World In Conflict | 
| From: Sierra
List Price: $29.99
Buy New: $17.50
You Save: $12.49 (42%)
New (20) Used (15) from $15.99
Rating:  65 reviews
Sales Rank: 1014
Platforms: Windows Vista, Windows Xp
Genre: Real Time Strategy Games
ESRB: Teen
Media: DVD-ROM
Batteries Included: No
Age: 12 - 20 years
Operating System: Windows XP
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.4
Dimensions (in): 0.1 x 0.1 x 0
MPN: WIC
Model: 72582
UPC: 020626725828
EAN: 3348542211674
ASIN: B000Q8XK30
Release Date: September 18, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | Unleash the arsenals of the great military superpowers in the gripping single-player story created by best-selling author and Cold War authority, Larry Bond. | | • | The latest version of Massive's proprietary engine allows for a full 360 range of camera control, allowing you to get right down into the midst of battle. | | • | Destroy every object in the game - crush cars, destroy buildings, burn forests! | | • | Join on-going games and immediately help your team take control of the map. | | • | Master four different battlefield roles; Air, Armor, Infantry and Support, in the ultimate online teamplay experience. |
|
| Accessories:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
West Germany, 1988. To avoid certain collapse, the Soviet army boldly advances into Europe. NATO responds only to be met on a second front -- a diversionary attack on the American homeland. You are a field commander, leading the era's most powerful military machines in the campaign to retake America's cities and suburbs. Unleash ground-shaking artillery barrages, napalm strikes, and awesome tactical nukes that turn the tide of battle. ESRB Rated T for Teen.
From the Manufacturer
On November 9th, 1989 the Cold War was supposed to end…it didn't. World in Conflict is the action strategy game where players defend their country, their hometown, and their families in the face of Soviet-led World War III, delivering an epic struggle of courage and retribution. You are a field commander leading the era's most powerful military machines in the heroic effort to turn back the invasion…one city and suburb at a time. This war isn't on television. It's on our soil and in our backyards. Prepare yourself for the most intense strategy game ever created. Features: - War is Coming Home
- Fight in towns, suburbs, and cities based on real-life locations in America, Western Europe, and the USSR.
- Experience a chillingly plausible single player campaign crafted by Red Storm Rising co-author and Tom Clancy collaborator Larry Bond. - Unmatched Visual Payoff
- The battlefield explodes in a fury of cinematic action with World in Conflict's ground breaking graphics technology that supports DirectX 10 and DirectX 9.
- Permanently destroy the environment - beautiful, yet deadly artillery, air, and nuclear strikes lay waste to the landscape.
- View the conflict from every angle with amazing 360 camera control that can effortlessly get right down in the midst of combat or view the entire battlefield.
- The Most Intense Strategy Game Ever Created
- Choose the units you want right away and join the fight in seconds - its all about explosive action.
- Employ breathtaking super weapons like ground-shaking artillery barrages, napalm strikes, and awesome tactical nukes. - Fast Paced Teamplay
- Battle online with up to 16 players. Coordinate your attacks with VOIP support.
- You'll master four different player roles; Air, Armor, Infantry and Support, in the ultimate online teamplay experience.
- Drop in multiplayer allows you to join on-going games and immediately help your team take control of the map.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 60 more reviews...
 Real time without strategy. September 27, 2007
Psycho Zombie Cheerleader (Hell)
147 out of 185 found this review helpful
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 September 24, 2007
Acoma
74 out of 83 found this review helpful
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 October 5, 2007
S. Wilson (NYC)
31 out of 38 found this review helpful
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 September 18, 2007
foobar (Seattle, WA)
19 out of 24 found this review helpful
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.
Design problems November 19, 2007
one who knoas (Greater Seattle)
11 out of 15 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
