The reason why is because that war in particular was the worst in American history (other than the Civil War). Also, I know someone whowas special forces in the war, and he said or at least what he meaned but didnt say it was that it was baisicly a swampy h*llhole.
.......okkkkkk..... war is war either way u slice it... a GAME is a GAME either way u slice it....... and of course the past is the past either way u slice it...... why NOT make one on the vietnam war....... each warefare u.s. won..... why not switch it.... make it a "futile" effort...
The reason why is because that war in particular was the worst in American history
So, you can't make a game based on it due to it being bad in American history? I can't imagine it being very pleasant for anyone else either to be honest and considering what wars the other warfare games are based on, I can't see a problem with a game being based on the Vietnam war. I think if it was to be made, it would be an interesting game to play.
That's a good point, but also did you guys know that we dropped twice as many bombs on vietnam than we did on ww2 (i know that doesnt really help my case but what ever)
But, how on God's green Earth could you make a game based on such a choatic war (yes i realise all wars are chaotic)
OK, who ever said Warfare 1917 and Warfare 1944 weren't bad? In Warfare 1917 based on WW1, millions of lives were lost and they even depicted poison gas! Warfare 1944, The exact same two sides are depicted, and nobody said ANYTHING. A LOT MORE than 58,000 Americans were killed in WW2 or WW1, yet you have no problem with that?
...Its a fricken game. So it is bad...To the Americans...So we can't make a game out of it?
The USSR fraught the brunt of WWII, taking the most casualties. A million died. So should the USSR have banned WWII games? I would say no. And napalm, a fire bomb, has nothing on the nuclear bomb dropped during WWII. Does that make it bad to play a WWII game? No. It is a war game. It is based of a chaotic time in history. In wars, people die, some times horribly. You can't just say "Don't do that war" because people died in it...
OK, who ever said Warfare 1917 and Warfare 1944 weren't bad? In Warfare 1917 based on WW1, millions of lives were lost and they even depicted poison gas! Warfare 1944, The exact same two sides are depicted, and nobody said ANYTHING. A LOT MORE than 58,000 Americans were killed in WW2 or WW1, yet you have no problem with that?
I completely agree with this statement, poisonous gas was indeed used in the game and that was a pretty vicious weapon, you said that agent orange was bad, it was of course, but it was mainly used to destroy the forests to try and lower the amount of guerrilla warfare because the Americans were not trained to fight in such conditions.
What 314d1 has stated is also a good point, you cannot dismiss one war because of the manner in which people died but say that all the other wars are okay to depict in a game.
umm also just to tell you, there isnt such a thing as the ussr any more guys and if there were today, then the people wouldnt have video games any way cuz theyre commies
umm also just to tell you, there isnt such a thing as the ussr any more guys and if there were today, then the people wouldnt have video games any way cuz theyre commies
Soviet Russia may have fell, but how does that effect anything? And what are you, five? What do you think communist do in their spare time? Just look at China, as far as I can tell they play vidiogames there while being considered communists. The USSR would probably have vidiogames if they where still around, the same as they had all the other forms of media like movies.
