supreme commander 2 in pc gamer

I

ikarinokami

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
713
After reading the sumpreme commander exclusive, it sounds to me that it's going to be a consolized total annihilation, that could be a good thing or a bad thing, but it does not sound much like supreme commander 2 to me.

1. the economy got nuked, that was really central to Supcom

2. the tier system gone

3. experimentals watered down,

4. instant gratification game play

I don't see the point of calling this supreme commander 2, when all the things that made sumpreme commander so unque, got axed or dumbed down. I guess in the end, it was always be about the money and in the gaming world that means consoles:(, which means instant gratification and accessibility will always win over depth, complexity and uniqueness, how well que se ra
 
I honestly believe the game has been dumbed down because a lot of people couldn't comprehend it.

I loved the game as it was, i never played the expansion though. But i could destoy people at the original.
 
i heard the economy got a lot of negative feedback ... which is why it was scaled back. I don't know never played it but im' guessing this is a classic case of dumb people playing a good game and not getting it
 
wtf :| why even release it as SupCom 2? may as well just have called it SupCom: Prelude or something :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, Chris Taylor is smokin' money. Everything about Supcom2 is a departure from the creative vision for Total Annihilation (which SupCom is essentially based on). Not only has he taken out the economy, technology levels, and build times... but have you seen the new unit design? It's looks absolutely terrible, imo.

It would take some absolutely rave reviews for me to think about buying the game, which is really depressing since I play TA and Forged Alliance almost daily...
 
at least he isnt chopping the campaign into 3 parts and releasing them separately
 
Gaiden133 said:
wtf :| why even release it as SupCom 2? may as well just have called it SupCom: Prelude or something :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This was my reaction after reading the article. I have no idea why this is being called supreme commander 2. the closest i can figure it's going to be like dawn of war and dawn of war 2 where it's the setting that is the cohesive factor. Gameplay wise supcom 1 and supcom 2 are nothing alike, except the factions have the same name. it sounds honestly like a generic RTS with a few new features here and there. Judging from only the preview, it sounds like a huge leap back from supcom 1. They mentioned in the article that all the changes not only alter gameplay but also make the game alot easier to run with fewer resources, i don't think that was a coincedence.
 
Forealz said:
at least he isnt chopping the campaign into 3 parts and releasing them separately
Click to expand...
SC2 really isn't a big deal at all. All 3 races will be playable in multiplayer. It's only the single player that follows only the terran perspective.

If the single campaign is the same length, and has the awesome Blizzard story and gameplay, then it's worth the value. There's no reason to suspect it won't be!

When they release the other campaigns as expansions, it will be just like in the past with Brood War, more story, more units and some tweaked gameplay. Did people whine and cry when Brood War was released, saying this continued story should have been included in the original game?...? Not that I remember. I can't fathom why it's an issue now.
 
ikarinokami said:
This was my reaction after reading the article. I have no idea why this is being called supreme commander 2. the closest i can figure it's going to be like dawn of war and dawn of war 2 where it's the setting that is the cohesive factor. Gameplay wise supcom 1 and supcom 2 are nothing alike, except the factions have the same name. it sounds honestly like a generic RTS with a few new features here and there. Judging from only the preview, it sounds like a huge leap back from supcom 1. They mentioned in the article that all the changes not only alter gameplay but also make the game alot easier to run with fewer resources, i don't think that was a coincedence.
Click to expand...
At least it's not as bad as Far Cry and Far Cry 2 ;-)

Setting coherency? nope
Gameplay coherency? nope
Actor coherency? nope
Design team coherency? nope
Technology engine coherency? nope

A lot of companies are seeing Blizzard's success, and realizing that the larger the audience, the more $$$$. See Quakelive, Team Fortress2, Battlefield Heroes, WOW, etc.
 
People need to chill out.... seriously.

* They are not removing the economy. Period. Simplifying it probably so that the mighty MEX is no longer the deciding factor in games.

* Tech upgrades still exist... but are different from SupCom. (upgrade all units with certain features is now possible).

* Experimentals will feature more in battles rather than being so expensive to build they were rarely seen in ranked matches.

From what Ive seen of the game it looks fun to play, an advancement in terms of graphics, and the changes are looking positive to me.

If more players pick this up and can get into it easier then it can only be a good thing... C&C games do so well due to their inherent simplicity compared to SupCom (yes most people are totally stupid)... plus the fit-women cut scenes help!! (Although that didnt save Red Alert 3).

I would advise to wait for a demo and try it out. You cant have it both ways... a game like SupCom that was too complex for the masses wont sell enough, so this is the companies way of dealing with it.

Its like the difference between ARMA II and BF2. (Complex and great to play if learnt well vs Easy to Pick and great to play)... Both are good games, and SupCom 2 will also find its niche as well.
 
lewchenko said:
People need to chill out.... seriously.

* They are not removing the economy. Period. Simplifying it probably so that the mighty MEX is no longer the deciding factor in games.

* Tech upgrades still exist... but are different from SupCom. (upgrade all units with certain features is now possible).

* Experimentals will feature more in battles rather than being so expensive to build they were rarely seen in ranked matches.

From what Ive seen of the game it looks fun to play, an advancement in terms of graphics, and the changes are looking positive to me.

If more players pick this up and can get into it easier then it can only be a good thing... C&C games do so well due to their inherent simplicity compared to SupCom (yes most people are totally stupid)... plus the fit-women cut scenes help!! (Although that didnt save Red Alert 3).

I would advise to wait for a demo and try it out. You cant have it both ways... a game like SupCom that was too complex for the masses wont sell enough, so this is the companies way of dealing with it.

Its like the difference between ARMA II and BF2. (Complex and great to play if learnt well vs Easy to Pick and great to play)... Both are good games, and SupCom 2 will also find its niche as well.
Click to expand...



1. the economy is dead because you can't mess it up. you have unlimited storage, and the game prevent's economy crash. economics is the balancing of scare resources, that no longer exists in the game anymore. what's left in the game cannot be reasonablely be called an "economy" because it's virtually impossible to screw it up.

2. The tech upgrades do not exist as tiers anymore. it more like whats happens in dawn of war, where you can upgrade am exiting item. that is foundational altering change.

3. exprimentals again you missed the point. before they were end all be all, not they can be gotten out in less than 15 mins. they have call them "minor" exprimentals now. thats a huge change, they differ from the high end units you see in a host of other rts's like battle for middle earth.

I rarely if ever seen anyone on this board complain about it's complexity. it would seem to me this is clearly a case of consolitis. as the game it's orginal form was clearly not apporitate for a console audience in terms of difficulty and resources.

I hope the game does not take off, because much like what happen to rainbow six, first person shooters, bathesda rpgs, RTS's will become neutured because consoles sensibilies are always to take prioity over pc ones. I am thankful that civilization was never a hit on consoles, and i am hoping for the same here. Is it too much to ask that there be at least 1 supcom type RTS.
 
lewchenko said:
People need to chill out.... seriously.

* They are not removing the economy. Period. Simplifying it probably so that the mighty MEX is no longer the deciding factor in games.

* Tech upgrades still exist... but are different from SupCom. (upgrade all units with certain features is now possible).

* Experimentals will feature more in battles rather than being so expensive to build they were rarely seen in ranked matches.

From what Ive seen of the game it looks fun to play, an advancement in terms of graphics, and the changes are looking positive to me.

If more players pick this up and can get into it easier then it can only be a good thing... C&C games do so well due to their inherent simplicity compared to SupCom (yes most people are totally stupid)... plus the fit-women cut scenes help!! (Although that didnt save Red Alert 3).

I would advise to wait for a demo and try it out. You cant have it both ways... a game like SupCom that was too complex for the masses wont sell enough, so this is the companies way of dealing with it.

Its like the difference between ARMA II and BF2. (Complex and great to play if learnt well vs Easy to Pick and great to play)... Both are good games, and SupCom 2 will also find its niche as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris Taylor! I now understand why you made the game this way...so it's more accessible and will have more players.

Folks here want the series to do as well as C&C all other things held equal, but first and foremost they want to play Supreme Commander. They want the economy; they want the complexity; and they want the experimental units to be game changers, not slightly better tier 4 units.

If we wanted to play C&C, then we would just pick that up. Total Annihilation had a fan base because people wanted a deeper alternative to C&C. Finding out that Chris Taylor is deviating from the foundational basis of the game isn't going to make fans happy.

Maybe he'll change the setting to some fantasy backdrop as well. It can be the second reincarnation of TA: Kingdoms! (Not really, just wanted to drop that reference)
 
I want experimentals to remain huge, expensive, relatively rare, and completely badass - able to instill fear in my opponents and awe with my allies. They should make me yell "oh %#@$!" when I see a couple marching toward my base. If this 'dumbing' down makes experimentals common, then that won't happen anymore.

I'll still try the demo (assuming there is a demo), but I'll be crossing my fingers.
 
This reminds me of when they took Star Wars Galaxies from a skill based game and turned it into a class based game to try and clone WoW. ---- They wound up angering their fanbase, which in turn drove away most existing players. They also completely failed to attract anyone new.

Not saying that SupCom is equal to SWG in terms of gameplay, because SWG has always sucked and SupCom is great, but you know what I mean :).

Drastically altering the games core concepts in an attempt to please the masses is USUALLY a bad idea.
 
TheCowOfNow said:
i heard the economy got a lot of negative feedback ... which is why it was scaled back. I don't know never played it but im' guessing this is a classic case of dumb people playing a good game and not getting it
Click to expand...


exactly..

im a huge TA/supcom fan.. but i think ill be waiting to buy this game at this point and see what people have to say about the game.. if THQ screws this game up.. ill never buy their crap again..


ikarinokami said:
1. the economy is dead because you can't mess it up. you have unlimited storage, and the game prevent's economy crash. economics is the balancing of scare resources, that no longer exists in the game anymore. what's left in the game cannot be reasonablely be called an "economy" because it's virtually impossible to screw it up.

2. The tech upgrades do not exist as tiers anymore. it more like whats happens in dawn of war, where you can upgrade am exiting item. that is foundational altering change.

3. exprimentals again you missed the point. before they were end all be all, not they can be gotten out in less than 15 mins. they have call them "minor" exprimentals now. thats a huge change, they differ from the high end units you see in a host of other rts's like battle for middle earth.

I rarely if ever seen anyone on this board complain about it's complexity. it would seem to me this is clearly a case of consolitis. as the game it's orginal form was clearly not apporitate for a console audience in terms of difficulty and resources.

I hope the game does not take off, because much like what happen to rainbow six, first person shooters, bathesda rpgs, RTS's will become neutured because consoles sensibilies are always to take prioity over pc ones. I am thankful that civilization was never a hit on consoles, and i am hoping for the same here. Is it too much to ask that there be at least 1 supcom type RTS.
Click to expand...


nothing could save RA3.. because EA was the ones that released.. all EA does is destroy good games.. i think the killer of RA3 was the fact that the expansion game was SP only.. and im kinda pissed i wasted 30 bucks on it.. plus the game felt like it was for 5 year olds.. cartoony and boring as shit.. RA3 lasted about 2 months for me.. and im still playing supcom:FA since its release..
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
exactly..

im a huge TA/supcom fan.. but i think ill be waiting to buy this game at this point and see what people have to say about the game.. if THQ screws this game up.. ill never buy their crap again..
Click to expand...

THQ has nothing to do with SupCom 2. GPG are the developers (same as SupCom 1) and Square Enix is the publisher.
 
dj_2004 said:
THQ has nothing to do with SupCom 2. GPG are the developers (same as SupCom 1) and Square Enix is the publisher.
Click to expand...


games still sold under the THQ name though.. or at least supcom 1 was.. so thats good enough for me.. lol.. im mostly pissed at THQ because of DoWII.. how they could even let a game developer completely destroy a series like that and then still release it is beyond me..
 
I admit I am worried, but I will still try it before I buy at least. I have hopes, but they do seem dashed...
 
Square Enix isn't just publishing. They have their hands in the plot and character/unit design too. It's obvious from the screenshots... and I think it looks terrible. I don't want to play a japanese RPG with a hint of RTS :(
TA had a kinda serious art design, especially the Core, with heavy-looking metallic units with only hints of your team color. Supcom2's stuff looks a bit cartoony, both in terms of meshes and colors - and it really irks me.
 
I'm not buying, but it's for the same reason I didn't buy Demigod...Chris Taylor + post-release = very little support. Supcom vanilla got a couple of patches, but when FA dropped, Supcom got ignored and there are still plenty of bugs. I bought FA which has also been ignored post-release. I won't buy another Chris Taylor game until other people play guinnea pig and see how post-release support is
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
im a huge TA/supcom fan.. but i think ill be waiting to buy this game at this point and see what people have to say about the game..
Click to expand...
Yup.

SupCom was the first (and only) game I ever pre-ordered. SupCom2 isn't even on my radar at this point.

sirmonkey1985 said:
games still sold under the THQ name though.. or at least supcom 1 was.. so thats good enough for me.. lol.. im mostly pissed at THQ because of DoWII.. how they could even let a game developer completely destroy a series like that and then still release it is beyond me..
Click to expand...
SupCom had the THQ name on it because THQ published it. SE is publishing SupCom2, not THQ. THQ won't have their name on it at all AFAIK.
 
GLSauron said:
Yup.

SupCom was the first (and only) game I ever pre-ordered. SupCom2 isn't even on my radar at this point.


SupCom had the THQ name on it because THQ published it. SE is publishing SupCom2, not THQ. THQ won't have their name on it at all AFAIK.
Click to expand...


ahh we damn i wanted an excuse to not ever buy THQ games.. damnit they ruined it for me..

i havent pre-ordered a game in almost 5 years and dont ever plan to pre order any games again.. hell im waiting for RTCW 2 but i wont even consider buying it til i see some screen shots of the multiplayer.. i just have a weird feeling that the MP is going to horrible..
 
DeerSteak said:
I'm not buying, but it's for the same reason I didn't buy Demigod...Chris Taylor + post-release = very little support. Supcom vanilla got a couple of patches, but when FA dropped, Supcom got ignored and there are still plenty of bugs. I bought FA which has also been ignored post-release. I won't buy another Chris Taylor game until other people play guinnea pig and see how post-release support is
Click to expand...
What are you talking about there has been plenty of support for Demi-God thus far and it is continued to grow. Now that they finally seem to of fixed the P2P connection problems they were having, they are going to start adding a lot more content. The next update is susposed to include 2 new demi-gods. and a new map if i am not mistaken...
 
well i didn't buy demigod because i got burned on Supcom and FA. That's my point - i'm going to let others find out about post-release support. A single game getting a couple patches within the first 3 months of release isn't going to sway me.

I also read that Stardock paid extra for that kind of support. It's up to SqEnix to do the same or have it get ignored. "Rush it out the door and let it flounder with bugs" has been GPG's modus operandi since Dungeon Siege. A single game doesn't make a trend.
 
I will agree that Demigod was pushed out a lot earlier then it should have. Riddled with bugs, and connection problems so much so that it was unplayable for many for a month or so.

I can't comment about supcom or FA as I purchased FA many moons after the initial release.
 
Somebody said this earlier: "They mentioned in the article that all the changes not only alter gameplay but also make the game alot easier to run with fewer resources, i don't think that was a coincedence."

Well, I understand that some people want their beloved game to stay unchanged, but to reflexively slam it because it's going to become easier is kinda dumb. First of all, extremely difficult does not equal deep. Secondly, if you want your game to be the hardest, most hardcore strategy game of all time with an economy that takes an entire team of economic analysts to run, cool! You can make a game like that. But it's gonna fail, because people like to play games.

Bottom line is, lots of people don't play RTSes in general online (like myself) because of the omnipotent players who can exploit everything in the game to defeat you in .001 seconds. And adding 15 economic layers of complexity just makes the game that much more tilted in the experts' favor.
 
I read the article and it made me more interested in seeing SupCom 2. I like SupCom 1 but to me it just becomes a grind of economy building. Zooming all the way out is the best though and I like the expansion of the experimentals idea. Who knows if it will work out but at least now I'll keep an eye on it.
 
As a novice RTS gamer I thought supcom was way too complex for its own good, but I realise that its more of a niche and that some people really like this overcomplexity, so I avoid the game.

However I will defend its right to be a niche game, I understand that the fans dont want newbs stomping around in their large complainyboots (YES I JUST MADE THAT UP, DEAL WITH IT)

Ruining a decent niche game to produce a mediocre game with a larger audience is a shame, if you're on the recieving end of it, like I was with the Thief series, then you know exactly how lame that is, I wouldn't want anyone to lose a beloved franchise to mediocrity so I just leave the fuck alone.
 
I really don't get why Taylor and GPG get as much attention as they do. Their games are OK, but nothing to really write home about.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
As a novice RTS gamer I thought supcom was way too complex for its own good, but I realise that its more of a niche and that some people really like this overcomplexity, so I avoid the game.

However I will defend its right to be a niche game, I understand that the fans dont want newbs stomping around in their large complainyboots (YES I JUST MADE THAT UP, DEAL WITH IT)

Ruining a decent niche game to produce a mediocre game with a larger audience is a shame, if you're on the recieving end of it, like I was with the Thief series, then you know exactly how lame that is, I wouldn't want anyone to lose a beloved franchise to mediocrity so I just leave the fuck alone.
Click to expand...

I agree,

I have never gotten into a RTS game like i did supcom. I loved the complexity of it, most RTS you have to button spam to the point where i get no enjoyment out of it. I havn't enjoyed any of the C&C games for a long time.

Its a shame really,

Oh and the economy wasn't complicated at all, just required good management and design.
 
Above poster is correct... the economy wasnt that complicated... once you understood the basics and were aware of the tricks and tips like adjacency bonuses and savings plus decent build orders so your early economy didnt stall...

Practise offline ... then go online and watch how the pro's do it. SupCom had a great replay feature so you had access to loads of replays to see how others played the game.

Problem was that *most* people didnt get it well enough (or quickly enough) to become half decent players and so gave up. Yes... another way to describe these people would be intellectually challenged with short attention spans. Sad but true. . They should choose another game type.

I think SupCom needed a much better tutorial process to bring players upto speed, rather than letting them go away and read dozens of 'chapters' on their own.

SupCom 2 will hopefully find a mid balance point that lowers the barrier to entry whilst still retaining the fun yet complex aspect. In other words... dumbed down to accommodate the retards of the human race, but still offering far more than the embarrassment that C&C has become.
 
lewchenko said:
Above poster is correct... the economy wasnt that complicated... once you understood the basics and were aware of the tricks and tips like adjacency bonuses and savings plus decent build orders so your early economy didnt stall...

Practise offline ... then go online and watch how the pro's do it. SupCom had a great replay feature so you had access to loads of replays to see how others played the game.

Problem was that *most* people didnt get it well enough (or quickly enough) to become half decent players and so gave up. Yes... another way to describe these people would be intellectually challenged with short attention spans. Sad but true. . They should choose another game type.

I think SupCom needed a much better tutorial process to bring players upto speed, rather than letting them go away and read dozens of 'chapters' on their own.

SupCom 2 will hopefully find a mid balance point that lowers the barrier to entry whilst still retaining the fun yet complex aspect. In other words... dumbed down to accommodate the retards of the human race, but still offering far more than the embarrassment that C&C has become.
Click to expand...

I hope they don't dumb it down. I'm tired of seeing great games get dumbed down for the ignorant masses by publishers who don't understand what a niche game is and just want to make a few more bucks.

Supcom has a balance of automation and player interaction that no other game has come even CLOSE to matching. It seems complicated, yes, until you learn to use the tools the game provides you. If they streamline it too much they will remove the aspects that made the game fun in the first place.
 
I also play Supcom FA nearly daily, SupCom 1 was the reason I bought a QX6700, and SupCom FA was the reason I recently upgraded to a core I7. Damn them, forcing me to get more CPU powah to run more AI's.

Initially SupCom does have a pretty steep learning curve, but it soon tapers off and becomes VERY fun. I hope its not too dumbed down, but ill wait for demos/reviews first.

Gone are the days of pre-orders for me, for anything.
 
Itchyeyes said:
I really don't get why Taylor and GPG get as much attention as they do. Their games are OK, but nothing to really write home about.
Click to expand...

It's because 10-ish years later TA is still the greatest RTS ever released. I can't believe that people look forward to SC2 (small-scale tactics with unit interaction which is basically boiled down to Rock-Paper-Scissors) when TA still has it beat on almost every level.

GPG's games have really been pretty meh to me. I have SC but I play TA when I'm in the mood for an RTS. I miss Cavedog :( .
 
Bankie said:
It's because 10-ish years later TA is still the greatest RTS ever released. I can't believe that people look forward to SC2 (small-scale tactics with unit interaction which is basically boiled down to Rock-Paper-Scissors) when TA still has it beat on almost every level.

GPG's games have really been pretty meh to me. I have SC but I play TA when I'm in the mood for an RTS. I miss Cavedog :( .
Click to expand...

Would you say someone who likes SupCom would really enjoy TA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top