All comments

lol, i dont know why but i can imagine the framerate going into single figures in the last screenshot...lol

game looks good. probably the only RTS i'd be willing to play.

The PC version was fantastic, but I don't think it will convert well to consoles.

Looks about the same as the PC version to me :

http://takumi2k4.animeblogger.net/wp-content/image...
http://takumi2k4.animeblogger.net/wp-content/image...

The image quality would be higher on a good PC, but the consoles aren't real great at IQ.

If it looks like that and runs at a decent clip it'll be a decent accomplishment IMO.

wow, ps3 version actually looks really good for a change.

I have played the pc version for 200hours+, but i will still be getting this since more World in conflict is always a good thing :)

i guess ps3 should be better for it, since it has 8 corse whatever, anyways it lacks on graphics details a little bit ;(

Cores don't matter too much in this. At least PC version run well with one core too.

I haven't yet bought this game but what I played the beta I liked it really much.

I seriously hope these companies are making the games multi threaded when they do console ports though.

I didn't say it wasn't multithreaded. Just meant to reply for that 8 core thing...

Well you said 'cores don't matter' and they really do for every 360 and PS3 game. A single Intel Core 2 Core is really powerful but a single core in the 360 and PS3? Not so much.

Is the game truly multithreaded on PC? Because you might be surprised that still not all games do that, and if they wanted to port to console it's possible they wouldn't take the time to do it properly.

I replied for that one post. Should run better on PS3, when I don't see any evidence why it would run better. 360 has 3 cores and that's more than enough. This game doesn't have massive amount of units and I was able to play the BETA version with my really old CPU (Medium settings but that has more to do with GPU). On my original reply I used a bit wrong words... Cores do matter but in most games only 2 cores are really used and other cores don't do anything. Even Crysis won't use more than 2 cores, at least max I get out of my CPU was around 50% with lots of objects flying around.

Yes it is multithreaded on PC. I know that many games aren't multithreaded, I am not new to these kind of things.

Each of the 360's cores is more powerful and flexible than each of the PS3's individual cores. I'm not saying the PS3 should run the game faster, just wondering about how this game will be ported (and others as well).

I guess we have to just wait and see how it runs. I am probably going to test the demo just because I am interested to see how it plays and runs :p

Since a lot of things happen on the screen and a lot of psyhics cpu is most important...

Most people are seeing this and assuming you're talking about performance it seems--but there are loads of other reasons that games like this don't convert well to consoles.

I still don't really see why people think RTS naturally cannot translate well to consoles. C&C3 was a pretty good conversion for one...

Anyways, it's like looking at Goldeneye and saying FPS games will never work on consoles. We're at the start of RTS on consoles (even though there have been RTS on consoles in the past, it was fairly rare).

Ah but there's a difference between working, and working well. Even most modern FPS, a genre which has been not only adapted but refined for gamepad play, feels the need to aim for you. The speed and precision of the cursor input is only part of the problem too. If you remove the keyboard from the equation, you're automatically slowing down the speed and number of inputs.

In order for it to work at all, you're looking at completely redesigning UI's, and with most RTS (and yes, FPS) this is only going to be detrimental to the overall experience. I can see a new UI functioning in WIC better than C&C or LOTR.. so if that was considered a successful conversion I have high hopes for this one.

Well then we have a difference of opinion on what 'working well' is. Number of inputs isn't a big problem for most RTS games, even for stuff like selecting unit groups instead of a single button press you might have 2... I don't see how taking away keyboard changes the speed, but mouse selection is preferable, but I wouldn't say it's a critical issue. FPS games have more critical 'pointing' times (if you don't go fast enough you're probably dead)...

All games really need a redesigned UI on consoles / or vice versa. You don't have guaranteed HD even on consoles yet, and there's usually overscan. It's only detrimental if you use a PC UI on console or console UI on PC. There's nothing about one type that makes it superior on the other.

I tried the WIC demo today, and I agree it works a little better than C&C3's. If they keep tweaking UIs eventually they'll get them down really well.

I wish the RTS genre as a whole had more variety, we really do see a lot of clones. Games like Myth and the RTS component of the Total War series were both very different than the *Crafts/Dunes/Riseof/C&C. A Myth-type game would work especially well on consoles too, I believe.

They're called "hotkeys."It depends on the scenario. Having five fingers that can press as many inputs, all simultaneously could be considered superior in quite a few situations.. as could the ability to aim without assists, but that's really neither here nor there.

I wonder why there aren't more turn based strategy games on consoles. You'd think that they would work a lot more efficiently than something like SupCom or C&C3. I guess there's a Civ game coming.. but I'd like to see more of that.

Well I already mentioned that, you have an extra button press, it's not completely optimal, but it's not a game destroying thing. Just like how you can press a single button to bring up any weapon in a PC FPS but usually have to scroll through a bunch in a console game (unless they use the dpad, and/or have few weapons held at the same time)There are certainly a fair amount of turn based strategy on consoles / handhelds but they take different forms. Stuff like Advance Wars and Culdcept Saga. It's sad the genre isn't very popular because I always felt like RTS games were all about executing one of a few optimal patterns of development, while TBS take a lot of different forms, plus you always have the time to form REAL strategies.

[quote=GriftGFX]I know what you mean. I wish they would bring Dawn of War to consoles, that is a fantastic game on the PC. Just bought it with all expansions, including Soulstorm - decided to go legit :o)

Unfortunately, that is one game where the mouse and keyboard come into their own and would be horrid on a gamepad, so might not ever see it.

Also, RTS is still an unknown amongst casual gamers, which the console market has increasingly catered for over the last decade or so, so it will be a while before the sales justify the need to port them over, when you have a fully-fledged PC crowd willing to take up the slack.

That's basically a different genre all together.. I'm talking about stuff like Civilization or Heroes of Might and Magic. I enjoy SRPG's but they take a different approach. Culdcept Saga is an interesting title.. it's very unique, and hard to place in just any genre. It's a board game, it's a card game.. I should pick that up.While Dawn of War is cool and all, I was asking why more turn based strat hasn't found its way to a console audience. I think they'd work a little better in that environment than your more traditional RTS, because they're less manic and don't require the same sort of speed of thought and action that some RTS do.

Oops, my bad! Missed the turn-based bit! Too busy playing Dawn of war to notice!!!

XD

The only turn-based games I've played are things like Warhammer 40000, Settlers of Catan, Risk etc. Stuff like that would be far easier to port over to consoles, I agree.

Well let's wait for a demo. I'm all for RTS games on consoles... while PC is always better still... I do have very warm memories of Red Alert 2 on PSX... years ago.