World in Conflict

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Ok, so I am looking over CAL and notice the banner at the top. World In Conflict looked like something interesting. So I head over to thier site and check it out. I really was impressed by the seeming depth of this game. It may be the one game that tears me away from my beloved DoD:S.







 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
When does it come out? I'm gonna have an asston of games to try out when I get back to the states.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: montypythizzle
RTS

/Fail

its much more than a generic RTS.
when a trial comes out, play it.

my friends all know I absolutely hate RTS games, they tend to be so boring and too much micromanaging.. between damned resource gathering and other BS.
but this game is WAY WAY different. you're merely controlling groups of certain units. The multiplayer is especially fun, because instead of ALL of a certain side's forces, it is only 2 sides to the fight, the Soviets and NATO forces, and as far as I know up to 8 players on each side. Each player chooses a certain type of unit, and sticks to those. You're only going to have a certain number of units that you individually look after, such as 5 tanks. The goal is cooperation and teamwork among the teammates to use the units together to control the territory.

much better than any RTS I have ever played, and quite easily the one I view as being king of the RTS genre for quite a few years to come.
and the way you can zoom in to essentially be at eye-level, and right next to a tank.. gives it a more personable feeling.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: TallBill
When does it come out? I'm gonna have an asston of games to try out when I get back to the states.

it is supposed to be released sometime in August or September, the month and date differing between different websites.

oh, and when does your current tour in Iraq end?
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: TallBill
When does it come out? I'm gonna have an asston of games to try out when I get back to the states.

it is supposed to be released sometime in August or September, the month and date differing between different websites.

oh, and when does your current tour in Iraq end?

Hahaha, never? No seriously, probably in November. 10 months down, 5 to go :p
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Originally posted by: montypythizzle
RTS

/Fail

Yeh my ears perked up when he mentioned something to pull him away from DOD:s. One of the main reasons why I like DOD:s is that I can jump right into a game... and if after a few minutes the kids start whining I can exit. No long drawn our RTS campaigns. Although it does sound fun.. I never have time for that stuff anymore.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: montypythizzle
RTS

/Fail

Yeh my ears perked up when he mentioned something to pull him away from DOD:s. One of the main reasons why I like DOD:s is that I can jump right into a game... and if after a few minutes the kids start whining I can exit. No long drawn our RTS campaigns. Although it does sound fun.. I never have time for that stuff anymore.

great thing about WiC though, is that you can jump into any game, give them some help, and leave whenever you want to. It's a dynamic system, its not going to screw the team that much as someone else could then join and fill in your spot, and you may have filled in a spot of someone who left.
 
Apr 17, 2005
13,465
3
81
yeah, it looks good. i used to be a big rts fan, but resource gathering and trying to micromanage everything is irritating. if it indeed lets you control small groups of units, i think it could be awesome.
 

sthaznpride17

Senior member
Jul 31, 2005
252
0
0
Its a great game but my god they need to fix performance issues. I get an average of 24fps on the medium settings.
 

NYHoustonman

Platinum Member
Dec 8, 2002
2,642
0
0
For a Beta it seems very well done. I haven't spent much time with it yet, but the graphics are pretty nice (the nuclear explosions are impressive) and it seems pretty original.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Graphics are nice, but that's about the only good thing I can say at this point.

World in Conflict is an interesting game, an RTS with alot of the features/gameplay of a n FPS. However, in practice I don't like the gameplay... there's very little strategy involved and most of the combat is revolved around who can click faster.

The thing that would make a Cold War RTS interesting is if the two sides were realistic and had different playing styles; Soviets would have a large number of units/tanks, meanwhile NATO would have much less units/tanks, but overall superior forces (this game is in the 80's, the US has an advantage in tanks by this point w/ the M1 Abrams).

In World in Conflict, this is completely missing. The only difference between a T80 and M1 Abrams is the model and the name. The only difference between a US infantry squad and a Soviet squad is the model and the name. Each side features exactly the same units, with the same strengths/weaknesses, and there are no unique units.

To me that kills the point of an RTS. An RTS is interesting because it is a game of strategy, and each side usually has a very different playing style and units. A game that involves little strategy and identical units on each side will not keep me interested for long.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Well, I've been playing it some more, and I just can't quite get captivated by it. If it were more like a traditional RTS, and had the zoom scheme like Supreme Commander, I'd like it a ton more. As it is, I find myself commanding maybe 4 tanks max, or 4 apaches max, or 4 squads. I don't actually feel like a commander. Maybe a lieutenant general, but not a commander.
While I wish I was excited for this game, the gameplay is not interesting and engaging for me.
I think I can quote this "games like this make me glad we have Company of Heroes."
Company of Heroes is more in depth, and while this is definitely a serious Games for Windows Title, its one that doesn't interest me.
 

bob4432

Lifer
Sep 6, 2003
11,693
28
91
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: montypythizzle
RTS

/Fail

Yeh my ears perked up when he mentioned something to pull him away from DOD:s. One of the main reasons why I like DOD:s is that I can jump right into a game... and if after a few minutes the kids start whining I can exit. No long drawn our RTS campaigns. Although it does sound fun.. I never have time for that stuff anymore.

great thing about WiC though, is that you can jump into any game, give them some help, and leave whenever you want to. It's a dynamic system, its not going to screw the team that much as someone else could then join and fill in your spot, and you may have filled in a spot of someone who left.

that is excellent. i know w/ coh i hated it because some of the good games could take soooo long, but w/ this i could jump in for 30mins or so :)
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well, I've been playing it some more, and I just can't quite get captivated by it. If it were more like a traditional RTS, and had the zoom scheme like Supreme Commander, I'd like it a ton more. As it is, I find myself commanding maybe 4 tanks max, or 4 apaches max, or 4 squads. I don't actually feel like a commander. Maybe a lieutenant general, but not a commander.
While I wish I was excited for this game, the gameplay is not interesting and engaging for me.
I think I can quote this "games like this make me glad we have Company of Heroes."
Company of Heroes is more in depth, and while this is definitely a serious Games for Windows Title, its one that doesn't interest me.

remember, that is the multiplayer system.

Single player, you are controlling the entire front. All 4 roles, and likely with more credits to have more than 4 units in each role.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Graphics are nice, but that's about the only good thing I can say at this point.

World in Conflict is an interesting game, an RTS with alot of the features/gameplay of a n FPS. However, in practice I don't like the gameplay... there's very little strategy involved and most of the combat is revolved around who can click faster.

The thing that would make a Cold War RTS interesting is if the two sides were realistic and had different playing styles; Soviets would have a large number of units/tanks, meanwhile NATO would have much less units/tanks, but overall superior forces (this game is in the 80's, the US has an advantage in tanks by this point w/ the M1 Abrams).

In World in Conflict, this is completely missing. The only difference between a T80 and M1 Abrams is the model and the name. The only difference between a US infantry squad and a Soviet squad is the model and the name. Each side features exactly the same units, with the same strengths/weaknesses, and there are no unique units.

To me that kills the point of an RTS. An RTS is interesting because it is a game of strategy, and each side usually has a very different playing style and units. A game that involves little strategy and identical units on each side will not keep me interested for long.

you aren't playing right if you think there is no strategy.
at least, the main strategy is communication across your teams to fight as a unified front. Without that, you're toast. I've experienced that on numerous occasions.

but ultimately, its a love or hate game. It's not the typical RTS, and that is why I love it. I am not an RTS player, and this allows me to truly enjoy it. But there is most certainly a strategy that I have witnessed, but that strategy is not a one fits all type. I can explain a certain style, exactly how I would play, but it would likely only work for me and if I had open communication from other leaders on my side, and their support in my efforts. Like, I wouldn't send my tanks to a point to capture, unless I had a group of choppers or anti-air units. My artillery units wouldn't be on any land that my side didn't have complete air supremacy over. Anti-air guns would also be defending that position.
Ultimately, it's a hard strategy to deploy in this game, due to number of unit limitations (the main unrealistic thing that kills me), but if it can be done its quite effective.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Graphics are nice, but that's about the only good thing I can say at this point.

World in Conflict is an interesting game, an RTS with alot of the features/gameplay of a n FPS. However, in practice I don't like the gameplay... there's very little strategy involved and most of the combat is revolved around who can click faster.

The thing that would make a Cold War RTS interesting is if the two sides were realistic and had different playing styles; Soviets would have a large number of units/tanks, meanwhile NATO would have much less units/tanks, but overall superior forces (this game is in the 80's, the US has an advantage in tanks by this point w/ the M1 Abrams).

In World in Conflict, this is completely missing. The only difference between a T80 and M1 Abrams is the model and the name. The only difference between a US infantry squad and a Soviet squad is the model and the name. Each side features exactly the same units, with the same strengths/weaknesses, and there are no unique units.

To me that kills the point of an RTS. An RTS is interesting because it is a game of strategy, and each side usually has a very different playing style and units. A game that involves little strategy and identical units on each side will not keep me interested for long.

you aren't playing right if you think there is no strategy.
at least, the main strategy is communication across your teams to fight as a unified front. Without that, you're toast. I've experienced that on numerous occasions.

but ultimately, its a love or hate game. It's not the typical RTS, and that is why I love it. I am not an RTS player, and this allows me to truly enjoy it. But there is most certainly a strategy that I have witnessed, but that strategy is not a one fits all type. I can explain a certain style, exactly how I would play, but it would likely only work for me and if I had open communication from other leaders on my side, and their support in my efforts. Like, I wouldn't send my tanks to a point to capture, unless I had a group of choppers or anti-air units. My artillery units wouldn't be on any land that my side didn't have complete air supremacy over. Anti-air guns would also be defending that position.
Ultimately, it's a hard strategy to deploy in this game, due to number of unit limitations (the main unrealistic thing that kills me), but if it can be done its quite effective.

In all the games I've played so far, there's been little communication between players and I can see this being the norm. Without communication with your team members, it degrades into a match where you just throw units into battle, have them killed, buy more units... etc.

Even if you can find good servers with a good team, I can't see this game being fun for a long time. The fact that each side has the same exact units and no individual strengths/weaknesses means that if you get tired of the game, you can't just play a different side. With alot of RTS games, if you get bored you can just choose a different faction and it's like playing a new game. Without this element, I can see World in Conflict getting tiresome very fast.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well, I've been playing it some more, and I just can't quite get captivated by it. If it were more like a traditional RTS, and had the zoom scheme like Supreme Commander, I'd like it a ton more. As it is, I find myself commanding maybe 4 tanks max, or 4 apaches max, or 4 squads. I don't actually feel like a commander. Maybe a lieutenant general, but not a commander.
While I wish I was excited for this game, the gameplay is not interesting and engaging for me.
I think I can quote this "games like this make me glad we have Company of Heroes."
Company of Heroes is more in depth, and while this is definitely a serious Games for Windows Title, its one that doesn't interest me.

remember, that is the multiplayer system.

Single player, you are controlling the entire front. All 4 roles, and likely with more credits to have more than 4 units in each role.

Even when it comes to SP, it looks like you won't be controlling the entire battlefield. On one hand, this makes sense, but still, I want to be able to control the battle completely, not have to share control with the AI:

YouGamers: During the brief time that I spent playing the single-player campaign mission, there seemed to be a lot going on that I couldn't control. Are all the missions going to be like that?

Karlson: To answer your question, you're part of a large-scale conflict, and we want the player to feel as a part of something bigger. Thus, we made the decision that there should be things happening that he or she does not directly control. It adds to the ambient feel of the battlefield - it's a living place. Of course, not every map will be all action all the time, but a large portion of the game will be the player's units and all of the other characters mixed together with lots of other computer-controlled units.

YouGamers: I'm getting terrible flashbacks from X-Wing and Tie Fighter where the enemy kept killing my AI-controlled capital ships...

Westberg: [laughs] It's going to be nice and clean, we're going to make sure it's nothing like that.

Karlson: It's also script controlled, so we have a level of control [over the events].

 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Well the thing is, this game is an MP designed game from the start. It's meant to be played MP style, the campaign was tacked on almost as an afterthought. So, that's why I don't think I'll be purchasing this game.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well, I've been playing it some more, and I just can't quite get captivated by it. If it were more like a traditional RTS, and had the zoom scheme like Supreme Commander, I'd like it a ton more. As it is, I find myself commanding maybe 4 tanks max, or 4 apaches max, or 4 squads. I don't actually feel like a commander. Maybe a lieutenant general, but not a commander.
While I wish I was excited for this game, the gameplay is not interesting and engaging for me.
I think I can quote this "games like this make me glad we have Company of Heroes."
Company of Heroes is more in depth, and while this is definitely a serious Games for Windows Title, its one that doesn't interest me.

remember, that is the multiplayer system.

Single player, you are controlling the entire front. All 4 roles, and likely with more credits to have more than 4 units in each role.

Even when it comes to SP, it looks like you won't be controlling the entire battlefield. On one hand, this makes sense, but still, I want to be able to control the battle completely, not have to share control with the AI:

YouGamers: During the brief time that I spent playing the single-player campaign mission, there seemed to be a lot going on that I couldn't control. Are all the missions going to be like that?

Karlson: To answer your question, you're part of a large-scale conflict, and we want the player to feel as a part of something bigger. Thus, we made the decision that there should be things happening that he or she does not directly control. It adds to the ambient feel of the battlefield - it's a living place. Of course, not every map will be all action all the time, but a large portion of the game will be the player's units and all of the other characters mixed together with lots of other computer-controlled units.

YouGamers: I'm getting terrible flashbacks from X-Wing and Tie Fighter where the enemy kept killing my AI-controlled capital ships...

Westberg: [laughs] It's going to be nice and clean, we're going to make sure it's nothing like that.

Karlson: It's also script controlled, so we have a level of control [over the events].

hmm.. didn't know that, but it excites me even more. More realistic. No single person has control of building towns, gathering resources, and controlling an entire freaking military like in most RTS games. I like playing the general that has control over a large number of forces, but not all the forces a world power has access to. this is going to be a nice change of pace from the standard-fare of the RTS genre. On the battlefield of a large-scale war, one general does not control everything, but merely sections of everything. ;)

to each his own, but I thoroughly look forward to the release of this game.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
I enjoyed this game a lot. Looking very forward to the open beta and eventual release. The lack of teamwork issue some are worried about is a valid concern. But you have to remember we played on public servers. Go onto any public FPS server and you will witness the same lack of coordination.

I think this game will excel when you get on a coordinated team. Use armor to break through, infantry to hold, helicopters to provide cover and support to breakup enemy formations.