From my standpoint, the real-time strategy genre always had a fatal flaw: the whole resource gathering and battlefield production malarkey. Simply put, any war that is waged in such close proximity to the training, production and resource generating facilities of any given nation results in that nation losing. It is impossible to build a tank when guys are outside the building pelting it with rockets. Some games, like Warhammer: Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, while excellent titles in their own regard, only managed to remove one part of that, the resource gathering. Another game went the path of actually fighting a war, Ground Control 2. The game got the player to focus on the fight and provided new units as reinforcements using a drop zone and reinforcement points system. Unfortunately, the system never did catch on and the blight of training your units 10 feet from the war continues.
Thankfully, Massive Entertainment, the same people that brought us the Ground Control series, decided it was worth trying again. This time, they built World in Conflict, an RTS using the same reinforcement point concept as GC2 but put it into a more modern scenario.
The year is 1989 and the Soviet Union is still alive and well. The Red Army has decided they had enough of the arrogant capitalists in Western Europe and began an offensive to put the entire continent under their control. As part of the NATO pact, the US sends the bulk of its troops to assist Western Europe in ejecting the Reds (not the baseball team) back to post-WW2 regions. The plan works and the Soviets are stalled from being able to get a foothold in Europe. However, they have a plan to get the upper hand. Thousands of miles away on the west coast of the USA, a fleet of commercial cargo ships pulls into the Seattle harbor and offloads a Soviet invasion force that takes the city, and nation, by surprise.
The story follows along one Lt. Parker (you) who is inexplicably tied to every major battle of World War 3, from Europe to Washington State. Interjected in it are tales of bravery, sacrifice, mistake and the quest for some AA batteries (the kind you put into electronic devices ... I kid you not). The story is remarkably well put together and lacked only in length, the campaign is far too short, and the fact that Massive missed out on a great joke by not having a few burned out Soviet tanks with "Wolverines" painted on them (though that was in Colorado).
The gameplay of World in Conflict revolves heavily around actual warfare. Missions are won or lost based on the control of strategic points, which frequently change based on the events of the battle. Anyone who has come remotely close to a RTS will immediately understand how to play the game. Everything is mouse drive. Right-click does just about everything. Move, attack, use power, etc. The biggest disconnect with the traditional RTS is there aren’t any factories to be seen. All units are called in using the airlift function located in the upper right corner. Select the units, designate where on the map they should be dropped on and then send them into the battle. As stated above, units are purchased using reinforcement points. You have a limited number of these points on a given map, though sometimes you may get an increase based on the number of objective points you capture. When a unit dies, you have to wait for your reinforcement points to slowly regenerate before being able to call in new units.
To further simulate the fighting feeling like an actual battle, you’re given tasks by a commanding officer while other AI players are doing other things on the map. You frequently take different roles and assist as a unit in the greater battle. Sometimes, you may press the offensive. Others, you’ll be tasked to defend a critical position and in some missions, you’re expected to keep your allies repaired so they can keep up the good fight. There is even a support role in terms of artillery, air strikes and keeping anti-air and short-range artillery on the battlefield. The battles are huge, brutal and hectic, just like a real war is expected to be.
The mission variety is well designed. Maps range from the city of Seattle, small, rural towns, France, Russia and even Liberty Island. Seeing the variety in these missions makes me optimistic the map making community can build just about any famous city, landmarks included, for us to battle it out in. Furthermore, the modding capabilities should open up huge avenues for expansion.
All of these great gameplay elements are wrapped up in a wonderful paper. The fancy DX10 graphics for those of us on Vista, or the still stellar XP visuals for those of you not crazy enough to make the switch yet, are incredible. Zoomed up close, each unit is highly detailed and almost on the level of a FPS from two years ago. Pulled out, watching huge explosions, especially when DX10 smoke physics comes into play, is a treat to watch. There isn’t much more satisfying than dropping a Daisy Cutter on a group of Soviet tanks. There are unpleasant little quirks though, mainly the fact that tracks left by vehicles and infantry hover a foot off the ground. Also, I was unhappy to find out the real time land deformation was killed, that would have offered up an excellent level of strategy, particularly in using artillery to dig out defensive positions or block off routes.
Fortunately, you can get a good deal of pretty out of it without breaking the bank. I’ve got an 8800GTX (I know, not a great example for what I’m trying to say, but bear with me) and run it in 1280x1024 resolution with maxed out FSAA and Antistrophic Filtering (these two bad-boys are major frames killers) along with every single graphical option turned on and it runs straight-razor shave smooth. I figure with the performance I’m getting at those insane levels, many other gamers out there can easily coax out the pretty with far lesser systems than mine.
To top the experience off is the great sound direction. None of the weapon sounds are the wimpy ones that many games pick out of stock files. Every explosion, every jet aircraft flying above, every weapon firing is lovingly blasted out of the speakers. Even the voice actors are top notch. There isn’t anything in the sound department that fails to impress.
There is a gremlin in this otherwise well-oiled machine that creates a huge buzz-kill. The game is way too short. Unfortunately, World in Conflict is following a disturbing trend of offering up single player games that are too short to be satisfying and trying to justify it by offering up a multiplayer aspect. Sure, the online aspect could be entertaining, but finding three other players that aren’t total knuckleheads and play the correct role to maximize the available reinforcement points is tough. Surprisingly, the vast majority of my friends outside Netjak here don’t play games, so gathering up a gamer group is pretty much out of the question. As such, I focus heavily on the single player element of any game. I know there are plenty of others out there like me and those that just don’t enjoy multiplayer games at all. We’re getting hammered on this. The only real difference between World in Conflict and another recently released game is that the single player experience is actually satisfying while it lasts, it’s unfortunately like those Miller Lite commercials - great taste, less filling. In this case, less filling is a bad thing.
Let us get this straight; multiplayer will never excuse a short single player experience, no matter how exciting those short hours are. It is especially insulting when the game is just so well balanced, so well designed and so fun to play. This attitude cost this review a full point on our 10 point scale. The game is still good, but being what it is kept it from greatness. All I can do is hope the modding community fills in the story because I really wanted to finish this war and punish those dirty Soviets for invading the US in the first place, not end it with the Russians and Chinese running away from Seattle as the USSR still peddles around in Europe. Still, World in Conflict should offer up an example of a different breed of RTS that other companies should take note of and try in their own, unique ways. The concept and execution was plenty good to warrant copy-cats.
