World in Conflict, anyone ?????

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
fishboi

fishboi

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,415
0
19,280
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?

 
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....
 
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.
 
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.

 
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
God I hate the new generation of RTS players.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom