- Feb 27, 2003
- 19,492
- 6,556
- 136
World in Conflict review
- Thread starter biostud
- Start date
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Perhaps, but I was very impressed with the World in Conflict demo, more so than any other in recent memory. If you like strategy games, give this demo a try.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Its part of microsofts new "games for windows" strategy, pay all the reviewers paltry sums of money for a 10/10 of every game, they can afford it easily.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
The only way that I could see it being worth their time and money would be if they owned the company that made the game or if it was an only on xbox title.
I'd like to play the demo, but the default resolution isn't supported by my screen, and there are no config files to change it. GG whoever made it, I might have bought the game but your demo is dumb.
Anyone know how to adjust the res via config files?
Anyone know how to adjust the res via config files?
Looking at the screenshots, everything looks pretty standard. Maybe it's on the same level of COmpany of Heroes. Singleplayer is short and I doubt multiplayer support for RTS games are usually a joke unless it has it's own community-browser (AoE3, Warcraft). Probably gonna blow over like Supreme Commander.
I completely agree, it is definately obviousy I never played either. At no time did I say or imply that I have played them. All my wording pointed to me making impressions from the screenshots and linked review. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
The beta supported my unusual 1650x1080 WS res.
I played the beta, and I liked the actual presentation, but alot was left to satisfy me, you could only command like 4 units (helis or tanks or squads of inf) and it just seemed very disatisfying to me--I mean am I commander or Lt. General?
That and my helis kept getting shot down my tanks blown up, the graphics were alright, seems like a hotkey intensive game, no strategy, just throwing units at each other etc.
Given that I played the first beta, things probably changed. I downloaded the SP demo with a tutorial, played that, got turned off.
I have a feeling IGN rated it a 9.3 because of its presentation--I mean the game has no strategy, the graphics were nice, I didn't like the lighting at all.
ConstipatedVigilante
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2006
- 7,670
- 1
- 0
Gotta agree, TehMac. I played the beta and it was gripping for the first couple days, but then I realized how little strategy was involved. You could take a few medium and heavy attack helos and kill everything short of a heavy AA tank. The infantry absolutely sucked - they were sitting ducks for artillery, choppers, and napalm strikes. There was also no real penalty for having units die. You got your money back fast enough that you could still slow down the enemy that destroyed you 30 seconds ago.
The graphics were quite stunning, though. Seeing a triple nuke detonation is definitely a sight to behold. I took a screenie of one - I gotta find it...
The graphics were quite stunning, though. Seeing a triple nuke detonation is definitely a sight to behold. I took a screenie of one - I gotta find it...
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
What I don't like is how in these WiC trailers, it makes it seem like you can you yourself no one but you command this massive task force, when you're only allowed a paltry force that you could wipe your ass with if it was transmuted into toilet paper.
For those complaining about only having a few units to command, I would say that is easily counterbalanced in MP at least by just how well the game plays with a group of 4-5 teammates communicating over voice. I would definitely say this is the best co-op RTS experience I have ever encountered.
I agree with both camps here. I'd like more units, but the amount of teamplay it asks for in MP is pretty amazing. If done well, you can really have a blast in MP, instead of stupid tank rushes a la Starcraft or C&C3. To bad some roles are going to be underplayed simply because some aren't that cool or just plain suck. Infantry isn't all that bad though, they can really take out tanks and such pretty fast. Graphics look good, SP is said to be pretty extensive. Going to have to wait till I get my own review copy ...
ive been playing the demo and its so addictive, i only hope that there is some good infantry maps, its defo a buyer and i have it pre ordered.
Best RTS I have tried since Starcraft. I cant wait to get into a clan and have organized matches. This game is very team oriented. I think the PUBs will suffer because of that.
I liked the Single Player campaign included with the demo. The beta didnt have any single player capability. The story line was pretty cool and the missions well scripted.
Cant wait for this to finaly make it to retail.
I liked the Single Player campaign included with the demo. The beta didnt have any single player capability. The story line was pretty cool and the missions well scripted.
Cant wait for this to finaly make it to retail.
Could be, this review is subtitled "An RTS for the shooter generation. Now with added nukes."
IGN Review
Plus another review that gives the game 10/10
Internode Games Review
I'm slightly confused by how the game seems to scale for performance at least when using the in game benchmark test
I tried it at first on the default resi the game set (1600x900) with high quality set it gave me 20 min/40 average/100max . I didn't like the resi and ran the benchmark on 1920x1200 it was telling I was getting 18 min and around 38 average with 100 peak FPS. I thought this unusual as the frame rate was almost the same. I tried a couple of different resolutions leaving everything the same and only saw a difference of 2-4 FPS even at 1024 by 768. I lowered the physics detail (only setting changed but resi so far) and saw an increase in performance across the board. This leads me to believe that my system is being cpu bottlenecked by my 3.0ghz (currently clocked) E6600.
any thoughts on that would be great -- haven't jumped fully into the game as I was doing this after a 12 hour day but wanted to see how things would look and like I said I'm confused at this time by the performance scaling
I tried it at first on the default resi the game set (1600x900) with high quality set it gave me 20 min/40 average/100max . I didn't like the resi and ran the benchmark on 1920x1200 it was telling I was getting 18 min and around 38 average with 100 peak FPS. I thought this unusual as the frame rate was almost the same. I tried a couple of different resolutions leaving everything the same and only saw a difference of 2-4 FPS even at 1024 by 768. I lowered the physics detail (only setting changed but resi so far) and saw an increase in performance across the board. This leads me to believe that my system is being cpu bottlenecked by my 3.0ghz (currently clocked) E6600.
any thoughts on that would be great -- haven't jumped fully into the game as I was doing this after a 12 hour day but wanted to see how things would look and like I said I'm confused at this time by the performance scaling
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter