When me and my friends join up for a game of Risk, my status as “geopolitical knowledge bucket” predictably leads me to play with the demeanor of Earth’s unqestioned leader, George W. Bush. I’ll just say that spreading freedom is a tough task when random dice rolls dictate the game, even with God on your side. It may seem odd I’ll give the occasional game of Risk a go, given my way of gaming is all about sensory overload, but I’ve tabbed out a soft spot for the global war genre. I mentioned Extreme’s “The Third World War” in a prior entry as “criminally underrated”, and it’s a damn shame, because no developer since has successfully replicated it. It’s time to introduce you to what might be the Sega CD’s best game.
The Third World War features five diverse scenarios which require you to conquer the planet through military or economic means. The catch? Do it without sending the world into nuclear war. The difficulty level is dependant on the scenario and which of the game’s sixteen playable countries you choose to lead towards superpower status. Pushing the planet around with the States may be easy, but try walking into Europe with Libyan gun-mounted wheelbarrows...if China or Japan isn’t already wiping you out.
Blue: United States; Light Blue: Japan; Everyone else: Fucked.
The turn-based, month-by-month overworld screen offers you three decisions a turn (the number increasing as your global influence expands) and covers the gamut of international and domestic decision-making. Your advisors will routinely point you towards criticial affairs, which should help give newer players a handle on keeping things stable. All countries take the same approach, but each country plays a drastically different style that gives the game its beauty. As the United States, you can go postal with a military matched only by Russia’s. During my game as China, my commitment to economic expansion paid off with a handsome trade surplus. As Libya, my stomping out of Israel culiminated with my chemical weapons attack on Jerusalem. When my country's population was reduced to 100,000 people by the retaliatory nuclear strike , I took that as my cue to start a new save file.
Pictured: Israeli Dream Scenario
After every turn, you’re updated to a depressing list of world events that will make you second-guess whether world domination is worth it. The lack of diversity in world events will get repetitive, but good players will readily exploit what they mean to their own interests. It may not seem important that Tanzania won the Olympics or that Romania is planning to declare a new holiday; but when the government of Angola is overthrown four times in three years, you should consider that your cue to stop tossing your budget into the country.
All of the above is set to a spectacular musical score that will convince you to play a few more turns before shutting down the console. The lack of neutrality succeeds in capturing the grit of war. While your command console is placed alongside march-to-war music, world events are presented alongside the dark reality of military conflict.
Now, The Third World War is not perfect, particularly in the realm of combat, where the game’s problems can range from “borderline imbalanced” to “as boring as this blog”. Waging invasions across boundaries you don’t control (the seas included) requires at least one aircraft carrier, and culminates in failure against any very powerful computer player. If you manage to make it to the battlefield, the bare-bones combat will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Enjoy shipping 3,800 planes into a version of Tripoli that could be easily mistaken for an autumn day in Birmingham. No matter how many planes you send into battle, you only get the option of using them for one bombing run. You’ll also notice in a game that has put emphasis on WMD combat, the computer will only retaliate against your own wall of nukes. You would think marching your army towards Baghdad would result in some sort of nuclear--bad example, carrying on.
Just be aware that none of these shortcomings knock down the substantial quantities of awesomeness smelted into each copy of The Third World War. A couple companies have tried to recreate this model, with the little-known Superpower series being the best example of how difficult nailing down this genre is. In 1994, Micronet could have virtual Britain attack virtual Moscow with no real explanation, particularly with “a war like no other and a world in chaos” being the entire premise of their game. When Dreamcatcher pushed their follow up to the critically-panned Superpower, IGN’s review read something like this:
I played Iran in SuperPower 2, and predictably it's current government is viewed as a pariah regime by quite a few other nations. What I don't understand is why, at one point, after I'd increased the size of my military, Spain declared war on me. That's right: Spain, and nobody else. The Spanish actually invaded my territory, leading to the expected solidarity that led several other Middle Eastern nations, including Afghanistan, Jordan, and Syria, to back me up. The last time I played that unbelievable scenario of mine, the Spanish had taken over the northwestern quadrant of my nation, and my allies were swarming them from all sides.
...
In another game, as Brazil, war was declared on me by Taiwan and Saudi Arabia. Nobody else made a move, either against me or for me. No reasons were apparent why my relations with these two nations suddenly took a nose dive from the 50% range down to subterranean levels.
Game developers should take notice: if you want to do a global conquest simulator properly, pop The Third World War into any Sega CD and take notes. This is a game whose flavor needs to be brought to next-gen entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment