Back in like 07 or so I got the game World In Conflict and I have to say it was one of the best RTS games I have ever played. The story and campaign was great and multiplayer was even better. Shame to say I left the game for quite some time till only a short time ago.
I was looking around on Steam and I saw they had the Soviet Assualt expansion on sale as part of the complete edition. So I gave it another go around and see how the game is doing. Surprising enough I am still able to find a good amount of full servers still kicking while also wanting to see the Soviet side of the story.
To me this is one of those RTS games that doesn't get enough recognition and is very underratted. To me it is more deserving of being more popular than say C&C and Starcraft. Unfortunately Massive Entertainment was bought up by Ubisoft some time afterwards.
Maybe bc it was such a drastic and unique experience away from the common "base and eco" build ups we have. This RTS focuses on tactical manuevering, teamwork, and action. There is no solo build up a huge army to pwn everybody. To me that is a great redeeming quality.
Underrated to those who havn't played but amazing to those who have. Thats my take on it.
I loved the story in that game.
Yeah Bannon was probably the best. At first you were just plained annoyed and angry at him but in the end he turned out alright.
I tried it and it was not the game for me. I admit, under different circumstances, i might change my view of it, i never played it in teamwork, which i suppose is its most important part.
Anyway, what you consider to be a redeeming quality, i find to be a reason, why the game should never be called real-time strategy. Compared to games like Sins, RUSE or SupCom, even games like CnC and StarCraft cant be really called strategies, as they concentrate too much on unit control and micro. And those games have at least the economic part, which is completely absent from WiC.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
