Customer Reviews

World In Conflict

5 star:		(25)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(14)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I played this on a dual-core 2.13ghz pentium, 2gb ram with a Nvidia 8600 GTS on Vista 32-bit.

First, the Single-Player campaign...

The biggest selling point for me was not having to build 30 straw huts in order to build the Omega Man Destroyer units which dominate everything else on the battlefield. The Single Player campaign is setup in a series of scenarios linked to a story driven Campaign where the actors did a phenomenal job and the animated characters move very life-like. Alec Baldwin narrates a general telling of events that happen where you will use your units to achieve a variety of objectives.

Your units are broken into four main categories: Armor, Infantry, Support and Air. Just like any other tactical war game you need a combined arms approach, so you can look at each category as four legs on a table, if you don't have one of those you are going to fall. Now...above and beyond your units that occupy territory and duke it out with the opposing soviet forces you also have tactical aids which give you the "yippie!" factor. It allows you to call in Air Strikes, Artillery Barrages and a wide variety of support elements to aid you in battle.

Each scenario is very different from all the others with the mission objectives having a big enough variety not to get too tedious. Also, your objectives change around a lot to reflect the chaotic nature of the battlefield. For example, if you are told to hold a bridge and you get all your units setup the way you want to the rough-and-tough commanding officer of yours will inform you an artillery barrage is incoming, and if you don't listen to him (which I did at first!) then blammo you just lost all your units, so in that respect the battlefield is very dynamic.

I would equate the gameplay to a modern total war type of battlefield where you do have some room to manuever and it doesn't feel claustrophobic like in Star Wars: Empire at War. Beyond that as you might have seen in the trailers, the graphics and sound are great..yada yada.

The Single Player was fun to play through giving you about 10-15ish hours of gameplay but, the real gem is in the Multi-Player;

Okay, right off the bat let me just mention I'm not a huge Multi-player fan. I believe the only thing multi-player I ever got into was Call of Duty 2. That being said I really enjoyed the Multi-Player because you don't have to be twitchy or even a stellar connection to play. It's much like the Single Player campaign except you choose your role to play (Armor, Infantry, Support or Air) and work in tandem with your 7 other teammates to fight 8 other folks. More than any other Multi-player you depend on your team quite a bit as you are only one leg of the table. Even as fun as fast as it is to have helos if you run into mobile anti-air units...you are toast. I found myself sticking with other players and working out unspoken tactics like leading helos into anti-air traps...very fun. Of course, your tactical aids are there so your big kill players have some neat toys including tactical nukes which...wow, they are fun. However, you can't hug your children with nuclear arms *tips hat to Family Guy*.

Without getting too much more verbose, let me just say it was a decent single-player campaign and at 50 bucks that's not much of a value, but throw in the multi-player and I think it is justified. Bottomline, don't just buy it for the Single-Player, if you have no desire to play multi-player then I'd wait to pick it up for cheaper.

Pros:
- Great graphics
- Very good tutorial (never even looked at the manual)
- Simplified controls
- Voice acting and Sound
- Fun gameplay!
- No bugs encountered
- Literally, thousands of people to play online with.

Cons:
- Might be too pricy for someone just looking for a Single-Player game
- Loving multi-player, but wish single-player campaign was longer.

This title appealed to me because I am fan of Tom Clancy novels, particularly "Red Storm Rising." While not a big gamer, I have enjoyed the classic RTS games like "Age of Empires" and "Starcraft." Two of my favorite games as a kid were M1 Tank Platoon and Red Storm Rising. Nothing in any of these games could have prepared me for World in Conflict. Being able to fly the camera all over the virtual battlefield engaging in fast-paced, exciting skirmishes, with spectacular explosions, beautifully rendered landscapes, and a compelling single-player campaign is a treat.

Any modern military history buff will greatly appreciate the accuracy of the unit functions and graphical details (for example, even the cargo planes drop flares as the fly low to release reinforcements, just as they would in war-time). This game would be the perfect gift for any non-gamer fan of Tom Clancy/Larry Bond novels.

There are a few drawbacks:
- Heavy system requirements: I have a 3 month old XP desktop (DirectX 9) and could only play on "medium" graphic level. Still looked spectacular, though.
- The game is so much fun that the single-player Campaign feels too short. I was hoping for many more missions or to play as the Soviets. Here's hoping for a large Campaign expansion pack.
- It's difficult to find/start the single player skirmish mode (had to go online to figure out how)
- I would prefer if unit attributes were not the same for all three factions and more reality-based (for example, Abrams tanks should be much faster than Pattons or T-62s)

Still, this game is fantastic and deserves a far higher Amazon rating than the current 3-star average. WiC is easily the most fun I've had playing a computer game since the original Starcraft.

Ever played Command and Conquer or Company of Heroes and wished that you didn't have the elaborate tech trees to flesh out? Ever wished that you could just go and in kick some [...]? World in Conflict is for you.

True, a level of cerebal strategy is sacrificed. You can flank enemies, separate their forces with different units, and the like, but the strategy as a whole is more limited than in other RTS games. However, this applies mainly to the single player game (which offers fantastic cutscenes, voice work, and general ambience). Multiplayer games offer a greater chance to work your frontal lobes.

WIC could also be known as Company of Heroes Express. It's a great game that really appeals to those of us who want to start playing right away, and it might be somewhat disappointing to those who want their RTS games to be like a protracted game of Risk.

Try the demo and see if you like the game.
http://demo.worldinconflict.com/us/

After reading all the reviews, i have to agree with what was said. Whether or not you like this game is going to depend on what you like to do. Some people like base building and some just want the action. I will, however, disagree with the guy who said there was little opportunity for strategy. If all you are doing is moving your tanks onto the command circles and letting them fight then you are missing the point and obviously your difficulty setting is too low. You can set up infantry in building which have to be leveled before the enemy can get through. You can call in airstrikes on targets which is great fun and can get you out of a pinch. There is a lot of stuff to do in the game to keep things interesting. Mainly its just a fun game with wonderful explosions and a wide variety of weapons at your disposal and plenty of troops to use them on. Try the demo and get a taste for the game. It's free.

I've been playing for about 4 hours at this point and so far it's great. This game very much reminds me of Ground Control II (not surprising since Massive did that game as well), except the graphics, gameplay, and cinematic feel is much more polished and up to date. I haven't experienced any problems with installation/running on Vista and performance is fine on my machine (quad core/Nvidia 8800 GTX).

The Good:
The gameplay is frenetic and fun to watch. Battles are full of fancy pants explosion graphics and tend to turn the surrounding environment to ruins. Calling in jet aircraft to perform a variety of tasks is fun and cool to watch. Radio chatter, weather effects (the weather seems to get more brooding as a battle progresses), and stuff happening way off in the distance really helps to suspend disbelief. Resource acquisition takes the form of getting points to spend on fresh units by gaining ground, completing objectives, and eliminating enemy troops (again, similar to GCII). Lastly, fighting a war with the rooskies in Seattle (where I live) is just plain cool.

The Bad:
As is typical with most RTS games, the AI has annoyed me a few times. For example: armored units are the least sensitive to damage in the front - is it that hard for and tank driver to turn his unit toward incoming fire without orders (or at least toward his current target)? A wee bit more autonomy in my units would be nice.

Overall, if you liked GCII, you'll absolutely love this game.

This is a single player review of WIC.

Its hard to understand the glowing reviews this game has gotten. Its a respectable RTS in the sense that it works as intended by the designers. Unfortunately, the design is seriously flawed.

Lets start with the story elements. The game starts out well, and indeed the story is more or less solid. You defend the US west coast from Soviet invasion, and in between doing that you flash back to battles you have fought in the ongoing war with the USSR in Europe. So far, so good.

Where the game narrative falls apart is in the characters. You have your CO, a Colonel, who barks orders at you. He's a reasonable if aggressive leader, and while he seems to bark out new orders every minute at least he is believable. Unfortunately, your colliegues are not. First is Major Bannon, who commands armor assets that occasionally provide you with support. The first rule of character design is Thou Shalt Not Annoy. Alas, Bannon is the Jar Jar Binks of WIC. His voice is annoying. He is ungrateful when you save his butt. He talks back to his superior officers. He questions orders, always, and complains about them. He disobeys orders routinely, and through negiigence and dereliction of duty kills high ranking liason officers and civilians. Did I mention his voice is whiney and annoying? He ruins the game. In the real military he would never make Major, in fact he would never make it past 2nd Lieutenant. Military officers are among the toughest, most squared away people on the planet. They have to be. Minor mstakes are career ending. Major mistakes get you imprisoned. Yet this whiny, girllish Bannon persists through most of the game. Disobeyed orders and killed civilians and allied soldiers? Well - the story goes - the Colonel gave him a dirty look as punishment. As if. In the military of 60 years ago he would have been executed by firing squad. Today he would be imprisoned. In this game he will command troops and annoy you for the next 10 missions.

Thankfully, Bannon gets relieved of duty, but his replacement is more of the same, minus the whiny voice. Who knew that the job of an junior officer in combat is to second guess, undermine, and put down his CO instead of - say - actually carrying out orders and accomplishing the mission? Its obvious that the developers never had any military advisors working with them. The game is an insult to the military. This is a strategy game and you should recognise that your customers might just have served and cannot stand - cannot stand - your depiction of officers as whiny babies who cannot get the job done. In my experience the average company-grade officer in a combat arms unit is tough, smart as hell, brave beyond measure, iron-willed and tasked with a job so difficult that many civilians would whimper at the responsibilty and power they wield. Imagine that the next time you screw up at work fully a tenth of your coworkers are killed outright, or some high number of innocents are dead. Thats the pressure they work under. Show some respect. They earn half what the developers of this game make.

This may seem like an overly pro-military critique but the thing to understand is how these characters totally undermine the immersion of the game. Simply put, the story is DOA for not taking the military seriously, and instead offers up a charicature that probably jives with the designers pop-culture sensibilites, without them even realizing it. Even of you think this would not annoy you, read on. Narrative is only one of several big problems with the game.

Now that immersion is circling the toilet bowl, lets look at gameplay. Unfortunately, its tedious. You start missions with some good sized maps, and apparently the designers were so impressed with themselves that they feel that you must visit every inch of them. Every few minutes you're ordered to rush across the map to a new objective. You are whipped around the map without reprieve. In between you will be tasked with secondary objectives that - you guessed it - whip you around to even further flung corners of the map. By the end I couldn't stand the Colonel or anyone else in the game. I literally felt like I was playing VirtuaTennis with my units as the ball.

Taking an objective means camping some areas on the map, holding ground. Too bad these areas are spread out and wildly exposed. Want to take this area by setting some infantry up in the woods meters away? No chance. They must be parked out in the open where they can be cut down. This wouldn't be so bad except you must simultaneously hold 3 or 4 such areas, and they are just far enough apart to prevent any kind of interlocking fields of fire. They might as well be on opposite sides of the map. This, primarily, is how the game introduces difficulty, since the units are powerful and easy to keep alive, especially infantry, which are amazing death merchants. Two antitank squads in proper cover can crush a massive armor invasion far better than any two tanks could, so the designers decided the best way to prevent that is to make you spread them out. The final mission takes this to such heights I was laughing to myself when I saw it.

The other glaring fault is the dependence on support fires. Throughout the vast majority of the game you can call in huge amouts of artillery and other support fires to obliterate your opponent. While this is a fun for a bit, eventually it becomes clear that support fires are at least as effective as all your units combined, and you end up spending a lot of your time calling in fires instead of - you know - moving your units strategically in real time.

All in all this game is a major letdown. Company of Heroes is vastly superior in every way. It is more strategic, the missions are better designed, the voice acting is better, and it respects the men it simulates. The gaming press cannot be trusted. There is no way this should have got 90%+ from most of the top reviewers. I give it a 60% only because it looks nice, controls well and is free from major bugs.

I think this games really limits what you can do - it doesn't allow you to deviate from the script. at all. It's kind of "arcade" in that manner and I guess that's why I don't like it. It's too much money for what it provides. There's too much competition out there and money is too precious for me to give this game a higher rating, even with its graphics.

World war 3,

Great concept, fluid game, just not enough diversity!

The aim of the game is to take 'Command points' these are circles that appear next to a house or building you must capture. Move your units inside capture the command point, rinse and repeat until you win!

The Big picture strategy is simple, however you must hold thre command points for X amount of minutes before they are yours so you have to fight for them. However after you have mastered the basics there is no real strategy involved apart from organising your units into buildins, behind tree's or having your tanks or aircraft in the right place at the right time. You will of course get bonus weapons such as air strikes (and yes WOMD) to do away with your enemies but in the end all your doing is capturing Command points.

Its an instant gratification game some people will find it tedious after a point and some will simply love it. I found it tedious but you may not try the demo borrow the game then decide.

Good buy but no THAT great.

Regards

Jack

Well, I had alot of high hopes for this game but it didn't turn out to be that good. Don't get me wrong, the graphics are totally awesome... the best for any RTS currently out there.

You are very dependent on your team mates in this game, which is okay for the most part... but since you can drop in and out of games very easily, I found it hard to keep a good team who could work together.

My other problem I had with this game is the units die to quickly. Even when winning during a game, your units last < minute... so I found myself constantly queuing up new units. I don't understand how you can have a strategy game when you units are not even on the battlefield long enough to formulate a strategy. I know you can lose unit quick in an RTS... but this game was just constantly queuing up new units because my other ones were gone in 15 seconds.

I much preferred Company of Heroes to this game... there seems to be alot more strategy in that game than this (i.e. - actual unit cover and how that effects their damage, your units actually have some life and can stay in a fight for a reasonable amount of time.. long enough to let you plan and attack... not hit your queue button over and over).

I will say though, this game owns in graphics and the nukes are awesome!

World in Conflict is a fun game. Play the demo and you'll see what it's like for yourself. I enjoyed the demo level more than many of the other levels in the game. The story doesn't do much for me (I'm probably alone there). The graphics and sound are great. Carpet bombing and setting the view extra close is lots of fun. The destructible terrains are awesome. Trees don't grow back and houses don't rebuild themselves. I hope that feature will become standard on all games of this type eventually. Cut scenes range from not so good to very good, though personally I could have done without them altogether. The game seemed to have a lot more potential than it fulfilled. It could have gone a lot further in many ways. You've got these 14 missions to play (20 total with the expansion which I have yet to play) and once you've beat them, that's it. It would be fun to be able to explore more of the units somehow. You are limited to certain ones in situations where having certain other ones would make things a lot easier. I don't mind that and I love realism, but I do like some kind of reward once I've jumped through all the hoops. In some ways it seems to have been short changed. Being able to control the war would be very cool, instead of just doing missions with set objectives. Anyone can nitpick, but I would like to be able to explore a little more with it. I'm a solo gamer and this one does cater heavily to online multi-playing as well, so that might be another reason to buy it if you like that sort of thing. It like many other so called "strategy" games is really more about learning the interface, using hot keys, and being fast on the controls than it is about tactics or strategy. It's not really epic or absorbing, but it is integral and fun nonetheless.