Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

World in Conflict, anyone ?????

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Games
  • World Of Warcraft
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 20, 2007 5:08:13 PM

Gamespot rated this game higher than any other game ever made. Check their rankings - higher than WoW BC. Has anyone played this game? Any thoughts?

More about : world conflict

September 20, 2007 5:15:36 PM

I'll definitely try it when I get my new computer.
September 20, 2007 5:21:59 PM

We're working on a review of this right now so look for that probably next week.
Related resources
September 20, 2007 5:55:25 PM

It's pretty awesome, though I'm still only a couple hours into. I still think Company of Heroes is better, though we'll see how I feel next week.

Stay tuned for the TG review....
September 20, 2007 6:20:03 PM

I've played both and think its not fair to compare Company of Heroes to World in Conflict. Both RTSs' yes but thats where similarities end. World in Conflict is a very fast paced game that screams at you for teamwork. (multiplayer) A lot of options but the game has a quick learning curve. No sitting back and building up huge armies....if you don't go out and fight, the enemies helos will come to you. It's a great game and you wont regret buying it.
September 20, 2007 8:03:39 PM

I enjoyed this one more than COH, love the graphics and gameplay, but just like what dberthiaum e555 said, if there is no teamwork on multiplayer than you're screwed. Have yet to try out single player campain though.

September 21, 2007 7:59:43 PM

Single player is engrossing and a ton of fun, haven't tried multi-player yet. I love the campaign.
September 21, 2007 10:03:42 PM

Yeah, the campaign is good stuff. Some silly character-based cut scenes here and there. But hey, Alec Baldwin is narrating the game, so Massive gets points for that:) 

This is one intense RTS. It's not perfect, but it's got great action and it's pretty challenging. The Soviet attacks are pretty relentless in the U.S. theater -- I got a cooked a few times in Seattle/Pine Valley before I got the hang of things -- and you have to rely on reaction time and quick thinking more than actual combat strategy in many situations. But it's still awesome so far. Can't wait for the action to move to Europe....
September 21, 2007 10:31:54 PM

Finished it this afternoon. The game isn't bad, but it's not going to lit the world on fire either. It's kind of like C&C3, but a bit better.

That said, on a sort of RTS scale of the year, Supreme Commander > Company of Heroes > World in Conflict > Command & Conquer 3. I think it's a little bit overhyped.
September 22, 2007 12:51:19 AM

I didn't like supreme commander that much... I'm not a big fan of it when each faction has the exact same units (with different looks)... I like the variety found in Starcraft and Warcraft and such... very different units, but very balanced.
September 22, 2007 3:23:37 AM

Gamespot gave it a 9.5. I've seen a lot higher, and the score is especially meaningless since they've changed their scoring method to a very generic rounded score system for retards so you only get scores in increments of .5 points. So while it got a 9.5 with the new system, it may have gotten a 9.2 with the old system like Burning Crusade, or Burning Crusade may have gotten a 9.5. But Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Soul Calibur for Dreamcast have gotten perfect 10s, unless you're just counting PC games, but then you may as well count only RTS games.

But I'll have to check it out. I'm kind of sick of RTSes. I haven't really liked an RTS since Myth 2 and that was because it focused on fighting instead of tedious building and resource management.
September 22, 2007 4:49:08 AM

pous said:
I didn't like supreme commander that much... I'm not a big fan of it when each faction has the exact same units (with different looks)... I like the variety found in Starcraft and Warcraft and such... very different units, but very balanced.
If you'd have played Supreme Commander more than 10 minutes, you'd see how the factions are different. They all have little ups and downs.

And I'm eagerly waiting for SC2, I'm not a supcom fanboy or anything, it's just that the game is the best RTS this year, by far.


smokedyou911, it's vista only if you want DX10, you can play on DX9 on XP.
September 22, 2007 9:23:14 PM

The only differences I noticed in the races was in their T4 (experimental) stages... which was lame. That's just my opinion on the game, I'm glad that so many people like it, it's just not for me.
September 23, 2007 4:26:43 PM

See, that's what noobs think about the game. "The only difference is at T4!".

If you read the forums, you'd be aware that Cybrans are overpowered on ground and Aeons have a OMGWTFBBQ air unit that wins almost every games. It's not faction diversity like Starcraft, it's more like units fit the same role in every factions, but they act differently.
September 24, 2007 12:54:07 PM

My disk just arrived! I suppose the divorce is next ;-)
September 24, 2007 2:01:42 PM

Nice debate. I think COH was just an awesome game. Half the fun in RTS games is in managing resources and trying to slowly bleed the enemy by cuttting off supply lines and controlling key points. Nothing like fighting it out to the death to control that oil refinery. So many decisions to make on the fly and losing one point could crush you. Thats why COH did it for me.

C&C3 was a joke. I did play on easy level though (big negative), but still, it was useless. I finished it in 4 days. Biggest hype ever. No RTS game has been the same for me since Red Alert 2 (even though I look back now and the graphics are horrid). I still remember 8 man MP network evenings with all my buddies. It was such fun. They havent made a good RTS game since Dune 2 (my all time favorite) and RA2.

Anyway, if people are playing this game, PLZ POST comments here. I wanna see what the consensus is before dropping hard earned $$$ on a game and regretting it (like C&C3).
September 24, 2007 8:07:12 PM

If a friend of yours bought the game, he can give you a 10 days trial key for internet play (and I think you have access to the single player campaign too). I think it's a pretty good way to get a feel of the game.
September 24, 2007 8:56:15 PM

I bought the game last night. It is fast like other folks have said but it is fun. I am not sure how great the lack of resource gathering is, but it makes skirmish missions different. I enjoy doing skirmish missions in C&C3 but this ones doesn't have that available. Instead, there are types of multiplayer missions like assault and domination. Hopefully the multiplayer component works better than C&C3 since that is a joke.
September 25, 2007 9:52:08 AM

I played the campaign in 2 days. Really short but great. And MP is superb but is 100% depending on teamwork. A lone wolf has no chance.
September 25, 2007 10:47:39 PM

If you have the rig for it and you enjoy RTS's than pick this up! The graphics are awesome and I can't get enough of the scale of the battles. You do control a small amount of units at one time but the battles get so freaking intense with all the support that it needs to be experienced.

Then with multiplayer; as long as you get on a experienced enough server, the battles are gritty and too the bone.
September 26, 2007 1:26:41 AM

bruce555 said:
The graphics are awesome and I can't get enough of the scale of the battles..
God I hate the new generation of RTS players.
September 26, 2007 3:13:32 PM

Just waiting patiently for SC2 here. Was thinking of picking up this game, but not sure, might just wait for Crysis to come out as I had a blast beta testing it.

Or maybe picking up the HL2 Orange Box.
September 26, 2007 6:20:07 PM

I've been playing RTS games for a long time (eg. Dune 2, C&C Series, Company of Heroes, Warcraft series, Age or Empires series, etc), and so far this is the only RTS game I can think of that finally makes fighting the battles more important than managing the infrastructure (ie. economy and base placement) and does it well.

In most other RTS games, you always had to worry about hitting certain key milestones within a certain amount of time. The build order and the efficiency in executing that build order almost always was more crucial in determing the victor in multi-player than the management of your combat units. Personally, I've always hated this aspect of most RTS games, because the games were usally decided within the first 2 minutes of the match and team work was almost always a non-factor.

With World in Conflict, there is essentially no more resources gathering. Instead you get "resupply" points that regenerate over time, so micromanagement of your units is much more vital. In addition, since the resupply points are the same for everyone and the points are limited, rushing and spamming units are almost impossible to pull off without adequate teamwork (assuming you are playing more than 2v2).

I've only been playing the game for about 1 week now, and I can't honestly remember a game that is as balanced and polished as this game. I'm sure that part of this, is that the game is so new that no one has figured out the best exploits, but so far I haven't seen any single player dominating excessively.

I should also mention that the game looks damn "pretty". I've never seen a tactical nuke rendered in real-time look so good! :) 

The demo is still available out there and definitely worth a try.
September 26, 2007 6:39:04 PM

smokedyou911 said:
vista only :( .


Nope, not Vista only... My brother plays it on XP with no problems.
September 26, 2007 8:32:09 PM

@kiwik

I've been playing RTS's since C&C1 that I got for my birthday when I was 12 on my P1 @ 133mhz.

Listen, to me this game gives quite an emursive feel. I love calling in the support strikes and having a constant bombard while you're zoomed close to the action. That is a great feel.

To me though, I'm not overly happy with the zero resourse gathering or base development. If this was set up closer to the way COH is then it would make this game perfect.

EDIT: Are you saying you don't like the graphics or feel of the battles?
September 26, 2007 10:17:42 PM

All these new RTS games look awsome but I can't seem to move on from AOE 2. :( 
September 26, 2007 10:52:44 PM

World in Conflict was the best $50 I ever spent. It's really that good...
September 28, 2007 11:49:57 AM

bruce555 said:
@kiwik

EDIT: Are you saying you don't like the graphics or feel of the battles?


No, he's saying that he hates RTS players that care more for graphics than for strategy play. I'm not sure why he thinks that applies to you though, as you only said you liked the graphics and you did not mention gameplay at all.
September 28, 2007 5:28:09 PM

Well I commented on the intense battles, and it is. What makes it intense is that there is so much focus on how you use your units that you pay all of your attention to them.

Launching support to first clean out an area, then move in your ground units to take out any AA then have your heli's come in and support the rest of your units. If you don't use each of your units special abilities than your dead.

This definatly isn't a end all game to RTS's but I think it's something innovative that should be experienced.
September 28, 2007 7:29:56 PM

M3d said:
All these new RTS games look awsome but I can't seem to move on from AOE 2. :( 



Lol, I'm still playing Starcraft and Warcraft 3... so don't feel too bad :D 

I do like these new ones though (Mostly just World in Conflict... I didn't like SupCom)
September 28, 2007 7:44:23 PM

I looked into SupCom and it looks great but it just seems to much is going on for me. It kind of looks overwhelming.
I might try the demo for World in Conflict. From reading here it seems its more about fighting and tactics than resource management.
September 28, 2007 9:46:58 PM

Maxor127 said:

But I'll have to check it out. I'm kind of sick of RTSes. I haven't really liked an RTS since Myth 2 and that was because it focused on fighting instead of tedious building and resource management.

well, WIC has practically no resouce gathering at all
oh and btw, I LOVE SUPCOM!!! :D 
October 3, 2007 12:34:01 AM

I just saw WIC for the first time last night, along with Stranglehold, and the new MOH. Now mind you I've never played a RTS before so my opinion counts for diddly-squat but......WIC is awesome!!!!! The graphics OMG! Brought my new Core2-Duo/8800GTS to its knees! WIC is the first RTS (I've seen anyway) that looks so cool it is forcing me to open up to the world of RTS. So tonight I look forward to playing all these new games but WIC is the first one on my list of must plays.

Any advice for a first time WIC/RTS player?
October 3, 2007 8:44:22 PM

WiC isn't a very hard RTS game. It has a slightly steep learning curve but once you have the idea, its really quite straight forward. CoH (company of heroes) is a far more intensive RTS game and not for the newbie RTS player.

I would suggest you simply learn the strengths of each unit and employ the special abilities of each unit as often as possible. It took me a while to realize the HOLDING down the E button is necessary to employ a special ability (you cant just press E and then click an enemy unit). Other than that, you might have tough time coming to grips with all of the regular RTS controls that have evolved over the years, but it should make sense once you have them down. I really like the WASD control mechanism this game employs, it makes it feel very interactive compared to a lot of other rts games where you have to move the mouse to the edge of the screen to move around the battlefield.
October 3, 2007 10:43:43 PM

Thanks Trigger-dude!

I didn't actually play last night, got too busy tweeking the video settings. It seems my system is CPU bound cause cranking up AA and AS does not change the frame rate much at all.

Thanks again for the hints.
!