Factions?

[=LEVIATHEN=]

That is why I am excited about the DLC delivery that EA is pushing, most people seem to not like it, and usually I would be right there with them, but DLC means "We can has nice thingz1!". We can have the EU, the USA, the Chinese, AND the Russians. Hell we may even get a new GLA type faction, with South American guerrilla reskins, or American Domestic terrorist/Private military Company/Mercenary.

If the base game is good, has great gameplay, and has a sense of gritty realism instead of being cartoony, then you better believe I will spend $120 on the game + DLC + addons. But if the game sucks, if it is basically a RA3 style cartoon of Generals, and the DLC is a few maps because they did not release a map editor, then I probably will not even buy it.

I like your way of thinking of that. I don't ever see the negative aspect of getting nice thingies.

Hrmm....

Wild speculation here...not even a guess. More of an idea that just struck me.

Third Faction: USA.

Every American I've talked to in person really liked the GLA taking out the One World Treaty signing. None of the people I know want to be part of some one world government. We're Americans and want to stay Americans. So the third faction could be an American nationalist group who want to remain independent.

Now there's an idea that I could picture. Much like the confederates in the Paradox mod, just not as loopy. I would like to see this in a DLC.

[Hawki]

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.

[Commander32]

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.

Hopefully it would all make sense in the actual storyline.

At least its not a Buffoon like Boyle leading the Counter Terrorists, that wouldn't end well.. :P

[=LEVIATHEN=]

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.

RED: Well, I doubt that the story is that everybody just decided "Hey, let's sign a treaty to end all war RIGHT NOW." It was probably a long effort, which was about to be completed in 2030. That was when everything blew up.


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.

[whtmn245]

Russia is a must, but GLA was having It's own soul so USA, China, Russia and GLA

[Hawki]

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.

[RealWar]

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).

But this isn't Call of Duty...

[Hawki]

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.

[Kyang]

Heck, looking at this poll, it's the second choice after China for most likely antagonist.

This is an assertion beyond the scope of the poll's question. The GLA is the antagonist.

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.

[Hawki]

Fair point. It was a slip of words.