Does anyone think World in Conflict is a good game?

[pc_boy]

I thought so, from all the reviews and images/videos I've seen... that's until I downloaded the demo. Let me just say it: the game sucks. The missions seem to be created by 12-year olds, and the storyline is unrealistic and boring. The idea of a Soviet Invasion is not a bad one, but what they made of it is just bad. I actually live in Seattle and it's nothing like the game. They make you destroy the I-90 bridge to "slow the soviets down" wow, the producers probably never came here to Seattle.. Not only there another bridge (Highway 520) about 2 miles north (both floating bridges, unlike in the game), but you could simply go around the lake, taking you about 20 minutes (more in traffic, but that's not a problem for tanks).

The action is also cheesy, there is no tactic or strategy at all. You just parachute down units and send them in... you don't do anything except move them around and watch them fight.

Don't waste your money on this title. If you want something good, get Company of Heroes where you actually have to make decisions about your units (put the behind cover, upgrade them, etc).

Does anyone else feel the same way?

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Yeah, I was really hyped up when I first downloaded and played the demo, but soon enough I found it to be hardly a good game at all. I just find that you can't micro-manage your units well enough to be efficient, and the formations are just so nonsensical and useless. I find Company of Heroes to be a much, much better RTS.

The only thing this game has going for it is the graphics, and I guess you can build huge armies and just throw them against another cluster-**** of units and hope you win.. and you can just spectate... meh, I really didn't like it, I completely agree with you man

 

[Vaanish]

Im agreeing with both of you... It was way overhyped and overrated. It had no strategy, also it was too frantic and didnt give you any time at ALL to do anything, it was basically parachuting in troops and throwing them against the enamy only to get chopped down...

If you want a good RTS, get Civ 4.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Im agreeing with both of you... It was way overhyped and overrated. It had no strategy, also it was too frantic and didnt give you any time at ALL to do anything, it was basically parachuting in troops and throwing them against the enamy only to get chopped down...

If you want a good RTS, get Civ 4.

Civ 4 is not an RTS though, it's a TBS (Turn-based strategy) but yeah, if you like RTS's it's actually quite fast-paced and fun for a turn-based game, I personally like Civ 3 better because it's a little more straightforward than 4. Civ 4 has a lot of extra features and I just feel lost, and I think they changed the GUI around a little too much, I wish they just kept some things in place, it just didn't make sense to me to make the changes that they did.

 

[baronvongogo]

I found single player lacking but multiplayer is fun, it may not have the depth of other RTS games, it is very accessable 20 min matches no need to sit at a comp for ages. I do agree that games like COH`s are more tactical but WIC is more team based especially if everyone uses mics and co-ordinate it can be very rewarding.

 

[pc_boy]

the multiplayer sucks too. All you have to do is wolfpack, when everyone sticks together in a big @$$ cloud of units, going around killing everything that comes close. No tactic, hella cheap when you're on your own against a wolfpack.

 

[no_Wedge]

i enjoyed the demo, for about a couple huors, then it got real boring and repetitive, there's just not much strategy needed or even possible to use a real strategy in the game

 

[Wildside]

try Dawn of War. Game may be old, but is still supported n a third expansion is coming out this spring too!

 

[javier]

multiplayer was realy fun. i lost my Cd key so ic ant play online anymore

i do see why people may not like it was much as other games, but it is realy fun, you dont have to be realy good at RTS to have lots of fun with WiC which i why i love it!