COD 7 Vietnam?

Black Ops forum

Highlighted
I know we have had a tonne of these threads so apologies in advance for that, and if it is off topic further apologies. Came across this 'rumour':

http://terminalgamer.com/2010/01/08/rumor-call-of-duty-7-coming-in-november-set-in-vietnam/

heres hoping its true!
joe_the_sot
Likes: 0
Posts: 555
Registered: ‎24-05-2009
14 REPLIES 14
what would be the point, unless you can be on the winning side, that not being the americans
thebigb59
Likes: 265
Posts: 7952
Registered: ‎24-05-2011
I heard the same...and i really would like to see a "good" Vietnam one coz i can´t see any WWII game anymore !
Horrorman Level 75
Likes: 9
Posts: 23681
Registered: ‎31-10-2008

Horrorman wrote:

 

I heard the same...and i really would like to see a "good" Vietnam one coz i can´t see any WWII game anymore !





Nam is stupid
thebigb59
Likes: 265
Posts: 7952
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

thebigb59 wrote:

 

Horrorman wrote:

 

I heard the same...and i really would like to see a "good" Vietnam one coz i can´t see any WWII game anymore !





Nam is stupid





nah why !? think about some tunnel missions and such things, could be really fun IMO
Horrorman Level 75
Likes: 9
Posts: 23681
Registered: ‎31-10-2008

thebigb59 wrote:

 

Horrorman wrote:

 

I heard the same...and i really would like to see a "good" Vietnam one coz i can´t see any WWII game anymore !





Nam is stupid





Why?
joe_the_sot
Likes: 0
Posts: 555
Registered: ‎24-05-2009
why is it stupid, one the only combat was in the jungle, the US lost the war (Badly), it has the same guns as WW2, the M16 was about as much use as a choclate teapot (it kept jamming)



Oh and the US lost
thebigb59
Likes: 265
Posts: 7952
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

thebigb59 wrote:

 

why is it stupid, one the only combat was in the jungle, the US lost the war (Badly), it has the same guns as WW2, the M16 was about as much use as a choclate teapot (it kept jamming)



Oh and the US lost





As did the French (ok no surprise), the Brits the Aussies among others, the weapons are similar paricularly on the north vietnamese side, in addition to jungle (granted most combat was jungle) what about street to street Hue was some pretty intense fighting,or the mountain fighting. the M16 was a piece of garbage but hell so was the MP40 and look how 'good' that is in W@W. For me the bottom line surely is game play, my preference is historical context i kinda get that the US market likes war they won but officially the US involvement was as a 'policing action' and so they didn't lose a war, REALLY!
joe_the_sot
Likes: 0
Posts: 555
Registered: ‎24-05-2009

joe the sot wrote:

 

thebigb59 wrote:

 

why is it stupid, one the only combat was in the jungle, the US lost the war (Badly), it has the same guns as WW2, the M16 was about as much use as a choclate teapot (it kept jamming)



Oh and the US lost





As did the French (ok no surprise), the Brits the Aussies among others, the weapons are similar paricularly on the north vietnamese side, in addition to jungle (granted most combat was jungle) what about street to street Hue was some pretty intense fighting,or the mountain fighting. the M16 was a piece of garbage but hell so was the MP40 and look how 'good' that is in W@W. For me the bottom line surely is game play, my preference is historical context i kinda get that the US market likes war they won but officially the US involvement was as a 'policing action' and so they didn't lose a war, REALLY!





Brits where not in Nam, we where not stupid enough to get involed in a losing war. The US did lose the war, they had more men there that the South Vetinamse Army. The MP40 should not of been in W@W, from a historical stand point it was retired from active service in 1944, W@W takes place in 1945
thebigb59
Likes: 265
Posts: 7952
Registered: ‎24-05-2011

thebigb59 wrote:

 

joe the sot wrote:

 

thebigb59 wrote:

 

why is it stupid, one the only combat was in the jungle, the US lost the war (Badly), it has the same guns as WW2, the M16 was about as much use as a choclate teapot (it kept jamming)



Oh and the US lost





As did the French (ok no surprise), the Brits the Aussies among others, the weapons are similar paricularly on the north vietnamese side, in addition to jungle (granted most combat was jungle) what about street to street Hue was some pretty intense fighting,or the mountain fighting. the M16 was a piece of garbage but hell so was the MP40 and look how 'good' that is in W@W. For me the bottom line surely is game play, my preference is historical context i kinda get that the US market likes war they won but officially the US involvement was as a 'policing action' and so they didn't lose a war, REALLY!





Brits where not in Nam, we where not stupid enough to get involed in a losing war. The US did lose the war, they had more men there that the South Vetinamse Army. The MP40 should not of been in W@W, from a historical stand point it was retired from active service in 1944, W@W takes place in 1945



i think us Brits were in 'indochina' before the vietnam conflict (war) the US did get it handed to them but 'we' (the Brits) have plenty of our very own disaterous wars which we lost to far 'inferior' forces the Boer War springs immediately to mind! Seriously though i'm not trying to argue just think there could be a game in it, would be interesting to see a game that the US army don't dominate playing W@W you could be forgiven for not knowing the Brits, Anzacs and ALL the other allies were ever even in WW2!
joe_the_sot
Likes: 0
Posts: 555
Registered: ‎24-05-2009

Studios