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

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

snip

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:

You have a point, though I'd argue it's more the second than the first. The extra desaturation is most noticeable with stuff like plantlife, fire or for example the red bands around the hats of those soldiers in the video you posted.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The trailer basically screams at me "Look, I'm Battlefield 4 but even prettier!"

Though to be fair, that's basically what a lot of BF fans wanted the last two games to be.

 

[American Tanker]

Alright, new info.

Looks like they're not going to have a campaign mode at launch, pity that. They're also talking about giving the game micro-CANCER, even if it's going to be cosmetics only.

The big thing for me is the starting factions at release: Russia, Germany and Poland. No France, no UK? I mean, yeah USA vs. Russia is overplayed as fuck and I'm not going to complain about that; but still. They could also add the Chinese, if you ask me.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Alright, new info.

Looks like they're not going to have a campaign mode at launch, pity that. They're also talking about giving the game micro-CANCER, even if it's going to be cosmetics only.

The big thing for me is the starting factions at release: Russia, Germany and Poland. No France, no UK? I mean, yeah USA vs. Russia is overplayed as fuck and I'm not going to complain about that; but still. They could also add the Chinese, if you ask me.

Dude I think the upsetting thing about the Microtransactions being cosmetics is that now we are gonna see people point gaudy ass paint jobs on thier guns, completely taking me out of the immersion of the setting and war at play here.

I hated it in Counter Strike and I am already dissapointed that this game does it.

And what's the point of different costumes in a first person game?

Also, No USA? Aw that means no M16s, Humvees, M1 Abrams Tanks, and F-22 Jets.

 

[American Tanker]

Dude I think the upsetting thing about the Microtransactions being cosmetics is that now we are gonna see people point gaudy ass paint jobs on their guns, completely taking me out of the immersion of the setting and war at play here.

I hated it in Counter Strike and I am already disappointed that this game does it.

And what's the point of different costumes in a first person game?

Also, No USA? Aw that means no M16s, Humvees, M1 Abrams Tanks, and F-22 Jets.

Yeah, I hear you. It would be one thing if they just restricted it to sensible camo patterns, but you know they won't do that.

And I do agree with you about the no F-22s, but I honestly wouldn't mind having other things to choose from than M16s. The only real reason I'd want the USA in a game like this is for a 1911-style handgun. As far as actual primaries go, I'd rather have a bullpup, like an L85, a FAMAS, a QBZ-95, or especially an AUG.

 

[Paragon Fury]

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.

In Modern Warfare the justification is;

MW1: The Russian government (Loyalists) are still in control of the nukes during the events of MW1 and have no desire to use the nor are they at war with the US/NATO. The Separatists (bad guys) eventually get control of a nuke during the finale, but the SAS intercept the launch station and the Loyalist government helps get NATO the disarm codes in time before it detonates.

MW2/MW3; It's never made explicitly clear, but it's implied that Makarov and the Separatists weren't actually able to get control of the nukes, or that Makarov simply has no desire to end his plans in nuclear hellfire and doesn't know Shepard is playing him and the SAS have him in their sights.