World In Conflict Review Roundup
The long awaited strategy/action game World In Conflict is here, and the reviews are in too. And from the looks of it, World In Conflict is probably the RTS game of the year.
GameSpot (95/100) “If you’re a strategy fan, you should definitely try World in Conflict. And even if you’re turned off by standard real-time strategy games, you owe it to yourself to try out what Massive has come up with in this exquisite package.”
IGN (93/100) “It’s not very often that a real-time strategy title comes along and changes the way you think about the genre. World in Conflict is one of those, not because all of the ideas are totally new, but because they’re all put together in such a successful way.”
Eurogamer (90/100) “It’s intelligently structured, so you can lose yourself for hours or indulge in a quick twenty minute skirmish, while the multiplayer mode is an absolute monster if you’re willing to submit to its co-operative style”
GameSpy (100/100) “World in Conflict is a triumph for Massive Entertainment. The developers have managed to take a quirky “action game” take on the real-time strategy genre and wrap it in an instantly appealing, accessible and highly polished package”
September 24th, 2007 at 9:51 am
brilliant game, played the demo, that ran well and the amount of content per level is high. buy it now. BUY IT.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
As soon as I upgrade my PC this is one of the first games I am getting and I am not even a fan of RTS games but this game is something very special.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Anuban, I’d would not have hesitated for a second recommending Supreme Commander to you, but as you say, you’re not really an RTS fan
Only two RTS games i loved and still love, Total Annihilation (from way back in 1997), and the successor, Supreme Commander.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Supreme Commander looks amazing but doesn’t it have the usual resource building stuff? In WIC you just get right into the battles and you don’t have to worry about building up resources and the usual RTS stuff that slows the game down for people used to Shooters and Action/Adventure games.
That is why I really want to play it and only on DX10 with at least 1680 x 1050 resolution … it looks spectacular with high detail DX10 and so no 360 version for me … but man I can’t decide it I should just go for the quad chip from intel now or get the cheap Opteron 180 which is actually a really good dual core cpu that lets me keep my current memory and motherboard so all I would need to do further is get a 8800 GTX card (and even then with the new 8950s right around the corner I am wondering if I should just wait for that GPU).
I really think that I am going to wait until the end of November to upgrade my computer and just hope I the new 45nm cpus are available from Intel for consumers and for the 8950. If it turns out that these items won’t actually show up until next year then I am going to just go the cheaper route.
But I still wonder if I really need all that power or if the Opteron 180 (which is basically a FX-60 but better) combined with a 8800 GTX is powerful enough to get good fps running the game at 1680 x1050 resolution fully maxed out in Vista with DX10 … I just don’t know if the extra 1500 bucks I would spend for the best Intel 45nm quad core cpu, new motherboard, new memory, and the 8950 GX2 would be worth the increase in fps … I mean how much more could it be?
This is why I want to wait as well … I really want to see benchmarks on dual core vs quad core performance as well as the 8950 vx the 8800 GTX vs the 8900 GTX. If someone already has some for this game as well as Crysis that would be cool to see. I also wonder how the UE3 ganes like Gears and UT3 will perform in the same scenarios as well as XP vs Vista as far as fps.
These days you really have to make sure you make the right choices for your upgrades when it comes to PCs … while the prices have definitely come down in the last few years they are still pretty high when you want to go high end so that you can play these new generation of PC games on their max settings.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Yes, SupCom has resource gathering etc., which I like because it adds a whole new tactical dimension to the game.
Plus, the game looks amazing, I was able to run everything on high with my 2.4 GHz core 2 duo, 7950 GT and 2 GB ram.
You don’t need the completely high end hardware, I’ve never bought the top of the line graphics card, but always the one just below that. Whether you got 150 FPS or 75 doesn’t mean anything, you can’t even notice it.
Also, tests have shown that a higher clocked dual core will get you better performance than a lower clocked quad, since very few games are optimized for quad core cpus.