Explore GameReplays...

World War III-themed RTS Announced

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 1--ReLixXz-Z- Apr 5 2006, 15:40 PM
IPB Image

World in Conflict Announced
Massive Entertainment reveals World War III-themed RTS.



"April 5, 2006 - One of the staples of the real time strategy (RTS) genre has been the massive battles of the Second World War, a conflict with an epic scale that readily translates into RTS gameplay. However, RTS fans have grown somewhat weary of trodding over the same well-worn ground of Normandy, North Africa, and Eastern Europe through countless iterations of the historic conflict and have longed for something different from their preferred genre. Today, it would appear that these wishes have been answered by today's announcement by Sierra Entertainment and Massive Games -- the developer of the Ground Control science fiction RTS franchise -- of World in Conflict, a next-generation RTS set in an "alternate reality" of a Cold War that has turned World War III hot."


Massive Entertainment also are the creators of the hit RTS game Ground Control.

To read the whole article please go here
Massive Entertainment Homepage


IPB Image


This post has been edited by -ReLiX-zZ-: Apr 5 2006, 15:53 PM

Posts: 4,659

Game: CNC Generals


+
# 2CaRNaGE Apr 5 2006, 16:08 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


QUOTE
the game will take strategy games in a "new, exciting direction, narrowing the gameplay focus on the best part -- the intense action of modern warfare."



Posts: 6,438

Game: Command and Conquer 3


+
# 3Uptown Apr 5 2006, 18:50 PM
QUOTE(cArnAge @ Apr 5 2006, 12:08 PM) *

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posts: 4,506

Game: Dawn of War 2


+
# 4Eficko Apr 5 2006, 19:08 PM
this games is just ground control 2 under a diff name.

Posts: 655

Game: Rise of Legends


+
# 5Tiberium Tyrant Apr 5 2006, 21:58 PM
QUOTE(Eficko @ Apr 5 2006, 03:08 PM) *
this games is just ground control 2 under a diff name.


^^^

Agreed. Read about it in PC gamer. Graphics are bonerific for a PC game, but I doubt they're gameplay screenies + it isn't really an RTS. They themselves admit that they call it RTT. (Real Time Tactics.)

Posts: 3,778

Clan: Teh Admins

Game: Universe at War


+
# 6S2Zrathustra Apr 5 2006, 23:37 PM
I remember reading about this a while ago in the Staff forum...Massive wanted GRs to support it...but we'r enot, it's too strange

Posts: 10,729

Game: Generals 2


+
# 7AgmLauncher Apr 6 2006, 00:56 AM
QUOTE(cArnAge @ Apr 5 2006, 12:08 PM) *

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz


My thoughts exactly. Massive actually contacted us asking us to support the game but unfortunately it's just not "normal" enough to support. They removed an entire layer of strategy by not allowing players to build a base, fight for resources, and produce the correct units at the correct time and as many as needed.

It's really too bad, it looks like it has tons of potential.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 8Daemonion Apr 6 2006, 04:47 AM
I'll at least give the demo a try - no harm, no foul.

Posts: 920

Game: FPS


+
# 9Yokto Apr 6 2006, 07:52 AM
QUOTE(tiberiumtyrant @ Apr 5 2006, 11:58 PM) *

^^^

Agreed. Read about it in PC gamer. Graphics are bonerific for a PC game, but I doubt they're gameplay screenies + it isn't really an RTS. They themselves admit that they call it RTT. (Real Time Tactics.)


Wich makes them more Honest then most developers who claim they make RTS games. biggrin.gif

I like GC2 (But do not own a copy yeat for variouse resons) so it will be interesting to see what they can come up with.

Posts: 810


+
# 10AgmLauncher Apr 6 2006, 20:12 PM
But I would argue it's not even RTT. The way MP is handled is just wacko.gif

It's a TOTALLY different genre from RTT/RTS. I would call it RTA (Real Time Action). 'Action' implies something other than traditional tactics/strategies, and this game is most definitely NOT traditional.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 11Sparda^ Apr 6 2006, 23:29 PM
QUOTE(AgmLauncher @ Apr 6 2006, 01:56 AM) *

They removed an entire layer of strategy by not allowing players to build a base, fight for resources, and produce the correct units at the correct time and as many as needed.


ok so basicly we move our units around killing everything we can find
might be fun for a day or two but sounds really repetative dry.gif
lol who did they ask on gr to support their game? Darky? HERO? Agm?
and did you tell them there game sucked to their face laugh.gif they might stop making the game iff they see the posts going on here rolleyes.gif


i just red the info from ign and it just sounds like its turn based.....wich is the most BOOORRRRINNNGGGG types of strategy there is
trailer looks nice but tbh it looks like they put more effort into making the trailer than making the game smilie_bleh.gif
and it had the cheek to say it was the most intence strategy game ever!! VeryFunny.gif

This post has been edited by SparDa™: Apr 6 2006, 23:44 PM

Posts: 4,666

Game: Battle for Middle Earth


+
# 12Yokto Apr 7 2006, 01:10 AM
QUOTE(AgmLauncher @ Apr 6 2006, 10:12 PM) *

But I would argue it's not even RTT. The way MP is handled is just wacko.gif

It's a TOTALLY different genre from RTT/RTS. I would call it RTA (Real Time Action). 'Action' implies something other than traditional tactics/strategies, and this game is most definitely NOT traditional.


You say that like is a bad thing. smile.gif

The biz need new ideas and Massive with GC have found a niche. Not realy my stile as i like to build bases but the game have is own charm. (This is also why i choice BFME2 over EAW.) You could allway go the opposit end of the spectrum and play Paradox games. Thier we have true RTS (with pause.) biggrin.gif

But i can agree that nether Massives nor Paradoxs games realy fits in on this site. But we have not tested World at confict yeat so we can not realy say how it plays. (But i guess it will be a lot like GC2)

QUOTE
i just red the info from ign and it just sounds like its turn based.....wich is the most BOOORRRRINNNGGGG types of strategy there is

Hay do not bad mouth TBS! The best game in the world is TBS! u0udiablo.gif


This post has been edited by Yokto: Apr 7 2006, 01:15 AM

Posts: 810


+
# 13AgmLauncher Apr 7 2006, 01:22 AM
QUOTE(SparDa™ @ Apr 6 2006, 07:29 PM) *

ok so basicly we move our units around killing everything we can find
might be fun for a day or two but sounds really repetative dry.gif
lol who did they ask on gr to support their game? Darky? HERO? Agm?
and did you tell them there game sucked to their face laugh.gif they might stop making the game iff they see the posts going on here rolleyes.gif
i just red the info from ign and it just sounds like its turn based.....wich is the most BOOORRRRINNNGGGG types of strategy there is
trailer looks nice but tbh it looks like they put more effort into making the trailer than making the game smilie_bleh.gif
and it had the cheek to say it was the most intence strategy game ever!! VeryFunny.gif


They approached Darky, I'm not sure what his response was.

The concept of the game is great just like the concept of a FPS shooter is great. But it's NOT RTS or even RTT. It's just not. It's a totally different type of game completely. In its own right I'm sure it's fun (and no, it's not turn based at all).

Literally, picture an RTS version of Battlefield 2. It's almost exactly like that. You have a team of players, each with a specialty, trying to control points on a map to get tickets. The game is 20 minutes long and the team with the most tickets at the end of 20 minutes wins. IDENTICAL to BF2 but using units rather than doing it from the RTS perspective.

So yes, it would probably be a ton of fun, but it's not RTS-like enough for GameReplays to support it. There are no strategies to develop. There's nothing we as a site can do to help people learn how to play it except just hosting replays and letting people download them and watch them. Sure we can explain the counter system and the best way to use units, but that really comes from practice more than anything. A build order and unit selection is different. We can literally tell people what the best build order is. But we can't tell people how to micromanage, that can only come from practice.

And honestly, the idea that you don't really "beat" your opponent by destroying all of their stuff is sort of silly. You can have the SAME map control importance, you can have the SAME necessity of teamwork, and you can do it all with a traditional RTS game. I can think of a dozen ways to make the traditional RTS model focus more on map control and teamwork without resorting to this tbh.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+
# 14STCAB Apr 7 2006, 05:14 AM
My thoughts are that it will handle just like GC2. You "place an order" and your units are flown in. By a Chinook or otherwise, like paratroopers.

GC2 was more of a tactical game. I.E. you had to flank, cause armor was weaker on the sides, and in the back, you had to control high ground, cause armor was weaker on the top of vehicles and shooting straight up caused units to miss.

And, I think this will handle very similar.

EDIT: Oh by the way, due to this type of gameplay, there is basically no "need" for replays.

And for those that haven't tried GC2.

Basically you place an order for units, and a dropship brings them in. The dropship can be upgraded with weapons, fuel, armor and stuff like that for use as a weapon of mass destruction, however it will have to return to base when it runs out of fuel.

You then fight for map control. I.E. victory locations and LZ's (landing zones for dropships to bring in troops.)
Once you hold all Victory locations, you win.

This post has been edited by STCAB: Apr 7 2006, 14:00 PM

Posts: 4,776

Game: Dawn of War 2


+
# 15AgmLauncher Apr 7 2006, 19:53 PM
Yeah, replays basically serve nothing but an entertainment role, not an educational role. You can only learn the ins and outs of the tactical depth by playing and practicing, not watching replays.

Posts: 39,345

Clan: CrAzY

Game: 8bit Armies, Hordes and Invaders


+

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