unnamed (11)

According to Wikipedia, there were 19 entries in the perennial Worms franchise before the latest game was published on iOS last year, not counting re-releases, ports, spin-offs, and expansion packs. So why is this one simply titled Worms 3, when in fact we've already had Worms 2, Worms 4: Mayhem, Worms 2: Armageddon (published after Worms 4, by the way), and Worms: Ultimate Mayhem? Who knows. Apparently fans of this series aren't bothered by inconsistent numbering schemes.

The trailer above is from the iOS version released last year.

And the fans that have stuck it out this long will be happy to know that Worms 3 keeps the traditional 2D ballistic gameplay (a la Scorched Earth and all its other imitators) with a few new elements thrown in for good measure. In addition to upgraded visuals and audio, the game switches to a class-based system for your invertebrate heroes, letting you choose between soldiers, scouts, heavies, and healers. There's also a card system for power-ups and modifiers: up to three cards at once can give you various advantages against the other team.

unnamed unnamed (1) unnamed (2)

That said, this is still the Worms you know and possibly love. Squeaky voices, ridiculous weapons, gigantic explosions. There's a bit of strategy in choosing your weapons, classes, and modifier cards, but at the end of the day you're still playing the original "physics game," getting just the right arc via direction and velocity to smash the other team. A single-player campaign is augmented by both online matches and "hot potato" multiplayer on one device.

unnamed (3)

Worms 3 is expensive at five bucks, and the in-app purchase notice in Google Play will probably scare away a few players. Fear not: according to the iOS game listing, the $1 in-app purchases are for level skip tokens and cosmetic elements. While there is a currency and card system in place, there's no way to artificially boost your score by spending more money, which should mean a balanced and fair multiplayer system. Hopefully Worms will get a little better Android support as well, now that it's out of EA's hands.

Michael Crider
Michael is a native Texan and a former graphic designer. He's been covering technology in general and Android in particular since 2011. His interests include folk music, football, science fiction, and salsa verde, in no particular order.

  • thermoplastics

    $4.99 AND IAPS? GTFO!

    • Sean Cummins

      "according to the iOS game listing, the $1 in-app purchases are for level skip tokens and cosmetic elements. While there is a currency and card system in place, there's no way to artificially boost your score by spending more money,"

      I can live with the IAP in that context. I think $5 is a little steep for a mobile game but I've always loved the series. I even bought Worms 2: Armageddon for my PS3 a few months ago after being hit with a bit of nostalgia (and a few beers). I'll probably buy this, eventually, after a few beers.

      • theonetrueMike

        Beer..always helps bad decisions

      • Phil Kulak

        I don't think $5 is too much at all. It would really be nice if they didn't have any IAPs, but if it's extremely limited and doesn't affect game play in any significant way, I'm fine with it.

      • http://rayshq.com/ Ray

        I'll never understand why people say it seems a little steep for a "mobile game".

        Doesn't matter what platform it's on - someone (or multiple of) has slugged away for countless weeks/months/years(?) to develop it.

        $5 is certainly not unreasonable for a mobile game especially considering you are looking at between $50 and $100+ for any new console or computer game today.

        • ghetto McKee

          Because you just can't, generally, get as much enjoyment and spend as much time on a mobile game.

          • http://rayshq.com/ Ray

            Which is why it's $5 and not $50-100+.

          • thermoplastics

            Actually the complete game is $17.98. Doesn't sound so reasonable anymore does it?

    • Sir Perro

      People like you actually CREATED IAPS. People not willing to pay five stupid dollars for hours of entertainment. People disrespectful to the hard work of a group of people who do that for a living.

      So I'll leave my qualified opinion here: Shut the fuck up and go play farmville.

      • thermoplastics

        I would have happily paid $5, hell I would have gone so far as $10 but I will never pay for a game that then is going to ask me for even more money after cash has already changed hands. This nickle and dimming garbage is frankly just insulting. So you go ahead and tell yourself whatever it takes to make you feel better but the reality is that it is not the people (such as myself) who want and pay for games with a singular cost for full content that are to blame for IAPs like this proliferating in the mobile market, it is you, the person who pays for and argues on the behalf of games with this kind of anti-consumer payment model.

        I for one will never be purchasing my games piecemeal.

        • Sir Perro

          I'm perfectly fine with in-app purchases of this kind. It keeps the core experience intact, and allows wealthy people to buy hats and costumes for their worms, if they are really interested in wasting their money.

          Plus, more importantly, optional in-app purchases which don't affect the gameplay, help keeping the cost down for most of the customers.

          So I don't know how that is an anti-customer payment model, where it offers the same core experience, at lower cost.

          Most people cannot see the silver linings of in-app purchases, if done well. And that is a pitty.

          I consider other kind of in-app purchases unethical, and I NEVER bother downloading such games. In that case I agree with you. But sorry you're not being rational in this case.

          • thermoplastics

            Ah yes, the one who is not cursing at random strangers on the internet over video games is the one who is "not being rational".

            Cosmetic items for the purpose of supporting free to play games like TF2 is a perfectly acceptable means of monetization. What is not okay is when the game has an upfront price and then wants even more money for the rest of the content.

            Two comments ago you were blaming me for the inception of IAPs because you perceived me as someone who won't pay $5 for games, when in fact I am willing to pay more as long as the content is complete. Yet you are the one advocating for piecemeal content to keep the price down. So I have to ask, who is the one being cheap here and advocating for IAPs?

          • CrazyPaladin

            You do realize TF2 was a full priced game and they had those cosmetics and crates and keys before going F2P?

          • thermoplastics

            Yes but luckily Valve decided it was not a good way to go with having a paid game and endless paid content. Should a developer who made the right decision be chastised forever just because they made bad ones a long time ago?

          • CrazyPaladin

            The right decision? The RIGHT decision? I'm sorry I brought it up because I HATE it whenever people talk about F2P, they talk about how TF2 is the perfect F2P model. It's not, look at what F2P has done to the game! It's a freaking hat simulator now! You know why Valve actively add hats and the freaking marketplace instead of actual game content? "IAPs like this will exist as long as people like yourself continue to pay for them" Exactly

    • CrazyPaladin

      I just checked, the IAP cover mostly just customization items, with one exception that is the golden donkey, not sure what it do though, as you already have the classic donkey. The card can only be bought with ingame coin that you can not buy with real money. But the customization items are a bit pricy, with 16 little packs I guess and 0.99 each, while the whole pack for 12.99. BTW, 9 month, 9 month since it orignal iOS release

      • thermoplastics

        So the actual complete price is $17.98 for a nine month old port that dropped features such as controller support. Can't say this sounds like a deal at all, more like a cash grab that is taking advantage of a devoted niche fanbase.

  • GraveUypo

    yeah worms got old after armageddon back in... the early 2000's? i think so. never had that much fun again with it

    • Kevin Aaronson

      Yup, not sure who keeps buying these.

      • macr0t0r

        I do! It's still the best of breed for family gaming. It's a niche market, but we're loyal and have money.

        • Sergii Pylypenko

          It took me long enough to learn weapons and controls of Armageddon version, after my happy Worms 1 for DOS days. And now, cards and class system?
          I bet AI still can shoot you with bazooka from the other part of level, using cheaty wind tricks.

          • Mike D

            I could shoot you with the bazooka from the other part of the level using cheaty wind tactics.

          • Sergii Pylypenko
          • Mike D

            I've done similar - going through a tiny gap - but that'd certainly require a little luck! The rest of the shot though, with some practice, I could hit over 80% of the time.

          • Sergii Pylypenko

            Are you a super-human, or have some kind of brain implants?
            Hitting target while facing away from it - for me that's plainly impossible. Most of the time I can't even throw the grenade straight, and it's not affected by wind.

          • Mike D

            Haha! Nah man, just played a hell of a lot of Worms! :D

  • Fatal1ty_93_RUS

    I'd rather have a 3D Worms game on mobile like Worms Forts, but this one will do too

  • Olav

    In Worms 2: Armageddon its still very hard to connect to a multiplayer game. Like 10% chance. Is it because I got it on amazon appstore?

  • Ilya Potekhin

    Does this have better controls than Worms 2: Armageddon? W2:A had absolutely horrible touch controls with no option to use physical controls or on screen buttons.

  • Simon Wells

    Can't believe anyone not mentioned the permissions on this one. access contacts? really??!! wft???