Windows PC
World in Conflict
By Ryan Newman
Oct 12, 2007, 7 :40 am

There is something to be said about a strategy game that plays out like an ‘80s action movie. Although I wouldn’t call World in Conflict a real-time tactical title, I would agree with Massive Entertainment designer Nicklas Cedstrom’s note that this is to be more like Counter-Strike than a typical strategy game. Mix an over-the-top approach with the game’s equally melodramatic cinematic inspiration Red Dawn, the voice-over work of Mr. Hunt for Red October himself Aleck Baldwin, and the result is as rad as it sounds.

As the Soviet Union stands on the brink of economic collapse the decision is made to invade Europe to sustain its growth through conquest. In a battle with NATO troops, U.S. soldiers are sent to turn back the side of the Soviet incursion. Unfortunately, and in a plot twist only acceptable in a Cold War-era story, Soviet forces invade Seattle by hiding in commercial freighters. The unprepared city is quickly taken, and it’s up to the remaining National Guard and nearby troops to stave off the invasion. With the U.S. forces tied up in Europe, the ragtag group of soldiers led by the grizzled Col. Sawyer has to use everything at their disposal to push back the crimson tide.

As Parker, the player is a faceless and voiceless character that is only seen from the back and at angles that obscure everything but an ear or hand. The only thing known is that he seems to be Caucasian and is climbing through the ranks as the victories mount. The primary focus isn’t on the main character but on the supporting cast and on the invasion itself. Told through oil painting cutscenes of uneven quality with narration provided by Aleck Baldwin and voice-overs from the supporting cast, the invasion unfolds in a timeline that follows near the end, the European origins, and then the end itself. I can only assume that the dramatics are being hammed up, because some of the music that was chosen to play is hilarious and some of the lines are delivered with a bit too much gusto. As an ‘80s Cold War movie in the vein of Iron Eagle, it’s fantastic. Not much is really needed to drive the point of invasion home though, because one of the few rendered cutscenes does an amazing job of it and leaving towns absolutely devastated after defending them works in driving home just how much Pyrrhic victories suck.

The action itself quickly ramps up with action going on above and below the player’s vantage point. My system is a bit above what would be the mean system specs, so the screenshots will be widescreen with DirectX 10 effects on. DX 10 certainly goes a long way to making the explosions, smoke, and light sources pretty. The units, and much of the gameplay itself, is reminiscent of Company of Heroes: units are highly detailed and animated and the game focuses on rally points instead of harvesting resources. While Company of Heroes remains a benchmark for the genre, World in Conflict goes a long way in replacing subtlety with the joys of mass destruction. Taking resources points that link together start auto defense construction and double as the objective points, and victory on the battlefield adds to a reinforcement point pool that allows for additional units to be requisitioned to designated drop zones. There are the standard mix of tanks, infantry, transport, artillery, and helicopters, each with a unique offensive and defensive ability. Using the special abilities can result in micromanagement, but this often happens once units are engaged with the aftermath focus on the macro side. It can be overwhelming throughout, but it works.

The real sights come with the support of off-screen assistance. Points are also gained that allow for a variety of aid to come in in the form of artillery, paratroopers, anti air, anti armor, and anti infantry. Dropping a targeted artillery mark will take out defensive structures while larger artillery blasts will take out the houses that have been taken over by enemy troops. Carpet bombing an area is an extremely effective tactic to take out enemy units crossing a narrow patch while napalming forests will clear out the infantry hiding inside and using the defense bonus of the woods as cover to make hit and run attacks. Cornering units with rows of napalm and dropping scatter bombs over approaching armor is also fairly intense as the sounds of the explosions and artillery operators shake the desk. Each support action has three different versions, with each more being costly and more effective. Having to keep track of support points, requisition points, calling in units, and the units themselves is a constant struggle.

At only 14 missions, the single-player campaign isn’t very long. There is no Soviet side to play – expansion pack? – so once it’s over, it’s over. There are medals earned by performance of subobjectives throughout, so completionists might go back through levels individually to earn all of the awards, but nothing comes of it aside from a sense of satisfaction. These subobjectives can be hell, too, causing each level to feel like a frenzy of action as Sawyer barks out order after order, often with no time to breathe in-between. Like the combat itself, the objectives also tend to be focused once a location is reached, so the system is fighting large engagements, traveling a screen over, then moving a quarter of the map over once done, and repeat. It’s definitely effective in making the maps seem huge and conveying the spastic pace of combat. The fact that things are happening in the background and above does a great deal to wrap the player in the sense of battle as well, with explosions and planes overhead and fire and explosions erupting in a distant cityscape.

Multiplayer is a different beast altogether. In the campaign, the computer designates what support units are available. While this is supposed to focus the aid to the task at hand – if it’s a land-heavy mission, then those are the units that can be called in – it feels more limiting and opportune. In multiplayer, players choose what they want to focus on before the round begins. This helps to even things out some as the ridiculously overpowered anti tank infantry in single player are only slightly so in multiplayer as an opponent could focus on air and use a chopper’s rockets and flares to handle the soldiers. The focus can be on armor, air, infantry, or support. Each focus brings a reduction in cost to those units within that focus but others are unavailable to requisition. The maps are tied to game types like domination and tug of war and are designed to be played in 20 minutes or less. For those wishing to practice or play solo, there is bot support with the ability to auto even teams and set their combat style. Massgate, the online service supported, features a friend list and clan support with a ranking system as well.

The focus on action could leave some a bit put off. After a while, the focus tends to shift towards the massive support strikes that can be called in and less on the units themselves. The migrating from micro to macro can also be daunting, but it’s a system that works though can be a bit tough to fully adjust to. I know that some view the single-player component as practice for multiplayer, but I also play through campaigns in strategy games and World in Conflict’s is slightly wanting. The ‘80s references through are good, but the music can be too cheesy (Tears for Fears’ Everybody Wants to Rule the World. Really? No one saw that coming.), and the limited mission count restricted to one side shortens things considerably. But in the end, the approach works more so than it doesn’t, often with elegant refinements added, and I don’t think I wouldn’t mind a little more action in my strategy.

Overall: 8/10

The campaign could have used a little more beef, and a nod to the Soviet Union’s campaign would’ve been interesting. But the ‘80s action movie feel and uneasy story, a smidge too melodramatic at times as it may be, is effective at being both chilling and a great match with the big explosions and encompassing warfare. The game looks great and mixes its scale nicely, with the specializations in multiplayer and drops in single player keeping things interesting in both portions. World in Conflict reminds me of the kid in the neighborhood who didn’t understand how to play with the little green army men: instead of imagining the battle they just threw a giant chunk of mud over all of them with a loud  “PPEESHHEWWW! BOOM! BOOM!” while they laughed with delight. And, you know, sometimes that’s all I want too. Plus the ending is awesome.