to run with the kids, after the village was cleared, they burned it to the ground, ammo, food, everything torched. It was a fucked up war.
Holy crap is this is real this needs to be top comment
Man of Valor was Amazing I will never forget about that game
Vietcong from 2003 is a better game tbh
@@oliwer23pl95 yeah I have heard but haven't got chance to get my hands on it
Shellshock 1 and Conflict: Vietnam were really good too
The answer to the original question is "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution"
Vietcong was amazing and a cult classic in the country of its origin (Czechia). It didn't really get into the political controversy and psychogical damage of the war, but it created a very immersive paranoid experience with deadly enemies hidden in jungle vegetation. I still remember the mission where you have to crawl through a vietcong tunnel, one of the scariest non-horror videogame moments.
Yes, those were the worst missions in that game.
I’ve been wanting a new Vietnam war game for the longest time
Very good point about making the stories "feel good". Up until "World at War", there really wasn't any WWII games that explored even remotely the really bad sides of conflict, most early 2000s WWII games, as good as they were, essentially boiled down to 'Band of Brothers" simulators.
Part of it probably does come down to the fact that the US was almost certainly on the wrong side of the Vietnam conflict and got stuck there because Kennedy had us mostly just securing and protecting air bases and didn't leave a sufficiently clear rubric about how long to stay in or to what end when he was assassinated. Politically, a good chunk of potential buyers back in the '80s and '90s were opposed to it, unlike the wars that have more games associated with them.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Public opinion definitely played a role in it, that’s for sure
Band of Brothers is pretty dark when you look into it.
@@sasquatch7234 Well of course it is, but when you contrast it’s telling to something like The Pacific it relatively isn’t dark. Which is why I think WAW was so effective at portraying war so brutally, due to them picking The Pacific Theater and The Eastern Front.
Men of Valor is the only shooter I know of other than Battlefield that tackled Vietnam. Men of Valor is absolutely worth playing today. It plays well and for the time the environments were very well done. It was well received at the time but was a single player game and it got dinged hard on that. It had a solid story and you should absolutely give it a look if you haven't. It's on Steam and GoG for $10 and routinely goes on sale. It's a very challenging game but I loved it and still go back to it from time to time.
One of my favorite war games of all time. The plot was out not a movie. It surprised me that it was never big but you might have nailed why. Another theory i have is at the time because of post-911 and the War on Terror people didn't want to play a video game based off a war we lost.
Hear me out, a Vietnam war game where it takes you through Basic training all the way to the last operation you take part in. Your character is drafted and goes to war. He starts out as a fine, sane man, but throughout the war, he starts seeing the horrors of war and starts having hallucinations. He loses all of his friends he made, one by one, like in All Quiet On The Western Front. Near the end of the game, he loses a leg or arm and is sent back stateside. When he got back, he was getting harassed (sort of) by the protesters. The epilogue could be him in the states having flashbacks of the war and starts shouting in a store or house. With such intense PTSD, he commits suicide. Then the credits roll. This is a simplified version just because I’m writing this in a rush. Thank you for your time for reading my crappy comment.
(Fortune son starts playing)
funnily enough one of the first games developed by guerrilla games was a vietnam war game callled shellshock nam 67 where you play as a us soldier during the vietnam war and in that game you essentially are not the good guy, and neither your squad mates
This sounds pretty cool. And you're not the only one to bring this game up. Maybe I should check it out... 🤔
Conflict desert storm series did a vietnam game. There was vietcong, men of valor.
The Korean War is actually forgotten,apparently
Arma 3 with the SOG Prairie fire DLC.
There are servers where you can fight the Vietnam war with over 60-80 other players against the Vietcong and NVA.
In maps that are no joke 13 by 13 Miles.
Thick jungle, guys who play as pilots, soldiers, Special forces and more!
It’s incredible and highly underrated
- Arma 3: Prairie Fire
- Rising Storm 2
Finally, someone mentions Prairie Fire!
I've been wondering this for years now. Like, I could easily see a CoD or even Battlefield game set in the Vietnam War that would go extra hard and be super interesting as it delves very deep into the mindset of the soliders and how the war as it was affected them.
This was a great video, keep up the good work
Shellshock Nam 67 was the goat. Loved that game
I desperately need a Vietnam game
Vietcong and Vietcong first alpha
Men of Valor
this is the video I was looking for a while
Thanks! I hope you liked it!
Are there any other gaming topics you think are neglected? I'm definitely open to suggestions 😂
Anyone remember the early 2000s pc game called Vietnam blackops?
There was a handful you just probably didn't grow up in that Era and they were actually amazing games for the time period.
There are thousands of historical wars that can be interesting. Obviously Americans think of American wars for games. I would love to see a Civil War, or Revolutionary war game.
The Conflict game series was very underrated & unappreciated back in the day. Having a 4 team squad you had full control over throughout the course of 3-4 different games was ahead of its time. No other game has come close to its concept. You had Vietnam, Desert Storm, & Global Storm or Global Terror(can’t remember which one exactly). I loved playing those games. Hopefully someone anyone can pick up the rights & remaster them.
I was just thinking about this today..🤯🤯
I feel like this dude just answered his own question in the first 15 seconds of this video
Battlefield Vietnam
@@goonafresh184 my guy it was a thing already
Halo Vietnam!
wait...
@@IsuiGtz Fallout Vietnam
Bro answered his question in the first sentence
Men of valor is my favorite vietnam war game
I've asked myself this question a million times, and lamented the fact that very few companies/studios have never touched the Vietnam War. On top of that you also have the Korean War! These are both conflicts that I feel genuinely deserve more attention. There are stories out there that we aren't getting to understand on even a basic level, and I think that's a major missed opportunity.
Vietcong 2003
We really need more Vietnam War video games. You got my sub great video keep making more!
Shell shock bro
1 not 2
2 was dumpster juice, one is goated as far as ps2 concerned
My grandfather was stationed at fort benning and he was deployed as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam both the huey and the chinook and he won’t even talk about it but when I saw pictures I understood why a lot his men and civilians he was trying to help were lost it was a sad sight one day someone get promoted or they attended church with all their guns and friends and the next day they didn’t make it back a lot of the civilians were grateful he supplied medical supplies to them evacuated them but I always wanted to play a game like that because of history and to tribute for those that served and have a better understanding of what they went through
Before you comment he is talking about a big budget modern game and not talking about the past so an old 6th gen game or black ops are out of the conversation.
Yeah and also vietnam is not the main focus of BO1
I feel like a big part is that the historic FPS genre is mainly dominated by COD and Battlefield. This is a problem since they are pretty much U.S. Military propaganda, especially COD which is literally recieves funding from the U.S. government.
They will pretty much never make a game focused on Vietnam, because they'd HAVE to acknowledge it's contorversiality. With the eception of Battlefield 1, and maybe a few other games, they are practically always a black in white tale in which the U.S. are the good guys, who fight Nazis or Terrorists or Commies. You can't do that with Vietnam. The Mai Lai massacre was a massive atrocity that they couldn't just sweep under the rug (like they do with their attrocities in the middle east).
What I'd say is almost even more important than that, is that the U.S. LOST. Even ignoring the attrocities, you can't glorify the U.S. military as great heroes of democracy, if they LOSE. This is why so many military nuts will try and find reasons to paint the U.S. as the winners, because they can't accept that the great U.S. military could lose.
TLDR; Triple A studios won't make a vietnam game because due to the attrocities of the war, and the U.S.'s defeat, it's a lot harder to turn into propaganda.
I mean: 1. US is not the good guy here 2. too sensitive 3. too complex to make, jungle warfare is hard to design Vietnam war is already been made into games, have you ever seen a game surround Korean war between US/UN vs NK/China? Never......
I think it was because, Vietnam war was just one war in the greater cold war there isn't much content to make it off of.
Yeah but see that could be the whole context and premise for the game like you go sent in as a regular soldier assigned to a unit and then as you go through the game you see almost every body killed in front of you by traps and messed up stuff to depict to audiences the true devastation of war and the feelings left with the people FORCED by our government for the most part to go out and fight.
My perfect idea of a Vietnam game starts off like platoon, long walks through the jungle and real life sim, less dramatic narrative more realism
Because we lost and nobody supported the war
Like pretty much every American war then?
@@rafox66 not really. besides Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, the US has won a great majority of its wars where our soliders were directly deployed.But you cant really argue that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were not supported by the public, that was immediately post 9/11 and possibly the most united the country ever was, at least until Bush was out of office. Sure there were some people that would have preferred the US to just stay on our own land but every war is like that.
Vietnam however, was directly opposed to the public's opinion. Nobody wanted us to be there because there was no point. It was another pointless war in the pointless attempt to "end communism". Honestly if the government really wanted communism to fall they would've been far more successful instating/funding a right wing dictator like in Chile and Bolivia or supporting counter revolutionary forces like the Contras.
@@soberrelativelyspeaking I wasn't truly being serious but it made me think about it. You're right about the public support by the way.
And I must admit I thought the statistics were a lot worse, but I guess that's because you tend to only remember the recent wars. But out of the major wars the results are:
Victory: American revolution, Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, Gulf war
Inconclusive: war or 1812, Korean war
Defeat: Vietnam war, Iraq war, Afghanistan war
Inconclusives are not outright defeats but I kind of consider the war of 1812 a defeat because you were the agressor.
And I'm not counting the American civil war because that was fought against yourself, or the world wars because there's so many that participated in those.
We didn’t lose per se but we certainly didn’t win either. Just like with Afghanistan, we were thoroughly winning on the battlefield but didn’t finish the job
@@timhefty504 Winning the battle does not mean you win the war. If for example you have multiple costly victories you can be defeated in the long term, it's called a Pyrrhic victory.
And Afghanistan is a bad example for battlefield warfare anyway because the enemy uses guerilla warfare where they just hide among the civilians, lay traps and ambush you, they try to avoid actual battles. Even if you win the battles, a traditional army has no good counter to this style of warfare because they have to abide to the Geneva convention which the enemy does not follow. People tend to complain when you just carpet bomb the whole town.
While not about the Vietnam War explicitly, the game's themes and its music are evocative of the conflict and the era it took place in.
same thing with modern war games. game companies are so scared of 2 specific wars: Vietnam and the early 2000s Iraq war both of which have barely been touched by AAA studios and no niche games or DLCs dont count Im talking call of duty type budget but the ENTIRE game is centered around vietnam or the war in Iraq. And to expand further having the enemy force actually be called the vietcong or Republican guard/Al Queda/Taliban not some made up para-military organization that is like ran and funded by russian terrorists and receiving additional support by Chinese black ops agents. and for the american forces actually playing as just a normal infantry battalion and not some spec ops special operators in plain clothes with plate carriers and heavily modified guns running in like a 4 man team that looks like they can win the war on their own but a regular 11 Bravo infantryman with an m4/m16 with the only attachments being a foregrip and an ACOG scope.
Just opened the video and you already explained why in the first 5 seconds.
men of valor has a good story that focuses on some stuff you talked about. its an older game but i liked it alot.
Shellshock and Shellshock 2 on Xbox and ps2 thank me later
Same bro most young people probably never heard of the game all, so Flash Point Dragon Rising was awesome, too, but so ridiculous realistic most people couldn't understand, so the game went under the Radar.
@shadowtrooper1052 ill have to check that one out
my question is when are we getting a video game about the Yugoslav Wars? great video
Rising storm Vietnam
I just had this conversation w/ someone. When i saw the thumbnail for your vid, i knew my phone was eavesdropping on me again. But when you added Sabbath i had to hit the like button!!🤘
I mean if I was a developer making a generic corridor FPS, the last setting I'd want to set it in is Vietnam. A linear FPS has zero use for all those carefully made jungle environment assets, coupled with the usual controversy it's a no-go for AAA publishers. And unless you are playing as North Vietnam/Viet Cong, the narrative really only ends one way and that's with you losing. I guess you could do a Spec Ops: The Line sort of thing, problem is there's an Oscar-winning elephant in the room with that option.
Depends on what you want out of your shooter. If you just want your usual linear FPS, I guess play Vietcong (2003)? But personally, the setting and time period are entirely lost on that style of game. About six months ago I discovered ArmA 3: Antistasi Ultimate, and I'll never go back. Last night after hiking two kilometers into the jungle in the dead of night, me and my AI squadmates ambushed an ARVN patrol just outside their outpost. The whole battle, an entirely unscripted event that I fully planned, instigated, and then carried out, took a real-time two hours. I ran out of flares halfway through and had to scrounge crappy grenade-fired ones while tracers are lighting up the entire jungle around me. I emptied four 30-round magazines, dunno if I hit anything.
Now granted, ArmA has a reputation of "drive around doing nothing for two hours, die suddenly from a sniper half a kilometer away, rinse and repeat" because it is a proper milsim, and Antistasi is notoriously difficult and ridiculous, so I understand this is not an answer that works for many people, but I have not had anything even close to that experience in any other video game and it was entirely organic. When I raid the same outpost again in a few hours, it will be a totally different experience, the only constant that I can count on is that it will most certainly devolve into utter, unpredictable chaos in the jungle almost immediately. If that doesn't give you just a taste of what the real soldiers felt, I do not think a linear corridor shooter will do it either. So if you're a game developer, why even put those hundreds of hours into backbreaking work anyways? Just set it in the Middle East again, then every map can be sand-colored traditional square (easy to model) buildings or sand-colored sand.
A war in Vietnam game will end with the character going home because a tour is 12 months. Going to Vietnam is not that much different from a prison sentence.
@@boringdude1626 ok
What if a Vietnam game kinda had a halo reach story arc to it? Like the whole you're supposed to not make it in the end sorta thing
It's one of the reasons why I love treyarch so much for making that game. It wasn't modern warfare, but it wasn't ww2. it had some modern warfare elements and Mechanics from the modern warfare franchise. But felt old too. I love it when treyarch makes historical games. I like it when call of duty focus on real events.
5 second video turned into 5:54 of filler... USA lost
Arma 3, prairie fire dlc... perfect vietnam experince.
I remember discussing with a friend this year that a Vietnam or Pacific set entry in the "Sniper Elite" series would be interesting. Admittedly, those games are more of the "adventurous" spirit of warfare, but I do believe the oppressive jungle environments and the right amount of tension and reflection could really make those imaginary entries stand out.
"Your helicopters fall from the sky like broken birds GI"
There were a lot of Vietnam games in the early 2000s. Conflict: Vietnam and BFBC: Vietnam are two that come to mind but I remember there being others. It's my favorite war.
Rising Storm 2. RIP the glory days though..
My mother used to tell me stories about her life in Vietnam. She also told me about how she fled, what it was like, how horrifying the entire experience was.
I played a couple of Nam games but I've been playing games for a long time, I thought Shellshock: Nam 67 was pretty intense at the time have Vietcong as well. Personally I do think jungle warfare in general, and incapsulating the chaos and the scale of things is a very hard and possibly very expensive project. Trying to mimic experiences in movies like Platoon and Hamburger hill is very ambitious. I do think that counts for more than a reason than anything else.
Conflict Vietnam on ps2 holds a special place in my heart.
Conflict:Vietnam was amazing. The sound track alone probably ate up half the budget, but holy shit was the atmosphere amazing.
What we really need is a game set in the Korean War. Completely overlooked. Battlefield 1 showed that people will play a game set in WW1. Now we need the Korean War.