Talk:Vietcong (video game)

Video games Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Drawn to Life (video game series) (0 participants)
Playmox (3 participants)
Chef RPG (1 participant)
Outfolded (4 participants)
NoFrag (2 participants)
VoxelStorm (1 participant)
GameRevolution (5 participants)
List of longest-running video game franchises (11 participants)
Atomas (1 participant)
PLAY: The Games Festival (3 participants)
FloodSim (3 participants)
Kunimitsu and Kunimitsu II (2 participants)
Blast Monkeys (2 participants)
Free Internet Chess Server (10 participants; relisted)
Gilman Louie (3 participants; relisted)
Yoshimitsu (5 participants; relisted)
Emote (4 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Bayonet Mosin-Nagant

I'm not sure, but wasn't the MN version featured in this game the M38 carbine version? If so then it CAN'T be fitted with a bayonet in real life, just like portrayed in the game.

Yes, it was definitely a carbine and not a full blown 91/30, and since the model doesn't feature a folding bayonet on the side, I highly doubt they modeled it after the M44 Carbine. I think "Fist Alpha" got it right on this one. D Boland 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

There should be more details on the different version of the game. For example Vietcong: Purple Haze is the version for PS2 (and maybe other consoles?). --Mista-X (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does First Alpha and Purple Haze really need there own articles? --Mista-X (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironsights

The article states, "It is also the first game who introduced aiming down the sight feature, a premiere for FPS's". Except it wasn't, Illusion Softwork's (now 2K Czech) own Hidden & Dangerous had that feature, going back to 1999. I'm not sure if any other release predates it, but Vietcong wasn't even their first title to use it, let alone the first game.

Sequel

I miss in the article any info about the sequel of this game...Vietcong 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.118.168 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Guideline adjustments" are ridiculous and border on vandalism

Hi, I had just vastly expanded the article and almost all of it has been undone by someone who believes to just be following the guidelines. I do not accept this without debate in this talk section. The description of the gameplay I had written was NOT some fanboy pornography describing everything in far too much detail, it was NOT filled with details that belong in a wiki dedicated to this game, they were descriptions that illustrate how the game is unique and significant and necessary for the reader to understand what this game is, especially compared to similar games. The way the article looks now the game is indistinguishable from other games in this genre and settings and that's just ridiculous and eliminates any sense in having a Wikipedia article on this game. And almost all I've written has been removed while only a tiny fraction of it did not meet the standards defined by the official guidelines.

Let's go over some points in the guide on writing game articles that the other editor referred to:

"Detailed instructions"

I did NOT even go as far as stating obvious things such as the ability to jump or shoot (which according to the guide would even be okay if I didn't go as far as turning everything into a tutorial!), I only described things significant due to either being unheard of at the time, necessary to distinguish this game from both regular shooters and other tactical shooters, or still unique to this game. It was a lot but to the point and again: necessary to understand the game's significance and its very nature.

"Excessive fictional details"

I did not add anything of this kind.

"Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing"

The list was exclusively about the characters' gameplay functionality, nothing in the guidelines applies to that.

"Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts"

My mention of equipment was limited to examples that illustrate that this game features equipment true to its setting and how the equipment works in the big picture of the gameplay. I did not list everything, I did not list features of specific weapons, I only mentioned several notable examples in the main text and features which are significant considering the genre and time of the game's release.

"Non-notable soundtracks"

I agree that I went too far with adding the soundtrack section in light of this point in the guidelines.

Then there's the point from "What Wikipedia is not":

"A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry."

I feel that almost everything I had added in the gameplay section meets this requirement. Not everything but too much to have someone just vandalise the article like this.

Either way, I am restoring the article as it was and inviting to debate. My additions to the article have been too much but now it's not enough. Let's try to find the perfect middleground. --F4LL0UT (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]