What if world of tanks became a legend? Take away the microsoft stuck in 1999 gameplay of thinking, and harness a graphics engine akin to bad company 2? However you look at it though, the game has depth &complexity that no other game rivals yet the graphics lack in immersion. Basically its a 3d strategy sim game to me, which is why its soo fun. The fact is, people want to see this immersion in their gameplay somtimes. World of tanks has everything except this one element if not for the damage models and detailed model environments against the physics principles which are present in warthunder. Wot is better cus it has damage models, ie a variation of holes in the tank chasis. With the exception of things needed in world of tanks to make it not so bearish or not have the unreleased mods (called packages in console versions i think :( I think they have teamspeak though not sure about that either)...a snow stage (with like a tank paint job tool), soviet class (i think they hav it), and maybe extra vocals (masking your voice isnt hard, even i can do it). This idea could end the series without releasing a world of tanks 2 game or upgrd. Dead island has this immersion as well, its where you take a game's elements away from the graphics such as third person not being available. Also these elements would be able to let the player fight with elite enemies such as level 30 tanks or watever if damage is done via pts or the basic hit-and-miss armor point system. Given the state of technology these days, (ie dead island looked like it could be a 12gig game, yet it was a mere 3.2 gigs..without a hint of mistakes how that german company did it? idk) ps4 and xbox 360 can def do it. It works, but one doesn't see this in simulators. Actually even fps has gotten rid of this element since the years past, I have not seen it in most games such as the later battlefield games (1942 battlefield had it so you could only have nazi weapons, if you were on the nazi side etc...they super-imposed this with other immersive factors eg fast gameplay equates to a dif style..bottom line is my idea hasn't been done). Imagine playing a tank game with the thinking elements of strategy in 3d akin to say command and conquer zero hour? Now imagine playing it in an environment like kursk, okay so you have a game like world of tanks now, or say...tank warfare 1 released (eg tank warefare 2:modern tanks would probably have something like iraqi stages). Here's why. Now Imagine the elements of immersion, or having the graphics of bad company 2 in modern tanks or past tanks (it doesn't matter, its only an idea). So no player can get a t-50 on their side, unless they steal it during the game...no player can get a german panzer unless they take it, so it would even have that bad company 2 feel of immersion kind of, but more with only tanks. Maybe even have a certain element in the tanks, like the t-50 had its superiorities in armor, as did the tiger tanks in long range. Imagine totally infiltrating the real world's technological vulnerabilities in modern warfare. What is interesting is the games physics, with exploding shells being able to penetrate tough armor when armor piercing ones can not. Even if they do little damage, hitting a turret on a super heavy is better than nothing. Prussian 'chess-like' tactics combined with real world elements and you get a T-90 against a Sheridan or a T-50 against a Sherman using the battlefield bc2 engine & maybe a series called 'Tankwarfare' would be invented. Now put in fast gameplay along with those 3d graphics and destructible environment akin to bad company 2. Now that's a fun wargame. In the meantime, I give world of tanks a B+ if not for a comparison review of a C-
Interface&Graphics (& wot 360/pc quick comparison)
The graphics are hard to judge because well..they aren't too good. Here I will take an account of world of tanks/world of planes vs war thunder because both are so alike, however world of tanks moves so much more realistically than war thunder, the plane portion of warthunder takes the cake. Its one of those things with the interface that I have qualms about. The fact that you can't team play, or the fact that you can't upgrd quickly like in war thunder. However well wot moves, its extension, wop doesn't feel right..like how warthunder's tank extension feels too clunky and obtrusive...with terrain to boot, so does wop feel too slow. What makes warthunder better though is infact that you can have many planes in one match fight out a 20min duel, and you can only use the tanks of that particular army. Fairly complex indeed. However, like how over-g was ruined via added the acecombat storyboard on a realistic flightsim...so is warthunder ruined a little by being overly simplistic and not being able to use 20th ce 7th gen fighters(having the same gameplay as wot/wop). Yes, I'm asking for too much, but hey...would you want over-g with stealth f-35 fighters or warthunder/wop with propeller planes..and once u get a mig, u can easily get shot down by these so called planes. To be honest the perfect game would be overg graphics/physics/gameplay (minus storyboard) with the warthunder interface. Wot for the 360 infact is a whole different game, gameplay wise. The energy bars are there. There are arcade elements, such as faster moving tanks in smaller environments. The decoy is there, yet there is a peek-a-boo element in the game, however the game is less realistic and the environment does not protrude much which may be good or bad eg wot for xbox 360 builds faster yet the PC version has teamplay starting in tier 6-7. The interface in the 360 version is far more better. If you plan on sniping or cross firing upon tanks, do it with the 360 version. You can't level up the tanks in the PC version, yet the armor piercing shells are free. Its basically a preference issue or two (minus the PC's excellent graphics ie pcs are just slower because they are soo superior, its wierd PS4 can't do warthunder effects ie smaller environments are issues yet out does PC in graphic effects). WOT for PC has less penetrable armor, esp in the front...whilst xbox 360 may have more weak points it seems. All these games just become too repetitive and u end up paying for the good vehicles anyways. Just a few hints on a atomic thunder game or some type of sequel. As for the interface, its on target with war thunder beating wot/wop via quicker upgrades.
Gameplay (quick update)
After getting my icore 3 with 8gb and radeon 1gb 5750, i thought I would go into more detail as to what version is better and why. Well, warthunder clearly has better looking graphics on land and in air, howver it runs into a small kink in the armor of wot. Even though wop was somewhat unrealistic, you get to fly certain vehicles like the haunabau and other ufos which make the scope of the game more interesting. However wot is the better tank game, esp on xbox 360 because of the mouse aiming feature. The battles are infact more invasion-like akin to kursk, whilst warthunder retains its non-invasive feel of a deep wooded incursion. You can't really hide from other tanks and its often funny to have a small stage and a wooded area with hills, as if you are in the mts or something. WOTs retains the hide and go feel, and the escapism of going over bridges, through suburbs and even hiding in deep water. WOts wins gameplay wise in this field. The xbox 360 controller gets rid of that jerkiness which a mouse is so used to. WOP however is far too slow, and you can't have certain abilities like clipping off wings or dogfighting at near misses etc. Warthunder takes the crown by far in the air. Graphics wise, warthunder is the better choice then wots, howver in games gameplay goes over graphics, and a full scale invasion scenario for a tank game is a must. Giving the players more strategic options rather than a push and go incursion onto the battlefield. If one were to choose specifically, the xbox 360 version of wots is byfar the best, whilst warthunder on a pc takes the main price. Howver, I also noticed warthunder is infact a better game in general due to the team-only gameplay involved hence a bf109 can strafe targets fairly easily, yet the fukuwulf has better lift and dogfighting manuveurs. If every battle is random, then the opposing team with that countries military is not going to do to well against its odds. Its going to have a technological disadvantage mostly if playing against pros. Team play is a must for both games, yet sadly not truely available unless in simulator mode or realistic battles. If one were a war enthusiast though they may infact be able to join a game which is custom, hence custom games can have tanks and planes in wide range maps. Since the tanks are never able to take territory effectively, imho..because of well...the planes. It is also fairly rare to find a balanced game where you have restricted armies hitting large areas and maps yet possible. Arcade wise, and via damage range and fire range, wot is the better game..hence you can't really take out a tank in warthunder with that really hard target range from across the stage. Warthunder though is better for realism. WOT has the element of surprise in its tank simulation of which, although with good graphics, warthunder lacks. Warthunder against wot/wop is great, however, Its almost too realistic, and that's why they are two different games which almost seem equal actually in their own respect.
Improvements for the game...(interface cont).
World of Tanks needs team match and maybe like a squad only group chat like in bf bc2, it would be more competitive with a bully factor of course. They may even need an experimental King Emperor tank for the next japanese tanks upgrade (lol, jk). The american tanks have strong cannons at short range, you will notice realistic functions with the german tanks long range as well (jpanzer upgrd anyone...goodbye superheavy!), however the soviet class is still the best with the t34 being a rapid fire and quickly guided vehicle jus' like in the real war. Yet these types of games are so up to date they need to be that way or they will have that feel of losing its replay value so maybe I am just getting old. One thing they can improve on is the tank teams. Warthunder has tank teams yet the feel is too realistic and out of place, putting the players in a somewhat hostile environment which is more mission orientated. Whilst the plane flying theme works, the tank theme suffers in gameplay. World of tanks however picks stage battles for decisive tank outcomes akin to kursk, El Alamein or the battle for france. It works injunction with the flat terrain, and the tanks to boot have a higher inventory. The tanks are better because they are more akin to their real life counter-part in function. A tank with a slanted canopy will indeed recache the shell. Whilst warthunder has the particular movement and trajectory, it does not have the enormous battlefields. One thing warthunder has is team match. World of tanks suffers greatly from this pitting random era tanks against each other and having tank players whom upgrd their skills with great advantages against other players. However, this could all be fixed if Wot could put team play, because some players are knowledgeable in weak structural points with certain tanks, even super-heavies. If random tank battles are played, then this minimizes the chance for defeat by a noob team eg a random tank battle occurs where 2 or 3 noobs are well, good players. This battle will be lost because the noobs on the other team have played alot and have super-heavy tanks. On top of that, the tanks will not do good, giving these bad players a grave advantage against weaker tanks. Pro and noob in actuality means how you move and how you intercept or hint upon an attack. In one day, I was able to lose 10 matches playing very well, and win only 3 with my best tank. If I were only on a nazi german tank formation, this would increase my chances of winning do to the bad players gaining no advantage over the good players in setting up for tank trajectory, interceptions, weakpoints or movements eg if you run into a formation of super-heavy tanks with strong armor, your light tanks can only escape, however if the light tanks are good, they will know how to effect a certain group of tanks...for instance hitting a tiger in the gas area causes the engine to burn, hitting a t-34 does not, one would run into t-34s and not tigers and most likely good players know how to retreat. It gets even better if the light tanks are upgradable giving skilled players the options to upgrd weak tanks. However, a tank enthusiast would bypass this upgradable option due to the unfairness of the game. When a player attacks a tank, it needs to retaliate. If the enemy's tank is only t-34s, the good players will know how to attack the t-34s. Given the odds, the nazi tanks would retaliate with range. The battles wouldn't be as chaotic. The tank battles would be less operational orientated as well where as the stages of wot with an historical event like kursk make it possible to happen anywhere (in japan, in china) or even change the history of civilization like it has. The vibration function could be activated when a player goes over train-tracks as well, but that's knitpicking. If you have a really weak british army with strong tanks weak armies in teamplay could overtake stronger ones. Every battle would be of this particular random scenario, so having country only tanks on one team would increase the chances of fair competition. Update: I recently found out wot for PC is infact teamplay, although not as fast as xbox 360 and not as evasive, it is good to have teamplay done right. This puts wot ahead of the game to warthunder whom has teamplay, yet only in sim mode..i think..unless a client update is there or soemthing. IDK i like warthunder cus the interface is better, more user friendly with a controller too (even old xb s style controllers), whilst wot on xbox 360 has better gameplay (&a controller) and wot on pc, although complex, works best. Haven't played enough of world of warplanes, however it too has the controller function and some advantages in simplicity over wot.
The Perfect tank game
On to why this game is so addictive. 1.) When upgrading tanks with armor piercing abilities, super-heavy tanks become invincible, unless you are one of the few who has accuracy well enough to know how to shoot a cannon inside the hole of the tank you have pierced. 2.) Certain tanks mimick their real life counter-parts ie the Tiger is easily damaged in its wheels, yet invulnerable when in front, the hertzer has qualities of a russian t-50, and interesting facts arise such as the stug III, is yet to be the most manufactured tank in germany with the most kills during world war ii. You can hit the armor at the same place, however I was only exagerating...you can however it the turret on those really hard to kill tanks. I even think they incorporated teamspeak, something as to why the german panzers were so effective in kill ratio during ww2. On top of that, you unlock classes and stages as you play the game more without tedious unwanted updates, waittime or downloads. Other realistic tank games I've played included Panzer Front on the Dreamcast, the 1942 and modern battlefield series, operation flashpoint and others to name a few. This game however is the perfect tank game for any tank enthusiast given the physics in the gameplay involved, to mimick its real-life counter-parts. Besides for noobs struggling in the beg of the game, their are no real knitpicks, and the battlefield simulator idea is basically given to me as an idea for games with updated graphics like comanche (a game that rivaled the best of ps1 graphics, yet came out 1991-93) or maybe the world of warplanes aka war thunder for ps4, which is incredibly advanced. My all time fav though is Over-g, with the right elements in sim gameplay, this could have been gold if not for some annoying ace combat rip-off scenarios creating an almost goofy-like scifi dystopian theme. Again I'm bringing up this other knit pick which i have about most games, to put the american tanks only on one team, and nazi tanks on another to simply add to emersion, instead of just 'play with tanks' you will have the option of feeling how accurate formations in real-life armies were really like. Its Unfortunete most games these days reverted to a robotic style of gameplay to ignore histories lessons etc. Its also unfortunate simple particle effects such as polygonal footprints in the snow, or shells falling on the floor haven't even been experimented widely as of yet. Though these knit picks are minor graphical and emmersive ones, the partical effects all seem to be there. However, it would be nice to have a team option for the tanks. The latest client of wot actually does have teamplay mode, giving wot a large lead in the tank warfare division. Except this clan mode is unavailable on console. Warthunder in tank mode however, has more destructive environments making it more immersive. Maybe even upgrd it to 'wartanks' for ps4. Personally, a real world setting akin to the rainbow six series would have done this game justice. Until then, will keep playing world of tanks.
2015 Update: Crossplatform Gaming not totally disappeared?!?
Back in 99' I was a huge fan of 4x4 evolution on dreamcast and also quake iii, i had a mouse and kb to compete with the competition and did fairly well. I did not notice any difference between the pc and dreamcast counter-parts. However since then I have not run into cross-platform gaming, besides for maybe pso on the dreamcast as well. I know there are some games on ps2 like call of duty, or i think ffx. Since recently I found out warthunder is infact crossplatform on ps4/pc. You can play it, and although people say its unfair, because of no mouse and kb, I say otherwise. For instance, sure the graphics are slightly darker, yet ps4 can still do photorealism. It can infact compete with PC, because I know for a fact cs:source users use a controller instead of mouse and kb. It is simply a hard to learn skill, but learnable to tweak the controller. I do see ps4 gamers every now and then, however with the star on their icon, you will only see one or two. Unfortunetly this is indeed the case for a perfect rendition to console. Crossplatform is infact important, like teamplay. Ps4 can do photorealism and infact compete with the PC and with crossplatform a server doesnt turn into a thousand players but yet maybe near a million at a time..and being a fan of cpx gameplay warthunder has a slight edge on this one, and realism. To prove Ps4 owners infact have an advantage over their pc counter-parts by using a control I recently installed and mapped out the original xbox s controller on the game. It turns out its not only better than the xbox 360/ps4 controllers, but better than the pc/mouse combo and near as good as a flight stick in performance. It only took me 4 hours: Below is the controller scheme for warthunder on the xbox controller s (with vibration). The controller can do loops fairly more easily than a mouse and keyboard. Get the XBCD patch now!
Right trigger-fire guns/rockets
Left trigger-slow down
Left stick-increase/decrease throttle, roll right and left
Left stick press-target enemy
Right stick-mouse aim
Right stick press-zoom on enemy
Right or Left stick POV axis-rear gun aim
x,b-bank right/bank left (yaw)
y,a-pitch up and down
small black button-pause
small white button-change to cockpit view
dpad-left and up-view behind and above plane
F/G on keyboard - gears/flaps
Tank controls are easy, basic fire/zoom etc
There has been lots of hate for ps4 owners in the game for playing poorly, yet here I just proved the exact opposite. Mouse and keyboard can't do aerial maneuvers that the xbox controller s can do. Half the people who play the game are infact mouse/kb players whom have to drag their hand many times to do half a loop. The reason why I use xbox controller s is its built more for 3d games hence the sticks have wider movement angles and the controller is higher ie the dreamcast controller is more linear as well. IMHO this is the cheapest flightstick outthere.
Videocard & System Recommendations
As you know the xbcd controller is rec. Also Windows XP direct x 9/10 is rec. This game is actually better in dx9 for some reason, is why i hav a partition split (via EaseUS partition manager) to create a steam only win7 64bit o/s then an xp o/s. The game looks alittle flatter in dx9, however, it manuevers better as I was experiencing pauses on dx11 for some reason. These pauses would effect any flight game enthusiast who would try aerial maneuvers like loops and wat not. If your graphics card is say 1gb, these pauses may infact occur and affect gameplay (3 button simultaneous presses, for some reason cause the game to pause or kink, however its required in aerial combat at times...even on the lowest settings). My advice is the 64 bit drivers on xbcd are not available or hard to find which is why its important and somewat relevant to keep things online nowadays. My honest rec is to create a partition for xp on that game only if your computer has a 1gb ati videocard or is not fast enough. IDK though, ati and intel tends to not be a good match. Maybe its because intel's stability locks functions like cmd repairing manual system/network/default/sam etc. That's what every o/s is infact. If it brakes its cus of that. Overwriting or refreshing it is a must. Intel is good, AMD is better..they knew about wide pipelines (glamorized to be hyperthreading) way before intel. However, I used the nvidia onboard card and it did not have these so-called pauses. Intel is howver geared towards a more stable business orientated user base, therefore its less likely to get crashes or unknown errors on an intel board (the last asus 64 board I had, caused incompatibilities with printers/mice and even the pciexpress port). So I rec an aus amd machine with ati, intel mbs with nvidia...or just install a backup o/s like I did.