Battlefield: Vietnam

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-09-29 06:12am

This looks so sweet and I hope the soundtrack to the game has some 60's rock!

Battlefield: Vietnam

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-09-29 07:06am

Looks really good but that helo airlifting a tank is plain dumb.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-29 07:27am

I heard that DICE are intentionally making BF:V even more unrealistic and cartoony that BF:1942. That isn't my sort of thing, and considering how FPSs seem to be headed in a more mature direction, I guess the 14yo's need something to play...

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-09-29 09:02am

Stark wrote:I heard that DICE are intentionally making BF:V even more unrealistic and cartoony that BF:1942. That isn't my sort of thing, and considering how FPSs seem to be headed in a more mature direction, I guess the 14yo's need something to play...

Sounds about right for modern gaming. I can't remember who, but there was one poster on SD.net a while back who saw a couple of kids criticizing the combat movements of some troops in Black Hawk Down or some movie, saying, "They weren't jumping as they ran to avoid fire", and were "carrying only one SMG" or in other words, assuming that Quake II deathmatch is the standard for real-life combat.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-29 09:28am

Was Black Hawk down realistic ? I thoght it was a standard hollywood movie instead of a documentary on what realy happened.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-09-29 09:35am

evilcat4000 wrote:Was Black Hawk down realistic ? I thoght it was a standard hollywood movie instead of a documentary on what realy happened.

It was realistic enough in the general sense, but he wasn't talking about the historical accuracy of the story...

Lagmonster wrote:Sounds about right for modern gaming. I can't remember who, but there was one poster on SD.net a while back who saw a couple of kids criticizing the combat movements of some troops in Black Hawk Down or some movie, saying, "They weren't jumping as they ran to avoid fire", and were "carrying only one SMG" or in other words, assuming that Quake II deathmatch is the standard for real-life combat.

Oh my God, you can't be serious?!

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-09-29 09:55am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:Sounds about right for modern gaming. I can't remember who, but there was one poster on SD.net a while back who saw a couple of kids criticizing the combat movements of some troops in Black Hawk Down or some movie, saying, "They weren't jumping as they ran to avoid fire", and were "carrying only one SMG" or in other words, assuming that Quake II deathmatch is the standard for real-life combat.
Oh my God, you can't be serious?!

I remember that, it was posted by Rob in the N&P forum during thr Iraq affair.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-09-29 12:12pm

I love the smell of...BF:1942. This also looks pretty good, but if Ride of the Valkyries isn't in the soundtrack then it's definately going to lose some review points.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-09-29 05:39pm

Actually, a recent Vietnam-based squad-based shooter I read about (can't remember the title) had the Stooges "You're my Dog" playing when they were being flown in on the helicopters.

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-09-29 05:40pm

3rd Impact wrote:I love the smell of...BF:1942. This also looks pretty good, but if Ride of the Valkyries isn't in the soundtrack then it's definately going to lose some review points.

But it's CCR.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-09-29 05:42pm

3rd Impact wrote:I love the smell of...BF:1942. This also looks pretty good, but if Ride of the Valkyries isn't in the soundtrack then it's definately going to lose some review points.

If they had a Medal-of-Honor-esque single player mode to go with it, then Valkyries might be a cool gimmick once or twice... but I could see it being abused to no end in multiplayer games.

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2003-09-29 05:45pm

Stark wrote:I heard that DICE are intentionally making BF:V even more unrealistic and cartoony that BF:1942. That isn't my sort of thing, and considering how FPSs seem to be headed in a more mature direction, I guess the 14yo's need something to play...

Or maybe just people who are not so anal and realize the thing is just a game, and not is ment to be realistic but fast an fun.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-29 06:20pm

evilcat4000 wrote:Was Black Hawk down realistic ? I thoght it was a standard hollywood movie instead of a documentary on what realy happened.

Its one of the most realistic war movies ever, though the plot does not precisely follow that of the actual battle. But that is not the same as realism.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-09-29 07:59pm

I'd say the most realistic war movie ever is the original version of All Quiet on the Western Front

But the whole one SMG thing... Wow.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-09-29 08:50pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Its one of the most realistic war movies ever, though the plot does not precisely follow that of the actual battle. But that is not the same as realism.

I was quite unhappy to see the Malaysians and Pakistanis portrayed as uninterested, and unwilling to help the Americans. That shit me, since the UN forces took casualties bailing the Americans out of a situation they put themselves in. Bad form.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-29 08:56pm

Stark wrote:
I was quite unhappy to see the Malaysians and Pakistanis portrayed as uninterested, and unwilling to help the Americans.

They where, and it took hours to convince them to help, and the Pakistani's especially stalled for hours.

That shit me, since the UN forces took casualties bailing the Americans out of a situation they put themselves in. Bad form.

I'm not aware of a single Malaysian or Pakistani causality in the action, and given that there personal numbered in the low dozens all buttoned up inside of armor vehicles, none of which was hit by more then machine gun fire I can't see how any would occur. Course there was one case when a one of the crews refused to bash though an improvised roadblock, and instead required that American infantrymen dismount and dismantle it under heavy fire.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2003-09-30 12:35am

Lagmonster wrote:
Stark wrote:I heard that DICE are intentionally making BF:V even more unrealistic and cartoony that BF:1942. That isn't my sort of thing, and considering how FPSs seem to be headed in a more mature direction, I guess the 14yo's need something to play...
Sounds about right for modern gaming. I can't remember who, but there was one poster on SD.net a while back who saw a couple of kids criticizing the combat movements of some troops in Black Hawk Down or some movie, saying, "They weren't jumping as they ran to avoid fire", and were "carrying only one SMG" or in other words, assuming that Quake II deathmatch is the standard for real-life combat.

They must have been joking.......nobody is THAT stupid.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-09-30 02:06am

Kamakazie Sith wrote: They must have been joking.......nobody is THAT stupid.

Well, at least they didn't mention camping or respawning...

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-09-30 02:34am

3rd Impact wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: They must have been joking.......nobody is THAT stupid.
Well, at least they didn't mention camping or respawning...

Or accuse the Americans of using an aimbot.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-30 08:27am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:Was Black Hawk down realistic ? I thoght it was a standard hollywood movie instead of a documentary on what realy happened.
Its one of the most realistic war movies ever, though the plot does not precisely follow that of the actual battle. But that is not the same as realism.

I think Saving Private Ryan would be the most realistic war movie. Black Hawk down was good though. BTW have you read the book with the same title as the movie ?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-30 01:29pm

evilcat4000 wrote:
I think Saving Private Ryan would be the most realistic war movie.

The Omaha beach landing in SPR is the only thing in that entire film that's even remotely realistic. The rest is utter shit.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-30 03:51pm

Vympel wrote: The Omaha beach landing in SPR is the only thing in that entire film that's even remotely realistic. The rest is utter shit.

What about the closest, most realistic Tigers ever put to film, or would you
rather have M-60 Pattons with the Iron Cross on them

I'd have to say that SPR did it's job best in the two 30 minute combat
segments in the beginning and the ending of the movie.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-30 05:39pm

MKSheppard wrote:
What about the closest, most realistic Tigers ever put to film, or would you
rather have M-60 Pattons with the Iron Cross on them

Generally M47's get used.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-01 07:54am

MKSheppard wrote:

What about the closest, most realistic Tigers ever put to film, or would you
rather have M-60 Pattons with the Iron Cross on them

The Tigers sent into a city, unsupported by infantry, with not an MG42 LMG or 81mm in sight, with a ridiculous gap in the driver's vision block allowing some idiot to stick a Thompson in and shoot? Come on.

I'd have to say that SPR did it's job best in the two 30 minute combat
segments in the beginning and the ending of the movie.

The last combat segment was atrocious. It was total bullshit- can anyone explain why the Wehrmacht would send that bunch of totally ill-equipped (and lacking the mainstays that every German force had) forces like that into an urban enivorment? Ugh. UGH!!!!

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-01 10:38am

I wonder what happended to the machineguns on the Tigers and Panthers in SPR. They would have won if they used them. Also their main guns had poor accuracy.