SupCom 2 Catch-All

Thin_J wrote:
jam3 wrote:

What does anyone agreeing me with matter, go play the first game then play 2 or watch gameplay videos and play the demo if you don't want to buy it (like me), use some objective analysis and the FACT is that the game lost a tremendous number of features the original had. I am not trying to engage in subjective editorals the game lost a ton of features. And if you like it that way then go enjoy it. If your not so happy about it and the proliferation of deevolution that its going on around the industry in spades then speak up as well as not purchasing all the garbage devs are throwing out these days.

You're clearly not paying attention. I own Supreme Commander. I own Forged Alliance. Played fair amounts of both. Don't care at all about the things you're talking about being removed.

Removing features does not mean a game has devolved. And the idea that there's a "proliferation of deevolution" is just pure hyperbole. But by all means, have at it.

I don't think what Jam is trying to say is valid. In today's gaming industry, console is king and PC gaming has been taking the hit for it. Some of my favorite games are more then a decade old. There are a few great games today made for PC, but most end up making compromises so it works well on a console. As a PC gamer, I don't want these compromises. I want a game that is made for the PC and uses the full capabilities of a PC. If I wanted the console version I would buy the console version.

Personally I don't mind Supcom2. A lot of people say it is less like Total Annihilation but I feel it is much closer to TA then Supcom was. I do see why many people have an issue with it. Take Left 4 Dead as an example. If they released Left 4 Dead 2 without medkits, and they take away the tank, and you only have tier 1 weapons do you think people would want to play it. Some would, but anyone that played and loved Left 4 Dead would probably not want to play the sequel. Thank goodness Valve played it smart and really added to the game.

On a side note, Total Annihilation is now available on Impuse.

Overall, if you completely ignore the previous titles in the series, Supcom II seems to be a solid hit for its target market. I seriously think that if they just had released it as "Cybran Empires:The SpinOff" it would have reduced all the kafuffle about the game down to nothing.

On the one hand, almost everyone I've talked to who has played the game without judging it based on the original Supcom has been very happy with the gameplay and overall feel and balance.

On the other hand, everyone who looked to Supreme Commander II to be a continuation and improvement of the original is very disappointed about missing features and simpler gameplay.

*shrug*

Thin_J wrote:
jam3 wrote:

What does anyone agreeing me with matter, go play the first game then play 2 or watch gameplay videos and play the demo if you don't want to buy it (like me), use some objective analysis and the FACT is that the game lost a tremendous number of features the original had. I am not trying to engage in subjective editorals the game lost a ton of features. And if you like it that way then go enjoy it. If your not so happy about it and the proliferation of deevolution that its going on around the industry in spades then speak up as well as not purchasing all the garbage devs are throwing out these days.

You're clearly not paying attention. I own Supreme Commander. I own Forged Alliance. Played fair amounts of both. Don't care at all about the things you're talking about being removed.

Removing features does not mean a game has devolved. And the idea that there's a "proliferation of deevolution" is just pure hyperbole. But by all means, have at it.

Ok then I'll bite, saying something has deevloved might carry a connotation to you that means "it's gotten worse" when what it means is thats it has gone back to a more primative state, you think thats good, i think its bad. Removing features deevolved that game back to a more primative state of rts's and thats not really debatable why you want to continue to belabor the point I don't know, if you want to argue whether thats a positive or a negative thats fine just don't impose your feeling toward a word on the discussion. plenty of words get a bad rap like manipulate most people just think thats bad but by its definition people manipulate and are manipulated all the time for things good bad and neutral. Stop hurting the words. And i've said boring and garbage I don't think i've become hyperbolic, well maybe the caps for fact

And I have to agree with a general conclusion alot of people have come to both here and on the GPG forums that the main problem was the hide and steal $50 out of the PC Gamers wallet before they realize the sequel to a "hardcore PC title" is just CnC style console rts. If they called it SupCom: Tactics and branded it mainly for console no one would probably have cared one bit it was the actual hyperbole on Chris Taylors part in marketing the game in such a way that they could get the "hardcore" crowd to buy it not really knowing what they were going to get, I got lucky and was able to cancel my pre-order off steam after playing the demo a bunch of folks didnt play the demo and got shafted , its all over GPG forums go see for yourself people are extremly upset because they got told one thing and bought something completly different.

It's really obvious that GPG cut features off, without placing interesting substitutes. The tech-tree, while nice, isn't by itself a game definer as the previous game's economy model. Balancing infinite build queues while developing an economy to sustain such queues is way more interesting than going back to base to order 20 more tanks every time you accumulate enough resources. Or having to check the factories to see if you need to unpause any of them because at some point in time you suffered from "not enough minerals" and they just stop.

The unit count, while high, has been toned down. The experimentals aren't game enders as before. You see them sooner, but they don't pack the same punch.

As for the games dragging for too long, you can solve that by placing mechanisms in the game that are unrelated to the economy, like having a fast-yet-obvious arms race to a series of game enders (experimentals, nukes, artillery) that can't be properly countered (no shields, OP experimentals). Or something like point capture, as we've seen in Relic's games, where a self sustaining economy cannot stop point accumulation or degradation. Or something like the wonders in Age of Empires (a mode turtlers can win).

SupCom2 has something going for the arms race by means of the tech-tree (going heavy towards nukes before anyone develops proper counters for example), but again, this doesn't interfere in how the economic game plays out, so why change it?

The fact is that one of the things that made the series stand out has been removed, and it's replacement isn't exquisite enough. Maybe it's a more approachable game, but there are other games doing it better, and I've serious doubts towards this thing's staying power.

oMonarca wrote:

The fact is that one of the things that made the series stand out has been removed, and it's replacement isn't exquisite enough. Maybe it's a more approachable game, but there are other games doing it better, and I've serious doubts towards this thing's staying power.

Because SupCom 1 did so well and had staying power? If you guys want more games from (insert favorite developer) you are going to have to compromise with them actually making games that are going to sell.

Played a few skirmish games and started the campaign (the siren call of BFBC2 has kept me distracted) but I like what I see so far. This is the first time using the dual monitor support (I know the first game had it, but I never turned it on.) Wow, it is nice to have a full strategic map on one monitor.

I don't buy games because of the developer. If they go bankrupt, that's unfortunate, but I don't buy games just to keep them pumping out stuff I don't like, but based on the merit of the game itself. Also, this is GPG. The same guys behind Space Siege, the cash-in.

Crysis is a totally common FPS, without hard to learn mechanics, and that game, like SupCom1, undersold. People wouldn't buy SupCom1 because "oh the economy is so weird!". Most gamers don't research their buys that thoroughly. The problem was too steep system requirements in a time where gamers were/are fed up with constant PC upgrades.

I don't regret the apparent visual downgrade in SupCom2 if that means that more people will be able to play the game smoothly. Or the reduced unit count. That actually helps the game perform better commercially, which is a good and understandable compromise.

This is me speaking out of my ass, but I doubt that SupCom2 will last as long as the first one, because what kept the niche of the first playing it isn't there anymore. I mean, what does this game have that really sets it apart from the upcoming competition, besides the feel of it, which calling it good or bad is totally subjective? Starcraft elevates the classic formula to new polish levels. Dawn of War 2 is all about quick tactical decisions. Empire Total War goes for the historical "accuracy" (winks @ 3MA), creating a model that tries to simulate how battles performed in the XVIII century. Heck, even C&C4 goes for some weird sh*t I don't like, but at least it sets it apart.

What's does SupCom2 do that others, including the (still actual) first, don't to better?

So would you recommend this game(s) to a guy who doesn't really play other strategies other than what Blizzard releases? Used to be a huge Dune fan and C&C/RA2/AoE guy but nothing has been able to top W3/SC and I haven't played those in more than 5 years.
I'm just looking for a way back in the RTS genre but I don't know if I'm OK with the "innovations" those new strategies use. I'm more of a fan of the classic RTS I guess.

Then definitely try the demo out, you might like it. The story and voice acting sucks, but the missions themselves are fun.

The game is aimed towards people that have the same likings as you. But when the other SC2 hits shelves, I'm pretty sure you won't pick this game many times after that.

Yeah Liquid I think that you would like the game quite a bit.

General Crespin wrote:

And that's even more so with a friend I play RTS with. We will last as long as we can against each other, to the point of hiding worker units all over the map to screw the other person and make the game last as long as possible. :lol:

Ha! So I'm not the only one that does that. Slytin is usually a better RTS player and during the endgame while staring at my smoldering ruins, with an imminent invasion by an enemy armada, I would always scatter a worker or several out to the winds to hide in the scenery. I'd even start up tiny little refugee camps so that I could create guerrilla units to poke at his rampaging armies. Good times.

LiquidMantis wrote:
General Crespin wrote:

And that's even more so with a friend I play RTS with. We will last as long as we can against each other, to the point of hiding worker units all over the map to screw the other person and make the game last as long as possible. :lol:

Ha! So I'm not the only one that does that. Slytin is usually a better RTS player and during the endgame while staring at my smoldering ruins, with an imminent invasion by an enemy armada, I would always scatter a worker or several out to the winds to hide in the scenery. I'd even start up tiny little refugee camps so that I could create guerrilla units to poke at his rampaging armies. Good times.

Yeah, It's a F-ing Blast :), and why am I trying to get you pick up SupCom2 again?

Slytin wrote:

Yeah, It's a F-ing Blast :), and why am I trying to get you pick up SupCom2 again?

I keep checking Steam to see if I've been gifted SC2 yet. The processing must be slowed down...

LiquidMantis wrote:
General Crespin wrote:

And that's even more so with a friend I play RTS with. We will last as long as we can against each other, to the point of hiding worker units all over the map to screw the other person and make the game last as long as possible. :lol:

Ha! So I'm not the only one that does that. Slytin is usually a better RTS player and during the endgame while staring at my smoldering ruins, with an imminent invasion by an enemy armada, I would always scatter a worker or several out to the winds to hide in the scenery. I'd even start up tiny little refugee camps so that I could create guerrilla units to poke at his rampaging armies. Good times.

One of my favourite games ever in SupCom one was when I did something similar to this. Except with a galactic collusus.

It was on the massive water and islands map (Roanoke abyss?) and after and hour or so, it was quite clear I wasn't going to win. My main base island was getting totally pounded by a superior naval force and my airforce was too depleted after a successful attack on a different player. However, about 3 islands over, I had a bunch of T3 engies working on this robot. Realising I was about to get defeated, I pointed all my units at the main island to keep the enemies attention while the engies finished their job. Which they did, and I immediately waypointed the robot into the sea, to walk the long way round to the other side of the map, where my attackers main bases were. By the time the enemy got to the engie island, it looked like they were just leftovers, which got mopped up and the enemy moved on assuming I had been defeated. I did wonder why he didn't twig that something was up when there was no message that I had been defeated, but I guess he just assumed there was a straggler engie or interceptor somewhere. Over the next half hour my trusty robot marched along the sea-floor around the edge of the map whilst one of my allies continued to fight valiantly. I read a book for a bit. Eventually the robot reached the other side of the map, far behind enemy lines. I located the island that seemed to be providing the bulk of the enemy's economy and waited. My partner had been a much better player than I, and was doing very well against our enemy. But he seemed unable to break through, always having to pull a fighting retreat as the counter-attacks kept coming. The enemy was producing units at a prodigious rate, always just enough to push back against my ally before any lasting damage could be done. And that was my moment. The enemies gunships lifted off, the freshly constructed destroyers set out to sea and the island with all those lovely mass fabs and power plants was open. My robot rose from the depths and made its way up the beach, point defenses falling uselessly before it (Message from enemy: sh*t!Where did that come from?). The destruction was beautiful - the pps and mass fabs went up in three glorious chain reactions. The carnage continued on this little island until it was almost bare - scorched husks of factories and the few token land units scattered amongst the blasted remains of the former economic powerhouses. By the time the gunships came, my robots task was as good as complete. It was sad to see the fliers buzzing around the mighty automaton, wearing down its armour and eventually finishing it - and me - off for good. But it was not in vain. The enemy was crippled. The hasty retreat was pursued by my ally whom, with the enemy no longer able to out-produce him, was finally able to push the advantage right to the heart of the enemy territory. (Message from enemy, final moments before ACU destruction: no idea you still had a robot, thought I was going to win! pld).

Epic

Well done pignoli. A true ace-in-the-sleeve story

That's the reason to play RTS' for the moment like those.

I still like flying the saucer into the enemy base and then release a full load of t1 bombers, so funny to see the destruction 200+ t1 bombers can do..

jam3 wrote:

Ok then I'll bite, saying something has deevloved might carry a connotation to you that means "it's gotten worse" when what it means is thats it has gone back to a more primative state, you think thats good, i think its bad. Removing features deevolved that game back to a more primative state of rts's and thats not really debatable why you want to continue to belabor the point I don't know, if you want to argue whether thats a positive or a negative thats fine just don't impose your feeling toward a word on the discussion. plenty of words get a bad rap like manipulate most people just think thats bad but by its definition people manipulate and are manipulated all the time for things good bad and neutral. Stop hurting the words. And i've said boring and garbage I don't think i've become hyperbolic, well maybe the caps for fact :)

This is all fine except the word evolved doesn't mean strictly adding features, it means growth/progression. There are tons of cases where natural evolution removed features from species to allow them to adapt.

If the features you're thinking of were removed with the intent of making SupCom2 a better game, that's not deevolution. It's a new direction you happen to disagree with.

Yeah I think Trigger just hit on the biggest part of our differences. You're saying something has devolved, but the changes you're giving aren't examples that back up the use of that word. They're just changes.

If the game had truly devolved, for that word to fit this situation, they would have essentially had to just slap Total Annihilation on a disc, old graphics engine and all, and name it Supreme Commander 2.

But they didn't do that. They upgraded some things and removed others. That's an evolution. It might be in a direction you don't like, but that doesn't make it devolution.

Thin_J wrote:

Yeah I think Trigger just hit on the biggest part of our differences. You're saying something has devolved, but the changes you're giving aren't examples that back up the use of that word. They're just changes.

If the game had truly devolved, for that word to fit this situation, they would have essentially had to just slap Total Annihilation on a disc, old graphics engine and all....

They did that just the other day... (Impulse is selling Total Annihilation, with the possibility of actually doing some work on it to release a new patch... )

I've been playing some of this in multiplayer with an old friend of mine from high school. I admit there's probably some influence here on finding another game to play with an old friend, but we've been having a pretty great time with it over the last day or so.

It's been enough to pull me away from Bad Company 2.

The changes to the economy model have had little to no effect on how games play out.

We gravitate toward free for all matches and that's all we played, so my comments will echo that. No 1v1's. Most of our games average between twenty and thirty minutes, usually with at least one person going out to a commander on commander battle within the first five minutes, and then the remaining players going for maybe another fifteen minutes, depending on the size of the game and the map we chose.

We've had two that have gone for just shy of an hour, usually ending with one player that was forgotten massing some particularly giant force and and springing his attack right after the other players have wasted their forces on each other.

And I won one game when two players that were doing significantly better than I was (I got wiped early, but proceeded to run away with my ACU and waddle around the map, building research stations and upgrading my commander) went one on one with their commanders. One of them won the fight, but the nuclear blast took him out too. Victory for me!

That is way to short for me. I like RTSes to take 2-4 hours. If it is that fast, might as well be playing Starcraft.

kazar wrote:

That is way to short for me. I like RTSes to take 2-4 hours. If it is that fast, might as well be playing Starcraft.

That's on par with most games of Supcom that I played of that gametype.

If your games were always 2 to 4 hours, you were playing with people that suck even worse than I do, and I'm pretty terrible

Sounds like you belong in the Sins of a Solar Empire thread.

I do play sins. As a side note. What speed do you guys play on. My friend who plays starcraft won't play unless it is on the fastest setting. That could also account for the length of games. I like things on slow. I don't believe the better player is one that can click faster but rather one that can think better.

We've always played Supcom at the normal speed. There are no game speed options in Supcom 2 that I've seen.

Wow, I had no idea there was this much animosity towards Supreme Commander 2. I'm reviewing it for the Xbox 360 without having played the original. I played Total Annihilation a lot way back when, and to me this feels like the same, except prettier and on my HDTV. I'm only some missions into the single-player campaign, but thus far it feels pretty good.

Sounds like maybe I should play the first Supreme Commander on the PC, then.

I'm enjoying the game. I even finished the campaign. The AI is pretty brain dead in skirmishes, but that is really my only complaint so far.

I haven't finished the campaign, as this game is splitting time with three other games, but I definitely enjoyed what I played of it so far.