Just recently I felt that irresistible itch to get a new game. That feeling were you are just are not enjoying the games you currently own as much as you used to. More specifically, I was itching for a new RTS. So I went on good ol' Gamespot to see what were the latest & greatest games in the Real-Time Strategy Genre. Then I saw it: a well-hyped game with, not only the second best rating that can be awarded to a game, but the editor's choice as well. I also read player reviews, as these tend to have a more down-to-earth perspective. What I saw was a pleathoraof 8, 9 and 10s. There was that odd 7.5, but that is always to be expected...right? So the next day I headed to my local EBgames and bought the collector's edition of the game, having decided to take the plunge and that I coudn't go wrong with such I higly rated game. Oh! How I wasmistaken !!! As you might know, Gamespot features a number of emblems or achievements that it awards to games, I will use those to construct my arguments:

Achievement 1: Innovative What that should mean: To do something different, to disregard the foundations of something and create something from scratch. 100% unadulterated creativity

My take: I'm sorry, but World In Conflict isn't innovative at all. Even the highly rated Compagny of Heroes (that I absolutely love) is not very innovative. Portal is innovative. When I put that game into my Xbox 360 console, I just went WOW! I mean, there is not even ONE stinken game that even comes close to Portal, it's just so amazingly simple in concept and must have been very hard to pull off. That wow factor has since not worn off. I am still completely speechless at the game. While World In Conflict does what EA tends to do, recycle something and stick a New Featuresticker on it. No base building, has not been done a lot, but it doesn't change the way you play the game.

Achievement 2: Good Story What that should mean:To create a compelling story, with three dimensionnal characters that you love and can relate to. Usually also an indicator of good VO work

My take: Russia invadingSeattle and launching massive airborne operations all whilst sneaking throught the U.S Navy's vigilance by disguisingthemselves as cargo ships ?? WTF ??? What kind self-respecting navie would let an armada of cargo ships through without asking any questions during a war ?? Not considering the fact that they would have had to cross the Pacific Ocean! How the hell would those transport planes get there anyway. And besides, the Soviet Union was almost totally bankrupt in 1989 and it's government was collapsing. For me, a storyon an alternate take on history has to make somekind of sense.

Achievement 3: Outstanding Gameplay (includes the Sucks you in Achievement)What that should mean: Thrilling gameplay that sucks you into the game experience and just won't let you have a life

My take: This is were the game really falls on its @$$/tush/buttox/arse/whatever. I find the gameplay here really stale. After the aformentionned Compagny of Heroes I can't play games were infantrymen just stand there. In Compagny of Heroes, which is a year old, mind you, the AI is trully excellent. It's though, smart, and uses it's faction's strenghts judiciously. Individual soldiers all have something that overrides their need to obey orders: Survival. When fired at, troops will scrabble for cover, dive into a newly formed crater, scream for help etc. In World In Conflict; there's just this bland automaton feel to every single unit. I could go on about other stuff, like how tactical aids are bland and bring nothing new and how there just isn't any feedback when you capture an objective.

Achievements 4 & 5: Graphics

My Take: Though the graphics are pretty good, the lack of fully desctrutible enviroments is a real drag, all warfare game should have them, including FPS's

As for multiplayer, I just got sick of this game before getting really trying the online component...