World in Conflict Preview
In our time, no foreign army has ever occupied American soil. Until now.
World in Conflict started life two years ago as a multiplayer concept: specifically, it was born from the desire to recreate the accessibility of first person deathmatch games but in a real-time strategy game. The game's developer, Massive Entertainment, wanted to create an RTS title that's as easy to pick up and play as an FPS, and the key to doing that, it reckoned, was to emulate the respawn function that's a hallmark of most arena combat games. And it's this that gives the game its defining characteristic: when your units die, the credits they cost to produce are returned and can be used again to produce further reinforcements. Thus, every player has the same amount of resources and is competing on a totally level playing field.
That playing field is set in an alternate vision of history devised by "Cold War authority and best-selling author" Larry Bond. Set in 1989, it sees the Soviets invading Europe and America, and single-player missions range across the French countryside, small town and farming communities across America and even into major cities such as Seattle.
The single-player campaign puts the player in charge of US forces and borrows from FPS titles in other ways too. Just as games like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor strive to create the sense of a real-life battlefield that's just one part of a much greater conflict, World in Conflict casts players as just one commanding officer of several. "In single-player we really want to take a more emotional aspect where you feel you are part of a bigger war," says Massive's CEO, Martin Walfisz. "That has been something really important for us to convey. You're not controlling every friendly unit on the battlefield. You're actually just controlling part of the force on the battlefield and you're being ordered by your commanding officer. On top of that the you're hearing the constant banter and chat and discussion between all of the different characters."

World in Conflict is set during the height of the cold war. It’s freezing.
Thus each mission will see you co-operating with several other AI officers who will come to your aid or even make mistakes and call for your assistance. Fleshed out by dialogue composed by a 'Hollywood TV writer', the cast of characters includes Colonel Sawyer, a gruff ex-retired general who probably likes the smell of napalm in the morning; Bannon, an insecure Westpoint graduate; and the player character, Parker. A recent hands-on session provided a glimpse of how the battlefield chatter adds to the sense of atmosphere as Bannon struggled to capture a supermarket.
The hands-on session started, though, with Tears for Fears on the radio. It quickly went downhill from there as small town America was engulfed by chaos and Parker is given his first task: to secure a gas station (and maybe eliminating a sniper on the way). Apart from the battlefield banter, it also provided a good idea of how the resource system works: sending in reinforcements is as simple as selecting them from a drop down menu. They're then parachuted in to a drop zone (that you can move as you acquire territory). And as units are destroyed your resource points will start to trickle back, accelerating to a bit of a flood as more of your units are eliminated.

Players will be able to call in airstrikes, deploy paratroopers or even drop a nuclear bomb.
Taking over the gas station is done by securing key points around its perimeter, and unit selection and camera control is smooth and flexible throughout. Another aspect that the demo highlighted is the importance of flanking manoeuvres because most units have weaker armour at the rear - just as their real-world counterparts do, of course. But the ease of control and infinite supplies of reinforcements do raise one question: how will Massive make sure that players can't simply grind out mission objectives by throwing successive waves of soldiers at them? Well, armchair generals will be required to use the correct tactics, and some missions will require you to keep certain units alive, or to complete objectives within a time limit.
"In a way it allows us to create different experiences throughout the campaign," says Walfisz. "Each map can be different so it's not just about wiping out all the enemies."
Indeed it's not. It's also about making clever use of the game's massively destructive environments. Massive reckons the game engine is the "best RTS engine on the market". It can zoom in from a satellite view to an FPS-style close-up (complete with soldier-level dialogue), and while it supports all the latest DX 10 doowhizzery, it also scales right down to antique level cards like the GeForce 4Ti and ATI 9250 cards. It uses Havok 4.5 for its physics and gets a performance boost out of multi-processors. It's got advanced water shaders, dynamic animated sky and all those other things that developers say and about two per cent of readers understand.

It's up to players to defend small town and big city America from those pinko commies.
Where the technology starts to have an impact on the actual game beyond just looking pretty and sounding complicated is in the game's totally destructible environments. The more damage you do, the more moody the atmospheric effects: so, clouds darken, and smoke starts smouldering from burned-out buildings. That's still just looking pretty though. But burning down forests or destroying buildings can have strategic implications as you open up line of sight for your soldiers, or create new routes for them to access other parts of the map.
Technology also plays a role in the game's multiplayer modes in the shape of AI bots that can respond to specific requests for help, and the whole thing is built around the notion of team play. Default matches last 20 minutes, featuring up to 16 players in teams of eight, and participants pick from specialised roles that allow access to different unit types: Infantry, Armor, Support Forces, or Aerial specialists. It's exactly the sort of thing that will reward repeated online play.
"We really want to create a new very accessible and emotional single-player experience and a new accessible multiplayer experience," concludes Walfisz. "And we've put a lot of effort into both. I really hope that the gamers who'd normally just play single player will also get excited about the new innovations that we have included in multiplayer and actually start playing online even if they haven't done it before. We really hope it will get single player gamers moving online."
You may also like...
-
Why Can't Games Do Sex?
-
Dear Esther Review
-
UFC Undisputed 3 Review
-
Solitaire Blitz Preview: Why PopCap's Approach to Facebook Gaming is Anything But Casual
-
Remedy discusses Alan Wake 2
-
Will there be a PS3 version of The Witcher 2?
-
Eurogamer.net Podcast #100: Ellie returns! And we filmed it!
-
Darksiders 2 release date announced
-
Girl Vader stars in Kinect Star Wars trailer
-
Mass Effect 3 teaser trailer invades Earth
-
Sonic 4 Episode 2 screenshots leak from Xbox Marketplace
-
Only Modern Warfare 3 made more money than Skyrim in 2011
-
Mojang won't sue FortressCraft dev, "bored" by Minecraft clones
-
Assassin's Creed 3, Splinter Cell: Retribution coming this year?
-
Metal Gear Online to be switched off in June
-
Happy Action Theater Review
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
If I Were in a Sealed Room With a Girl, I'd Probably XXX trailer
-
App of the Day: Candy Train
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
Motorola Xoom 2 Tablet Reviews
-
Dead Island dev's Haste becomes Mad Riders
-
Street Fighter x Tekken PC release date announced
-
Bethesda on Skyrim's viewable Morrowind, Cyrodiil: "maybe we'll use it one day"









Comments (25) Latest comment 5 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Seen it all before pal"
>sigh< More jingoistic nonsense aimed at the US market. But I guess that we're tired of shooting Nazis, and shooting Arabs would infringe CNNs copyright. So it's back to our good old 80s bogeymen, those darn Commies. Pity that the Red Army would have a problem taking on a dozen chavs, let alone the continental US and Patrick Swayze's mates, not being able to afford things like, oh, bullets and food and stuff at the moment.
Come on, lets have something original, like the Swedes invading Denmark over who's got the fittest 7ft tall blonde amazon women or something or the French invading the US to liberate them from Macdonalds food and Freedom Fries.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If that is in-game then I'll be a very happy bunny.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
looks like someone forgot to read the article
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"“There were also cross-border raids by both sides: the cities of Washington, New Orleans and Toronto were attacked during the war.”
The French (Canadians) attacked too. What about Granada, wasn’t that US soil? Haven’t they also claimed the moon as their land, surely the recent claim by China that it will be their by 2012 is incitement pre-emptive strike
"
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"looks like someone forgot to read the article"
Looks like someone forgot to read the post above mine
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The nuclear blasts were fantastic.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But, hasn't exactly that been done a few hundred years ago? Foreign armies invaded, committed genocide on the natives, wiped out almost all of their culture, replaced it with their own and so on to the point that everyone's forgotten that the current culture is an invader. The current USA is in fact one of the most succesful occupations in modern history.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The game sounds promising. Though I normally dislike alternate history games where War X is omg suddenly in America.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Not that it does Blighty much good...
/pees into bullet holed radiator
edit: actually come to think of it China declares war on the USSR and gets heavily nuked for their trouble
Comment below viewing threshold Show
1) Will the game be stable and bug-free?
2) Will the game talk nice with the DX10 cards?
3) Will NVidia be able to sort out their absolutely horrendous drivers by then?
4) Will MS get manage to fix Vista issues by then?
All they add up to: Don't even go there
(Coming from someone who has bought both 8800GTS and Vista and a Core 2 Duo, and seen the world crash around him)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Well, as far as I remember Ground Control II was a pretty polished product. I can't see why this game should be different. It doesn't seem like Massive have been forced to rush it to retail.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I hate being made to be American in every damn game. It's not that I want to be Russian especially, I just want to shoot Americans. Plus the Russians get all the good military gadgets; if we have to endure another round of "Magically Invincible Abrams/Blackhawks/Marines, Booyah Semper Fi Hut Hut Hut" it'll be about a tenth as good.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Guess "world" in conflict is like "world" series baseball then.
Comment below viewing threshold Show