World in Conflict Review

Nuke kids on the block.

Version tested: PC

I'm giving very serious consideration to the idea of detonating a small nuclear device in a major American city. Now that I've successfully made Eurogamer flash up on the screens of a dozen top secret US intelligence agencies (Kristan may be spirited away to some officially-denied torture dungeon, but just think of the page views!) I should probably explain that, ho ho, I'm just talking about the latest real-time strategy game to set PC hearts a-flutter.

Of course, everybody already knew that since World in Conflict arrives under the considerable burden of being known as "that explosions game where you get to use nukes". While the astonishing pyrotechnics are certainly eye-catching, it'd be a shame if the game were to be remembered solely for its big bangs, luminous walls of flame and rolling banks of realistic smoke and ash. Take away the apocalyptic bluster, and World in Conflict is still one of the most indecently absorbing PC games of the year.

That doesn't mean, however, that it's particularly original or groundbreaking. In terms of features, there's little here that strategy fans won't have seen elsewhere - most notably in the sci-fi Ground Control series, where Swedish developer Massive first attracted praise. The high concept here, that Soviet forces invade the United States in 1989, adds an interesting alternate-history wrinkle to the tanks-and-infantry template but what really makes World in Conflict grab you by the mansacks is the execution. It's immediate. Streamlined. Visceral. It plays like a strategy game, but feels like an action game.

'World in Conflict' Screenshot 1

Helicopters can be invaluable against enemy vehicles, but are require careful use if they're to survive the battle.

While other RTS games, such as the monolithic Supreme Commander, have pulled further and further away from the blood and rubble of the battlefield, Massive has always stayed close to the action. Harvesting and resource management is most assuredly not on the agenda here. With a Soviet sniper picking off your explosives experts before they can bring down a key structure, you won't be distracted by how many paperclips you need to order for the War Office. In World in Conflict, you're not some high-minded mastermind overseeing the entire war, but a mid-level corporal following orders in a dirty urban scramble for survival. Battles will rage around you - AI allies and foes slugging it out on street corners, artillery fire raining down from both sides - but you've got to barrel on through. Don't engage every enemy you see. Don't assist every friend in need. Your task is focussed and clear. Fulfil your objectives, and do as you're told. Victory doesn't come from destroying every last enemy onscreen, it comes from holding them back just long enough to receive the next order. As you pull out and move on, computer controlled allies roll in to take your place. The illusion of being part of a larger, ongoing battle is terrifyingly real.

Rather than making the game frustrating and linear, this actually frees you up to indulge in some real real-time strategy. It's meat and potatoes military strategy at the frontline. How do you secure and fortify a town square against a platoon of heavy tanks, mere minutes away? How do you react when that force is joined by helicopters from the east and anti-tank infantry from the west? Can you spare the resources to deal with the enemy artillery over that hill? Will that carpet bomb you just called in obliterate enough of the advancing hordes for you to survive by the skin of your teeth? There's no time to mull it over, you just have to grab the units you have, send them into action as best you can and think on your feet every step of the way. And it's breathlessly exhilarating.

'World in Conflict' Screenshot 2

Balanced use of ground forces and precision artillery is the key to driving enemies back.

Single player campaigns are broken up into seven or more primary objectives, with optional secondary objectives cropping up as you move through them. Taking, fortifying and holding strategic command points is the meat of the game, but the circumstances of each objective vary enough that the task never feels repetitive. While a campaign may take an hour or more, it'll be broken down into smaller engagements where simply crossing a river or destroying one building requires careful planning. Maps are insanely detailed - witness the snowy footprints your troops leave in Cascade Falls, discarded Christmas decorations littering the streets - but of manageable size. You'll rarely be commanding more than ten units, and even when you split them up, they'll always be within range of each other. This isn't a game where you need to zoom up into the heavens to see where everyone is. Your camera hovers at roof level, roaming realistic streets looking for tactical advantages.

The top right of the screen is home to your reinforcements menu, from which you can call in whatever combination of vehicles and troops you like. Your choices are limited only by the number of reinforcement points you have - more are awarded for successful play, and when a unit is destroyed, its point value goes back into the queue and can be spent again after a certain amount of time. This clever mechanic means you'll never be left high and dry, at least in theory, but poor judgment and timing can still leave you defending the line with a handful of soldiers and one knackered tank. It puts the onus on you, the player, to make best use of what you have, planning on the fly not only for the current engagement, but for whatever comes rolling down the street next.

Units are selected and manoeuvred with the left-click/right-click method you'd expect, while sensible keyboard shortcuts and clear icons are available for everything else you need. For instance, your infantry become infinitely more useful if you station them in buildings. Two anti-tank squads, hidden in buildings on opposite sides of a street, can halt the advance of a medium sized armoured platoon with little trouble. You can select each squad, and right click on the buildings by hand - or you can click a button and they make for the closest building automatically. Vehicles can retreat, or follow each other, with similar efficiency. In a game where seconds count, such intelligent time-saving devices are incredibly useful.

The same is true of tactical aids – the catch-all title given to the awesome firepower you can unleash from afar. Napalm, tank busters, three artillery spreads of varying accuracy and power, air-to-air support, daisy cutters – there’s a lot of fun to be had just trying out each one, and working out the best ways to use them. Each comes with a price tag in tactical points, which refills over time. Each assault also has a deployment time before it hits – meaning artillery barrages against moving targets require some nifty timing - and a recharge period before it can be used again. While it’s tempting to use these options to bomb the crap out of the map, such an approach pales next to careful, considered deployment in the right place at the right time. This is also where the nuke option appears though, wisely, the game doesn’t dish these out easily. When you finally do get to drop the weapon you’ve been salivating over since first seeing the trailers, it’s done in a way that satisfies your thirst for explosion while maintaining a suitably sombre and serious mood.

The difficulty of the single player mode skews easier than most dedicated PC gamers will prefer - you'll want to ramp it up to Hard or above for a challenge - but there's a nice narrative flow and balance to the experience. As the Soviet invasion pushes east across the US, the scenery changes from city blocks to small towns, to mountains. The game also flashes back to the European conflicts which precede the invasion, and while the change of scenery is welcome, seeing tanks rolling through rural French villages leaves the game losing some of its distinctive edge and looking a lot like WW2 point-clickers like Company of Heroes.

'World in Conflict' Screenshot 4

Absolutely everything you see here - trees, houses, even lampposts - can be burned, demolished and exploded into broken little pieces.

Each campaign section is bookended by in-game cutscenes, phone conversations set to hand-painted slideshows and some fantastic narration from Alec Baldwin. The tone is just cheesy enough to tick off all the wartime clichés you'd expect - pregnant girlfriends back home, poignant children's toys discarded in rubble - but the game manages to inject character and intrigue into a scenario that could easily be dominated by destruction and mayhem. As beautifully presented as the single player game is, however, it won't last hardcore strategists very long. You can create your own custom scenarios to eke out more playtime, but most will make a beeline for the multiplayer, which is so rich that it's almost another game in itself. It's also where it really distinguishes itself from the competition.

I said earlier that World in Conflict plays like a strategy game, but feels like an action game. That probably caused a few hardcore PC gamers to balk, but it's really a compliment and this conceptual duality is most evident when playing online. Taking its cue from the Battlefield series, rather than the more obvious Command & Conquers of the world, the multiplayer World in Conflict experience is based heavily on teamwork and unit classes. When you join a game - which you can do at any time, thanks to a fairly slick drop-in system - you choose what sort of regiment you want to command. Infantry? Armour? Support? Airborne?

'World in Conflict' Screenshot 5

Happy now?

By forcing you to specialise, the game demands communication and co-operation with your allies. Barge in, start playing for your own ends and you'll get swiftly destroyed like the loose cannon you are. Work closely with other players, complement each others skills, and you become a formidable fighting force. When you find yourself playing with like-minded comrades, the result is fiendishly addictive. During the beta stage these two elements often conflicted - the casual drop-in access, coupled with a general lack of understanding as to what sort of game this was supposed to be, often nobbled attempts to foster an efficient team. Now that the game is open to all, it seems that this problem is receding. As more players get used to the idea of focussing their skills and collaborating with others, a decent community of clans is springing up and - touch wood - the prospects of finding epic, satisfying skirmishes are looking good. Lag was minimal in the matches I played and, for all the particle effects and impressive physics being slung around (zoom right in, and you'll see even the smallest chunk of debris gets pushed aside by passing vehicles) the game can be made to run on a mid-range PC without losing too much razzle dazzle.

So don't come to World in Conflict looking for a game that reinvents its genre. Come to it because it's an instantly appealing refinement of smart ideas, served up with gorgeous production values and back-to-basics strategic muscle. It's intelligently structured, so you can lose yourself for hours or indulge in a quick twenty minute skirmish, while the multiplayer mode is an absolute monster if you're willing to submit to its co-operative style. The ability to unleash monitor-rattling nuclear destruction at will is what will inevitably garner the most attention, but thankfully World in Conflict has the steak to go with the sizzle. Combining bite-sized accessibility and formidable depth in a genre as established as real-time strategy is no mean feat, but Massive has pulled it off. An absolute beast of a game.

9 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (53) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Ignatius_Cheese #1 4 years ago

  • rashes #2 4 years ago

    Another good review! When is this coming to 360?
  • cyacomini #3 4 years ago

    WiC is the first game to make me regret switching from PC to Mac - not even Crysis comes close to making me cry.

    Still, theres the inbound 360 version to look forward to.
  • AhrimaaN #4 4 years ago

    Dayummm it's a good time to be a gamer,... and you know what... it's a great time to be a pc gamer again too....! it's been too long comin. Bring on the next few months!
  • dsmx #5 4 years ago

    Probably won't be coming to the xbox 360, only EA with there obsession with ports bring RTS to consoles.
  • patlike #6 4 years ago

    They are doing it for 360, but release date is "unconfirmed".
  • Fitzmogwai #7 4 years ago

    Damnit. I hate games companies! Stop releasing all these excellent games at the same bloody time! How am I going to play them all?

  • cyacomini #8 4 years ago

  • miiiguel #9 4 years ago

    office desk gaming... no, thank you.

    360 version's welcome.
  • Pike #10 4 years ago

    So don't come to World in Conflict looking for a game that reinvents its genre.

    Eh?

    I'd say WiC is pretty much the most innovative RTS/RTT in years. Sure the single player might not break new ground, but this game is a multiplayer game first and foremost and the multiplayer part really does things with the genre that haven't been done before, in a smashingly successful manner.
    Edited by 2 at 18/09/07 @ 14:35
  • JackyB #11 4 years ago

    I could have sworn it was tuesday, and that this is not a paper Mario review.
  • DanWhitehead #12 4 years ago

    Sure the single player might not break new ground, but this game is a multiplayer game first and foremost and the multiplayer part really does things with the genre that haven't been done before, in a smashingly siccessful manner.

    That's why I said multiplayer is "where it really distinguishes itself from the competition".
  • dave06 #13 4 years ago

    why play this when theres halo 3, i dont understand
  • Pike #14 4 years ago

    Aye, but the concluding paragraph still starts with the line I quoted still implies that the game as a whole isn't worth it for people looking for something new, which really is only true for the single player part, while the multiplayer aspect, which is the main focus of the game, might well turn out to be completely genre defining.

    Just a minor quibble though. All in all I liked the review.
  • Gl3n #15 4 years ago

    Woot! absolutely can't wait for this.
  • FunkyRenegade #16 4 years ago

    360 version?
    No thanks, the controls are more complex than a run of the mill rts, I doubt it would be anywhere near as fun on the 360.
  • kangarootoo #17 4 years ago

    @dave06

    Whay eat apples when there is rice pudding?
  • DanWhitehead #18 4 years ago

    Why ride a bike when you can wear a hat?
  • UncleLou #19 4 years ago

    Not an unexpected score, but great nonetheless. At least judging by the demo, it's also a skirmish lover's wet dream, with options to determine exactly what the AI controls in your and the enemy team, and how good each of the AIs is.
  • bioreit #20 4 years ago

    @ DanWhitehead

    "I'm giving very serious consideration to the idea of detonating a small nuclear device in a major American city."

    Don't choose Chico, California, then. That's a $500 fine straight up. Better choose somewhere nice and quiet, like New Jersey. Lighter on the wallet and would probably actually improve things...

    /off to read past the first paragraph
  • Pike #21 4 years ago

    The controls are very simplified compared to the average base building RTS, IMO. I wouldn't play it on a console instead of on a PC, but if any RTS can make a good translation to the 360 this will probably be it.
  • DanWhitehead #22 4 years ago

    Apart from using WASD to move the camera the whole game can be controlled with the mouse, so I'm not sure how this is more complex than most other RTS games. It's the first RTS I've played in ages where I can see it working on both PC and console without compromise.
  • Rodigee #23 4 years ago

    I'm not sure this is atypical but I got 8 FPS in the multiplayer demo (on maximum settings) with these specs:
    2.66 Core 2 Duo
    8800 GTS 320MB, latest drivers
    2GB of 800 Mhz RAM

    Has anyone else had such a problem (of course it may just be me running Vista)
  • kangarootoo #24 4 years ago

    "Why ride a bike when you can wear a hat?"

    Even better. +1
  • UncleLou #25 4 years ago

    @Rodigee:

    I have an almost identical system, and the demo flies (even under Vista). Looks like there's something wrong with your drivers or so - unless you're playing in some insane resolution with 8*AA and whatnot in a full mp game.
  • Subquest #26 4 years ago

    @Rodigee: Your problems are not your spec, but then I suspect you already knew that.

    Quoted from review:
    the game can be made to run on a mid-range PC without losing too much razzle dazzle.

  • Ryuken #27 4 years ago

    Handling with gamepads will always feel jumpy and less precise than mouse control for these games. Looking forward to Friday already.:)
  • Rodigee #28 4 years ago

    Thanks for the input, I'll look into tweaking my settings tonight.
  • Hypercube #29 4 years ago

    Well, that's it then. With this bumper crop of sh*t-hot PC games breaking out in the near future, I'm going to upgrade.
  • some1 #30 4 years ago

  • ScarOnTheSky #31 4 years ago

    Sounds very nice! I'm also waiting for the 360 version! After playing Command and Conquer on the 360 I thought that all RTS games on consoles would be hard to control. With this, it shouldn't be a big issue, because you only control up to ten units and you don't have to build up your own base.
  • FunkyRenegade #32 4 years ago

    @Rodigee
    I had no worries on XP with it on max, I had a steady 30 or so.
  • Talha #33 4 years ago

    There it is : 9/10 hat trick. What is the world coming to?
  • UncleLou #34 4 years ago

    Hypercube you mean 360, I agree.

    Bloody casual gamers.
  • CouldntResist #35 4 years ago

    Huh...never even heard of this. I'm out of touch.
  • StixxUK #36 4 years ago

    Would you stop giving every bloody game 9/10?
  • Scimarad #37 4 years ago

    I'd really love to play this but I'm not sure I've got the time...
  • QotSAfan #38 4 years ago

  • tiddles #39 4 years ago

    Absolutely loved Ground Control, didn't realise it was by the same lot until I read this review... will I like it as much as Company Of Heroes, do you think? :)
  • Gurrah #40 4 years ago

    @tiddles: Do not expect CoH in a modern age setting! I did the same and was quite crushed when I didn't see machine gun barrels sticking out of buildings, but you can't really compare the two - WiC is epic in scale while CoH is delivering greatness in the 'micro department'. Just give the demo a go and you'll see :).

    Oh and why drive the enemy back with precision artillery if you can hit him with 3 heavy artillery barrages at the same time? It's much more fun :D.
  • Katsumoto #41 4 years ago

    Hypercube you mean 360, I agree.

    Bloody casual gamers.

    :D
  • Vandrius #42 4 years ago

    Until consoles get a brain and start letting people use a mouse/kb to control, I aint buying any FPS/RTS games for them.

    PS3 lets you in UT3 apparently, but I want it mainstream across all consoles.
  • tridentz_83 #43 4 years ago

    World in Conflict was developed for the 360 as well? Damn, I cringe when im reminded of the number of PC franchises that have been butchered and dumbed-down by PC/xbox co-development...

    Deus Ex
    Thief
    The Elder Scrolls
    Bioshock (inspirational successor to System Shock but far more linear and repetitive)
  • Caimbeul #44 4 years ago

    Damn, more money to spend! curse you!

    Also what spec rig did you play this on + settings etc?

    "why play this when theres halo 3, i dont understand"
    - Because there ARE games out there other than Halo - a lot of them are much better too!
  • Pablo2k5 #45 4 years ago

    NickyD_o said... "Hypercube you mean 360, I agree."

    No. That would be a downgrade.
  • Gurrah #46 4 years ago

  • dryden555 #47 4 years ago

    Looks fun for those who like well-made RTS games, since, really, that's all this game is. In single-player, timed missions are a drag on the fun in my opinion. Purty graphics though.
  • mkreku #48 4 years ago

    Halo 3: Good graphics but not great. Mostly more of the same gameplay, not much innovation. 10/10.
    World in Conflict: Amazing graphics. Revolutionary multiplayer but doesn't reinvent its genre. 9/10.

    What made Halo 3 get 10 and this get 9?
  • Nallen #49 4 years ago

    ^^ The reviewer?

    I love this game, but it seems to have an inescapable bug which causes both the Beta and the Demo crash in the same spectacular, unrecoverable fashion so I don't think I'll be getting it :(

    Which is frankly gutting, and the bane of PC gaming.
  • stormuk #50 4 years ago

    I was fine with it untill I had to go back in time and replay what must of taken place for the game present to be in the state its in. erm as such.

    Only other downside is it wont let you sit back and let the Ruski's destory America - which is a shame!
  • zendragon #51 4 years ago

    "What made Halo 3 get 10 and this get 9?"

    Hype and marketing blitz, besides very good treatment of the reviewers.
  • mkreku #52 4 years ago

    I bought this game because it's cheap and Swedish, even though I don't normally like strategy games. But I've been having a blast with it so far. And the graphics really are phenomenal! And the physics! And the maps! And I haven't even touched multiplayer yet!!

    Will be fun to see if Halo 3 is even better once it's released here in Sweden.
  • Lurks #53 4 years ago

    Interesting review. I don't agree with it really. I'm an RTS fan from as far back as the very first in the genre, I buy everything in the genre as a matter of course. As a single player game WIC simply isn't very fun and there's a whole pile actively wrong with it.

    I'm doubtful if the multiplayer would lift my opinion to such a degree as it did this author.
  • Luckz #54 4 years ago

    You.. couldn't call this a 10/10. From what I've played yet, it's a 8/10, maybe a 9/10 if you are in a particular good mood.