World in Conflict

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Eh, I just realized that the NDA of the closed beta says I'm not allowed to say I own it, which I don't, nor that there is one, which there isn't, nor what the feel of the game is, which of course if I knew I wouldn't be able to tell you. Not that I know that the NDA agreement says this, of course, 'cause I haven't read it because it and the closed beta do not exist [runs].

[Dagobahn Eagle]

NDA lifted:). My impressions of the closed beta, nicked straight from my post at a Norse site:

 

Good:

• The graphics are simply amazing. The best parts are undoubtedly the long view distance and the developers' attention to detail, which results in mailboxes, chairs and tables outside of cafes, etc. Some double as easter-eggs, such as the 'This sign has sharp edges' sign:p. When you play the game, though, you have to keep your camera high over the ground to maintain an overview, so spending a few rounds as a spectator is highly recommended - not to mention saving matches so that they can be replayed.
  
• You hear the soldiers communicate when your camera is near them.
  
• While most RTS and RTT games, including World in Conflict's predecessor Ground Control II, have huge UIs that take up 1/4 of the screen, WiC returns to the style of the original Ground Control: The UI is small and leaves most of the screen free, particularly on higher resolution. My only problem is that the mega-map, a large version of the map brought up by hitting the 'M' key, is full-screen, unlike in GC.
  
• Heavy weapons create 3D craters in the ground. Craters affect line-of-sight and of course line-of-fire, meaning that you can use them as 'fire holes' for infantry.
  
• The game has a dark, sad atmosphere. The main theme is melancholic, and while I haven't gotten my hands on any SP action yet, the 'Looking for survivors ' trailer seems to strengthen my impression that this game is going to follow the 'war is Hell'-theme, rather than glorifying conflicts the way games such as Command&Conquer do. Good job, if you ask me.
  
• The game gives each player a certain number of points with which units can be purchased, and when you lose the purchased units, you get the points back over time as a slow trickle. When you destroy units, you get Tactical Aid points to buy special aids with, not reinforcement points. This means you've got a good RTT system that makes base-building and resource-gathering obsolete, while avoiding the trap Force Commander fell into where you grow more and more powerful the more you kill enemies, while your victims are unable to recover and turn the tide.

Bad:

• The game suffers from the same problem as most FPS games: A significant number of people picks the easiest class without contributing. In WiC, this'd be the Air and Support classes, while the game requires you to have a team made up of a majority of what I call 'front-line ground units': Infantry and Armour classes. The Support class only has a repair tank, AA, and artillery, and the Air class can't capture points. Furthermore, there's next to no co-ordination or team-work, just like in FPS games' public servers.
  
• What I said earlier about control zones and so on in single-player.
  
• I feel players use Tactical Aids too frequently, and that they therefore should be made more costly. Not to mention that a-bombs appear repeatedly in every game, rather than being something you see rarely, this because players pool their Tactical Aids together to easily afford it. My suggested solution is to impose a 25% 'fee' on TA points so that every fourth point donated to another player is lost.
  
• It's impossible to target infantry within buildings. The only way to kill them is to destroy the building completely.

 

Some of my screenshots:

 

The aftermath of a American-Russian encounter. The bunker in the background is part of

a fortification that's gradually built when you put units in victory zones.

 

A nuclear bomb going off a tad bit too close to two gunships.

 

Cameras and post-nuke radiation don't go well together.

 

Napalm is deadly to us infantry players. It kills our footmen, keeps burning on the ground

blocking our paths, and burns down forests, which we need for hiding places.

 

Out for a swim (reminds me of BF2, this part

).

 

Overall, it's a splendid game, which will be made even better with the first realism mod:cool:.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Did I mention that the Collector's Edition features a pebble/small stone from the Berlin Wall?

 

Oh, and sign-ups for the open beta have started! Go grab a key if you're an Europe resident!

[swphreak]

I've been playing the Open Beta since Friday night, and it's pretty fun. It's essentially "Battlefield 1991" but instead of FPS, it's an RTS.

 

The only thing really setting me off from enjoying the game are the freaking helicopters.

[Lantzen]

I was ranked nr 30 some days ago, but haven't play since then, when i checked today i was like 500 or something^^

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Watch this video, and go to 1:30. Apparently it's the Few Player Mode, where you've only got 2-4 people total but each player has access to all units and a ton of reinforcement points. It was in the closed beta, but I never got to try it. Look at the army that guy has:eek:!

[Lantzen]

1v1 sucked, played it in the closed beta. The only fun thing was to mass the same troop then set hold fire, go to the same place and allow them to shoot. But the normal game to capture cp was really boring with 1v1

[Dagobahn Eagle]

...And the demo is OUT! And it's got some splendid artwork! Go get it!

 

[stingerhs]

dude!!! that demo was awesome!!!

 

for once, i am very, very impressed with a demo that the guys released. i really like the way they handled the support (artillery, air strikes, etc) vs the average RTS. the graphical detail was impressive, but it didn't run at a really great FPS on my system with a 24FPS average with the included benchmark although that's not a really big issue with an RTS. as i have a DX10 ready system, i tested the same benchmark to gauge performance with DX10 vs DX9, and the performance impact of using DX10 is minimal. using DX10 does have a noticeable impact on the character models, but otherwise, i didn't notice any difference graphically between DX9 and DX10.

 

a really great touch was to enable duel-monitors as you can use a second monitor to display the full strategy map. i wasn't able to use this feature, however, as it bogged the framerate down into the teens even without a lot of action on the screen. it would be a nice feature if i would go for a second card in SLI, but otherwise, its just not feasible considering the drop in FPS.

 

there were a lot of other nice little touches about that demo that impressed me, but i'm not going to bother naming all of them. in short, the game does add a bit of innovation to the RTS genre, and its fun to play. if the final version is as good as the demo, then i think i just found my next RTS fix till the Medieval II expansion hits the market.