Played this with 3 friends last night and I cannot stress how much you must own this game.
Here's a review from Gamespot.
World in conflict
-
Undead_Mercenary
- Posts: 2914
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:01 am
- Location: Barrie, Ontario
RE: World in conflict
A guy in the BF2 guild I'm in plays it quite a bit. He also recommended it, but I am always wary of RTS.
Mainly because I suck.
Mainly because I suck.
RE: World in conflict
This doesn't have the "Craft" micromanagement. No reactors, no silos, no farms, no gold, no wood, no ADDITIONAL PYLONS.
You gradually gain points that is capped off depending on the situation and add to your units.
This is an RTS where the S means something other than "build more and faster".
Instead you take control of only a handful of units and occupy territory or accomplish specific objectives.
Multiplayer is limited to two teams, for a total of eight each, all of whom fight together in a much more organized, controlled battlefield... since you usually only have enough room for about a half-dozen tanks and some infantry.
During the multi/single beta/demo I took on a support role and continually offered fire support and repairs for the armor platoon players on my side. We kicked ass.
You gradually gain points that is capped off depending on the situation and add to your units.
This is an RTS where the S means something other than "build more and faster".
Instead you take control of only a handful of units and occupy territory or accomplish specific objectives.
Multiplayer is limited to two teams, for a total of eight each, all of whom fight together in a much more organized, controlled battlefield... since you usually only have enough room for about a half-dozen tanks and some infantry.
During the multi/single beta/demo I took on a support role and continually offered fire support and repairs for the armor platoon players on my side. We kicked ass.
Açieeed! style by