World in Conflict
Platform: PC

World in Conflict is a pretty big game on the PC scene – which is what you’d expect from a company called Massive Entertainment. It’s been simultaneously lauded as the future of the RTS genre and the most gorgeous game to grace an LCD since Max Payne, grabbing DirectX 10 by the horns and taking it to a beautiful conclusion.

Now that I got your attention you might have noticed that this game came out last year. I know what your thinking “a game from 2007, you must be mad”. Well this game almost hit the top 5 list of games from 2007 we did, and its not a bad game. On another note, there isn’t anything else to review this week.

Story:

Okay, maybe I’m getting ahead of myself though and just because some all-too-general collection of gamers think that World in Conflict is the best thing since sliced bread doesn’t mean that you necessarily even know what it is. Okay, calm down and I’ll recap.

World in Conflict is an RTS (that’s real-time strategy, n00b) game which is set in an alternate history where the Cold War escalated into a full Russian invasion of the US. Instead of petering out slowly as it did in The Real World, World in Conflict is set in a world where the Russians launched a massive assault on Europe as a typically over elaborate distraction.

With NATO and the US stretched thin fighting off the forces of the Warsaw Pact in Europe, Russia then launched the real offensive on America, landing a huge fighting force in Seattle and quickly laying the city to waste. Driven to desperation by the economic problems thrown up by trying to stay ahead in the arms race, Russia uses its massive and well-motivated army to plough across America successfully.

Players jump in at the start of Russia’s invasion, taking the role of Seattle-based Lieutenant Parker as he/she (Parker’s face and gender are never seen) assumes command of a small force and works to evacuate the city. It doesn’t end there though and soon enough Parker has a growing arsenal at his command, including nuclear weapons and dozens of air attacks as he tries to strike back at the heart of the Soviet war machine.

It’s a fairly gripping story then, worthy of a Tom Clancy novel or a low-budget clone at least. The best thing about the story though is that unlike so many other strategy games, World in Conflict puts some serious effort into actual narrative.

It isn’t a case of some limp, barely interesting NPCs just regurgitating dialogue either. Massive Entertainment has fused together a selection of cutscene styles to form a coherent and thrilling whole. As the levels load a brief exposition is given by a disembodied voice accompanied by some very pretty watercolour pictures, but these then transfer seamlessly into in-engine cutscenes which are filled with explosions, tanks and viscera.

It’s a rare and fantastic treat to see an RTS game tell a story so well, let alone to use such a varied palette and set of techniques. It’s also nice to see such a well acted cast too and, unlike some other games which leave players annoyed by NPCs who conform to the usual stereotypes, World in Conflict has a selection of believable characters at its disposal.

That said, although story is important it’s still only one part of a game and there are plenty of examples of games with excellent stories but no gameplay. Is World in Conflict one of those ill-fated titles, or can it back up its awesome plot delivery with some fun singleplayer gameplay too?

Gameplay:

The action is all about the small-scale and using small squads to accomplish the mission. Players start most missions with a clear directive from a superior officer and a small selection of troops and tanks and from there they have to move out, shipping in reinforcements as needed.

The key here is that the reinforcements have to be shipped in – unlike most RTS games, World in Conflict doesn’t feature any unit building at all and you won’t be doing the usual thing of building factories and churning out tanks by the fleet-load. Instead, players have to earn points in combat which can then be used to airdrop in more forces at pre-chosen landing zones.

It’s a nice twist on the usual setup and it feels nice and refreshing to see a container which has just been air-lifted in burst open as a heavy tank rolls out and begins shelling the enemy. To help stop players from abusing this system though, the game puts a delay on airdrops – one that works both ways.

If you’re in the middle of a battle then you won’t always be able to rely on getting re-supplied in time as the airdrops will be delayed by about twenty seconds, nor will you be able to constantly ship in new units as the tide of the battle shifts thanks to another time penalty. It’s a simple touch and one which may annoy a lot of gamers at first, but the reality is that this system forces players to think ahead and to value each unit individually, reinforcing the game’s focus on small squads and up-close action.

And value each unit you will, for sure, because each and every one of them has access to a few special powers. It may be something simple like telling your rifle infantry to sprint so that they can cover distances quickly and run from one building to another, using derelicts as fortifications.

On other units though things are a bit more involved, such as telling light tanks to deploy smoke screens to hide them from air attacks or telling helicopters to jettison burning fuel to throw off heat-guided missiles.

Reinforcements aren’t the only way that players can wage war though and if you find yourself in a bit of a pickle then you can always spend your hard-earned Tactical Points (TP) on special attacks. Tactical Points are earned by using your forces to their fullest and choosing sensible options. Using artillery against infantry, for example, is a poor way to win a war as the two unit types aren’t exactly equal. Smashing tanks with an artillery shell shows understanding of the battlefield though and is therefore rewarded with TPs.

Special attacks are quite varied, ranging from light airstrikes from passing bombers which are cheap but not very effective all the way up to full nuclear strikes and the use of napalm or germ warfare. Each one of the special attacks is beautiful to watch despite the unholy destruction they cause, with warheads trailing out of the sky realistically and leaving huge craters in the ground.

I’m most impressed by the nuclear attack, especially on a dual screen setup where one monitor is given over to a top-down view of the whole battlefield.

With dual screens and a decent rig, the nuclear attack was truly awesome to behold. The huge mushroom cloud will still linger on the map for ages, buildings will still shatter and disintegrate with fantastically detailed physics.

So, by now you’re starting to get an idea of what sets World in Conflict apart from other RTS games. We’ve outlined the cool way in which unit building and special attacks are worked cleverly into gameplay and we’ve outlined the awesome story in a spoiler-free fashion.

Still, there are so many things we haven’t discussed yet like the awesome controls which let players create new squads and groups, navigate the battlefields on both a micro and macro level and the interesting way in which the environment can be used by game units.

That last point is perhaps a bit too fashionably phrased – it seems like every modern game boasts that the environment can be used as a weapon – but it’s true for World in Conflict, where infantry can be hidden under tree cover or in nearby buildings, while tanks use the smoke thrown up by destroyed buildings for cover.

The great thing is that each and every one of these things is executed perfectly, with nary a flaw to be found. In fact, the one and only concern that you should have is whether or not your PC can run the game in all its awesomeness.

Multiplayer:

There’s one final thing to talk about in World in Conflict before we round up our thoughts and settle on a score for this gorgeous-looking war-fest and that’s the multiplayer side of things.

You see, multiplayer WiC isn’t as simple as multiplayer Command and Conquer is, for example. You think it’s always just a case of one man playing the Russians, one playing the US and a whole host of other player playing the colors green, purple and red because the developers ran out of factions? Think again.

In World in Conflict, multiplayer is all about collaboration and communication and, in a way which brings a touch more tactical realism to the game, multiple players are forced to team up to form one side. Each player takes over the role of a military general with one branch of the forces – infantry, armour, artillery or airforce – and then takes responsibility for that area.

So, because it’s pretty hard for just one general to win a war, players have to work together. It’s a system which works perfectly, ensuring that each and every player comes away with an interesting story every time.

Players can still buy from other branches of the army of course, but at a higher-than-normal price, so stupid tank commanders can be compensated for. It’s also possible to give your TPs away to other players, with teams working together to equip a single man with the ability to drop three nukes at once.

There’s plenty of stuff to keep you going on the multiplayer side of things too. There are three gamemodes in World in Conflict, though none of them are especially noteworthy and consist of the usual Domination, Assault and Tug of War modes, and a total of 21 available levels.

Conclusions:

Unfortunately, this is when it gets a little bit tricky. How do you score a game like World in Conflict? It’s an awesome game, that much is assured and I wouldn’t dare give it less than a 9/10 under any circumstances, but can it do better?

But there was still a nagging doubt in the back of our minds.

My main problem was that no matter how fun the game is to play and how jaw-shatteringly awesome it looks, it still doesn’t break the mold in any real way. It’s got a powerful storyline, a stunning engine and gameplay which is both fun and inventive – but there’s no single feature which is bowl-us-over brilliant.

Instead, all the elements pull together to form a single, unified whole that is a refreshing take on the old tried and tested format of RTS games. Its flaw however is that it still lacks the level of emergence we might of hoped for and winning a level is still often a matter of superior firepower or rock-paper-scissors.

Also if you ever looked at the “Top 5 Games of 2007” article we ran back in the day you would have noticed that this game didn’t make the list. However last year there were a lot of fantastic games.

A statement which belies the fact that although World in Conflict comes close to RTS perfection, it still falls short by the smallest of slithers. It’s an awesome game and you should definitely go out and buy it right now, but the sad fact is that here at 53tabs we mark out of 10, so we have to give it…

Gameplay: 9
Features: 7
Graphics: 9
Replayability: 9

Overall: 8/10