9/19/07 - World in Conflict (PC)

[schild]

Wasn't even going to mention this game as it looked like ANOTHER RTS. You know, just one of the crowd. Sites are showering it with higher scores than Company of Heroes. I may actually pick up my preorder (I preordered it as a joke because it came with a chunk of the Berlin Wall).

[Wolf]

It's from massive. It can't be "another rts". What relic did with CoH was rip most of the stuff from Ground Control 2, put it in WWII setting, add their awesome resource system and polish, polish, polish.

WiC is awesome on a stick. And, unlike Bioshock, runs on my dated PC just fine and looks amazing. On the second mission you're supposed to hold a bridge and at the end of the mission they give you unlimited "tactical support" points (used to call in off map support). So you shell, shell, shell to your heart's content and watch as tanks evaporate in pretty explosions. I think I'm in love. 

If you even remotely like tactical RTS gameplay you NEED to play this.

edit: Almost forgot: the setting is alternative history - the USSR invades the USA in late '89. It is not WWII, it's not SciFi, it's a setting no one has ever done in gaming (at least not that I know of).

[NowhereMan]

Operation Flashpoint had pretty much the same thing, only difference was it was the US v. rogues Soviet army in some generic Baltic nation rather than US mainland.

I played the demo of this and while it was quite good it didn't really grip me to the same extent CoH and DoW did. Might give the full game a run though if it's that popular.

[Wolf]

What was the demo like? A couple of random missions? The full game has very CoH-y vibe, it even has first person story teller during the loading, much like CoH did.

Did I mention the game looks amazing? Also shelling.

[schild]

Picked up the collector's edition. Box design is fantastic. Possibly one of the best boxes evar. Will play it this weekend.

[Trippy]

It seems like all the raves are about the MP action and I don't play online PvP RTSes and I'm very bored with the whole rock/scissors/paper school of RTS game design so I'm going to skip it unless somebody can convince me that the single-player campaign is at least as good as CoH's is.

[Wolf]

All my fanboism in this topic so far has been about the single player. I'm still early too early into the game to compare it to CoH, but I can compare it to Ground Control II. And it's better.

[Riggswolfe]

It seems like all the raves are about the MP action and I don't play online PvP RTSes and I'm very bored with the whole rock/scissors/paper school of RTS game design so I'm going to skip it unless somebody can convince me that the single-player campaign is at least as good as CoH's is.

We're in the same boat Trippy. I'm still hoping for a good tactical game preferably with old school hex grids and such.

[Wolf]

I just finished the game. I never thought I'd say this only a year after CoH, but that's the best single player rts I've ever played. It's just awesome. And unlike GC, they've had some money and it shows.

The Bad: It's on the short side (12 missions, about 10-11 hours depending on your skill and if you'll have to replay a mission). The pathfinding at times is atrocious. I had Starcraft flashbacks watching a tank trying to go through another tank, than through a building when all it had to do is backpaddle for a bit and go around. You don't get to play with the Soviets (hey it was my side of the cold war :/). A friend of mine, that's into this stuff tells me that the USSR units are not that accurate. The AI is generally good, but in a mission where you really depend on it, it can't hold a location. It might be by design, 'cause it's at the tail end of the game, but it's a bit frustrating.

The Good: The game looks simply amazing. It's one of the more expensive RTS's produced (ALEC BALDWIN NARRATES THE WHOLE THING ). It's very polished and extremely well optimized - it's one of them game that has the Nvidia logo in the beginning and doesn't run like shit on ati. Because it's on the short side there aren't any missions that feel like filler (that's not entirely true, because there is one which is just ridiculous "believability" wise, but the missions is good so... whatever) . You get to play a couple of missions in France (where you control NATO weaponry) and even a couple behind enemy lines in Russia. The story... well it's supposedly written by a "cold war specialist" and author whatever-the-hell-his-name was. It's... decent, meaning it's plausible and not irritating. On the gameplay side of things, finally a game where off-map support is not something you use three-four times a mission when things get ugly. You have to constantly be calling for air support and artillery if you're going to succeed in a mission. You really have to try it to see what I mean, there are literally times where all your fire support is on cool down and you have the resources to call for more. And you need it. Other than that - they polished up Ground Control to the point where it seems like there's nothing missing and nothing is out of place. They plugged a couple of things from CoH like tank's armor being stronger on the front side so flanking is important. Compared to CoH it's more massive, meaning you play with the camera more panned out and try and get the big picture, rather than fighting small fights around strategic points. In CoH losing a couple of units in a fight can mean serious trouble later on, while here you can throw a couple of units away to gain a tactical advantage.

Bottom line - if you like RTS games OR you lived in the cold war OR you thought "what if" or whatever the hell reason you can think of to justify getting that game - get it.

edit: Oh, I almost forgot my biggest problem with the game. It DOES NOT have a skirmish mode. There's something called "custom mission" meaning there will probably be fan made missions, but no other means of single player other than the campaign.

edit again: nevermind, found the skirmish. You have to create a multiplayer server and add bots :)

[Tairnyn]

I've only played a few mission in the single player, but I've been playing multiplayer with friends and it's quite a fun experience. By removing the standard RTS focus on base-building they've provided an action-oriented game that rewards effective strategy and coordination over optimal build orders. Al matches are NATO vs. USSR with each player choosing a side and a unit archetype. There are 4 archetypes of units that can be chosen by each player on a team, but everyone on the same team can interact their units. (e.g. my copters can carry your infantry around) All players can choose the same archetype or choose differently for more unit diversity.

Infantry: Soldier, sniper, anti-tank, and engineer foot units that can fortify buildings and light transports to ferry them around.

Armor: Heavy transport, tanks, and light repair.

Air: Light (anti-air) and heavy (anti-armor) helicopter units.

Support: Artillery, anti-air and repair units.

Some unit types are better than others against each other. Air units excel at taking out armor but cannot capture control points, Infantry can capture and are able to fortify and anti-tank units are effective against armor and air when fortified. Armor can capture and are effective against other armor and unfortified infantry units. Support has moderate capture ability, can efficiently take out air, quickly repair other units, and fire at very long distance using artillery units.

Each player has their own pool of resource and support points that increase as you achieve certain goals, although I'm not sure if your pool is increased by ally actions. Units are built by spending resource points and deployed at a drop point that can be specified depending on what areas you control. Support points allow each player to scan the map for enemies, call in artillery or airstrikes, or drop additional units for more ground support. There's about 20 different support options that can be deadly effective when coordinated by multiple players. (e.g. one person scans and others strike)

One player creates a server and chooses the maps that will be played and the order. (or random) When a map completes the server cycles to the next, allowing a marathon gaming session without having to create a new server each time. There are three standard map types that I can think of offhand:

Ticket-based: There are control points that have to be captured to secure influence. By controlling more points than your opponent(s) the 'tickets' bar swings in your direction. A match is completed by moving the bar all the way to the opposite side or being in the lead when the game timer ends.

Front Line Push: The match starts with a line in the middle containing 4 control points. If you capture the center before your opponent does a new border appears closer to the enemy. The match is won by pushing the border all the way back to the enemy or controlling a border closer to the enemy when the timer ends.

Attack/Defend: The match starts with a front border under defender control. As a border is conquered by the attacker then next border opens up behind it. The defender score is determined by how long they can hold each border before being overrun and the match ends when the defenders can hold a border through the timer or the attacker pushes all the way. Then, the teams switch and the new attacker must match or beat the time that the previous attackers took to breach each level of defense. Whichever side can hold their borders the longest wins the match.

Throw in amazing graphics and detail and you have an enjoyable gaming experience with enough depth to make every match unique and interesting. Since Zero Hour (which we still play) we've been struggling to find an RTS with enough diversity to keep things interesting and this is fast becoming our new game of choice.

[GenVec]

it's plausible

Plausible like Red Dawn is plausible. A Soviet Army sneaks across the pacific in a fleet of disguised cargo ships? Hrmm.

I found the single player to be a little underwhelming, but that's nothing unusual for an RTS. The mp is good and challenging, once you get used to the bizarre camera system and figure out the macro. And when you figure out that rifle infantry actually carry around stinger missiles.

I still don't think it measures up to Company of Heroes, however.

[Mrbloodworth]

Wasn't even going to mention this game as it looked like ANOTHER RTS. You know, just one of the crowd. Sites are showering it with higher scores than Company of Heroes. I may actually pick up my preorder (I preordered it as a joke because it came with a chunk of the Berlin Wall).

Ya know, a lot of the initial marketing made me think it was a FPS. 

[Driakos]

I still don't think it measures up to Company of Heroes, however.

Not fair to other games to compare them to Company of Heroes. :)  (or Dawn of War for that matter)

[Wolf]

I actually still believe CoH and WiC are comparable :)

[Falwell]

Most overrated game of the year hands down. Looks good, voice acting is solid. Outside of that it's much more of the same. Multiplayer is pretty hot, but the whole story of innovation through no base building or resource gathering is anything but. They just use a resource point trickle in place of resource gathering. It isn't a shit game whatsoever, but it is not Robot Jesus. Personally I score it around a 7.8 - 8.0.

Most of the major sites are hitting this with a 9.5 or better. That puts this game in Bioshock country and a GOTY candidate, of which it is neither.

[schild]

Well, Bioshock doesn't deserve to be in Bioshock Country.

[Falwell]

Well, Bioshock doesn't deserve to be in Bioshock Country.

Oh come on now Schild, is there another title you would put as GOTY outside of it?

Bioshock didn't reinvent the wheel to be sure, but what they DID do was polish and tweak the game to a sheen normally seen only in Blizzard titles. The story was solid, the pace rarely slowed down and it's presentation was second to none.

I'm not trying to be a slavering Bioshock fanboy, just trying to give credit where it's due.

[Trippy]

Well by that standard Halo 3 would qualify as well.

[Falwell]

Well by that standard Halo 3 would qualify as well.

Unless Halo 3 drastically altered their story, no. Part of the charm of Bioshock was the radically different setting and story. Imo it's one of the major reasons for it's success.

EDIT: I've had absolutely zero Halo 3 playtime so this is speculation at it's finest (worst.)

[stray]

EDIT: Nevermind. Read something wrong.

[Trippy]

Well by that standard Halo 3 would qualify as well.

Unless Halo 3 drastically altered their story, no. Part of the charm of Bioshock was the radically different setting and story. Imo it's one of the major reasons for it's success.

EDIT: I've had absolutely zero Halo 3 playtime so this is speculation at it's finest (worst.)

Now you are changing the qualifications. Above you just said the story was "solid".

[Falwell]

Well by that standard Halo 3 would qualify as well.

Unless Halo 3 drastically altered their story, no. Part of the charm of Bioshock was the radically different setting and story. Imo it's one of the major reasons for it's success.

EDIT: I've had absolutely zero Halo 3 playtime so this is speculation at it's finest (worst.)

Now you are changing the qualifications. Above you just said the story was "solid".

Not at all. The Halo series' story is anything but solid. (My lack of Halo 3 time taken into account.) It's yet another "One man kills all the mean aliens and saves the world" scheme and is neither solid nor original. Now, the presentation for Halo on the other hand has always been quite good. Nice cutscenes, pleasant voice acting, and for it's time it was graphically not shit.

I guess a lot of it comes down to personal standards as well. For myself, a large part of having a "solid" story is originality. Something that the Halo series lacks completely.

[Wolf]

Most overrated game of the year hands down. Looks good, voice acting is solid. Outside of that it's much more of the same. Multiplayer is pretty hot, but the whole story of innovation through no base building or resource gathering is anything but.

What people fail to realize is that Massive invented that sort of tactical RTS gameplay and resource gathering back in 2000. Yes, it's not innovative now. It's just streamlined and tweaked to pretty much perfection.

Yes I am a fanboi. But please do tell - more of what same? How many games like that have you played the last 10 years?

also:

Part of the charm of Bioshock was the radically different setting and story.

Right, 'cause we play RTS games in the Cold War Era every day.

[Falwell]

Part of the charm of Bioshock was the radically different setting and story.

Right, 'cause we play RTS games in the Cold War Era every day.

Feel free to calm down and go over my posts again. Nowhere did I knock on the story behind WiC. In fact, I thought the story was fairly decent. It was riddled with logic gaps and some serious leaps of faith. But it was original, presented well and overall I would consider it a plus to the games credit.

Yes I am a fanboi. But please do tell - more of what same? How many games like that have you played the last 10 years?

To be blunt, almost any RTS I've ever played. The nitty gritty of the game is business as usual. Rock scissors paper combat coupled with the standard mission fare.  A couple timed missions, a couple small team special ops / espionage like missions., a couple protect x unit missions. The rest being go wipe out all the enemy in this area.

The same goes for the units themselves. Your usual array of a few types of infantry, a couple different air units, and your standard vehicular units. All with been there done that special abilities.

I guess I would have to answer your question with a question, as tacky as that is. What did massive do in WiC that drastically differentiates it from the slew of RTS games released previously?

I'm not trying to come down too hard on WiC. As I stated previously, it's a good game. Do I think the gaming sites are way out of line scoring it up there with some of the best games ever made? Absolutely. I scored it as above average, a solid title. That's what it is imo. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Wolf]

I guess I would have to answer your question with a question, as tacky as that is. What did massive do in WiC that drastically differentiates it from the slew of RTS games released previously?

I agree, nothing. It's just a solid polished game, whose setting I happen to like very much. The only thing I'm trying to prove in this thread is that it is very much comparable to CoH. And as for gaming sites giving high scores, they did it for CoH last year, so if they want to rate WiC fairly, they have to do it again.