World in Conflict

 PC
User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 393 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 290 out of 393
  2. Mixed: 71 out of 393
  3. Negative: 32 out of 393
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. GoneFishingX
    Oct 9, 2010
    7
    While not perfect World in Conflict has a gripping single player experience that while a tad unbelievable is highly entertaining and a fantastically challenging multiplayer mode that puts your ability to think fast to the test. People who claim this game does not require thought or strategy are totally in a state of tunnel vision about what an RTS is. World in conflict is a real timeWhile not perfect World in Conflict has a gripping single player experience that while a tad unbelievable is highly entertaining and a fantastically challenging multiplayer mode that puts your ability to think fast to the test. People who claim this game does not require thought or strategy are totally in a state of tunnel vision about what an RTS is. World in conflict is a real time strategy game who ever says otherwise is an idiot, RTS games don't need base building or resource mining and what not, that's just added. At its heart and RTS is a game that requires the ability to manage multiple units effectively the person who's is the best at that wins (as compared to a shooter where you manage yourself), resources add a different level but don't change the base concept. This game requires immense skill and teamwork when played multiplayer and the learning curve is a bit steep but anyone who wants to play a game that requires a brain as well and dexterity should try it out since if you don't like multiplayer the single player and skirmish mode (which exists I don't know what people are talking about) are well worth the money.… Expand
  2. TimD.
    Sep 26, 2007
    6
    I do not feel the reviews matched my personal experience. I found the game to be too fast-paced, arcade-like and non-fulfilling. As a war-buff and a war simulation first-person shooter, I found it very shallow and disappointing. It reminds me of all the other command-and-conquer type games.
  3. IncoG
    Aug 16, 2009
    7
    I bought the complete edition of this game Summer 2008, 2 years after the release. Because the addon "Soviet Assault" only adds 6 single-player missions, i'm writing my review only for the original game. // Even after 2 years, the graphics on highest settings in DX10 are absolutely fantastic, and the sound and voice acting are probably 10/10. Wether you're just looking at I bought the complete edition of this game Summer 2008, 2 years after the release. Because the addon "Soviet Assault" only adds 6 single-player missions, i'm writing my review only for the original game. // Even after 2 years, the graphics on highest settings in DX10 are absolutely fantastic, and the sound and voice acting are probably 10/10. Wether you're just looking at landscapes or towns, from villages to big cities, in all kinds of settings from deserts over green forests to winter sceneries, or you are looking at tense battles with explosions, fire, gas clouds, planes dropping bombs or support crates and fire flares to avoid AA missiles - the game is absolutely breathtaking to look at. // Doing the tutorial, you get totally hyped out, the details are insane - the free camera lets you overview the entire battle, or zoom in so close that you even can hear tank crews doing small talk while waiting for orders. The whole single player campaign (especially with the added Soviet Assault missions in between) is worth every single minute, and took me about 2-3 days to finish. Both plot and gameplay are much better than anything ive seen so far. If this was about the single player only, i would probably give it a 9 or even 10/10. // However, the single player at times feels like it is preparing you for the ultimate multiplayer part of the game, most missions teach you particular roles of every unit like emergency repairs, or how to use Helicopters etc. . And that's where the fun suddenly ends. The gameplay in multiplayer has hardly anything to do with the singleplayer. No matter where you place your ground troops, there will be anti-tank / napalm / nukes dropped on your units if you stand in place for longer than 10 seconds. Anti-Air batteries will be wiped out even by Helicopters, Tanks shot to pieces by basically everything, teamplay is so critical that it's nearly impossible to get into the game. The only way i could be high on scores so far was to simply build repair vehicles and some AA, and repair everything in sight - which isn't very satisfying in the long run. The community just seems to hate newcomers, just take a look at the forums how people keep writing how much they hate newbies. Example: You join a game, support role is recommended. You buy heavy artillery and anti-air and you will be "kicked due to a vote" in about 1 minute - instead of giving you advice that they don't want/need artillery in their team, i only found out later while browsing forums that using any artillery units is "forbidden" even in public play. Also there are only about 10-20 servers around with people on it and playable latency (playing from europe, no mods). // On the technical side, single-player works like a charm without any crashes or FPS issues on a quad 2.83Ghz, ATI 4870 and 4GB RAM. In multiplayer, the game sometimes halfway locks up - it just stops doing anything, although windows says the application was still working fine. Customer support both by UBI and on the Massgate forums have been the worst i've seen so far. // I think this game is already past its time multiplayer-wise, although it's very much worth 30… Expand
  4. StevenN.
    Oct 18, 2007
    7
    The graphics are great but... The gameplay is horrendous. It can be fun but, the factions are un exciting and you will be using the same units over and over again. This is not a true RTS! Real RTS's put you in charge of resource building but instead you have to wait for "funds" to come in.... And wait.... And wait... And get back into the battle.
  5. StephenH.
    Oct 19, 2007
    6
    Having only played the single player game of this Real Time Strategy game I can only say this. I played the game through the first four missions and I wasn't impressed. Everything felt straight forward and simple, not at all like a good strategy game should be, deep and rewarding. The missions themselves felt rushed, as in; making me move onto the next primary objectives before fully Having only played the single player game of this Real Time Strategy game I can only say this. I played the game through the first four missions and I wasn't impressed. Everything felt straight forward and simple, not at all like a good strategy game should be, deep and rewarding. The missions themselves felt rushed, as in; making me move onto the next primary objectives before fully achieving my secondary ones. The strange thing about this game was... When I was playing it all I could think of was 'this is no way as good as Company of Heroes'. Much better use of resources. In World in Conflict they provide the resources for you, and units are replenished if or when they are destroyed. The problem is, you can find yourself with no units, or limited units whilst you wait for your reinforcements to arrive. There are so many problems with this game. I'll stick with Company of Heroes, a far better, better designed, implemented game. Yes, it needs patching, but Company of Heroes out does World in Conflict in every way. Please note: I did not play the multiplayer game of World in Conflict, which I believe this particular game was made for.… Expand
  6. TonyF.
    Oct 3, 2007
    6
    This game is not what everyone is making it out to be. It has great graphics which require a great computer or will lag horribly. The games multi player gets OLD! It's the same boring thing. Even though the graphics are great, they still seem bland. How do you do that... honestly. There story is interesting but does not make up for the fact that the gameplay is so one demensional. This game is not what everyone is making it out to be. It has great graphics which require a great computer or will lag horribly. The games multi player gets OLD! It's the same boring thing. Even though the graphics are great, they still seem bland. How do you do that... honestly. There story is interesting but does not make up for the fact that the gameplay is so one demensional. save your money… Expand
  7. Jameson
    Nov 28, 2007
    6
    Now this game would have been a good game, had it come out several years ago. I didn't like it for a number of reasons. First off the controls are just wacky and they bother me a lot. Obviously this is not a huge problem as this is completely personal. Second: There is no building a base which, in my opinion, really adds fun to an RTS game. Instead you are just get units via air Now this game would have been a good game, had it come out several years ago. I didn't like it for a number of reasons. First off the controls are just wacky and they bother me a lot. Obviously this is not a huge problem as this is completely personal. Second: There is no building a base which, in my opinion, really adds fun to an RTS game. Instead you are just get units via air drop. Third: There was very little decision making or strategic situations which I think is absolutely essential to any RTS as RTS means Real Time Strategy. Forth: There is not resource gathering either which is another strategic aspect pretty much required for a good RTS game. Like the requirement to defend your base and supply lines. Fifth: There is no skirmish mode that you can just play against the AI. It is only multiplayer which can be fun but sometimes its more enjoyable to play against the computer. There is one campaign and almost identical playable factions that include the skins as well as the damage, speed, and armor values. As well as the fact that the units are VERY limited in the sense that there are few units, let alone unique ones. I guess I have been spoiled by Westwood's Command and Conquer series where I had to think and do something. This is a pretty negative stand point but I am picky with RTS games. The game has good graphics how ever but it is not the best thing to buy it because of that. Basically if you are looking for another RTS game that could be fun, this could be for you but definetly not (in my opinion) a well thought out and brilliant game. It lacks in most areas that I believe are necessities for a game of this genre and time.… Expand
  8. iseeall
    Jul 29, 2013
    5
    As a russian, i don't like games where russia attacks the US. Here, again, this happens, and there is no reason, no explanation except that russians are just generally bad. That said, the game itself starts idiotic. There is plenty of cutscenes, the controls are constantly taken from you. It's not like a strategy game anymore but like some dumbed down RPG or something. Surely, theAs a russian, i don't like games where russia attacks the US. Here, again, this happens, and there is no reason, no explanation except that russians are just generally bad. That said, the game itself starts idiotic. There is plenty of cutscenes, the controls are constantly taken from you. It's not like a strategy game anymore but like some dumbed down RPG or something. Surely, the animations are great, the graphics are amazing, there are special effects and it's generally visible that the project was done on a high budget. But this doesn't make a good game. It's a dumb RTS catered for some idiots how adore hollywood blockbusters.… Expand
  9. BenC.
    Oct 2, 2007
    5
    Looks great, runs really well but falls short at the end of the day. Unit choices are generally bland, with both sides being basically the same. Multiplayer games should work well in theory, but everything happens too fast for there to be much strategy. Artillery spamming seems to beat most unit combinations without too much effort. Plays a bit like Ground Control 2 but without the Looks great, runs really well but falls short at the end of the day. Unit choices are generally bland, with both sides being basically the same. Multiplayer games should work well in theory, but everything happens too fast for there to be much strategy. Artillery spamming seems to beat most unit combinations without too much effort. Plays a bit like Ground Control 2 but without the feeling that your units are valuable and are worth saving, as you can just throw more right into the fray.… Expand
  10. GlynnF.
    Sep 20, 2007
    5
    Without a doubt this is one of the most visually stunning games out there especially for the RTS market. However it lacks one thing, any for of strategy. Unfortunatly no matter how hard I try to like this game the single-player is dire, I find it's dull repetative gameplay a serious letdown which hopefully will be improved by a patch (more hope than expectation though). One thing Without a doubt this is one of the most visually stunning games out there especially for the RTS market. However it lacks one thing, any for of strategy. Unfortunatly no matter how hard I try to like this game the single-player is dire, I find it's dull repetative gameplay a serious letdown which hopefully will be improved by a patch (more hope than expectation though). One thing that has to be said though is that the multiplayer, if done with friends and not complete strangers, is awesome. However when it comes to just diving into a random match with people over the internet then it's more a case of carnage as everyone zips about doing their own thing rather than collaberating as a team. In conclusion only purchase if you know 7 other people who are also going to buy it and will help you make the most out of the game. Otherwise you're going to be severely disappointed by what some people will see as the biggest anti-climax of gaming this year.… Expand
  11. Maslab
    Jun 9, 2008
    7
    Really fun RTS. I do enjoy watching the physics engine take hold of an jeep barreling downhill when a tank shell shreds it. The camera work is very nice, almost FPS style. The storyline is pretty good, but some gameplay issues make it annoying to handle units. Tactical aid is overpowering, but with all the enemy AI units running around, you do kind of need it, although the use of it can Really fun RTS. I do enjoy watching the physics engine take hold of an jeep barreling downhill when a tank shell shreds it. The camera work is very nice, almost FPS style. The storyline is pretty good, but some gameplay issues make it annoying to handle units. Tactical aid is overpowering, but with all the enemy AI units running around, you do kind of need it, although the use of it can best be called a "BS maneuver", in which you can be an inch away from a killing blow only to have all your troops blown away by a couple artillery rounds. I do like it, but it could have been a lot better. Multiplayer is repetitive, unit control gets annoying, its nothing you haven't seen before. But the phyics are pretty nice.… Expand
  12. JimP.
    Oct 1, 2007
    7
    This is a really good arcade game. You will spend a lot of time clicking the mouse very quickly to try to achieve your goals. If this is what you like then buy the game. Otherwise if you want a real time STRATEGY game buy CoH. It will require you to make actual strategic decisions that affect the lives of your troops. CoH also has even more detailed modeling and graphics, which is obvious This is a really good arcade game. You will spend a lot of time clicking the mouse very quickly to try to achieve your goals. If this is what you like then buy the game. Otherwise if you want a real time STRATEGY game buy CoH. It will require you to make actual strategic decisions that affect the lives of your troops. CoH also has even more detailed modeling and graphics, which is obvious if you've ever seen a tank tear a building apart piece by piece while it's occupants are knocked through walls and windows.… Expand
  13. DavidB.
    Oct 1, 2007
    7
    This is good. But limited. While other RTS games are expanding the skirmish modes this has removed it. No strategy, no skirmish, no build, no defence structures. You just create units, push them to battle and create some more (seemingly with no limit). There's no incentive to keep your units alive. That said, it looks and feels fantastic and is still not to be missed, but This is good. But limited. While other RTS games are expanding the skirmish modes this has removed it. No strategy, no skirmish, no build, no defence structures. You just create units, push them to battle and create some more (seemingly with no limit). There's no incentive to keep your units alive. That said, it looks and feels fantastic and is still not to be missed, but there's little to keep you involved longer term.… Expand
  14. K.G.
    Sep 19, 2007
    7
    All the factions are basically the same. A Soviet UAZ packs the same punch and armour as a Hummer. Interesting reinforcement system, but not overly innovative. Serious strategy gamers have seen the requisition point system before. Excellent graphics and effects, the game controls are pretty good too. This would be a fantastic game for people who just want to have fun, and aren't All the factions are basically the same. A Soviet UAZ packs the same punch and armour as a Hummer. Interesting reinforcement system, but not overly innovative. Serious strategy gamers have seen the requisition point system before. Excellent graphics and effects, the game controls are pretty good too. This would be a fantastic game for people who just want to have fun, and aren't looking for a realistic tour of duty. Example: The gun on your Bradley is has trouble destroying light soviet jeeps with it's 25mm chain gun. Such a heavy gun should be able to rip light vehicles apart. You will have fun with this game whether you're looking for realism or not, but serious strategy gamers will have to take into account some shortcommings.… Expand
  15. Wintert
    Sep 20, 2007
    7
    Astounding graphics do remarkably well to conceal an intrinsically mediocre game. The combat engine is overly fast and lacks depth, even considering that it is targeted towards the lower-brow side of the gaming community. It illustrates only the simplest tactical aspects modern warfare. (See a tank? Click the big red button to shoot a TOW missile. Did you hit it? Well done. Have a Astounding graphics do remarkably well to conceal an intrinsically mediocre game. The combat engine is overly fast and lacks depth, even considering that it is targeted towards the lower-brow side of the gaming community. It illustrates only the simplest tactical aspects modern warfare. (See a tank? Click the big red button to shoot a TOW missile. Did you hit it? Well done. Have a cookie). These short-comings aside, the game is highly polished, and the environment and plot do well to portray the situational urgency of a Soviet invasion of US territory. This game will appeal to those who entertain the notion of being battlefield commanders, but lack the true insight and temperament to stomach even marginally more realistic games. Those wishing to purchase the game for the multiplayer challenge should be warned that it is aimed squarely at the Counterstrike/FPS market, and will likely attract such a "community".… Expand
  16. Alan
    Sep 24, 2007
    5
    Stunning graphics? Not quite, and the little boost from lowest quality to highest quality (really, the boost is little, a perk here and there) will cost your FPS dearly. I like the range of view of this game, but allowing a company to tell where a tank is just because it fired at them doesn't seem quite realistic. The AI was definitely a step down from Company of Heroes, considering Stunning graphics? Not quite, and the little boost from lowest quality to highest quality (really, the boost is little, a perk here and there) will cost your FPS dearly. I like the range of view of this game, but allowing a company to tell where a tank is just because it fired at them doesn't seem quite realistic. The AI was definitely a step down from Company of Heroes, considering how infantry will remain standing even within heavy crossfire, and will only go prone after being hit once or twice, then awaiting death just lying there in the middle of the streets. Are American troops really that obedient? At least in CoH they try to find cover, while this game they would refuse it even if they are RIGHT BESIDE A FOREST. The tanks have amazing agility and accuracy, and Anti-Tank Infantry has lots of RPG's, and infinite ammo. Causing major imbalances within the game as you can simply win by pumping AT-troops. Either way, this game is much too easy. No need to build or anything, just DESTROY. When it is possible to destroy an entire building with nothing but bullets, what else is impossible?… Expand
  17. RobertD.
    Nov 7, 2007
    7
    Standard. Games need to have balance but this doesn't. base building would have been good but they didn't want it. four or five humvees will not, i repeat, will not take out any type of heavy tank. the health bars are so simple and frustrating, damage to vehicles doesn't affect manouverability or accuracy at all. none of the new features they were bragging about (pree Standard. Games need to have balance but this doesn't. base building would have been good but they didn't want it. four or five humvees will not, i repeat, will not take out any type of heavy tank. the health bars are so simple and frustrating, damage to vehicles doesn't affect manouverability or accuracy at all. none of the new features they were bragging about (pree release) were well done except the drop in/out multi-player. no complaints with the graphics but i think this game struggles to decide wether it's small, or large scale. sup comm or COH make up your damn mind!… Expand
  18. Kotofon
    Feb 18, 2022
    7
    World in Conflict – стратегия в реальном времени, повествующая об альтернативном прошлом, где за мировое господство сражаются самые сильные армии мира – СССР, США и войска НАТО. Несмотря на жанр RTS, у проекта есть полноценная сюжетная линия, где игрок оказывается в роли конкретного человека – лейтенанта, а позднее капитана армии США Энтона Паркера, который вместе с капитаном МаркомWorld in Conflict – стратегия в реальном времени, повествующая об альтернативном прошлом, где за мировое господство сражаются самые сильные армии мира – СССР, США и войска НАТО. Несмотря на жанр RTS, у проекта есть полноценная сюжетная линия, где игрок оказывается в роли конкретного человека – лейтенанта, а позднее капитана армии США Энтона Паркера, который вместе с капитаном Марком Бэнноном и капитаном, а позднее майором Джеймсом Уэббом, находясь под командованием полковника Джереми Сойера, напрямую участвует в крупномасштабной Третьей Мировой Войне.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

10
#10 Best PC Game of 2007
21
#21 Most Discussed PC Game of 2007
22
#22 Most Shared PC Game of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
89

Generally favorable reviews - based on 44 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 44
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 44
  3. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. PC Format
    90
    Another masterpiece from the folks at Massive, and one of the most beautiful visions of warfare you're ever likely to see. [Oct 2007, p.30]
  2. IGN
    93
    It’s not very often that a real-time strategy title comes along and changes the way you think about the genre. World in Conflict is one of those, not because all of the ideas are totally new, but because they’re all put together in such a successful way.
    Read full review
  3. PC Gamer
    93
    With its combination of dazzling graphics and fast, tactical gameplay, I can easily see World in Conflict becoming a favorite of competitive clans and LAN parties everywhere. [Nov 2007, p.72]
See all critic reviews »