Talk:Vietcong (video game)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

Starting at the combat subsection, I removed this because WP:VG states in the Article Content section that gameplay sections should go over the significant parts of how games work -- It is not significant to the average reader to know that enemies make use of cover, that combat is "highly dynamic" or that enemies are hard to distinguish from the environment, or crouching allows the player to stretch their body. This kind of stuff is over-detail.

That's the first paragraph, for the second one: This game being one of the earliest to feature ironsights is needless bragging, the right mouse button stuff is gameguide material(which button does what, etc) and the part about how other shooters supposedly started doing it afterwards is unsupported bragging. Look further up this talk-page, there's is an entry named "ironsights" about this very bragging. Weapon sway making it hard to hit distant targets is a minor mechanic featured in many games, it's hardly that important, same with the existence of scopes weapons in the game and the full-auto/semi-auto shooting.

The third paragraph starts off with an unsupported claim about the game compared to other games of its time. This kind of comparison is not needed, the gameplay section is supposed to just explain the existing mechanics of the game. The bandaging of wounds would be appropriate to mention if explained properly, "players can regenerate their health by using bandages, making them vulnerable while applying the bandage" for example. The ammo/bandages/intel thing veers into WP:GAMEGUIDE slightly, should be rephrased along the lines of "Item pickups and ammunition can be picked up from dead enemies" kind of way; simplified. The fact that the player becomes slightly more vulnerable is again WP:GAMEGUIDE material in the sense that the average reader just gleaning over the article for cursory understanding would not benefit from knowing this and and it is equipped like a weapon, etc. The medic not running out of bandages is trivia again on the same subject.

The fourth and last paragraph is the least problematic in that it just needs condensing, for example the player always carrying a knife is not notable, but the choice of weapons and the historical era of said weapons is. The very last sentence about weapons including X, Y, and Z along with grenades isn't necessary; its info is already implied in the above sentence about weapons of the Vietnam war era. Alternatively, the paragraph could be rewritten as such: "The player has access to weapons from the Vietnam war-era in the form of older weapons such as the M1 Garand all the way to the M16 rifle, and can choose their weapon loadout before missions."

The characters section is WP:GAMEGUIDE material; Character and their exact function and behavior described, who works best in what situation. The paragraph at the end describing their behavior, likewise so.

The modding section violates WP:V; If said modding was notable, it would have been covered by reliable, third-party sources.

Overall, the problem is that there is a bit of information in the Combat section that maybe could be moved to the core gameplay section above. But as it stands now, it's a whole lot of clutter. Eik Corell (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for my earlier outburst. I've altered the article with your feedback in mind. I have kept most information I felt was important to distinguish the game from similar titles but it's still over 4000 characters less than before, some of it could probably be further reduced without sacrificing useful information. I have also removed statements you felt were "bragging" but will reintroduce them if I stumble upon sources that support the claims. --F4LL0UT (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)