<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: World In Conflict Demo</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:31:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kieron Gillen</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-392</link>
		<dc:creator>Kieron Gillen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-392</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s a little subtler than people are realising too - it is very team-play-y, but there&#039;s enough really interesting little bits and pieces in there to side step that. My highlight of playing so far was me, as a single unit, defending an area for most of the game from between 2 and 4 attackers. And - basically - doing it.

(Witching between armour and infantry depending on the situation)

The game does actively make team-play as easy as possible - voice-chat is built in, the ordering system (i.e. I am going here! I need anti-air-support!) is as good as I&#039;ve seen in any game. And I&#039;ve noticed in open play, if one player starts doing it, other people start doing it too.

And then that side starts winning.

KG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s a little subtler than people are realising too &#8211; it is very team-play-y, but there&#8217;s enough really interesting little bits and pieces in there to side step that. My highlight of playing so far was me, as a single unit, defending an area for most of the game from between 2 and 4 attackers. And &#8211; basically &#8211; doing it.</p>
<p>(Witching between armour and infantry depending on the situation)</p>
<p>The game does actively make team-play as easy as possible &#8211; voice-chat is built in, the ordering system (i.e. I am going here! I need anti-air-support!) is as good as I&#8217;ve seen in any game. And I&#8217;ve noticed in open play, if one player starts doing it, other people start doing it too.</p>
<p>And then that side starts winning.</p>
<p>KG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Rossignol</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-385</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Rossignol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2007 08:19:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-385</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s pretty representative of the single player campaign as a whole. 

I enjoy the multiplayer, and I think the mix of units (and their special abilities) allows for my interesting combat than you give it credit for, however. There are some fairly complex interactions - such as an infantry and support working together to hold a position, using terrain, buildings, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s pretty representative of the single player campaign as a whole. </p>
<p>I enjoy the multiplayer, and I think the mix of units (and their special abilities) allows for my interesting combat than you give it credit for, however. There are some fairly complex interactions &#8211; such as an infantry and support working together to hold a position, using terrain, buildings, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Turin Turambar</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-374</link>
		<dc:creator>Turin Turambar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-374</guid>
		<description>My impressions:

A bit shallow... The game almost redefines that word, shallow. Awesome graphics, good range of options, good UI, excellent game browser and netcode, a lot of thought in tools like the tactical map, VOIP and quick orders to improve the teamwork, but where is the game itself? Tactics, strategy? Only a little bit.

-There is no base building, no teching, no resource gathering.
-So there is only combat. Combat as simple as your average RTS (infantry can enter in forests and buildings, tanks have stronger front armor, and that&#039;s it), although it should be more complex to compensate the lack of the other features, but it still simpler!
-Why? Because unlike in you average RTS, you only control a few units (3-6), and usually they are from the same type (tanks, infantry, choppers or arty/support).
-The only trick of the game is the tactical aid, which is pretty straightforward (call airstrikes, nukes, or paratroopers, etc)


The strategy part of the game only exists in the cooperation of the different players, and still you can&#039;t do a lot of creative tactics, after two weeks playing the beta i felt i already maxed out the game and uninstalled it.

I know that World in Conflict tries to be more an action/RTS mix, but it is not. There isn&#039;t action, there is only a lighter RTS. You still control your units with the right mouse button as always, the units shot themselves as always while the HP bar grow smaller, etc. From an action perspective, it&#039;s a system too detached from your units, too indirect. And from a strategy perspective, it also fails. 

Multiplayer is somewhat fun for a few days, i know from experience, but the single player level from the demo it is really lacking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My impressions:</p>
<p>A bit shallow&#8230; The game almost redefines that word, shallow. Awesome graphics, good range of options, good UI, excellent game browser and netcode, a lot of thought in tools like the tactical map, VOIP and quick orders to improve the teamwork, but where is the game itself? Tactics, strategy? Only a little bit.</p>
<p>-There is no base building, no teching, no resource gathering.<br />
-So there is only combat. Combat as simple as your average RTS (infantry can enter in forests and buildings, tanks have stronger front armor, and that&#8217;s it), although it should be more complex to compensate the lack of the other features, but it still simpler!<br />
-Why? Because unlike in you average RTS, you only control a few units (3-6), and usually they are from the same type (tanks, infantry, choppers or arty/support).<br />
-The only trick of the game is the tactical aid, which is pretty straightforward (call airstrikes, nukes, or paratroopers, etc)</p>
<p>The strategy part of the game only exists in the cooperation of the different players, and still you can&#8217;t do a lot of creative tactics, after two weeks playing the beta i felt i already maxed out the game and uninstalled it.</p>
<p>I know that World in Conflict tries to be more an action/RTS mix, but it is not. There isn&#8217;t action, there is only a lighter RTS. You still control your units with the right mouse button as always, the units shot themselves as always while the HP bar grow smaller, etc. From an action perspective, it&#8217;s a system too detached from your units, too indirect. And from a strategy perspective, it also fails. </p>
<p>Multiplayer is somewhat fun for a few days, i know from experience, but the single player level from the demo it is really lacking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cueball</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-370</link>
		<dc:creator>Cueball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-370</guid>
		<description>I hope WiC does well, but the multiplayer beta felt a bit shallow to me unless you&#039;ve invested a /lot/ of time playing as a team. Ground Control really excelled at &#039;drop in and play&#039; - playing on public servers was a lot of fun because you controlled enough units to make a difference from the start, and you weren&#039;t quite so reliant on everyone else for support to actually achieve anything.
I kind of wish WiC limited you to four players per side but with slightly larger squad sizes from the off.
That said, if you fancy a game sometime Jim...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope WiC does well, but the multiplayer beta felt a bit shallow to me unless you&#8217;ve invested a /lot/ of time playing as a team. Ground Control really excelled at &#8216;drop in and play&#8217; &#8211; playing on public servers was a lot of fun because you controlled enough units to make a difference from the start, and you weren&#8217;t quite so reliant on everyone else for support to actually achieve anything.<br />
I kind of wish WiC limited you to four players per side but with slightly larger squad sizes from the off.<br />
That said, if you fancy a game sometime Jim&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Rossignol</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-365</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Rossignol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-365</guid>
		<description>Thanks, fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roBurky</title>
		<link>http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/08/25/world-in-conflict-demo/comment-page-1/#comment-364</link>
		<dc:creator>roBurky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 07:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=152#comment-364</guid>
		<description>That &quot;You can download it here&quot; link doesn&#039;t seem to be a link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That &#8220;You can download it here&#8221; link doesn&#8217;t seem to be a link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
