New Idea For BiA

[VictorSeven]

BiA as a WWII game has been really amazing, and will always continue, most likely far beyond HH. But what if Gbx were to take on a new sort of endevour, I'm talking about BiA Vietnam. I know it sounds crazy, but think about it, its a whole new battlefield, a whole new ball game. opportunities are boundless. Take the VC and NVA on with a new squad, a new set of weapons, and new environments. Follow the story of Capt. David Christian as they fight for days on end in Vietnam and Cambodia, calling in air strikes, medivac, and gunship support. Add the BiA level of tactics/game immersment and you got a kick ass game.

Just saying, could be a really good idea.

[mrbean1112]

Well.. a lot of vietnam games in the past have done really bad..
It just depends on how they do it..
if they do it right, it could become a major breakthrough and push us out of this ww2 genre of video games.
If they do it wrong, gearbox could lose some profit made from the Brothers in arms series
Either way, i think its a good idea. I'd like to see it done.

[Slyprodigy]

I say VictorSeven is right. A Vietnam Bia game is exactly what the genre needs. And to mrbean, Vietcong was a Vietnam game, yet it was great. BFV, was great as well. However, what I think GBX should do is explore the Vietnam era in a realistic perspective. Think about it. THE Nam game , with flying in helicopters listening to CCR, Buffalo Springfield, Hendrix etc.. Then as we hit the LZ, we embark on patrols through the Jungles of Nam.(Much like the Vietnam scenes in Forrest Gump.) Not to mention the awesome ariel support from Jets that we could call in. I think 'If done correctly' the Vietnam war era would fit the series perfectly. And hey, Gbx could start an entirely new series based on the Vietnam conflict. And Capt. David Christian has a very interesting story to tell for one. One thing is, Vietnam still has many if its vets alive to report actual battle conflicts and conditions.

And as far as the devs doing it wrong,...They can only do it right if they listen to us! We'll let them know exactly what is needed to make the game superior. That's the main purpose of these forums. I expect the Devs to seriously consider our input if they want to continue to dish out superior products.

[Buy Waffles!]

The problem with Vietnam games is that unlike WWII, the Vietnam War just isn't a good setting for a video game.

Unlike WWII, where our soldiers were "heroes" and their soldiers were "Nazi evil bad men", and fights were carried out in clean, Geneva convention, "conventional" modern warfare, Vietnam was a sordid, gruesome grey-area affair. There isn't a clear line between "good guys" and "bad guys", the reasons behind our involvement are questionable, and to top it all off, we lost.

Fighting in Vietnam was horrific and gruesome - even more so than war used to be. It wasn't two armies facing off like the US and Germans. You had children running at soldiers with bombs strapped to them. US Helicopters raining down death with Agent Orange chemical weaponry and high-speed gatling guns. US Soldiers had to wade into enemy-held jungle with no intel or visibility, being cut down in seconds by a Vietcong attack from underground of all places.

All of the Vietnam games I've played to this point have either completely glazed over this aspect of the war, leaving the game feeling exactly like a WW2 shooter (BF:V) or included the sheer shock value of fighting the Vietcong and being almost nauseating to play. (Shellshock 'Nam '67)

At this point, there are no plans to take BiA into Vietnam. Personally, I just don't think we could give it the same authentic treatment that we have with WW2 and still make it a marketable, enjoyable experience.

[Slyprodigy]

Originally Posted by Buy Waffles!

Fighting in Vietnam was horrific and gruesome. It wasn't two armies facing off like the US and Germans. You had children running at soldiers with bombs strapped to them. US Helicopters raining down death with Agent Orange chemical weaponry and high-speed gatling guns. US Soldiers had to wade into enemy-held jungle with no intel or visibility, being cut down in seconds by a Vietcong attack from underground of all places. Sometimes soldiers were ordered to take out entire villages, including civilians, and other times they did it without orders.

Again, if devs would listen to us gamers, they'd see that is exactly what we want. Its new, its fresh its different, its complex, its a challenge, its reality. Vietnam would mean re-exploring tactics. It would mean facing an 'unseen' frightening, brutal enemy, an enemy who doesn't fight fair. It would mean listening to 60s era music on helicopters prior to combat, perhaps even having to deal with druggies in our squads. I wish game devs would see that what many of us gamers want, is the real deal. WE are at the point where what the 'devs' would consider as un-fun, we enjoy. The devs took out the 9 days earlier scene thinking we wouldn't want it in, later they found that we would have loved it, even though there was no action. NOT just on this forum, but on many forums, people are saying that the Vietnam conflict is one that just has not been done justice in gaming. And with next-gen gaming, the way I see it, if it can Work on a film, it can work in a game. Vietnam works on film: Forrest Gump, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, We were Soldiers, Full metal Jacket, etc.. etc. .. So I see no way in which it couldn't work 'if done correctly' in a game. Listen to the consumer, the consumer never lies. WE know what we want, and we'll pay money to get it from whoever will make it.

[Buy Waffles!]

Originally Posted by Slyprodigy

Again, if devs would listen to us gamers, they'd see that is exactly what we want. Its new, its fresh its different, its complex, its a challenge, its reality. Vietnam would mean re-exploring tactics. It would mean facing an 'unseen' frightening, brutal enemy, an enemy who doesn't fight fair.

Granted, that sounds cool on paper, but in reality, those sort of mechanics just lead to frustrating and difficult gameplay. You never really want to play a game that doesn't fight fair. Both the player and his enemies should follow the same set of rules, and if the sides are tipped, it should be in favor of the player.

Really think about playing a game where the enemy could come out from anywhere, at any time, without warning. Or where civilians you couldn't shoot suddenly came up to you and blew you up. Would that honestly be a fun experience? Or would you simply get frustrated at your helplessness in those situations?

Originally Posted by Slyprodigy

And with next-gen gaming, the way I see it, if it can Work on a film, it can work in a game. Vietnam works on film: Forrest Gump, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, We were Soldiers, Full metal Jacket, etc.. etc. ..

Again, I agree. Nowadays, games can replicate films. However, all of those movies show the Americans losing soldiers, losing battles, and losing the war. This is fine in film, since the viewer really has no personal investment in the outcome of the scene. In a game, however, you can't have the player commit his effort into the same inevitable outcome. Futility just isn't something that translates well into gameplay.

[eib30hb]

I personally think that BIA should be first and foremost a WWII series.

However after saying that I do think that If it gets to the point where all of the 101st's major battles from WWII are covered, I would enjoy a Vietnam game.

I could see something like a sort of We Were Soldiers stiled BIA Vietnam game.

[Slyprodigy]

Originally Posted by Buy Waffles!

Really think about playing a game where the enemy could come out from anywhere, at any time, without warning. Or where civilians you couldn't shoot suddenly came up to you and blew you up. Would that honestly be a fun experience? Or would you simply get frustrated at your helplessness in those situations?

Hey, but its the devs job to even the level out. Of course the VC cant be jumping out of foxholes and underground tunnels every second, yeah that would suck. lol But im positive that when and where they would attack could be balanced out to that which is challenging yet fun for the typical gamer. Vietcong succeeded in this, however, its squad tactics were off. With Bia's squad tactics, and ingenious Vietnam era level design, and state of the art AI, an unbeatable formula could be devised here. The civilian attacks,and VC attacks are limited to what the dev will ultimately allow per map. Not that it all has to be scripted or linear, rather we all know that the devs can space things out a to a point.

[Slyprodigy]

Originally Posted by eib30hb

I personally think that BIA should be first and foremost a WWII series.

However after saying that I do think that If it gets to the point where all of the 101st's major battles from WWII are covered, I would enjoy a Vietnam game.

I could see something like a sort of We Were Soldiers stiled BIA Vietnam game.

Oh I agree, I think the BIA series should remain in WWII. However, I think that GBX has proven to be the primary qualified game developer to create a new series about the Vietnam war. And yes, Waffles is right, we didn't win to a point, but in reality, who actually 'won' the conflict side of it is a very political debate.

[Detox]

Originally Posted by Slyprodigy

Oh I agree, I think the BIA series should remain in WWII. However, I think that GBX has proven to be the primary qualified game developer to create a new series about the Vietnam war. And yes, Waffles is right, we didn't win to a point, but in reality, who actually 'won' the conflict side of it is a very political debate.

Not really, the US lost. It's pretty simple. It was a complete waste of men and time.

But I agree with Waffles, Vietnam just isn't that good of a setting for a video game. TI can't recall any Vietnam game that has achieved huge success. Hell, not even BF: Vietnam did that well. Besides, there's not alot of squad tactics in Vietname, it was mostly choas and hell. You can't really command your squad in an organized manner when they're being picked off by unseen snipers, and there's no decent cover anywhere in sight.

Besides, do you really want a truly authentic Vietnam game? Do you want kids running up to you and your squad and blowing up in your face? Do you want to see all the atrocities committed by both sides in the war? Do you really want to see all of that?

There are just some things that should never be put in video game form. I think Vietnam is one of them.

Also, most gamers are sick and tired of Vietnam games. Hence why those games don't have the success of other genres. Not the other way around.