World in Conflict Beta Impressions

By Cyrris

Earlier this month my ISP started giving away keys for the open beta of Massive Entertainment’s latest RTS - World in Conflict. Since seeing the screenshots and other media over the past few months I was pretty impressed by what I saw, and decided not to miss out. I don’t usually go for betas (waiting instead for demos to come out) but when a game looks particularly interesting, I’ll cave. The last (and only previous) open beta I also played was Supreme Commander, but that didn’t work out too well because of performance issues. Thankfully, I fared a lot better this time around.

The start…

I will start out by saying that the engine is really quite flexible and solid. I can run on medium/low detail levels and have quite acceptable gameplay on my GeForce 6800 GS. More importantly, the lower detail levels don’t look like utter pants like they do in SupCom, so those who do want some extra frames don’t need to go back to aesthetic levels of 10 years ago to do so. The inbuilt benchmarker will give you a short run-through at any of your selected detail levels so you can clearly see beforehand which settings will be best for you. On higher settings, the benchmarker even alerts you when you run out of video RAM. Quality. Speaking of RAM, the game runs happily on lower details with my 1gig, but like most new games it really wants 2gig to run well, and to keep Windows usable after you’re done playing.

While I have barely only played a demo or two of the Ground Control series , the similar methods used for camera movement in WiC (using the WASD keys) was simple enough to get used to, and works quite well. Commonly used hotkeys for unit skills and the like are situated in easy to reach places just like an FPS. All in all it gives much more use to the keyboard than most RTS games, which in my opinion is a rather efficient use of both hands.

…and the finish

The interface itself is also excellent. It doesn’t waste all your screen like SupCom’s can, it’s rather intuitive, and I got used to it in no time. The only problem I had was using some unit skills. Selecting both your anti-tank infantry squads and your regular infantry squads, all have the “Sprint” ability. However, activating the sprint command will only apply that command to one unit type. So while my regulars start running away, my anti-tank guys are left dawdling along, needing to be separately selected and told to sprint as well. I’m hoping this will be fixed for the full version.

In any case, on a technical level this game is very solid and mostly bug-free (at least in my experience, those running in DX10 mode may beg to differ) which is rare enough these days for me to be really impressed by that alone. That said, being a multiplayer beta, all of the above is really just the sugar on top. As for the gameplay itself, well… try and picture Battlefield 2 being made into an RTS. To me, that’s what it feels like.

Let’s see what’s the same: modern(-ish) warfare with infantry, tanks, jets and helicopters. Command points you need to capture and defend to attain victory. Requesting artillery or other support from your team. Members who can take on one of several different roles on the land or in the air, and online statistics collection and awards/medals being dished out.

That said, it’s rather easy to see that all this is the same because BF2 and WiC are both aiming to portray the same thing (just from different genres) - modern warfare. Being an RTS fan though, World in Conflict instantly appeals more to me (a long time strategy fan), and despite having the same feel, I find it a much more interesting experience.

By being a commander of many people instead of a single person, a few options open up. You now have the ability to split up your arsenal into different locations, to tackle multiple command points at a time if the need arises. This is both a blessing and a curse. As a Support commander, it is quite simple to tell your anti-air vehicle to follow your team mate’s group of tanks to provide cover, without having to really think about it again while you’re busy directing your artillery fire over the map. However, I found myself to be quite terrible at playing Support, Air, or Armour, so I have spent most of my time as an Infantry commander, and it’s here that splitting your forces up is a bigger issue.

Enemy infantry cleverly walk in to a wall of towering flames

Given that you can have 5-6 squads on hand at any one time, it is seldom useful to have them all bunched up. One napalm strike or an artillery barrage could quickly remove you from the game until your next reinforcements arrived. Instead I usually found myself actively looking after 2 spots on the map, holding positions in forests or in buildings. This seems about right given what a single squad of infantry can handle, but if your team isn’t playing well, you will often end up finding yourself over-extended trying to hold things together on 3 or more fronts at once. This is opposed to Air and Armour players who typically only keep track of one group of helicopters or tanks, maybe two at the most. Depending on your class you will find yourself playing quite a different game, and at quite a different speed too. Infantry are slow as hell if you don’t invest in any transport trucks.

Teamwork really makes its mark here, and it is essentially what makes or breaks a match. What confuses me somewhat however is just how intricately this teamwork has been intended from the game developer. Given the amount of communication that I see happening in a match, it seems to work best that each person essentially takes on their own role and sees for themselves where they are needed most. So it confuses me that the Armour commander can build a couple of troop transports, when only the Infantry commander can build infantry. Is it possible for two players to work closely together enough to have one person transporting another players troops? The games I have played have definitely seemed too fast and chaotic for this sort of arrangement, and as such, I see some unit types almost never being used.

Reinforcements arrive just in time to be incinerated. Good job, pilot

Of course, what I end up doing with my own units isn’t nearly as fun as what I end up doing to the enemy’s. The game comes with 3 types of support you can call in. These range from meagre assistance such as paradrops and aerial reconnaissance, to precision attacks such as air-air strikes for taking out enemy helicopters. Finally, the somewhat-less-precise support options allow you to call in massive artillery barrages, air strikes, and at the top of it all, a nuclear strike. Nukes deal a lot of damage (and leave an area radioactive and thus, deadly to infantry), but a nuke detonation is far from a game-winner. That said, seeing 3 team mates simultaneously launch nukes across the entire enemy back line was a sight to behold, and we certainly won that round. Aside from nukes, calling in napalm strikes, tank busters, and artillery all add an interesting element into the game to prevent your units from staying in the one place for too long. If you don’t keep moving, you can rest assured that you won’t last long, and this makes defending positions just as difficult as taking them.

In the end though, what makes a match enjoyable is how even it is. One-sided matches simply aren’t fun for me, even if we’re winning. Being an infantry player, I’m the guy who holds positions and entrenches my troops in key locations… if the rest of your team is having an easy time, you won’t see much action, and you’re often too slow to get to where there is. On the other side, the game can be over very quickly for the losing team. All too often I have found myself overextended early in the game due to all-round incompetence on behalf of my team mates, with only one command point actually captured. Here’s a hint: if half your entire side chooses to be Air, and the other half chooses to be Support, go and join a different server.

Why not to leave your troops standing around for too long

Now, for the first week-and-a-bit of the beta this was really not an issue, but now there are players with high ranks and players with low ranks, and players in clans… and all that brings with it the unbalancing effect which I’ve seen in far too many other online games like Unreal Tournament and Battlefield. People who join a game will only join the winning team, further unbalancing things and ruining games just to boost their stats and get more awards. So, for the last couple of days, every map I have played has turned out the same way: one team will have all the experienced players, and will usually outnumber the other team of newbies. Being on one team is no more fun than being on the other. Why they care about beta stats or awards is beyond me - aren’t all the accounts being wiped when the beta ends in a week?

So, while I think World in Conflict is shaping up to be a really great release, just from playing the multiplayer beta I can say that I am looking much more forward to seeing what it has to offer in singleplayer. People have a habit of ruining good games…