World in Conflict

[CVSiN]

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.

This is not a simulation there buddy..
its a fast paced action game with an interesting setting.
the game is VERY much a strategy game as its a rock paper sissors match.. you try taking an objective without covering units and youre dead meat..

ive been playing WiC off and on now for 4 months.. Was in 2 alpha phases and just recently the closed beta.. and will for sure be in open beta this summer.

the game has come a long way and is groundbreaking.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: CVSiN

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.

This is not a simulation there buddy..
its a fast paced action game with an interesting setting.
the game is VERY much a strategy game as its a rock paper sissors match.. you try taking an objective without covering units and youre dead meat..

ive been playing WiC off and on now for 4 months.. Was in 2 alpha phases and just recently the closed beta.. and will for sure be in open beta this summer.

the game has come a long way and is groundbreaking.

I'm not looking for a "simulation" (although that would be nice) necessarily, I'm looking for a real-time-strategy game that is going to keep me interested. An RTS game can be great, but if the units are not interesting and play styles are not varied between factions, it will not keep people's interest for long.

To me, alot of the fun of an RTS is different units and how they compare to eachother. If I'm playing Battle for Middle Earth and a group of orcs is just as powerful as a group of Gondor Soldiers, then that is going to really turn me off. It should be the same with WiC - I expect my M1's to be something more than a copy-and-paste of the T-80 with a different model, and I expect my other units to be different and unique as well.

Perhaps this game will be good for people just looking for a RTS-FPS hybrid, but if you're looking for a true RTS game, you're going to have to look elsewhere. Just too bad that there ARE no real Cold War RTS games.

 

[sthaznpride17]

VRAM Overload of dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom

 

[pcslookout]

To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

my 640mb 8800gts ran great, although it is as 1280x1024. But it is also at essentially the highest detail settings, complete with 4xAF and 2xAA (default settings there).
Then again, my C2D E6420 is running at 3.44ghz. That might be helping a bit too.
Oh, and 2gb of ram, and Vista 64bit. How much the latter plays into things, who knows.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: pcslookout
To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

my 640mb 8800gts ran great, although it is as 1280x1024. But it is also at essentially the highest detail settings, complete with 4xAF and 2xAA (default settings there).
Then again, my C2D E6420 is running at 3.44ghz. That might be helping a bit too.
Oh, and 2gb of ram, and Vista 64bit. How much the latter plays into things, who knows.

1280x1024 is a low resolution. What kind of monitor do you have and is it a CRT or LCD ? I was able to run World in Conflict fine at 1280x1024 as well on my C2D E6420 @ 3.5 Ghz, 8800 GTS, 4 GB of ram at all high detail settings but with 4x FSAA and 8x AF any higher and it would start to get below 30 fps in heavy action so it wasn't worth raising FSAA or AF anymore. Though not sure if the 4 GB of ram and running the game off a 10,000 rpm Raptor hard drive helps that much or not. I guess maybe because it can access the data a little quicker on startup but thats about it.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

How do you know it's definately the VRAM that is holding the cards back and not something else? We're still a while away from release and betas TYPICALLY have bad performance and are unoptimized.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

I dunno about that, I ran the beta at 1920x1080 on my x1900xtx and it ran perfectly fine. I had everything maxed but I dont think I had any AA or AF on. I played it everyday whent he beta was on and it ran smooth enough that I didn't notice any slowdowns while I was playing.

 

[Genx87]

I ran at 1600X1200 on a 8800GTS 640 with no problem. I always turn off shadows however. I find shadowing destroys performance while adding very little to RTS's.

I ran the beta at 1680X1050 on a different machine using a 7900GS and again didnt see any major slow downs.

The 8800 machine looks like this
8800GTS 640
C2D 6600 @ stock
2GB DDR667
74GB Raptor
Vista Business

the 7900GS looks like this
7900GS
Operton 165 Dual Core @ stock
4GB DDR400
36GB Raptor
WinXP SP2

/shrug

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: VashHT

Originally posted by: pcslookout
To run World of Conflict well you need a CRT monitor so you can scale down the resolution. If you even talk about using FSAA and AF with this game it will even kill the Ultra. You need a video card with at least 1 GB of video ram to run it well at pretty high resolutions. The only way you can run it smooth on a lcd monitor is have a small 15 to 17 inch lcd or scale down your larger lcd but it makes your image quality horrible. So the only way is really a CRT monitor to be able to have enough video card power.

There are very few video cards right now that have 1 GB of video ram. Currently nvidia has none but its safer to go with 1.5 GB of video ram on a video card to be able to run World in Conflict. So in about 6 months or less we should be fine when we can buy the $1000, $800, or $600 NV82 video card!

I dunno about that, I ran the beta at 1920x1080 on my x1900xtx and it ran perfectly fine. I had everything maxed but I dont think I had any AA or AF on. I played it everyday whent he beta was on and it ran smooth enough that I didn't notice any slowdowns while I was playing.

This is why you were able to run it at such a high resolution. You didn't have FSAA or AF enabled.