I've never really been an avid real-time strategy gamer. Sure, I had my fun with Starcraft, and I've enjoyed playing Company of Heroes with the guys in the office from time to time, but I've never really been "sucked in" by one. Don't get me wrong, I am as complimentary of the design and balance of these games as the next guy, but I haven't had an RTS make me forget what time it was like a good role-playing game or first-person shooter ... until I started playing World in Conflict that is.
The storyline immediately grabbed my attention and kept me so interested that I was actually upset when it was over. The action takes place on a fictional timeline set during the Cold War. World War III has begun, and the game begins with the Russians making a surprise invasion of Seattle. The United States is caught completely unaware and left virtually helpless. Your first mission is to retreat from Seattle while saving as many civilians as possible. I was amazed at how believable it all felt. Playing through, I actually found myself angry at times, and suffered under a feeling of helplessness as the Russian war machine pushed my troops farther and farther back as they took American soil for their own.
Voice acting is possibly the biggest hook drawing a player into the storyline of World in Conflict. I admit that I rarely pay much attention to sound in a game, but here, it's absolutely superb. Your commanding officer and others on the battlefield convey real emotion as they fight and die to save their country, and they do this on amazingly detailed battlefields. Houses and shops in the towns you defend all look great, as do the trees and water. This all adds to the feeling of defending home that American gamers likely will be experiencing for the first time. It may be a game, but calling in artillery fire on a neighborhood of houses feels a lot different when any of those houses could be yours.
The gameplay itself felt good to me. If you're familiar with RTS basics, you will quickly pick up on the controls and feel right at home. If not, there's a great tutorial to get you up to speed. It's a good idea to play this tutorial, even if you're "old hat" at this genre, because there's some notable differences. Don't expect to farm resources, build structures and train troops. That's not how World in Conflict works. You start the mission with a set amount of resources that can change as things go on. Your first task is to select the troops you want to bring to the field, but this also has its differences. You aren't an all-commander type like in a typical RTS. Here, you will specialize in Armor, Infantry, Airborne or Support. For example, if you have chosen Armor as your role, you can purchase infantry support or airborne units, but they will cost you much more. It's usually best to let your teammates handle the other roles.
Forcing specialization enhances team-play and mandates cooperation. Failure to work together means having tanks that can't defend against helicopters or infantrymen ready to be mown down by enemy support vehicles. Removal of the resource acquisition and construction aspects of the genre allows you to focus on battlefield tactics and territory control. This also quickens the pace of the game, and that makes for good multiplayer.
Ah, yes, multiplayer; finally I get here. I'm technically done with my play-through and have collected all the information I need for this write up, but I'm STILL online everyday with this game's multiplayer. It's a bit unfortunate that I haven't convinced friends to join me, but forming teams with Internet partners has its own appeal.
If you like RTS games, don't miss this one. If you haven't really tried many RTS games, don't miss this one. If you've tried them, but never been hooked by one, give World in Conflict a shot. I can't say enough good things about this game. Go now, pick up the game, or find a way to play it.
