I dunno...after Zero Hour, the US kind of went into isolationism, what with tightening homeland security and the like. Who's to say they were even part of the treaty?
Of course, I find the entire premise of Generals 2 slightly rediculous, that a single treaty can end war and that apparently chain of succession protocols either don't exist in the 2030s, or they were changed so that generals are ultimately next in line. Yeah...go figure.
'Meh, I don't really care anymore about the new games direction, with many loads of hours(make that years actually) on Tib Sun, YR, Generals, CnC3, and RA3, plus all the mods they come with, another game with the same old formula is rather redundant IMO. '
GREEN: Well, maybe practically every major leader (from every country) except a few generals were there for the ceremony. That would be a lot of people, but it is a humongous event.
Russia is a must, but GLA was having It's own soul so USA, China, Russia and GLA
We can assume the world's heads of state are all taken out, but I think it would be highly dubious if every minister in every government was there as well. A military can seize power or be given emergency powers by the government it serves, but I can't think of any case where a government was completely wiped out. And yeah, I expect the treaty would be years in the making, but even assuming it settles things like borders, territorial disputes, etc., what about ethnic violance? What about scarcity of resources, especially in light of climate change and non-renewables? How well would it hold up then?
I'm hoping that the story summary on the game's page is either a simplified version of the story or more along the lines of a broad strokes marketing stunt, kind of like how Halo 4 is mentioning an ancient evil threatening the universe (almost certainly galaxy, but universe is bigger, therefore better in a marketing sense I guess).
And since I'm weighing in on this discussion, I'll cast my prediction that the third faction is either North Korea or Russia. The latter because Russians seem to be the de facto enemies in modern warfare games (as in the genre, as opposed to just the Call of Duty sub-series). The former, because it allows NK to come out of the blue similar to the scrin and Empire of the Rising Sun. And, you know, everyone hates North Korea so China is safe marketing.
That's what I said. What I also said is that the game is effectively warfare set in the modern era as opposed to a historical or future one. And games set in the modern era have a very narrow range of antagonists. If we're not fighting terrorists in a game, I've noticed that Russia tends to be the de facto choice, or some extremist offshoot (Ace Combat, End War, Battlefield, Call of Duty to name a few). Heck, looking at this poll, it's the second choice after China for most likely antagonist.
I'm not necessarily condoning or criticizing this, I'm just making an observation that when it comes to choosing an antagonist for a game that features modern combat in any form, you usually get the same kinds of antagonists popping up.
What the poll results actually state, is that more people want China as the 3rd faction. It does not ask, "Which faction is the most likely antagonist?". China was one of two protagonists in the first two games.
Fair point. It was a slip of words.
Victory Games is Electronic Arts' dedicated Strategy Gaming studio. Formed in 2010 under the leadership of Jon Van Caneghem, Victory Games has offices in Los Angeles, CA; Austin, TX; and Shanghai, China and is currently focused on the Command & Conquer franchise.