Explore GameReplays...

World in Conflict Receives 93% from IGN

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 21evotech Sep 9 2007, 18:39 PM
Yeah, just make sure somone passive does it tongue.gif like AGM, haha

Posts: 5,234

Game: Heroes of Newerth


+
# 22S2Zrathustra Sep 9 2007, 19:24 PM
AGM: This game may have tanks, but it SUCKS! tongue.gif

Posts: 10,729

Game: Generals 2


+
# 23AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 19:34 PM
I don't think we should be reviewing this game. No offense to the people who play it and like it, but there are only two people I trust to write a GR quality review of the game, and they aren't on that list tongue.gif

I can't write a review because I know nothing of the game and thus the review will be inaccurate, however it needs someone like me, who is very critical of "innovative" games, to score it.

Just on principle alone of the fact that WiC has no normal RTS gameplay, as an RTS game, it should not be getting more than a 7. However if you want to put it in a DIFFERENT genre (say, RTT), then I don't care what score it gets. I do agree, as a RTT game, it's very good. But as an RTS game, it's fucking garbage.

For an RTS game to be lacking base building and resource gathering, then by default it needs to have a low score. It's effectively an incomplete RTS game.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 24Vitensby Sep 9 2007, 19:39 PM
heh, I strongly disagree with just about everything you say about WiC, especially the above that you would give it a 7.

Speaking from a perspective of someone who has actually played the gold version of the game both full single player campaign and multiplayer experience, I would give it a similar rating and I'm sure as more reviews come in you will see similar ratings.

Im surprised that a site owner would come in here and bash a game with a portal on his own website.

Posts: 2,394

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 25AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 19:43 PM
QUOTE
heh, I strongly disagree with just about everything you say about WiC, especially the above that you would give it a 7.

How on EARTH can you compare WiC to a game like Starcraft, Generals, Act of War or CoH? Those are the best of the best as far as RTS games go. WiC absolutely, 100% pales in comparison to them. And don't even get me going on what a joke of an idea it is to have drop in style servers wacko.gif

The ONLY way for this game to be competitive is to have fixed team matches. Other than that, it's casual random play with random players and random teams. Maybe that's fun if that's all you're looking for, but if you're looking for the next Starcraft in terms of design and refinement of gameplay, this isn't it. wacko.gif

QUOTE
Speaking from a perspective of someone who has actually played the gold version of the game both full single player campaign and multiplayer experience, I would give it a similar rating and I'm sure as more reviews come in you will see similar ratings.

Of course lol. The sites that review them don't care about competitive multiplayer.

QUOTE
Im surprised that a site owner would come in here and bash a game with a portal on his own website.

Excuse me Vitensby, I'm allowed to have an opinion you know. In fact it's my opinion that has helped keep shit games off of GR wink.gif

Don't like my opinion? Tough shit wink.gif

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 26Vitensby Sep 9 2007, 19:53 PM
Mad respect for saying it as you see it. I see it different.

You have a fantastic single player campaign which anyone who loves a good campaign and/or alternate history would really enjoy.

You have many different multiplayer modes which can be played with up to 16 people and people will find that they like one or all the modes of play.

I think your comparison is a bit off. You talk about drop in multiplayer like its a bad thing, which imo it is not. The clan matches are very skill dependant on team chemistry and have real cash money involved in CPL events. Few Players Mode requires a great degree of skill and micro to play and win, some people who are of average skill say it is too intense. You are a generic role and have 3 times the credits to choose your strategy and tactics from.

You have tactical aides which need to be chosen from wisely based on situations.

The game is evolutionarily different from other rts games, not just the camera style style and DX10 sharp and amazing looking graphics but in a great gameplay experience.

Its not your standard rts base-builder economy management which is what I think you dont like about it but that doesnt mean its not a solid rts with a high degree of skill and fun.

Theres a great interview done with a wonderful person and fantastic executive producer Greg Goodrich which can be viewed here:

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/821/821566/vids_1.html

This post has been edited by Vitensby: Sep 9 2007, 19:54 PM

Posts: 2,394

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 27Keating Sep 9 2007, 20:07 PM
I don't think the idea of no base building is inherently flawed, but there can be indirect consequences.

Who exactly is AGM? Or should I not be asking that? unsure.gif blush.gif

Posts: 481

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 28AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 20:11 PM
QUOTE(Vitensby @ Sep 9 2007, 15:53 PM) *

You have a fantastic single player campaign which anyone who loves a good campaign and/or alternate history would really enjoy.

There's problem #1. Singleplayer has a MINOR influence on GR's final score. All we care about are gameplay, and multiplayer. And I mean CORE gameplay, not the gameplay of how the missions/campaign are structured. Anything that only gives you a handful of hours of fun SHOULD NOT be considered in any score. Multiplayer and its core gameplay gives people hundreds, if not thousands of hours of fun. Maybe the people who use GameSpot and IGN will say the opposite, but GR is different. GR caters to the people who care FAR more about multiplayer than singleplayer.

QUOTE
You have many different multiplayer modes which can be played with up to 16 people and people will find that they like one or all the modes of play.

Many different gameplay modes kill multiplayer. Why? Imagine if there are 10,000 players and 10,000 different gameplay modes. Everyone picks the mode they like best and all of a sudden you effectively have 10,000 different games each with a community of ONE player. Loads of fun rolleyes.gif

Multiplayer depends on big communities where you have a huge variety of PEOPLE to play against, not a huge variety of MODES to play in. Playing with a small group of people is like reproduction in a limited gene pool. It simply gets boring playing the same people over and over again. The more gameplay modes, the more community splitting is going on, the less fun it is to play the game in ANY of the modes. More people > fewer people. Period.

QUOTE
I think your comparison is a bit off. You talk about drop in multiplayer like its a bad thing, which imo it is not.

It's a very bad thing. You can't have competitive matches with random teams. You simply can't. That's an RTS equivalent of an oxymoron. You can't go 5 minutes with one team having 6 players and the other team having 5 players. That's like going into CoH and playing a 3v2. That's NOT a fair matchup. Fixed teams are the only way to PROPERLY play any game competitively. Why do you think Counterstrike is played 5v5 and not 12v13 with random people joining and leaving before the match is even over?

QUOTE
The clan matches are very skill dependant on team chemistry and have real cash money involved in CPL events.

I don't disagree that clan matches rely on team-based skill. But that's no excuse for the fact that the game lacks the skill of base building, teching, and resource gathering. Imagine if CoH was released without any resources wacko.gif

QUOTE
Few Players Mode requires a great degree of skill and micro to play and win, some people who are of average skill say it is too intense. You are a generic role and have 3 times the credits to choose your strategy and tactics from.

Wow, a whole $18,000 to manage rolleyes.gif Sorry, but that's kind of funny compared to games where not only you have to EARN the $18,000, but you can earn a lot more than that over the course of the game, and you AREN'T refunded the money whenever a unit dies.....

QUOTE
You have tactical aides which need to be chosen from wisely based on situations.

Nothing new. CCG/BFME/CoH have similar things.

QUOTE
The game is evolutionarily different from other rts games, not just the camera style style and DX10 sharp and amazing looking graphics but in a great gameplay experience.

Sorry, it's REVOLUTIONARY (in a bad way), which is why I hate it. If it was evolutionary it would take the traditional RTS formula, and refine the living piss out of it. It wouldn't just remove two key elements of strategy, and then change the online game hosting/server setup to make it more like an FPS than an RTS wacko.gif

QUOTE
Its not your standard rts base-builder economy management which is what I think you dont like about it but that doesnt mean its not a solid rts with a high degree of skill and fun.

Fun or not, it's not an RTS. If you want to call it an RTS, then I'll continue to say it should get a 7. If you want to call it something OTHER than an RTS (RTS/FPS hybrid, RTT, Real Time Action) ANYTHING, then I'll say it should get a 9.3. It's certainly a very well made game for whatever genre it actually is.

But as an RTS game, it's shit. It's utter SHIT. It's not an RTS game. It's nothing at all like an RTS game. It's exactly like Relic releasing DoW 2 without base building, teching, or resource gathering and then getting a 9.3 for it. Nobody would stand for it. Reviewers would go "uhhh, did you guys forget a couple of things?" and give it a 5.0. Why should WiC be any different? If you want to brand it as a RTS game, then it needs to be compared to other RTS games and it's obvious it falls VERY short of other RTS games wink.gif

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 29Hooked Sep 9 2007, 20:20 PM
Christ AGM, must you show off your mad logic skills?

*goes to play ringer in CSS*

Posts: 792

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 30Keating Sep 9 2007, 20:22 PM
So AGM, you're greatest issue with it is that they are trying to call it an RTS when you don't think it is?

Posts: 481

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 31Vitensby Sep 9 2007, 20:24 PM
AGM and I should run for congress lol. It would make some great debates wub.gif

To sum things up (maybe a bit too much) you present the argument against it and I present the argument for it.

I don't have anything major to add really. I enjoy the game and I would give it a similar score based on what I already wrote.

Posts: 2,394

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 32AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 20:27 PM
QUOTE
So AGM, you're greatest issue with it is that they are trying to call it an RTS when you don't think it is?

Yes and no.

1. For that game to get a 9.3 (while being classed as an RTS game) is a crime.

2. For IGN to slander the RTS genre by saying that other RTS games are about hours of base building and defenses, is also a crime. And people criticize Fox News for inaccurate/biased reporting rolleyes.gif

While the game might not be my cup of tea, regardless of its genre classification, it's illogical to give it such a high score when it's completely missing elements that DEFINE the RTS genre.

That's like taking World of Warcraft, calling it an FPS game, and giving it a 10.0 wacko.gif
World of Warcraft is no doubt a high quality game. But it would make for a rather poor FPS game wouldn't you say?

So the whole issue is a complete misclassification of the game.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 33S2Zrathustra Sep 9 2007, 20:28 PM
I agree with AGM. While it may be a blast to play (and it is), it is hard to get a really good, back and forth game with good team/clanmates. The clan challenge (with fixed teams) is really the only competitive part of the game. The game has amzaing graphics and is fun, as I said before, it cannot be rated a 9.3 as RTS. If this is what the RTS genre is turning to, then GameReplays is done. Finished. It doesn't have RTS elements. It has created another genre of its own, and is that bad? It's fucking good (some aspects are not, though), but NOT as an RTS game.

This post has been edited by Ithildur: Sep 9 2007, 20:28 PM

Posts: 10,729

Game: Generals 2


+
# 34Keating Sep 9 2007, 20:32 PM
QUOTE(AgmLauncher @ Sep 9 2007, 16:27 PM) *

Yes and no.

1. For that game to get a 9.3 (while being classed as an RTS game) is a crime.

2. For IGN to slander the RTS genre by saying that other RTS games are about hours of base building and defenses, is also a crime. And people criticize Fox News for inaccurate/biased reporting rolleyes.gif

While the game might not be my cup of tea, regardless of its genre classification, it's illogical to give it such a high score when it's completely missing elements that DEFINE the RTS genre.

That's like taking World of Warcraft, calling it an FPS game, and giving it a 10.0 wacko.gif
World of Warcraft is no doubt a high quality game. But it would make for a rather poor FPS game wouldn't you say?

So the whole issue is a complete misclassification of the game.


Where's the no?

Posts: 481

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 35AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 20:34 PM
QUOTE
If this is what the RTS genre is turning to, then GameReplays is done. Finished.

I totally, 100% agree. And when sites like IGN and GameSpot give such high scores to games like WiC, while calling them RTS games, then other developers start doing their own weird hybrids/innovations. Next thing we'll see is a hybrid racing/rts game rolleyes.gif

If there was an official, industry-wide classification system for a game like this (the way there is RTS, TBS, MMORPG, RPG, sim, fighting, racing), then there's no issue. Developers can make all the weird, wacky non RTS games they want and IGN can give them whatever scores they want, and it won't concern GR. The only time it becomes a problem is when all developers stop making RTS games completely, in favor of games like WiC. Then GR is in trouble wacko.gif

QUOTE
Where's the no?

The other half of the greatest issue (which relates to the whole thing about classification and scoring), is the fact that IGN gave the game such a high score based on incorrect understanding of what the RTS genre is ACTUALLY like. It underscores the entire problem with the RTS genre. People in positions of influence don't understand a flipping thing about it!

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 36Keating Sep 9 2007, 20:38 PM
I'm sorry, but what does the classification have to do with the fun of the game, the game doesn't change whether you call it RTS, FPS, or MMORPG. No, I don' think that WoW would make a bad FPS because it's the exact same game. The classification is only to give the reader an idea of the gameplay and it it's wrong then it should be changed, but the fact that it's wrong shouldn't change anyones view of the actual game.

This post has been edited by Keating: Sep 9 2007, 20:43 PM

Posts: 481

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 37AgmLauncher Sep 9 2007, 20:49 PM
QUOTE
The classification is only to give the reader an idea of the gameplay

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

When I'm in the market for a new RTS game to play, I would be PISSED if I went out and bought WiC. RTS, in absolutely no way, shape or form, describes WiC. So its current classification, in fact does NOT give an accurate idea of what the gameplay will be like. When I buy RTS, I think base building/teching, resource gathering, and the strategy/macro that goes along with those elements. Granted I prefer games that are more like CoH, DoW, SC, and C&C rather than games like SupCom, but fundamentally speaking they all fit nicely in the RTS genre.

QUOTE
but the fact that it's wrong shouldn't change anyones view of the actual game.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, except the fact that GR only officially supports RTS games, not other genres. So what happens is "RTS games" like this which get high scores, spur on the development of other "RTS games" like these and then GR is fucked for reasons I don't want to get into.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 38Derek Sep 9 2007, 21:30 PM
QUOTE(Vitensby @ Sep 9 2007, 05:56 AM) *
The first reviews of World in Conflict are in and they are stunning! IGN has awarded WiC an Outstanding 93%!

Just wanted to point out that that link is for the IGN Australia review (which gave it a 9.4). The IGN PC review (which was the 9.3) can be found here.


And this is a fun game, but not an RTS. Its a Real Time Tactical (RTT) game, meaning that you command units but have no base or economy management to speak of. On top of that it draws its gameplay idea heavily fom FPSs like BF2, so in the end its some sort of RTT with FPS mechanics.

Posts: 12,933

Game: CNC Zero Hour


+
# 39Necrosjef Sep 9 2007, 21:42 PM
Agree with AGM.

Good read, I wanna see someone else disagree with him now just so I can see more.

Posts: 5,375

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 40triumph Sep 9 2007, 22:02 PM
The Camera is nice and I like the idea of hopping into a server that is on a map rotation to get away from QM/AutoMatch bullshit and non blizz franchises that are plauged with only 1 map being played, and 2 other maps being exploited (Like in CnC3, TA the good map, and Tourney Tower being the shit map). But supcom's automatch style is right on with B-net games too where you select a couple maps to not favor 4 play.

Besides those two minorly favorible things, the core gameplay both sucks and blows because the factions are basically the same and the unit's act in stupid ways. The game just doesn't offer much except something for like Take a Shot when a unit dies with buddys @ a lan.

Posts: 8,179

Clan: EPIC

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)