World In Conflict Reviews

• Real time without strategy.

  
  By A3S4R06JD1RGRC on 2007-09-27
  If I had known that the developers of the Ground Control series of games were responsible for World in Conflict,.. then I would've known right away what to expect.
  
  Great graphics,.. fully destructible environments,.. epic and awe-inspiring presentation,.. but totally stupid gameplay.
  
  There is no strategy in this RTS. Not having to build buildings and gather resources is a nice way to get right to the action,.. but when the game consists of NOTHING but placing your units in the circles ("strategic points") and watching the game play itself, you can't help but feel like you wasted $50.
  
  All you do is listen to your commander bark mission objectives into your ear (and they all consist of just placing your units in circles).
  Here's an objective, place units in circles, watch them kill enemies, listen to another objective, place units in circles, watch them kill enemies.
  
  You are not allowed to actually figure out for yourself how to complete an objective. There are no situations where it calls for strategy. Everything is marked for you and you just move your units where they tell you to. That is it. That's the whole game. There is no decision making on your part.
  
  Joint Task Force is a much better choice if you want an RTS without base building and resource gathering. Look it up.
  
  The reason I give World in Conflict three stars is because it is very well made and still entertaining,.. it's just too simple and not for RTS gamers that like to actually use strategy and think for themselves how to beat missions. If you want to play an RTS and just enjoy the graphics and effects while the game practically plays itself,.. then World In Conflict is for you.
  
  
  
  

• Good Single Player...Amazing Multi-player

  
  By A2O8RIDCJ0H83V on 2007-09-24
  I played this on a dual-core 2.13ghz pentium, 2gb ram with a Nvidia 8600 GTS on Vista 32-bit.
  
  First, the Single-Player campaign...
  
  The biggest selling point for me was not having to build 30 straw huts in order to build the Omega Man Destroyer units which dominate everything else on the battlefield. The Single Player campaign is setup in a series of scenarios linked to a story driven Campaign where the actors did a phenomenal job and the animated characters move very life-like. Alec Baldwin narrates a general telling of events that happen where you will use your units to achieve a variety of objectives.
  
  Your units are broken into four main categories: Armor, Infantry, Support and Air. Just like any other tactical war game you need a combined arms approach, so you can look at each category as four legs on a table, if you don't have one of those you are going to fall. Now...above and beyond your units that occupy territory and duke it out with the opposing soviet forces you also have tactical aids which give you the "yippie!" factor. It allows you to call in Air Strikes, Artillery Barrages and a wide variety of support elements to aid you in battle.
  
  Each scenario is very different from all the others with the mission objectives having a big enough variety not to get too tedious. Also, your objectives change around a lot to reflect the chaotic nature of the battlefield. For example, if you are told to hold a bridge and you get all your units setup the way you want to the rough-and-tough commanding officer of yours will inform you an artillery barrage is incoming, and if you don't listen to him (which I did at first!) then blammo you just lost all your units, so in that respect the battlefield is very dynamic.
  
  I would equate the gameplay to a modern total war type of battlefield where you do have some room to manuever and it doesn't feel claustrophobic like in Star Wars: Empire at War. Beyond that as you might have seen in the trailers, the graphics and sound are great..yada yada.
  
  The Single Player was fun to play through giving you about 10-15ish hours of gameplay but, the real gem is in the Multi-Player;
  
  Okay, right off the bat let me just mention I'm not a huge Multi-player fan. I believe the only thing multi-player I ever got into was Call of Duty 2. That being said I really enjoyed the Multi-Player because you don't have to be twitchy or even a stellar connection to play. It's much like the Single Player campaign except you choose your role to play (Armor, Infantry, Support or Air) and work in tandem with your 7 other teammates to fight 8 other folks. More than any other Multi-player you depend on your team quite a bit as you are only one leg of the table. Even as fun as fast as it is to have helos if you run into mobile anti-air units...you are toast. I found myself sticking with other players and working out unspoken tactics like leading helos into anti-air traps...very fun. Of course, your tactical aids are there so your big kill players have some neat toys including tactical nukes which...wow, they are fun. However, you can't hug your children with nuclear arms *tips hat to Family Guy*.
  
  Without getting too much more verbose, let me just say it was a decent single-player campaign and at 50 bucks that's not much of a value, but throw in the multi-player and I think it is justified. Bottomline, don't just buy it for the Single-Player, if you have no desire to play multi-player then I'd wait to pick it up for cheaper.
  
  Pros:
  - Great graphics
  - Very good tutorial (never even looked at the manual)
  - Simplified controls
  - Voice acting and Sound
  - Fun gameplay!
  - No bugs encountered
  - Literally, thousands of people to play online with.
  
  Cons:
  - Might be too pricy for someone just looking for a Single-Player game
  - Loving multi-player, but wish single-player campaign was longer.
  
  

• Non-Gamer Review: This is the Ultimate Treat for Tom Clancy/Larry Bond Fans

  
  By A3VHEN1LDM6EQ on 2007-10-05
  This title appealed to me because I am fan of Tom Clancy novels, particularly "Red Storm Rising." While not a big gamer, I have enjoyed the classic RTS games like "Age of Empires" and "Starcraft." Two of my favorite games as a kid were M1 Tank Platoon and Red Storm Rising. Nothing in any of these games could have prepared me for World in Conflict. Being able to fly the camera all over the virtual battlefield engaging in fast-paced, exciting skirmishes, with spectacular explosions, beautifully rendered landscapes, and a compelling single-player campaign is a treat.
  
  Any modern military history buff will greatly appreciate the accuracy of the unit functions and graphical details (for example, even the cargo planes drop flares as the fly low to release reinforcements, just as they would in war-time). This game would be the perfect gift for any non-gamer fan of Tom Clancy/Larry Bond novels.
  
  There are a few drawbacks:
  - Heavy system requirements: I have a 3 month old XP desktop (DirectX 9) and could only play on "medium" graphic level. Still looked spectacular, though.
  - The game is so much fun that the single-player Campaign feels too short. I was hoping for many more missions or to play as the Soviets. Here's hoping for a large Campaign expansion pack.
  - It's difficult to find/start the single player skirmish mode (had to go online to figure out how)
  - I would prefer if unit attributes were not the same for all three factions and more reality-based (for example, Abrams tanks should be much faster than Pattons or T-62s)
  
  Still, this game is fantastic and deserves a far higher Amazon rating than the current 3-star average. WiC is easily the most fun I've had playing a computer game since the original Starcraft.
  
  
  
  
  

• Great

  
  By A1YVDM05WOSG6B on 2007-09-18
  I've been playing for about 4 hours at this point and so far it's great. This game very much reminds me of Ground Control II (not surprising since Massive did that game as well), except the graphics, gameplay, and cinematic feel is much more polished and up to date. I haven't experienced any problems with installation/running on Vista and performance is fine on my machine (quad core/Nvidia 8800 GTX).
  
  The Good:
  The gameplay is frenetic and fun to watch. Battles are full of fancy pants explosion graphics and tend to turn the surrounding environment to ruins. Calling in jet aircraft to perform a variety of tasks is fun and cool to watch. Radio chatter, weather effects (the weather seems to get more brooding as a battle progresses), and stuff happening way off in the distance really helps to suspend disbelief. Resource acquisition takes the form of getting points to spend on fresh units by gaining ground, completing objectives, and eliminating enemy troops (again, similar to GCII). Lastly, fighting a war with the rooskies in Seattle (where I live) is just plain cool.
  
  The Bad:
  As is typical with most RTS games, the AI has annoyed me a few times. For example: armored units are the least sensitive to damage in the front - is it that hard for and tank driver to turn his unit toward incoming fire without orders (or at least toward his current target)? A wee bit more autonomy in my units would be nice.
  
  Overall, if you liked GCII, you'll absolutely love this game.
  
  
  

• Great game

  
  By A1OK8RCZILZ4EZ on 2007-09-19
  This is a fun action filled game without having to gather resources in the older RTS games. You get purchase points by killing the enemy and taking objectives.
  
  The battles are fun to watch I enjoy that as much as the game play. Call in napalm or heavy arty and watch it tear the place apart. Everything burns or blows up so there is lots of buildings crashing down and trees catching fire.
  
  But above all its just plain fun to fight. Once you get use to the learning curve (about 30min for me)it is fun and exciting game play. I am sure online is going to be great once I get around to trying it out. So far no major bugs that I noticed nor any game crashing after 5 hours or so of playing that was a relief.
  
  I just hope the campaign is not too short or replay would not be very high because it is story driven.
  
  Only thing I think it is missing is a Soviet campaign but I am sure this game is going to have lots of add-ons in the future maybe we can play the soviets then.
  
  
  
  
• Great graphics, but terrible gameplay
  By ASB4QQBKZD6W2 on 2007-10-01
  After being excited for several months prior to the release of this game, I was sorely disappointed after playing this game for the first couple of hours.
  
  The game is completely scripted and there is no deviating from the script. Each mission simply consists of you moving your units around to the designated spots so they can automatically shoot enemies for you. Simply put, there is no strategy in this game. The computer is looking for you to do something and if you do it, then you pass the mission.
  
  Those looking for a recreation of C&C should go elsewhere. Although the graphics are great and if you have DX10 you can run dual-monitors, it simply does not make up for the $50 you have to spend to move tanks and troops around in a pre-defined fashion.
  
  
• Design problems
  By A254O5PCXMW7NM on 2007-11-19
  This is a single player review of WIC.
  
  Its hard to understand the glowing reviews this game has gotten. Its a respectable RTS in the sense that it works as intended by the designers. Unfortunately, the design is seriously flawed.
  
  Lets start with the story elements. The game starts out well, and indeed the story is more or less solid. You defend the US west coast from Soviet invasion, and in between doing that you flash back to battles you have fought in the ongoing war with the USSR in Europe. So far, so good.
  
  Where the game narrative falls apart is in the characters. You have your CO, a Colonel, who barks orders at you. He's a reasonable if aggressive leader, and while he seems to bark out new orders every minute at least he is believable. Unfortunately, your colliegues are not. First is Major Bannon, who commands armor assets that occasionally provide you with support. The first rule of character design is Thou Shalt Not Annoy. Alas, Bannon is the Jar Jar Binks of WIC. His voice is annoying. He is ungrateful when you save his butt. He talks back to his superior officers. He questions orders, always, and complains about them. He disobeys orders routinely, and through negiigence and dereliction of duty kills high ranking liason officers and civilians. Did I mention his voice is whiney and annoying? He ruins the game. In the real military he would never make Major, in fact he would never make it past 2nd Lieutenant. Military officers are among the toughest, most squared away people on the planet. They have to be. Minor mstakes are career ending. Major mistakes get you imprisoned. Yet this whiny, girllish Bannon persists through most of the game. Disobeyed orders and killed civilians and allied soldiers? Well - the story goes - the Colonel gave him a dirty look as punishment. As if. In the military of 60 years ago he would have been executed by firing squad. Today he would be imprisoned. In this game he will command troops and annoy you for the next 10 missions.
  
  Thankfully, Bannon gets relieved of duty, but his replacement is more of the same, minus the whiny voice. Who knew that the job of an junior officer in combat is to second guess, undermine, and put down his CO instead of - say - actually carrying out orders and accomplishing the mission? Its obvious that the developers never had any military advisors working with them. The game is an insult to the military. This is a strategy game and you should recognise that your customers might just have served and cannot stand - cannot stand - your depiction of officers as whiny babies who cannot get the job done. In my experience the average company-grade officer in a combat arms unit is tough, smart as hell, brave beyond measure, iron-willed and tasked with a job so difficult that many civilians would whimper at the responsibilty and power they wield. Imagine that the next time you screw up at work fully a tenth of your coworkers are killed outright, or some high number of innocents are dead. Thats the pressure they work under. Show some respect. They earn half what the developers of this game make.
  
  This may seem like an overly pro-military critique but the thing to understand is how these characters totally undermine the immersion of the game. Simply put, the story is DOA for not taking the military seriously, and instead offers up a charicature that probably jives with the designers pop-culture sensibilites, without them even realizing it. Even of you think this would not annoy you, read on. Narrative is only one of several big problems with the game.
  
  Now that immersion is circling the toilet bowl, lets look at gameplay. Unfortunately, its tedious. You start missions with some good sized maps, and apparently the designers were so impressed with themselves that they feel that you must visit every inch of them. Every few minutes you're ordered to rush across the map to a new objective. You are whipped around the map without reprieve. In between you will be tasked with secondary objectives that - you guessed it - whip you around to even further flung corners of the map. By the end I couldn't stand the Colonel or anyone else in the game. I literally felt like I was playing VirtuaTennis with my units as the ball.
  
  Taking an objective means camping some areas on the map, holding ground. Too bad these areas are spread out and wildly exposed. Want to take this area by setting some infantry up in the woods meters away? No chance. They must be parked out in the open where they can be cut down. This wouldn't be so bad except you must simultaneously hold 3 or 4 such areas, and they are just far enough apart to prevent any kind of interlocking fields of fire. They might as well be on opposite sides of the map. This, primarily, is how the game introduces difficulty, since the units are powerful and easy to keep alive, especially infantry, which are amazing death merchants. Two antitank squads in proper cover can crush a massive armor invasion far better than any two tanks could, so the designers decided the best way to prevent that is to make you spread them out. The final mission takes this to such heights I was laughing to myself when I saw it.
  
  The other glaring fault is the dependence on support fires. Throughout the vast majority of the game you can call in huge amouts of artillery and other support fires to obliterate your opponent. While this is a fun for a bit, eventually it becomes clear that support fires are at least as effective as all your units combined, and you end up spending a lot of your time calling in fires instead of - you know - moving your units strategically in real time.
  
  All in all this game is a major letdown. Company of Heroes is vastly superior in every way. It is more strategic, the missions are better designed, the voice acting is better, and it respects the men it simulates. The gaming press cannot be trusted. There is no way this should have got 90%+ from most of the top reviewers. I give it a 60% only because it looks nice, controls well and is free from major bugs.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Try the free demo first
  By A7I3ZK4MSXRQ1 on 2007-09-28
  Try the demo and see if you like the game.
  http://demo.worldinconflict.com/us/
  
  After reading all the reviews, i have to agree with what was said. Whether or not you like this game is going to depend on what you like to do. Some people like base building and some just want the action. I will, however, disagree with the guy who said there was little opportunity for strategy. If all you are doing is moving your tanks onto the command circles and letting them fight then you are missing the point and obviously your difficulty setting is too low. You can set up infantry in building which have to be leveled before the enemy can get through. You can call in airstrikes on targets which is great fun and can get you out of a pinch. There is a lot of stuff to do in the game to keep things interesting. Mainly its just a fun game with wonderful explosions and a wide variety of weapons at your disposal and plenty of troops to use them on. Try the demo and get a taste for the game. It's free.
  
  
• RTS for the FPS generation
  By A21CEM7VBB2LKL on 2007-10-06
  Ever played Command and Conquer or Company of Heroes and wished that you didn't have the elaborate tech trees to flesh out? Ever wished that you could just go and in kick some [...]? World in Conflict is for you.
  
  True, a level of cerebal strategy is sacrificed. You can flank enemies, separate their forces with different units, and the like, but the strategy as a whole is more limited than in other RTS games. However, this applies mainly to the single player game (which offers fantastic cutscenes, voice work, and general ambience). Multiplayer games offer a greater chance to work your frontal lobes.
  
  WIC could also be known as Company of Heroes Express. It's a great game that really appeals to those of us who want to start playing right away, and it might be somewhat disappointing to those who want their RTS games to be like a protracted game of Risk.
  
  
• Overrated
  By A30ZR2U9JQ1J68 on 2007-09-26
  The game has amazing graphics, but it is being sold as an Strategy game, which it is not. Even when playing the multiplayer the game is way too fast, with players just massing units and throwing them to figth and die in seconds. The solo game is even worse, you can only play the very linear and predictible American Campaign, you don't have the option to play as Europe or the Soviets and there is no Sandbox option. This game promissed a lot and delivered very little.
  
  
• Not for anyone with anything less that a 8800 GTX
  By A30RQN7B7QVVI0 on 2007-11-15
  Ok, this game is not worth buying at all right now for anyone with anything less that the most powerfull current graphics cards. If you have any NVIDIA 7000 series cards, forget it. It won't even run. I'm also concerned that it will actually DAMAGE your hardware. I'm serious. Even on my son's machine with the NVIDIA 8800 ULTRA it still overloads the graphics card and locks up the machine so you have to power down get out of the dead lock. Really bad. Check the forums on this, a lot of people can't get it to play at all or if they can, it causes horrible lock-ups and crashes. I've patched the heck out of everything, added the latest patch for the game, still will not play at all on a Core 2 Duo 2 ghz machine with 2 gigs of ram and a NVIDIA 7600 series card. Can't even play the crapy cut scenes with out locking up. Only game I've ever had any trouble with like that in the past 6 years on any system. Not sure they ever tested this thing on more than a single configuration.
  
  Definitely wait a few more months and for another half dozen patches before buying this. It's probably dangerous for your machine's health.
  
  Game play is ok. Like other people have said, the entire strategy is to place your units in the little circles and hold them for X number of seconds. The enemy has inifinite forces. Sometimes you do too. Not sure how realistic air dropping tanks in to the middle of a combat zone is either.
  
  The "movie" scenes are a joke. Still drawings with stupid personal backgrounds of some of the characters. So one guy has an abusive step-father... great... another's wife/gf doesn't like the fact that he's in the army... gee... what's the point of that? Just wastes time and has NOTHING to do with the game play, it gives you no information on missions or anything usefull. Is it so you think of your units as real people? How can you do that when the units in the game come in infinite supplies, don't gain any experience from battle to battle etc. Games like this really need to have experience added to units that make it from battle to battle. They seem to gain rank/experince in the battle but then you start the next battle with a completely new supply of green units again. So, two days ago you were commanding tanks, now you are incharge of a mixed infantry and armor set up, then you're running air cav. All of this as a lieutenant?
  
  The graphics are great if you can get them to work at all. If you like arcade games this is probably a good game. If you like any kind of strategy, continuity, realisim, or a game that works out of the box, forget it.
  
  
  
  
  
• A terrible game
  By A2SLQADUE0AUE2 on 2007-09-25
  This game is terrible. Sucks up over 4 gb of memory and still won't work right. Must use every button (EVERYONE OF THEM) to operate the game. Would take hours just to figure out how to play the game. It is a waste of money and if ever operated, a waste of time to play.
  
  
• Instant gratification, But slowly becomes a boredom after a week or two!
  By AK8D0MLVXU0JE on 2007-10-02
  World war 3,
  
  Great concept, fluid game, just not enough diversity!
  
  The aim of the game is to take 'Command points' these are circles that appear next to a house or building you must capture. Move your units inside capture the command point, rinse and repeat until you win!
  
  The Big picture strategy is simple, however you must hold thre command points for X amount of minutes before they are yours so you have to fight for them. However after you have mastered the basics there is no real strategy involved apart from organising your units into buildins, behind tree's or having your tanks or aircraft in the right place at the right time. You will of course get bonus weapons such as air strikes (and yes WOMD) to do away with your enemies but in the end all your doing is capturing Command points.
  
  Its an instant gratification game some people will find it tedious after a point and some will simply love it. I found it tedious but you may not try the demo borrow the game then decide.
  
  Good buy but no THAT great.
  
  Regards
  
  Jack
  
  
• Ok game. Didn't live up to expectations
  By AWMOMLW9ULI84 on 2007-10-07
  As the other reviews state, very little strategy. They just throw wave after wave of things at you and you watch things blow up. There seems to be no way to really "lose" because as your units get killed you can just ask for more with your reinforcement points.
  
  This would be a good game to get on the second go around after a price drop. Hopefully upgrades and add-ons will add a little more variety to the game.
  
  I find this one WAY less addicting than C&C.
  
  
• Underated Masterpiece
  By AK8B59T0K3QQ9 on 2007-10-03
  I've played many, many, strategy game in my day, and I have to say that this game rates up there with Starcraft and Total War. The camera controls are perfect (finally!), and the action is fast enough to satisfy even an FPS player. As for the "strategy" aspect, simply because you don't gather resources and build buildings doesn't mean there is none involved. There are plenty of strategies to learn and master.
  
  The really great part of this game though (like many others) is the multiplayer. That is why I was so distraught to see people giving the game a bad rating, solely based on the singleplayer campaigns. Playing online, you are very dependent on teamwork, as your army is joint controlled. The communication system is great, with many different markers to place on the map (e.g. move here, bring Anti-air here, place napalm here), and built-in voip.
  
  If you are still unsure if this game is for you, download the demo, its free. ;)
  
  
• Too Much Money + scripted battles = 2 rating
  By A2CL6T5D0XCSZM on 2007-11-03
  I think this games really limits what you can do - it doesn't allow you to deviate from the script. at all. It's kind of "arcade" in that manner and I guess that's why I don't like it. It's too much money for what it provides. There's too much competition out there and money is too precious for me to give this game a higher rating, even with its graphics.
  
  
• According to the demo
  By A3UBKH6PBS5SKS on 2007-09-29
  I played the demo to World In Conflict. I would have to say the game is very much like the recent command and conquer with the aspect of troop limitations and gameplay. The gameplay is difficult with the idea that any fight could turn either direction. I still don't fully understand the complete aspect of the game. But for just a few hours play, I am going to say that the actual experience can be obtained through command and conquer. I will not be purchasing this game. I am entitled my own opinion, but feel free to try out the demo.
  
  
• Red Dawn 2
  By A3H0TAYNCJO7FL on 2007-10-23
  This game is a blast to play. Being a Veteran who served in the 1980's, the Soviets were the biggest threat at that time and this game conveys that fact very well.
  
  The tutorial is entertaining; the Drill Instructor voice over is perfect. The game is easy to play and you don't have to spend a huge amount of time learning the controls. The game play and graphics are fantastic... I advise any potential player to read the box and make sure that your machine is capable of running the game.
  
  The only gripe I have is the load time between scenarios... a very minor thing compared to the overall game play. I highly recommend this game to any war buffs out there.... you won't be dissapointed.
  
  
• A Great Game
  By A3V6Z4RCDGRC44 on 2008-01-03
  World in Conflict is a Real Time Tactics game from Massive Entertainment. Detailing an alternate reality where the Soviet Union chose to go out with a bang at the end of the Cold War (1989) by invading Europe and the United States, World in Conflict is a chilling look into the world that could have been.
  
  The story follows Lieutenant Parker, a young officer who serves first as an aid in Western Europe, attempting to halt the Soviet advance, and then as a soldier defending the homefront as Seattle, Washington is overrun by Soviet forces. The story is told in a series of punctuating cutscenes, either done with an in-game engine (used mainly before, during, or after levels) or with a striking artistic style of still images (similar to Ace Combat 04's cinematic style). Supporting characters include Colonel Sawyer, a codgery old veteran who finds it difficult to adapt to the "new war" of the late 20th century, Captain Bannon, a brash tank commander who is attempting to live up to the legacy of his deceased father, and Captain Webb, who supports the unit during operations defending the United States. Most characters are given at least one cinematic's worth of character development, and the dialogue seems very real and genuine. There were no moments when I felt that the attempt at plot was "cheesy" or "over-the-top", and every decision could be tracked through a wide variety of circumstances. Captain Bannon is the biggest change in character, as the player views him in multiple scenarios - firstly, as a petty, headstrong captain, disliked by his soldiers and commanders; next, as a son, attempting to support his mother and uphold his father's legacy; then, as a soldier who makes mistakes and feels sorrow for doing so; and finally, as a man willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to make up for his deeds. There was no way to identify Bannon as simply "mean" or "dumb" or "brave"; his character and personality changed drastically not just with the events he was presented with but also with the perspective he is viewed from.
  
  The description of Captain Bannon essentially sets the stage for the depth that permeates the entire game, from fighting with the aid of the French Commandant Sabatier in Western Europe, to the disorderly retreat from Seattle, to the defense of Cascade Falls and the Strategic Defense Initiative, to high-stakes last-minute ploy of the US forces. Across a wide variety of locales, much more familiar to our real lives than the settings used by the games contemporaries - the middle east in modern times, or Germany and Japan during World War II, for example. World in Conflict repeatedly makes clear that this war isn't just in our backyard, but in our very homes. Inspired by films like Red Dawn and books like Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising, World in Conflict presents a scenario both alien and familiar. Early trailers relied on this contrast - the announcement trailer showed a variety of scenes that seemed to be in foreign areas and revealed more commonplace truths. An apparent "jungle" scene that turns out to be a centerpiece in a shopping mall, or a desert bunker that is revealed as a beach near a boardwalk, or US troops and tanks walk through an area that turns into a modern suburban neighborhood. Every part of this game reminds us just how close we came to a war that would end all wars.
  
  The gameplay in the game is a Real Time Tactics system reminiscent of Ground Control. The player has a certain number of points with which to buy units. These units, when purchased, are parachuted into the warzone - there are no structures to build or facilities that "construct" units. When a unit is destroyed, the points used to buy it trickle back into the player's account. Units range from infantry squads that can hide in forests and buildings, to troop carriers like trucks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles, to straight-up heavy-hitting tanks, to long-range artillery and anti-aircraft vehicles, to helicopters of various grades. These units are divided into four "specialties": Infantry, Armor, Support (includes artillery, repair vehicles, and anti-air), and Air. In multiplayer, players choose one of these specialties and must work with other players to get a full effect of force. For example, the "Air" player can buy transport helicopters, but without support from an infantry player he will have nothing to transport. The Armor player is strong, but is susceptible to helicopters and artillery, and needs the support of other players to accomplish his tasks. Maneuvering is an important aspect in this game, relying heavily on Lines of Sight, flanking attacks, and similar tactical elements. To that end, many units have smokescreens, and all units have at least one alternate attack or projectile. For example, medium tanks have anti-personnel tank rounds for use against infantry, while heavy tanks have High Explosive round for use against light vehicles. On the more tactical side, recon helicopters can see farther and use infrared scanning to check for hidden infantry and through smokescreens; helicopters unaccompanied by them often fall prey to surface-to-air missile infantry or concealed anti-air vehicles. The utilization and micromanagement of these elements is very important.
  
  The objective of the game, in most cases, is to capture and hold certain strategically important sectors. Doing so will reward players with Tactical Aid points, which cover everything from strategic airlifting of soldiers and light tanks to airstrikes (of many different kinds, including anti-tank strafing runs to napalm attacks to anti-air missile attacks) to artillery attacks. A well-placed tactical aid (which also takes time to arrive, thus necessitating a certain amount of aim and foresight in placement) can change the course of an entire battle. Teams can "pool" tactical aid points by giving them from one player to another in order to buy more powerful tactical aid, such as chemical strikes, anti-tank and anti-air missile attacks, and the most powerful weapon in the game, the tactical nuke. Coordination between units is definitely required to accomplish tasks.
  
  As a whole, this game is fantastic. It accomplishes everything it set out to do; singleplayer is engaging and detailed, with strong, fleshed-out characters, and multiplayer is a strategic dream. For any serious fan of tactical games who still enjoys having a good time, I would definitely recommend this. I rate it a 10/10.
  
  
• A Pretty Good Game BUT...
  By A35ASBCRRQJC6Y on 2007-10-01
  I've been a long-time fan of RTS and RT tactics game designs and was pleased to get WIC. I've admired MASSIVE's approach to this genre through both Ground Control and GC2. Visually, this game is quite appealing but the problem is its overly frenetic pace. It is fully scalable so one can pull back to a global map or drill down to an individual unit. This was always the lure with GC and GC2 because the game was very exciting down close (the explosions, tanks rumbling, etc). The problem with WIC is the pace is so fast and so much is going on simultaneously that you almost always have to stay in the pulled back (global) view and that pretty much squashes the fun factor of an otherwise descent game. I would rather have it slowed down and bit and hoof it through the woods with an infantry squad once in a while.
  
  
• World in Conflict
  By A1HV5WF0I7E688 on 2007-10-17
  This is my first time with this type of game, and I am thoroughly pleased with it. True the game uses loads of memory, but considering I have Vista to begin with it is not surprising. The on-line conbat is exciting and the single player mode is exceedingly challenging.
  
  
• A pleaser with some flaws
  By A1AJMTDAWKGTDA on 2007-10-09
  World in Conflict managed to do something for me that no other "modern era" based RTS has done yet... hold my attention. Admittedly I have only played, and intend to play, the single-player portion of this game so take that under consideration.
  
  Strong points:
  Incredible visuals
  Richly written campaign
  Neat resource system
  Satisfying unit build
  Emphasis on mixed unit tactics and fire-support
  
  Weak points:
  Heavy handed mission objectives
  Demanding graphics engine
  
  Overall the game is a satisfying RTS that focuses on tactical combat and cooperation between field commanders and fire-support assets. A good system really lets this offering shine in the graphics department with lucious effects and highly detailed maps. Unfortunately the game is built around low-ranking officer tactics, with the usual strategic decisions left to the lead commander (objective giver really). This game is certainly worth a look.
  
  
• Kirk
  By APPMMXQNM54UP on 2007-10-22
  This is a pretty good game and it runs well on the Vista OS. Graphics, sound, and game play are quite good. What I find to be particularly note worthy is the absence of resource gathering which proliferates most RTS games. Do well in battle and you are rewarded; throw away precious combat resources and you are penalized. This is a true original.
  
  
• Terrible Install DRMed DVD sucks
  By A2E356TN4V18JD on 2007-11-01
  The install was horrible. I almost returned the game. I had to load the dvd in a networked pc to get it to load. Seems my main desktop didn't like the dvd. I've read many stories about similar issues loading the software. Once it was installed it works fine. DRMed dvd's suck.
  
  
• Great Game
  By A5XVXRBATKCUO on 2008-02-05
  This game is a very great improvment on the emerging style of squad type RTS's. I just played it at a LAN party a week or two ago and it was tons of fun. Get this game and get together with a couple of your friends and play on the same side, it brings out brand new aspects of team strategy and coordination that couldn't be fully realized without the innovation this game brings to the table. (You can also do the same thing in online multiplayer)
  
  
• Waste of Money
  By A3CHMS0L071OBQ on 2008-03-10
  I must say I was very disappointed in this game. Our group of RTS gamers is already grumbling about this game, and considering moving on to another RTS. We had some great days playing Command and Conquer (and expansion - although CC3 was a big disappointment for us). We had some great days playing Warhammer (and all it's expansions - except for the latest one). We also had some good Company of Heroes battles (with it's expansion)...
  
  This game seems to boil the RTS experience down to the actual battles and avoids all the typical base building, resource gathering, and "ramping up"...This is similar to the WH games, but WH battles are much larger and loads of fun. The World in Conflict battles limit you to meager forces, and expect you to work with teammates to get things done. This is fine in some ways, but having such small groups of units doesn't lead to much fun. Especially since the WiC battles offer many ways for the enemy to launch long-range off-map strikes that you can't really defend. So, you can lose your whole force to this. Sort of crappy...You spend a lot of time waiting for your new units to arrive (maybe 2-3 tanks) at most, and then trudging them into the battle (where they could get smashed quickly again)...
  
  Also, the game types seem sort of weak. There's no way to really knock out an enemy (i.e. knocking out a HQ or something as you can do in most RTSes)...It's mainly taking control points and trying to run out the clock on the enemy.
  
  To top it off, there still are some bugs involving joining a server or actually finding the server your buddies are playing on. And I think the demo only allows single-player...This is bad since multiplayer is all that this game is good for...
  
  Probably have to wait for StarCraft2 whenever that comes out...Or go back to WH for a while...
  
  There's always Call of Duty 4...First-person shooter though...Very cool game though...
  
  
• There's no problem that can't be solved with enough airstrikes
  By A1YEPFLLH42OU1 on 2008-03-21
  That, along with my other favorite adage ("squishing guys with tanks never gets old") is a great axiom to keep in mind when playing World in Conflict. Wow, this game is quite a thrill ride- especially for fans of Larry Bond's work, or Tom Clancy's older wargames. The plot could have fit right into 'Red Storm Rising' and the top-notch voice acting in the single player campaign does it full credit. Pack in some superb graphics and incredible effects, and you have the definitive Cold War RTT.
  
  Note that the last letter is not a typo; this isn't Starcraft or Red Alert. You don't build anything, don't research anything, and don't even have any base to speak of. If you capture control points, some fixed fortifications automatically build, but these are generally quite weak and can hardly be termed a 'base.' Your sole resources, such as they are, are command points and tactical aid points. The former allows you to airdrop reinforcements onto a designated landing zone, and is replenished slowly as your units are lost. The latter lets you get down to the serious business, which is calling in all manner of wanton destruction on anything (and anyone) you see fit. From mortar strikes to airborne troop drops, heavy artillery to tac nukes, you have one heck of an arsenal available and can shape the battlefield- literally- with a few well-placed clicks.
  
  The single play campaign is pretty standard fare, with a linear mission and scripted objectives. It's well done and is enough to bring forth a tear from fans of the jolly old days when the Iron Curtain was more than just a history lesson. The campaign takes you on a brief tour of Europe as well as the US, and introduces you to the full range of units available. These units are generally subdivided into four categories: infantry, armor, support, and air. They work pretty much as they sound, and generally have a rock-paper-scissors relationship that should be familiar to any RTS veteran. Tactical aid is also introduced in all its crater-making glory, and you get a good feel for using it to best suit the strengths and weaknesses of your deployed units. Thus, while it does run a bit short and won't exactly knock your socks off, the campaign does a good job of introducing you to the style of the game.
  
  Since the terrain can be so dramatically deformed, and offers the full range of advantages and disadvantages you would expect (i.e. those trees making it hard to spot infantry, though they also burn plenty easily...) it's immediately apparent that battles can take sudden and sweeping turns. You control relatively few units, and the stronger your deployed units the fewer you can have at once. Additionally, even weaker units have special abilities that can briefly make them a match for much heavier forces, and of course there's no stopping a unit of heavy attack choppers even if you have a whole brigade of main battle tanks. There are three different factions- the USSR, US, and NATO- but the differences are largely cosmetic. That is, a T-72, Leopard, and M1 are pretty much identical. Tactical aid is similarly identical, though some abilities look different depending on your faction (i.e. the jets dropping that spicy napalm on your hapless foes).
  
  It doesn't take much longer than basic training for you to realize that this game could turn into one seriously frantic fragfest when taken online- and you would not be mistaken in the least. Tactical aid is what really makes the game fun, and it helps that spending tactical aid usually results in you getting even more (due to kills resulting in, say, that heavy artillery barrage you just spammed across the valley). With multiple people calling in tactical aid simultaneously onto the battlefield, and mixed units running around trying to secure objectives and destroy the enemy, it is fully as intense as any real battle ought to be. I wouldn't go so far as to call the game realistic- for one, there's no way anyone would even consider dropping a main battle tank out of a moving air transport- but once the daisy cutters start raining down you tend to forget about realism. As an added plus, players need not wait for a new battle to start, as is the case for pretty much all RTS games. You can simply join one in progress, and this generally works due to the small number of units you actually command.
  
  Some say that World in Conflict is only fun online; I respectfully disagree- it's a great single play game in itself, though admittedly the online component is at least as good and probably better. You can't play this game in the way you would play any other RTS, and the only other game I've seen that has similar mechanics is Ground Control (probably not a surprise, as it shares development heritage). If you're a big fan of resource management and base building, this isn't your cup of tea. If, on the other hand, you are a firm believer in the power of a good airstrike, then this is exactly what you want to see.
  
  
• Very enjoyable
  By A346HXUI5QZ64A on 2007-11-30
  I am enjoying this game very much and still playing it months after buying it (unlike some others that have come and gone very quickly).
  
  The single player has had a lot of effort put in to it which should be commended in this day and age where the focus of most games is the online multi player. I'm not going to go in to the details, as this is covered in other reviews, but I will confirm that it is of a good length, well scripted, and good training for the multi player which is the strongest part of this game.
  
  The multi player is definitely the most rewarding part of the game because of the way it is designed, which is that each player must choose a role such as armor, support, infantry, air, and to really be successful the players must work together, for example the support guys providing anti-air cover for the armor guys.
  
  The units are well balanced and all have their strengths and weaknesses meaning that there is no one unit that dominates the game. Many of the units can do multiple things, for example the light anti-air tanks can also shoot at ground units.
  
  Because there is no bases to build (which is good) you start off with X many command points and order your units via a menu. Your points slowly get added to and get boosted when you capture things and defeat enemy units.
  
  The most fun bit of the multi player for me is the Tactical Aid menu that you use to call in things like Air Strikes, Tank Busters, Fuel Air Bombs, Carpet Bombs, and Nukes just to name a few. You earn tactical aid points by capturing strategic places and killing enemies which you then use to call-in the strikes. This takes some skill as they are not instantaneous meaning the enemies could move, so you have to plan it right. TA points can also be given to other players which allows teams to get the big stuff sooner.
  
  The graphics, sound, user interface, and the way this game works are great. Also because it is a strategy and not a FPS is does not matter if your ping is little on the high side.
  
  The game is well supported by the developers and there have been 3 updates at the time of writing this review, not only to fix little bugs but to make the game better and do things like adding a new multi player map etc.
  
  I also like it how you create a profile on Massgate and then earn medals, badges, and honor stars for doing different things when you play because this gives you something to strive towards and it looks cool when you have lots of medals. Also you can upload an avatar / image for your profile which then also gets displayed on your units in the game, which is another example of the attention to detail that has gone in to this game.
  
  So if you are after a strategy that is not overly complex, is well designed and implemented, that promotes team work, and if fun to play then World in Conflict is worth a look.
  
  
• excellent game - online play is exceptional
  By A3787FD81WM9WQ on 2008-01-07
  Found World in Conflict to be as good as or better than most of the reviews. No problems with the game play using our Gateway w/ Core 2 Due E6400 processor and Nvidia GeForce 7600GS graphics card. Overall, well worth the $29.99 that Amazon sold it for around Christmas-time 2007 (which is far cheaper than JR, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc..). Price has since increased to $39.99, which still is worth it. Also: one website indicates that you can test your pc, to see if it is configured properly for World in Conflict (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6179006/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;1). "Speedyme" says an Nvidia website (www.nzone.com) has a utility for this, however I have not used it since I have no trouble with my present system. Might be worth a look, before purchasing the game. I think there are also trial demo's on either of the two listed sites. Several reviewers indicated their annoyance at the story-line or how we are forced to listen to some of the main characters in the game discussing strategies, arguing, etc. Found this to be a minor inconvenience, and likely necessary while the software/computer loads the next scenario (otherwise you would be forced to see a blank/silent screen as you watch a `game loading' progress bar slowly increment). Once this loads, the game allows you to 'hit any key' to jump directly to the loaded scenario. If you wish to skip the ensuing strategy discussion, you can simply hit the Esc key (once) and the scenario immediately begins. Another tip would be to SAVE OFTEN, which will allow you to restart at a more relevant point, should you fail your mission. Online play is a real treat, my son signed on to a few different 'clan' battles.. he pointed out that there are totally different maps in the Online play, and you can also 'share' battle points (rewards) amongst your teammates. Battle points give yourself (and others) the ability to call in Artillery strikes, Air Strikes, paratroopers, etc..as well as drop needed reinforcements in designated drop zones. We also discovered that we could actually hear whomever signed on as the team leader (he must have been using a headset with microphone), although we did not hook up our mic to see if we could respond back to him. Not sure if that's a privilege reserved only for the commander.. need to research a bit more. We have not made it all the way though the game as yet, but once we do, we will likely explore the Online Gaming in more detail (which was highly rated). Lastly: one other complaint I saw was that you could not change alliances (you are always the Americans and/or NATO). This is true during normal pc gameplay, but not for Online Play in which you can choose to be the Russians too. Have fun!
  
  
• Overall Great Game
  By A1DO8WXDHQDI8L on 2008-01-20
  Single player mode has a decent story line and great cut scenes. It may be a little short, but the quality of the game makes up for it. Multiplayer is addicting! Great visuals with my single core 3.2ghz pentium 4, 2gigs ram, and x1950pro. Played just fine on medium/low with my previous 6600 card. The realistic sounds, physics, and detailed maps add to the overall experience. Deserves the 5 star rating.
  
  

• World in Conflict: Prima Official Game Guide (Prima Official Game Guides)
• PC Gamer (1-year)

• Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
• Crysis
• Company Of Heroes: Opposing Fronts
• The Orange Box
• Sins of a Solar Empire