World War 3 is a free-to-play command PvP shooter from the Polish studio The Farm 51.

Open beta testing of World War 3 started on December 10. The game had previously been in the early access stage for a long time. It was obvious that it would be blasphemous of me to miss such an event, so I immediately rushed to the release version of the project.

The game is completely free and pretty well optimized. Everything I’m going to say next is something you can easily test out on Steam. World War 3 will in any case launch its own launcher, from which the game itself is already launched. The launcher, by the way, has a very familiar design.

The game works exactly as you’d expect it to, with stable 70+ frames per second on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB at maximum 1080p settings. No less stable 90-95 frames perSecond on 4K with the RX 6800 XT at the same settings. Even 57 frames persecond on the Intel ARC A380 at 1080p. There are plenty of settings here and if you want, you can increase the frame rate almost without loss in image quality. For the latter, it’s better to lower the settings a bit for a stable 60+ and increased comfort while playing. There will be a difference in the pixel comparison, but in combat it is absolutely impossible to see this.

There’s really no complaining about optimization, and there’s a lot of gamers who can play when they want to. Yes, the game does not boast of using the latest graphics technology and looks objectively worse than the last Battlefield 2042. In the modern world, the lack of optimization can sometimes boast even retro-cutting shooters with almost pixel graphics. And yes, we live in a time where developers who do their job deserve credit. It is also clear that the goal of the developers was to make the project accessible to the widest possible range of players.

The game looks quite decent, although it does not boast of particularly advanced graphics. Just good and nothing more, which I think is more than enough for a network shooter. If you want more, you can always go to the big AAA projects like Warzone 2 or Battlefield 2042. I’m playing on a 43-inch 4K monitor myself, and I’m more than happy with what I’m seeing in World War 3.

The weapons selection is not impressive at the start, but after a few hours of play, you don’t have to complain anymore, everything you need is open. Before going into battle in one of the two available modes, the player is asked to customize his arsenal, which gradually expands as the player gains experience. It is also worth noting that the player’s arsenal includes not only the weapons he uses, but also the equipment.

As I wrote above, there are two game modes available to players. These are the Battle and Team Fight, which differ in scale and the need to capture strong points.

The Battle is the most important battle in World War 3. Two teams of 20 people each battle on fairly large maps. For this regime, it would be much better to have 30-40 people in each team. This would give enough population for massive locations and allow more to shoot enemies, rather than running around looking for them. Otherwise, the essence of the mode is that players capture strong points and do not prevent opponents from taking them.

The problem with finding opponents in Battle is not going away, but it is noticeably less pronounced, which is definitely a plus. The second mode, Team Battle, already provides players with more action by significantly reducing the size of the maps on which battles take place. Unfortunately, it’s also reducing the sizes of the teams, which I think is something that should not have been done. Each Team Battle consists of three rounds. This mode does not require the capture of points, allowing you to focus on finding and destroying enemies. But I’d still like to see a little more players in one location than we have now. The second option is to limit the size of the cards available to the mode more.

The handplay in World of War 3 is not bad, but it’s definitely not the best. In fact, my main complaint about the shooting is the unconvincing sound, which clearly lacks depth. This is especially noticeable after the great shooting soundtrack in the new Call of Duty. However, the behavior of the weapon itself is well implemented and does not cause any strong complaints from the word at all.

The characters wear body armor and helmets that reduce the damage to protected body parts and can slightly increase the number of bullets needed by one opponent. If you shoot accurately enough, the opponent will go to the counter in literally a couple of seconds, but a slight twist of realism can also play a role. After death, the player is shown a map of the number of bullets with the wound instead of the killkam. I’d like to be able to see the Kills, too.

The game has a lot of customization options. You’ll need a headset or a sound system with a normal sound stage. There’s really no point in getting upset, it’s pretty easy to tell by the sound the direction of the enemy’s movement nearby in the game.

The game’s OTT was launched a few days ago, and so now it’s all about the support of The Farm 51 themselves. World War 3 looks like a pretty promising project at the moment, and if the developers can increase the limit of combatants and improve the sounds of weapons then it’s going to be very good. And also, as I wrote at the beginning, it runs without any problems on a very wide range of computer hardware. There’s even a gamepad support for those who want to indulge in debauchery.

Similar Posts