User Reviews (1 - 11 of 49)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

A terrible game

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 58
Date: September 25, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This game is terrible. Sucks up over 4 gb of memory and still won't work right. Must use every button (EVERYONE OF THEM) to operate the game. Would take hours just to figure out how to play the game. It is a waste of money and if ever operated, a waste of time to play.

Overrated

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 24
Date: September 26, 2007
Author: Amazon User

The game has amazing graphics, but it is being sold as an Strategy game, which it is not. Even when playing the multiplayer the game is way too fast, with players just massing units and throwing them to figth and die in seconds. The solo game is even worse, you can only play the very linear and predictible American Campaign, you don't have the option to play as Europe or the Soviets and there is no Sandbox option. This game promissed a lot and delivered very little.

Not for anyone with anything less that a 8800 GTX

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 18
Date: November 15, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Ok, this game is not worth buying at all right now for anyone with anything less that the most powerfull current graphics cards. If you have any NVIDIA 7000 series cards, forget it. It won't even run. I'm also concerned that it will actually DAMAGE your hardware. I'm serious. Even on my son's machine with the NVIDIA 8800 ULTRA it still overloads the graphics card and locks up the machine so you have to power down get out of the dead lock. Really bad. Check the forums on this, a lot of people can't get it to play at all or if they can, it causes horrible lock-ups and crashes. I've patched the heck out of everything, added the latest patch for the game, still will not play at all on a Core 2 Duo 2 ghz machine with 2 gigs of ram and a NVIDIA 7600 series card. Can't even play the crapy cut scenes with out locking up. Only game I've ever had any trouble with like that in the past 6 years on any system. Not sure they ever tested this thing on more than a single configuration.

Definitely wait a few more months and for another half dozen patches before buying this. It's probably dangerous for your machine's health.

Game play is ok. Like other people have said, the entire strategy is to place your units in the little circles and hold them for X number of seconds. The enemy has inifinite forces. Sometimes you do too. Not sure how realistic air dropping tanks in to the middle of a combat zone is either.

The "movie" scenes are a joke. Still drawings with stupid personal backgrounds of some of the characters. So one guy has an abusive step-father... great... another's wife/gf doesn't like the fact that he's in the army... gee... what's the point of that? Just wastes time and has NOTHING to do with the game play, it gives you no information on missions or anything usefull. Is it so you think of your units as real people? How can you do that when the units in the game come in infinite supplies, don't gain any experience from battle to battle etc. Games like this really need to have experience added to units that make it from battle to battle. They seem to gain rank/experince in the battle but then you start the next battle with a completely new supply of green units again. So, two days ago you were commanding tanks, now you are incharge of a mixed infantry and armor set up, then you're running air cav. All of this as a lieutenant?

The graphics are great if you can get them to work at all. If you like arcade games this is probably a good game. If you like any kind of strategy, continuity, realisim, or a game that works out of the box, forget it.

Not my kind of game

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 7 / 20
Date: September 22, 2007
Author: Amazon User

You know, I like RTS games in general and this one looked to be a good one. I read about it and checked a lot of online details about the game before I decided to pay full pop retail for a new game release. After about 8 hours of play I have to say that it's easy to play but not immersive. I just can't get into it. Novelty factor 2 hours then I lost interest. There is a lot of depth to the game but it is more work than fun when you get past the eye candy.
Ran well on my computer at medium/default detail settings
OS: Vista Ultimate
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core AM2 2411
Memory: 4098 MB DDR2
Dual NVIDIA GPUs: NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS in SLI

It could not handle high or very high detail. Frame rates dropped to unplayable during action. I have to assume that this game would not play well on older PCs. The game has a built in benchmark utility that was useful. I liked that a lot.

Great graphics, but terrible gameplay

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 10 / 18
Date: October 01, 2007
Author: Amazon User

After being excited for several months prior to the release of this game, I was sorely disappointed after playing this game for the first couple of hours.

The game is completely scripted and there is no deviating from the script. Each mission simply consists of you moving your units around to the designated spots so they can automatically shoot enemies for you. Simply put, there is no strategy in this game. The computer is looking for you to do something and if you do it, then you pass the mission.

Those looking for a recreation of C&C should go elsewhere. Although the graphics are great and if you have DX10 you can run dual-monitors, it simply does not make up for the $50 you have to spend to move tanks and troops around in a pre-defined fashion.

According to the demo

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 14
Date: September 29, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I played the demo to World In Conflict. I would have to say the game is very much like the recent command and conquer with the aspect of troop limitations and gameplay. The gameplay is difficult with the idea that any fight could turn either direction. I still don't fully understand the complete aspect of the game. But for just a few hours play, I am going to say that the actual experience can be obtained through command and conquer. I will not be purchasing this game. I am entitled my own opinion, but feel free to try out the demo.

Too Much Money + scripted battles = 2 rating

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: November 03, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I think this games really limits what you can do - it doesn't allow you to deviate from the script. at all. It's kind of "arcade" in that manner and I guess that's why I don't like it. It's too much money for what it provides. There's too much competition out there and money is too precious for me to give this game a higher rating, even with its graphics.

Waste of Money

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 4
Date: March 10, 2008
Author: Amazon User

I must say I was very disappointed in this game. Our group of RTS gamers is already grumbling about this game, and considering moving on to another RTS. We had some great days playing Command and Conquer (and expansion - although CC3 was a big disappointment for us). We had some great days playing Warhammer (and all it's expansions - except for the latest one). We also had some good Company of Heroes battles (with it's expansion)...

This game seems to boil the RTS experience down to the actual battles and avoids all the typical base building, resource gathering, and "ramping up"...This is similar to the WH games, but WH battles are much larger and loads of fun. The World in Conflict battles limit you to meager forces, and expect you to work with teammates to get things done. This is fine in some ways, but having such small groups of units doesn't lead to much fun. Especially since the WiC battles offer many ways for the enemy to launch long-range off-map strikes that you can't really defend. So, you can lose your whole force to this. Sort of crappy...You spend a lot of time waiting for your new units to arrive (maybe 2-3 tanks) at most, and then trudging them into the battle (where they could get smashed quickly again)...

Also, the game types seem sort of weak. There's no way to really knock out an enemy (i.e. knocking out a HQ or something as you can do in most RTSes)...It's mainly taking control points and trying to run out the clock on the enemy.

To top it off, there still are some bugs involving joining a server or actually finding the server your buddies are playing on. And I think the demo only allows single-player...This is bad since multiplayer is all that this game is good for...

Probably have to wait for StarCraft2 whenever that comes out...Or go back to WH for a while...

There's always Call of Duty 4...First-person shooter though...Very cool game though...

Real time without strategy.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 125 / 160
Date: September 27, 2007
Author: Amazon User

If I had known that the developers of the Ground Control series of games were responsible for World in Conflict,.. then I would've known right away what to expect.

Great graphics,.. fully destructible environments,.. epic and awe-inspiring presentation,.. but totally stupid gameplay.

There is no strategy in this RTS. Not having to build buildings and gather resources is a nice way to get right to the action,.. but when the game consists of NOTHING but placing your units in the circles ("strategic points") and watching the game play itself, you can't help but feel like you wasted $50.

All you do is listen to your commander bark mission objectives into your ear (and they all consist of just placing your units in circles).
Here's an objective, place units in circles, watch them kill enemies, listen to another objective, place units in circles, watch them kill enemies.

You are not allowed to actually figure out for yourself how to complete an objective. There are no situations where it calls for strategy. Everything is marked for you and you just move your units where they tell you to. That is it. That's the whole game. There is no decision making on your part.

Joint Task Force is a much better choice if you want an RTS without base building and resource gathering. Look it up.

The reason I give World in Conflict three stars is because it is very well made and still entertaining,.. it's just too simple and not for RTS gamers that like to actually use strategy and think for themselves how to beat missions. If you want to play an RTS and just enjoy the graphics and effects while the game practically plays itself,.. then World In Conflict is for you.

Instant gratification, But slowly becomes a boredom after a week or two!

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 7 / 8
Date: October 02, 2007
Author: Amazon User

World war 3,

Great concept, fluid game, just not enough diversity!

The aim of the game is to take 'Command points' these are circles that appear next to a house or building you must capture. Move your units inside capture the command point, rinse and repeat until you win!

The Big picture strategy is simple, however you must hold thre command points for X amount of minutes before they are yours so you have to fight for them. However after you have mastered the basics there is no real strategy involved apart from organising your units into buildins, behind tree's or having your tanks or aircraft in the right place at the right time. You will of course get bonus weapons such as air strikes (and yes WOMD) to do away with your enemies but in the end all your doing is capturing Command points.

Its an instant gratification game some people will find it tedious after a point and some will simply love it. I found it tedious but you may not try the demo borrow the game then decide.

Good buy but no THAT great.

Regards

Jack

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next 

Actions