More Articles on World In Conflict
Massive Entertainment: Moving ForwardsPS3 World In Conflict ConfirmedTVG Kicks Off The Hall Of Game 2007World In Conflict Gets Second UpdateWorld in ConflictLatest Features
Gears Of War 2 - Cliff Bleszinski Q&AStar Wars: Clone Wars Q&AFable 2: The Molyneux InterviewTom Clancy's HAWX Q&AFootball Manager 2009 - Q&AUser Reviews
There are currently 0 User Reviews for World In ConflictWrite your own review for this game today and you will receive 100 Gamer Points.
Click here to register
World in Conflict Q&A Feature
Chris Leyton
04/09/2006
From the creators of Ground Control and its sequel comes the latest groundbreaking assault on the PC...
Pioneers of the RTS genre, Massive Entertainment stamped their mark on PC gaming with the 2000 release of the seminal Ground Control and subsequent sequel four years later. Removing the focus on trite areas such as resource harvesting and micro-management, the Ground Control series put the emphasis very much on the battle and the tactics behind it - concepts carried on in Massive's forthcoming PC title, World in Conflict.
Impressing all who saw it and stealing attention from certain Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 titles, TVG recently had the opportunity to sit and talk with Massive's Magnus "Soundboy" Jansén, Lead Game Designer on the title.
World in Conflict approaches the genre differently to many, with less emphasis on resource management and base building, but a greater focus on action, strategy and immediate effects; can you explain the reasons behind this decision, what it brings to the game and your hopes for the title?
The decision to remove the resource gathering and the base building was taken way back in the late nineties with Ground Control. There are a number of reasons why we felt - and still feel - that this is a good idea.
One simple and powerful driving force is that of impatience! We just want to get into the action quicker. In World in Conflict we have removed the standard RTS lobby and you can always jump into the server you want.
There's also the fact that optimizing the traditional RTS base with its resources and means of production stresses a different skill-set than wielding the resulting units in battle does. And we like the tactics of battle a lot more.
"We are aiming to be fully Vista compliant but it's hard to make promises when neither Microsoft nor we have set a firm release date."
Like Ground Control before it, World in Conflict aims to be the more action-orientated RTS, with Counter-Strike like options to purchase new units; can you elaborate on this element for us, and what tactical options the system presents?
All players in a multiplayer game of World in Conflict have the same amount of resources available. There is a time penalty imposed when you lose your units in battle, meaning that it takes a while before you can order in new units. It's like an ecosystem really.
The main benefit of this system is that it prevents the downward spiral syndrome of most standard RTS matches. In World in Conflict a 20-minute game is not settled until the very last minute since you can always turn it around.
World in Conflict takes place in a realistic game world centered around the Cold War and the alternative invasion of Communist forces into North America; can you elaborate on the plotline, the stages presented across the game and the strive for authenticity and realism in the landscapes hinted at in the E3 demo earlier in the year?
World in Conflict takes us back to 1989 where the cold war doesn't end quietly, but instead turns into the third World War. The superpowers collide and battles are fought in - amongst other places - mainland US and the Soviet Union.
We're striving for realism in every aspect of the game, be it the overall story or camouflage paintings on units, but it never comes at the expense of gameplay. As for the maps we often aim for "hyper-realism", which is what we call cities and suburban areas that are a highly concentrated version of real-life locales. It's like Spielberg's vision of suburbia; something that is so typical it doesn't really exist. We visit some real-world places too, and those are modeled as realistically as possible.
The nukes are a visually stunning aspect of the game at this early stage and a defining moment in the game; can you elaborate on their role, the sense of balance and perhaps expand upon the role of Tactical Aids within the game for us?
As the battles rages on you can earn Tactical Aid points - if you play well. These points can be used to call in all sorts of off-map support, and we have both destructive and non-destructive aids available. Examples being air strikes and AWAC surveillance scans.
The tactical nuke is the most powerful Tactical Aid in the game, and you almost always need to cooperate with your team in order to be able to afford it. The nuke provides both destruction and area denial, making it extremely powerful.
To get enough TA points to buy a nuke, you will either have to play extremely well, or chose a tactic where you hold back on other Tactical Aids in the early stages of the game, giving up ground, only in order to make a perfectly timed comeback late in the match. A tactic that can backfire, of course.
"It's like Spielberg's vision of suburbia; something that is so typical it doesn't really exist."
World in Conflict is shaping up to be a visual masterpiece in 2007. Can you provide us with details on the graphics engine, the visual techniques employed and the specification you're aiming towards (will World in Conflict be targeted towards the Vista platform)?
The engine is our own in-house creation, and pretty much everything has been rewritten or enhanced since Ground Control 2. We are aiming to be fully Vista compliant but it's hard to make promises when neither Microsoft nor we have set a firm release date.
The game features all types of snazzy buzzwords such as dynamic soft shadows, bump mapping and specular highlights on the visual side, but I like the parts that affect gameplay such as the destruction. We have a 100% dynamic path-finding system that allows us to obliterate forests and have vehicles pass through afterwards.
The camera system behind World in Conflict appears to share similarities to that of Ground Control, differing significantly from the traditional raised RTS viewpoint and providing a greater sense of freedom to the player as a result; please explain the reason behind the decision and what you feel it brings to the game?
At Massive we feel (and have felt since the first Ground Control) that the best way to get an overview of a battle is to lift your view from the ground and look at it, with the horizon in the middle of your view. This is why we have gone through great lengths to make a graphics engine that can show the entire battlefield in the main view without forcing you to use the mini-map to gauge the lay of the land.
The free camera is without a doubt one of the most striking aspects of World in Conflict, and once you experience it you feel like you are in a straight jacket when you play the traditional RTS-games. We have tried a "locked" camera in several consumer tests, but the results invariably show us that the immersive and cinematic experience suffers a great deal from this.
Can you also run us through the workings of the FPS mode?
No. :)
The great Gods of marketing will not have us mortals discussing the matter quite yet. There's that, and also the fact that we are still experimenting with versions of the FPS perspective. There are a couple of important choices we will have to make soon regarding this.
World in Conflict employs specific roles for players to undertake - whether it's infantry, air, tank or support. Can you provide us with details on how this structure is employed throughout the game and why it makes World in Conflict so unique?
Teamplay is one of the cornerstones of World in Conflict, and the role system lies at the heart of our teamplay. When you enter a game you pick from one of the four roles, Armor, Infantry, Air and Support. The role you pick will give you access to the best units of that category (the Apache helicopter for instance is only available to Air players), and it will impact the prices of most units. So if you are, for instance, playing armor role you will spend less resources on armor units and a lot more on air units.
What this means in practice is that you can go solo if you like and create a force that has units of all types regardless of your role, but you'll have to spend a lot of resources to do so, and you will not be particularly competitive. The winning team will be the one where players rely on their teammates to create a full combined arms force. This is of course not exactly the same in 1v1 games.
How complex are the path-finding routines in World in Conflict? Will we still see units awkwardly moving around the map, or will World in Conflict present intelligent units that navigate the map tactically?
There are a lot of components that make up the subjective impression of how units navigate the maps, with the three main parts being pathfinding, avoidance and formations. We have rebuilt those components from scratch for this project, and it's starting to pay off big-time even at this early stage. We've had old Ground Control fans test the game, and they all agree that it's already leaps and bounds better than in our previous games.
Finally what is the current state of the build and are you still planning for an early 2007 release?
We started full-scale development in spring 2005 and we are currently in pre-alpha stage. We're heading for a summer 2007 release.
Many thanks
Thanks a lot for you interest, and damn you for asking such intelligent questions.
World in Conflict is scheduled for a release during Q2 2007; keep your eyes peeled for more destruction on a worldwide scale soon...
Anonymous
Date Added:Thu 11th Sep 2008 13:31
Anonymous
Date Added:Fri 9th Nov 2007 19:56
your units or any allied units. That should be automatic
Anonymous
Date Added:Fri 26th Oct 2007 01:20
Anonymous
Date Added:Thu 11th Oct 2007 14:20
Anonymous
Date Added:Fri 5th Oct 2007 23:40
Etienne
Date Added:Tue 19th Jun 2007 00:15
Anonymous
Date Added:Sat 9th Jun 2007 09:27
Sega Boy
Date Added:Mon 16th Apr 2007 13:59
Surely a 360 version can't be too far behind???
Anonymous
Date Added:Sat 14th Apr 2007 02:22