Does any one else think World in Conflct is one of the worst RTS??

I mean yea it has great x10 graphics and every thing but the game play is so boring. I mean no skirmish mode. EXTREMELY SHORT single player game. Made for online but they are like 40min matches and by the time you have enough money or something to get the nuke the game is over. Actually the game is 15min over by the time the nuke is ready. You can never play as Russia in the SP game and barley ever as NATO!

The game is a pore excuse for a RTS. I mean in this game why would you have to pay for a tank???? I mean you are fighting a battle you wouldn't pay for a tank! Also why would they send you into battle with only 5 tanks??? I mean you would have like 30 with infantry and HELOS.You would also never have to pay for napalm or a carpet bombing.

The only thing i liked about the game is the destructible environment. I want my money back Sierra!

All RTS games are stupid. Why do you have to pay for anything? You are the freaking General!

All RPG games are stupid too. Why the hell do I have to pay this guy money? I just want to break his neck and take everything from his store!

All FPS games are stupid too. Why the **** do I have to save the world? I just want to hide in that abandoned building over there!

All RTS games are stupid. Why do you have to pay for anything? You are the freaking General!

All RPG games are stupid too. Why the hell do I have to pay this guy money? I just want to break his neck and take everything from his store!

All FPS games are stupid too. Why the **** do I have to save the world? I just want to hide in that abandoned building over there!

BlackAlpha666

What genre do you play?

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"]

All RTS games are stupid. Why do you have to pay for anything? You are the freaking General!

All RPG games are stupid too. Why the hell do I have to pay this guy money? I just want to break his neck and take everything from his store!

All FPS games are stupid too. Why the **** do I have to save the world? I just want to hide in that abandoned building over there!

biggest_loser

What genre do you play?

I can tell right now he is a RPG dude. But same thing goes for thoes games, why do you have to save the world/town? Why can't i just chop his head off and take his stuff. Why does it take 100 hits to kill him, how can i stop time to heal???

well i for one thought it was a good idea not to have a tank rush or helo rush. Adds some strategic depth to the options at hand and conservation of my forces. i didnt play the multiplayer much. i though the single player was extremely short as well and would have loved a longer and more difficult campaign. AI was almost non existant. enemies follow the same path and spawn in the same positions. zero tactics. But screw all that i loved the game.beuatiful explosions and graphics all around.great attention to detail. also i think there is a way to get single player skirmish.btw wht dop u mean "pay" for tank or carpet bombing. Last i checked all those things cost resources in a real war as well. I dont know any RTS where you dont have to pay through your resources to produce stuff. Or are you tlaking about the multiplayer?crazyfist36

Their is no stratgy i forgot to say that. But you are in a battle not build a base like in C&C. All you have to do in a battle is call up and say i want some bombs or tanks. In C&C you have to build a base get money, and build an army.

world in conflict focuses more on strategy, placement, and conservation rather than games like c&c where its about building an army and spamming units. I only got to plya thorugh single player sincew I lost my cd key but from what I played, the game was absoutley fantastic. One of the better rts games ive plyaed in the past yearsMapleleafs4life

There is no strategy in it, i mean you get a unit 2 min after you call for it and if you lose it and run out of money you lose the mission. No for a game like this it should have like 50 tanks on call for free or just give them to you and to a actuall battle

[QUOTE="Mapleleafs4life"]world in conflict focuses more on strategy, placement, and conservation rather than games like c&c where its about building an army and spamming units. I only got to plya thorugh single player sincew I lost my cd key but from what I played, the game was absoutley fantastic. One of the better rts games ive plyaed in the past yearsxmen1414

There is no strategy in it, i mean you get a unit 2 min after you call for it and if you lose it and run out of money you lose the mission. No for a game like this it should have like 50 tanks on call for free or just give them to you and to a actuall battle

That's exactly what this game is about. It's not about strategy, at all. It's just about the battles, the tactics. The game has a heavy focus on tactics. Sending in additional units is expensive so it's all about trying to keep your current units alive. So if you lose all your money and then lose your units, that means your opponent was smarter and better then you. So yes, you lose at that point.

That's what this game is all about. It might not be the most realistic way to handle the military, but what game is realistic? None of them are! It's all about balance and fun. You don't like the way this game works? Well, too bad, many people do like it. So it's definately not one of the worst RTS games.

You want a more realistic game where you can send in whatever number/type of units you want? Where's the limit? Or do you just want to nuke all your opponents as soon as the game starts? Yeah, that would be fun... Ugh

[QUOTE="xmen1414"]

[QUOTE="Mapleleafs4life"]world in conflict focuses more on strategy, placement, and conservation rather than games like c&c where its about building an army and spamming units. I only got to plya thorugh single player sincew I lost my cd key but from what I played, the game was absoutley fantastic. One of the better rts games ive plyaed in the past yearsBlackAlpha666

There is no strategy in it, i mean you get a unit 2 min after you call for it and if you lose it and run out of money you lose the mission. No for a game like this it should have like 50 tanks on call for free or just give them to you and to a actuall battle

That's exactly what this game is about. It's not about strategy, at all. It's just about the battles, the tactics. The game has a heavy focus on tactics. Sending in additional units is expensive so it's all about trying to keep your current units alive. So if you lose all your money and then lose your units, that means your opponent was smarter and better then you. So yes, you lose at that point.

That's what this game is all about. It might not be the most realistic way to handle the military, but what game is realistic? None of them are! It's all about balance and fun. You don't like the way this game works? Well, too bad, many people do like it. So it's definately not one of the worst RTS games.

You want a more realistic game where you can send in whatever number/type of units you want? Where's the limit? Or do you just want to nuke all your opponents as soon as the game starts? Yeah, that would be fun... Ugh

I want a realist RTS even though they will never make one becuase if you acctually use a nuke it would blow your base along with everything on the map to peices they need a RTS with extremly large maps were everything is realist, as in explsion sizes.

And there are realistic games out there , oh here is one it is call

RedOrchestra: Ostfront 41-45.

There is no strategy in it, i mean you get a unit 2 min after you call for it and if you lose it and run out of money you lose the mission. No for a game like this it should have like 50 tanks on call for free or just give them to you and to a actuall battle

xmen1414

Have you even played the game? It doesn't seem like it. If you had, you know the time it takes for reinforcements to come after you call them is about 10 seconds. And what are you talking about money? There is no money in the game. Only reinforcement points and airstrike points.

It sounds like your more a fan of the "traditional" RTS with base building and massive battles. I applaud their attempt to do something different and I agree with Mapleleafs, one of the better games I've played recently. Guess you don't like new takes on an aged formula.

Of course you have to pay for tanks, carpet bombing, etc. I can't think of a single RTS that doesn't.

Really the only valid conplaint is that the SP is too short but personally I felt that it was decent enough.

I am playing WiC and loving every minute of it.

Go back to playing The Sims or whatever carp you think is so great...

I love it.

WiC is a RTS game. It plays out in real time and there is strategy. (Maybe moreso tactics.) However it definitely is not a standard RTS.

I really like it because the lack of base building. It is a nice change of pace just to jump in the action.

When i feel like base building and going down tech trees I go back to CoH.

Both games have their value.

There's no "strategy" behind it. You place your units in the "glowing circles" until you win that objective. Set up a drop zone close to what ever "circle" you are defending and keep throwing units into the meet grinder. I won the ENTIRE single player campaign by following this basic "strategy". It's impossible to fight a battle they way YOU want to and use your OWN strategy. Plus the map controls are just FPS craptastic.

It's not a RTS. It's the original Grand Theft Auto except with military units and better graphics.

All RTS games are stupid. Why do you have to pay for anything? You are the freaking General!

All RPG games are stupid too. Why the hell do I have to pay this guy money? I just want to break his neck and take everything from his store!

All FPS games are stupid too. Why the **** do I have to save the world? I just want to hide in that abandoned building over there!

BlackAlpha666

You are funny!

WiC is one of the best rts games for me and complaining about strategy in a rts is like complaining about lack of puzzles in a shooter. real strategy only works (and will probably in future) for turn based games cause u cant make so many decisions in real timecrapdog

That's because the purpose of a shooter is to shoot and not solve puzzles maybe? RTS's are meant for strategy. Games like Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, hell even Star Craft all require strategy and yes you can make so many decisions because of this awesome feature called the "pause" button. In 99% of RTS games, though the overall object is the exact same, how you achieve it is different every single time. In WiC, you have a pre determined route to your objective that you can not deviate from at all. It's like the entire game is a tutorial "put your troops here" "do not move your troops from this spot" "ok it's clear to move your troops over here to this spot" "leave your troops here now" "ok you just won the game all by yourself just like a big kid!!!"

There's no skirmish mode? Damn, I didn't know that. I was going to get it one day, but now I think I won't even bother with it.JP_Russell

It's a really shallow game, even the people that love it must admit that. And the only "tactics" involved in the fighting is managing your repair vehicles and selecting what units to make... and always keeping an eye on your tanks and choppers so you can repair them in time is extremely boring and frustrating but you have to do it if you want to best the best (by the way, it's very unrealistic, there are no "repair tanks" with some crane that magically repairs all damage in reality), you can't even place it on auto-repair as far as I know.

Company of Heroes has actual tactics where you construct tank traps and wires to block certain paths and mines along certain paths (you can do that in World in Conflict but the system in it is poor in my opinion because there's so much space that there aren't many bottlenecks that make mines worth it). There's also cover in CoH, the units can be upgraded, you can pin enemies, the explosions are cooler, the units just move instead of getting run over, it also has destructible environments... my point is, Company of Heroes is better than World in Conflict in every way, World in Conflict is not better at anything. Why the **** it recieved a 9.5 from GameSpot is beyond reason.

There's no skirmish mode? Damn, I didn't know that. I was going to get it one day, but now I think I won't even bother with it.JP_Russell

There is. Just start a lan server and play with bots.

I dont think Wic deserved a 9.5, but i still like it.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]There's no skirmish mode? Damn, I didn't know that. I was going to get it one day, but now I think I won't even bother with it.GoodkupoBan

There is. Just start a lan server and play with bots.

I dont think Wic deserved a 9.5, but i still like it.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]There's no skirmish mode? Damn, I didn't know that. I was going to get it one day, but now I think I won't even bother with it.GoodkupoBan

There is. Just start a lan server and play with bots.

Oh, good. I don't play RTS's online, and campaigns are either hit or miss, and even when they're hit they're not enough. I've gotta have the skirmish mode. That's like the whole attraction of any RTS game for me.

I am a die-hard hardcore RTS gamer. And while the WiC campaign was entertaining (only for a while). The game is quite dull and strategy wise it pales in comparison to a game like CoH.

Infantry can walk straight up to tanks and shoot them and win, the whole money-regen system makes losing units nothing big, as you can get them all back almost instantly. The small amount of units you control make it a ability-click fest, whoever clicks the missle ability on the med-helicopters first will win the engagment.

Its a great idea, the story is great, but the tactics and strategy are bland and dull, or better said, non-existant. Its the equivalent of instant-respawn in FPS's, you stop caring whether you die or not.

I am a die-hard hardcore RTS gamer. And while the WiC campaign was entertaining (only for a while). The game is quite dull and strategy wise it pales in comparison to a game like CoH.

Infantry can walk straight up to tanks and shoot them and win, the whole money-regen system makes losing units nothing big, as you can get them all back almost instantly. The small amount of units you control make it a ability-click fest, whoever clicks the missle ability on the med-helicopters first will win the engagment.

Its a great idea, the story is great, but the tactics and strategy are bland and dull, or better said, non-existant. Its the equivalent of instant-respawn in FPS's, you stop caring whether you die or not.

100000

1 infantry walks up to a tank they get run over and die.

2.Losing RESOURCE POINTS (not money) is a big deal becuase if you play a role like air and you need heavy choppers you have to wait quite a while for you to have enough points.

3. RTSs are usually click fest, and in case you meant cliking the mouse buttons, theres shortcut-keys too.

All RTS games are stupid. Why do you have to pay for anything? You are the freaking General!

All RPG games are stupid too. Why the hell do I have to pay this guy money? I just want to break his neck and take everything from his store!

All FPS games are stupid too. Why the **** do I have to save the world? I just want to hide in that abandoned building over there!

BlackAlpha666

Were at war with Iraq now, but you dont see America nuking the crap out of it and sending all our forces over there. The point of RPGs are usually to SAVE the world so why would you just kill people? If you just want to hide in a building then do it in real life, whats the point of playing any game if you dont want a challage??

How many games of it have you played? Have you ever coordinated your attack with the rest of your team and gotten into a fight where the enemy was just as coordinated with you?

Those battles come down to the wire.

I guessed some people missed the memo, that the main reason WIC gets its praise is from its MP, not its SP. But there is tons of tactics involved in WIC, mainly working as team. That is what the whole game is about, working as a team and coordinating your forces together. Of course on pubs it wont seem like it if you are one of those selfish players that spawn 3 heavy artys and 1 anti air unit and keep them all for yourself leaving your allies tanks exposed to choppers. I'm willing to bet anybody that claims that the game doesn't have tactics has either not played much of MP or is not a team player and tries to lonewolf it by themselves.

I can see how it could be boring when you lonewolf it. Say you spawn some tanks and try to take a point by yourself, well enemy choppers will just come in and rip you apart and it will happen every time you spawn try to do something by yourself(This is where the majority of people that argue "this game is spawn units, go into a circle and die" come from).

Now if you work as a team and try to take the same point with a support player, you will capture the points and the enemy choppers will be taken down. Now say in the same situation an enemy tank player comes in and tries to take out your support(so choppers wont die), you would call in a friendly chopper player to take out the tanks. And situations like this can keep on expanding based on the situation. Notice the difference when you work as a team(in action and longevity)?

WiC requires 0 strategy. The bots in the skirmish have horrible AI. Buts its certainly not the worst RTS.anshul89

lol playing agianst AI. You must be really good online..... :roll:

WiC requires 0 strategy. The bots in the skirmish have horrible AI. Buts its certainly not the worst RTS.anshul89

Of course it requires 0 strategy if your a crappy player rellying on the rest of your team, however trying to be the #1 player in the match and helping your team at the same time makes you start thinking twice about your moves.

[QUOTE="anshul89"]WiC requires 0 strategy. The bots in the skirmish have horrible AI. Buts its certainly not the worst RTS.Penguin_dragon

Of course it requires 0 strategy if your a crappy player rellying on the rest of your team, however trying to be the #1 player in the match and helping your team at the same time makes you start thinking twice about your moves.

Look, if you compare it to CoH, it has 0 strategy.

Go play CoH and then wonder how the hell WiC got a 9.5. Just another reason not to trust gamespot reviews.--Rampage--

[QUOTE="anshul89"]WiC requires 0 strategy. The bots in the skirmish have horrible AI. Buts its certainly not the worst RTS.bignice12

lol playing agianst AI. You must be really good online..... :roll:

[QUOTE="Penguin_dragon"]

[QUOTE="anshul89"]WiC requires 0 strategy. The bots in the skirmish have horrible AI. Buts its certainly not the worst RTS.anshul89

Of course it requires 0 strategy if your a crappy player rellying on the rest of your team, however trying to be the #1 player in the match and helping your team at the same time makes you start thinking twice about your moves.

Look, if you compare it to CoH, it has 0 strategy.

Ill be honest here, I've never played Company of Heroes, but i have played a plethora of other RTS games, and what exactly does Company of Heroes do that sets it apart? It looks like a rip off of Warhammer to me.

[QUOTE="GoodkupoBan"]

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]There's no skirmish mode? Damn, I didn't know that. I was going to get it one day, but now I think I won't even bother with it.JP_Russell

There is. Just start a lan server and play with bots.

Oh, good. I don't play RTS's online, and campaigns are either hit or miss, and even when they're hit they're not enough. I've gotta have the skirmish mode. That's like the whole attraction of any RTS game for me.

At least in other RTS games the AI is challenging at the start. But in WiC, its not.anshul89

Why are you even playing skirmish mode when the main attraction is online? In just about every review they praise the MP of WIC, it is the main part of the game. Judging WIC off its skirmish mode(or SP) solely makes no sense at all. That is similiar to playing CS against bots and rating it based off that experience.