Nintendo News | Operation: Vietnam Soldiers onto DS #1 at Nintendo Cubed3

In Operation: Vietnam, a chopper flight over the thick jungles of worn-torn Vietnam goes horribly wrong as the transport is shot down deep inside Viet Cong territory. Surrounded by the enemy, players must rally their squad and lead them back to safety. Along the way, players must fend off repeated assaults while liberating oppressed villagers.

"Operation: Vietnam drops players into the war-torn jungles of Vietnam as they try to escape enemy territory. packs the run-and-gun action found in popular arcade games into the Nintendo DS. The squad-based gameplay and variety of missions create a fast-paced, exciting experience for gamers on the go."

- John Merchant, Marketing Manager, Majesco Europe.

Some of the features include:

Use the Touch Screen to issue commands, access inventory, view maps and select which squad member to control.

Utilise your squad to combat multiple enemy types including: soldiers, tanks, turrets, enemy barracks, etc.

Take advantage of different specialties and weapons per soldier: long range rifle, grenade launcher, automatic weapons, and more.

Flush out enemies with smoke grenades or take them out with fragmentation grenades.

Operation: Vietnam will be released worldwide later this year. Stay tuned for further updates!

Share this article

About Adam Riley

Comment on this article

Comments on this Article

«s previous1next »

~~Buffy the Fanboy Slayer on 19.05.2007 at 13:32~~#1

I am not into war games. I found them boring, but also, generally offensive - killing people. That is just me, I am not a prohibitionist, so if you enjoy them, go for it.

Considering America lost that war, why can't someone make a game from the Vietnamese side, with the North Vietnamese as the defence force against an invading force? Why is it offensive to kill Americans and not Vietnamese? A game where the objective is to kill as many Americans as possible and force them to retreat is entirely legitimate. This was their country and America invaded them - America was the bad guy, but from the games, you would never know that.

The double standard here is that, if anyone made such a game and marketed it, no matter where, all hell would break loose. It would be seen as offensive to the dead and returned soldiers - but dead people are dead people, no matter what nationality. How are such games not offensive to the Vietnamese?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy such a game, let alone play it. My point is the hypocrisy and double standards of the west.

Temporarily banned until further notice.

Ph00p on 19.05.2007 at 13:47#2

oldschool brings up some great points, vietnam was BS.

Except hell I'd buy a game about killing americans thats where all the fun is, isn't it?

Agahnim2 on 19.05.2007 at 22:45#3

Couldn't agree with oldschool more, it is incredble bias, and for some reason USA will somehow come out the goodguy in all of this, it sounds a bit to much like advance wars for my liking, if it was an action game i'd go for it, but if its strategy i just can't be doing with it, i'll stick to the genius that is a link to the past.

MOD EDIT: No "USofGay" comments please - unnecessary.

( Edited on 19.05.2007 23:27 by jb )

The Croft on 19.05.2007 at 23:29#4

oldschool said:My point is the hypocrisy and double standards of the west.

Bit off-topic, but that's the way the world works America flexs it muscles and Britain backs America so it can have the spoils of victory, just look at Iraq.

Mike Gee of iZINE said, "...The Verve, as he promised, had become the greatest band in the world. Most of the critics agreed with him. Most paid due homage. The Verve were no longer the question mark or the clich�. They were the statement and the definition."

TruLink on 20.05.2007 at 02:16#5

As far as the information from the news suggests, in no way is this game being biased. It isn't a game about winning a war, it's a game about survival. I congratulate the developer for thinking up a new idea for a war-game. Most of the war-games you see now are based off of WWII.

WWII was an intense war, no doubt, but developers like going the route of "let's see what other side of the story can we go, to once again remind everybody who were the bad guys"

This game doesn't sound like that. Yes, it's a game about Vietnam, and we all know how that went, but it's about a squad being shot down trying to get to safety. Not about a squad being deployed to conquer the foe.

I don't post much, but I will appreciate any feedback on the posts I do make. Feel free to PM

Jacob4000 on 20.05.2007 at 02:50#6

Great first post TruLink, you'll get a star for that tomorrow afternoon.

C3 Moderator

~~Buffy the Fanboy Slayer on 20.05.2007 at 04:31~~#7

TruLink said:
As far as the information from the news suggests, in no way is this game being biased. It isnt a game about winning a war, its a game about survival. I congratulate the developer for thinking up a new idea for a war-game. Most of the war-games you see now are based off of WWII. WWII was an intense war, no doubt, but developers like going the route of lets see what other side of the story can we go, to once again remind everybody who were the bad guysThis game doesnt sound like that. Yes, its a game about Vietnam, and we all know how that went, but its about a squad being shot down trying to get to safety. Not about a squad being deployed to conquer the foe.

Agreed with Jacob, it is a good post, but keep in mind, my comment is broad and general. I make no judgement on the game, how could I, I know little about it. My main point is where is the same games, but with America as the enemy? This not referring to WWI or II, clearly Germany was the enemy and Engalnd the good guys or Japanese the enemy and America as the good guys. Vietnam and Iraq are different - clearly America is the bad guy, so why do games not reflect that? (Except for the obvious reason of where the game is mde and the market it is after)

Temporarily banned until further notice.

Jacob4000 on 20.05.2007 at 05:24#8

oldschool said:
TruLink said:As far as the information from the news suggests, in no way is this game being biased. It isnt a game about winning a war, its a game about survival. I congratulate the developer for thinking up a new idea for a war-game. Most of the war-games you see now are based off of WWII. WWII was an intense war, no doubt, but developers like going the route of lets see what other side of the story can we go, to once again remind everybody who were the bad guysThis game doesnt sound like that. Yes, its a game about Vietnam, and we all know how that went, but its about a squad being shot down trying to get to safety. Not about a squad being deployed to conquer the foe.
Agreed with Jacob, it is a good post, but keep in mind, my comment is broad and general. I make no judgement on the game, how could I, I know little about it. My main point is where is the same games, but with America as the enemy? This not referring to WWI or II, clearly Germany was the enemy and Engalnd the good guys or Japanese the enemy and America as the good guys. Vietnam and Iraq are different - clearly America is the bad guy, so why do games not reflect that? (Except for the obvious reason of where the game is mde and the market it is after)

We can argue over "who is the bad guy" all day, but the fact remains that if such a game were created where America was as you believe, the bad guy, it would never sell. Sure a few of you might relish the opportunity to kill Americans in a video game, but the game wouldn't make it in the biggest market for shooters--America. And that is why you won't find a game that has the "noble terrorists" killing the "evil American soldiers".

C3 Moderator

~~Buffy the Fanboy Slayer on 20.05.2007 at 05:38~~#9

Yes Jacob, that pretty much was my point (selling the game). Remember, I do not like games that glorify killing 'real' people and that includes Americans (except some government people perhaps Smilie ). I know you are American, so I can see your perspective. Try to focus on my 'double standards' issues.

Temporarily banned until further notice.

Jacob4000 on 20.05.2007 at 05:47#10

Double-standards exist in nearly every aspect of society. Are they right? A lot of times no, but sometimes you just have to deal with them, or better, don't support those games with your money as you currently do. Those standards are created by those who win, or are stronger. If the Germans had won both World Wars, they'd likely be playing "Medal of Honor: New York Assault."

( Edited on 20.05.2007 05:49 by Jacob4000 )

C3 Moderator

~~Buffy the Fanboy Slayer on 20.05.2007 at 06:19~~#11

Jacob4000 said:
Double-standards exist in nearly every aspect of society. Are they right? A lot of times no, but sometimes you just have to deal with them, or better, dont support those games with your money as you currently do. Those standards are created by those who win, or are stronger. If the Germans had won both World Wars, theyd likely be playing Medal of Honor: New York Assault. ( Edited on 20.05.2007 05:49 by Jacob4000 )

Agreed Jacob, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out about individual double standards (like this one) when we see them. Clearly I am not supporting them, as I don't buy them. The right to create them and buy them is still more important though - I do not generally support censorship.

Temporarily banned until further notice.

Jacob4000 on 20.05.2007 at 14:56#12

oldschool said:
Jacob4000 said:Double-standards exist in nearly every aspect of society. Are they right? A lot of times no, but sometimes you just have to deal with them, or better, dont support those games with your money as you currently do. Those standards are created by those who win, or are stronger. If the Germans had won both World Wars, theyd likely be playing Medal of Honor: New York Assault. ( Edited on 20.05.2007 05:49 by Jacob4000 )
Agreed Jacob, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt speak out about individual double standards (like this one) when we see them. Clearly I am not supporting them, as I dont buy them. The right to create them and buy them is still more important though - I do not generally support censorship.

I can't really find anything to counter in there. Smilie

Still though, this kind of double-standard is going to be prevalent in war games marketed toward the US. Speaking out about it is kind of a waste of effort as it won't change anything.

C3 Moderator

«s previous1next »