World War 3.....as in an FPS Battlefield-like game set in a Near-Future World War 3 Earth.

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I am watching this trailer and I am just thinking to myself, "So where are the nukes? I thought after World War 3, World War 4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones?"

I guess the world decide to mutually agree not to blow up the world with OP nukes and just want to fight each other the good old fashioned way.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one. A Modern Military Shooter not made by EA and Activision should have something going for it.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Looks boring as hell. I'm fed up with FPS. Can't it be a X-COM style strategy game or even RTS?

I really like the idea of bringing more realistic settings into games with streamlined mechanics but we have been seeing less and less of that since the 90s and instead getting either fantasy/sci-fi settings or if we do get real-world scenarios they feature inscrutable and joyless mechanics (Europa Universalis and the like).

 

[Hawki]

So, it's called World War 3, but seems to be fought mostly in Russia.

Also, "meh."

 

[Lufia Erim]

Looks boring as hell. I'm fed up with FPS. Can't it be a X-COM style strategy game or even RTS?

I really like the idea of bringing more realistic settings into games with streamlined mechanics but we have been seeing less and less of that since the 90s and instead getting either fantasy/sci-fi settings or if we do get real-world scenarios they feature inscrutable and joyless mechanics (Europa Universalis and the like).

Out of curiosity. How much money did X-com make? Obviously enough to warrant an X-com 2, especially since X-com was a side project because for some reason the X-com FPS was the main game, but i'm genuinely curious, as to the market for it.

 

[wings012]

The thing with nukes is that they aren't even meant to be used. At least not against someone with nukes.

The moment you use nukes, they start using nukes and everybody just loses.

Overall I don't feel too fussed about this game since what the hell is it doing that hasn't already been done before? But well with COD and BF going all World War again, there might be a market for a modern military shooter again.

 

[Dalisclock]

I am watching this trailer and I am just thinking to myself, "So where are the nukes? I thought after World War 3, World War 4 will be fought with Sticks and Stones?"

I guess the world decide to mutually agree not to blow up the world with OP nukes and just want to fight each other the good old fashioned way.

Generally sane nuclear powers don't want to use nukes for exactly this reason. During the cold war, Both the US and Russia had a "No First Strike" Policy. The problem is that both sides were paranoid as hell that the other side would try it anyway just to avoid a counterstrike.

A plausible way to get around that is that one side starts losing badly and decides using tactical nukes might be worth staving off certain defeat. The Tom Clancy Novel "Red Storm Rising" was written during the 1980's(about a non-nuclear WW3) and this starts coming up a lot towards the end, where the Soviet offensive is routed and some of the Soviet Generals start talking about the idea of Tactical nukes to prevent a Western invasion of Russia. Cooler heads ends up prevailing in that case with the book more or less ending in an Armistance.

I'm not fond of Clancy's politics but it's a pretty good read on the subject.

Most creative involving an a full on assault on the US or Russia usually end up having to do some crazy hand waving why the invaded country hasn't launched yet. The original Red Dawn outright implies that both the US and China were nuked by the Russians but neither felt like firing back....for reasons, despite the US mainland being half occupied. The Modern Warfare series didn't really address it at all. Red Alert 2 just handwaved that the Soviets were able to disable the US nuclear system with psychic technology(It's RA2, so it actually works).

OTOH, a Nuclear WW3 game would pretty much be DEFCON.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The trailer proudly proclaims that I've seen war "but not like this." However this looks like it could be a trailer for any Call of Duty game. Still it's not published by EA or Activision so that's a positive.

 

[American Tanker]

Hopefully, this game lives up to what Frontlines: Fuel of War could have been.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I mean it looks good. I actually kind of miss modern warfare now, after Battlefield 1 and CoD WWII.

It looks REALLY similar to Battlefield 4 though, hopefully they do something to make themselves unique. The gunplay looks a little rough but I'm willing to wait and see.

 

[Squilookle]

Didn't see a single thing in that trailer that justifies its existence or sets it apart from BF4, or BF3. Hell, even BF2.

Hopefully, this game lives up to what Frontlines: Fuel of War could have been.

Frontlines was everything it could have been.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Hmm, the title seems kind of inconvenient. What if this game ever gets a sequel? Slap a number on the end? World War 3 2? Maybe add some lame subtitle, although fun could be had with that

World War 3: The Revengeancing of World War 3
World War 3: Invasion of the Anal-Retentive Soccer Moms
World War 3: Ore No Senran ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I lost interest at the thumbnail. Impressive time between "ooh?" to "oh" though. If there was ever an award for generic, that would be serious Oscar bait. Mustn't judge a book by its thumbnail however, but enthusiasm for any fairness got nuked within first contact.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Didn't see a single thing in that trailer that justifies its existence or sets it apart from BF4, or BF3. Hell, even BF2.

Hopefully, this game lives up to what Frontlines: Fuel of War could have been.

Frontlines was everything it could have been.

My reasoning is this:

1. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield seems to be putting thier games in their own services and not on Steam (Call of Duty now on Battle.net, Battlefield now on Origin)

2. And if this game is more Battlefield than games like Arma or Squad or Insurgency (reletively accesible gameplay) than now Steam can finally have a Battlefield like game in thier library.

I guess its competition at play here, Battlefield and Call of Duty has changed so much that people are pinning for a return to form.

 

[Squilookle]

1. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield seems to be putting thier games in their own services and not on Steam (Call of Duty now on Battle.net, Battlefield now on Origin)

That's actually a really good point- a new game free of Origin and whatever COD uses could be a major advantage. Of course, being on Steam would just negate that. But it's a good observation.

Personally I would say Steam already has a few Battlefield-likes, from old competitors like Joint Operations through to more recent offerings like Ravenfield, but hey- if WW3 does find something unique to show? That can only be a good thing for competition and us gamers.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

1. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield seems to be putting thier games in their own services and not on Steam (Call of Duty now on Battle.net, Battlefield now on Origin)

That's actually a really good point- a new game free of Origin and whatever COD uses could be a major advantage. Of course, being on Steam would just negate that. But it's a good observation.

Personally I would say Steam already has a few Battlefield-likes, from old competitors like Joint Operations through to more recent offerings like Ravenfield, but hey- if WW3 does find something unique to show? That can only be a good thing for competition and us gamers.

And here is another thing this game has going for it, since its using a "World War III" backdrop, that means they are gonna go all out in variety of map locales so that means its not just gonna be brown and baige Middle Eastern cities and deserts like in most Modern Military FPS:

 

[American Tanker]

Frontlines was everything it could have been.

What do you mean by that? I'm just saying that I hope that WW3 here can be a more polished, better made near-future military shooter with large open maps and lots of vehicles.

You know, like BF2142 or Frontlines. And for the record, I liked Frontlines, but I also understand that it's nothing like what it could have been if there had been a proper AAA dev behind it.

 

[Hawki]

My reasoning is this:

1. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield seems to be putting thier games in their own services and not on Steam (Call of Duty now on Battle.net, Battlefield now on Origin)

2. And if this game is more Battlefield than games like Arma or Squad or Insurgency (reletively accesible gameplay) than now Steam can finally have a Battlefield like game in thier library.

Um, not sure that's an issue. If people want to play CoD or Battlefield on PC, they can just download the launcher for it. Launchers aren't really a barrier to entry - it's not a case of "either/or."

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

And here is another thing this game has going for it, since its using a "World War III" backdrop, that means they are gonna go all out in variety of map locales so that means its not just gonna be brown and baige Middle Eastern cities and deserts like in most Modern Military FPS:

Going purely by the trailer though, we'll be getting grey and desaturated European cities instead though. I saw Berlin's Brandenburger Tor and Moscow's Red Square, both looking rather drab compared to their real life originals. For reference, a picture during similar weather conditions:

Spoiler: Brandenburger Tor

Spoiler: Red Square

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And here is another thing this game has going for it, since its using a "World War III" backdrop, that means they are gonna go all out in variety of map locales so that means its not just gonna be brown and baige Middle Eastern cities and deserts like in most Modern Military FPS:

Going purely by the trailer though, we'll be getting grey and desaturated European cities instead though. I saw Berlin's Brandenburger Tor and Moscow's Red Square, both looking rather drab compared to their real life originals. For reference, a picture during similar weather conditions:

Spoiler: Brandenburger Tor

Spoiler: Red Square

2 things:

1. Mabye because of all the smoke and destruction that everything looks gray?

2. You can blame Saving Private Ryan for that, portrayals of War and Battles are still using that movie's look and imagry to convey the message that "War is hell, not a colorful/glorious thing" I mean even this movie about a War in 1860s in Europe did it:

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

My reasoning is this:

1. Both Call of Duty and Battlefield seems to be putting thier games in their own services and not on Steam (Call of Duty now on Battle.net, Battlefield now on Origin)

2. And if this game is more Battlefield than games like Arma or Squad or Insurgency (reletively accesible gameplay) than now Steam can finally have a Battlefield like game in thier library.

Um, not sure that's an issue. If people want to play CoD or Battlefield on PC, they can just download the launcher for it. Launchers aren't really a barrier to entry - it's not a case of "either/or."

Some people though hates the idea thay they have to make a whole new account, and install a whole new launcher on thier computer to which I say "Its not like you are spending a hundred dollars for a new game console and it will still be on the same computer"