I dont think the highest graphical settings are working.
If so, it looks substantially worse than SC1.
I dont think the highest graphical settings are working.
If so, it looks substantially worse than SC1.
Lol, I wouldn't go that far. The art style is certainly different, but the terrain is much more detailed and there are a lot more lighting effects.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Just finished the demo. It was fun, but might wait to buy until the price comes down. Maybe I am getting burned out on RTS games. Played SC1 and liked it, but this seems to be just more of the same. Dont know if I like the dialog between the characters or not. I like a good story, but the dialog and delivery seem a little cheesy.
The graphics seem weird to me. I was running on max (without AA) at 1440x900 with only a 9800GT and E4500. Would have expected to be CPU limited, but the game ran well. The terrain seems to have good texture, but the units themselves seemed much less detailed than in the original game. Definitely a different look, but it is OK, more interested in good gameplay.
The graphics seem weird to me. I was running on max (without AA) at 1440x900 with only a 9800GT and E4500. Would have expected to be CPU limited, but the game ran well. The terrain seems to have good texture, but the units themselves seemed much less detailed than in the original game. Definitely a different look, but it is OK, more interested in good gameplay.
I do not like the changes they've made to the resource system.
In supcom 1 and Total Annihilation, you could always build things but the build speed was slower depending on how much resources you are generating in real-time vs how much you are using (with some amount of stockpiling allowed) and you could hasten buildtime by assigning additional engineers or by manually pausing production of some things to let others build more quickly. This allowed you to queue up things far in advance and plan ahead, ie: you could tell a tank factory to repeatedly build 3 anti-tank vehicles and 1 anti-air vehicle over and over, and then move on to something else.
In supcom 2, when you "purchase" something, the resources are instantly removed from your stockpile and you cannot begin to build something unless you have the total amount of resources it requires (like in command and conquer say). This requires a skilled player to do a lot of unnecessary micro, for example you would tell your factory to build 1 and only 1 tank, so as not to tie up your resources, then tell an engineer to build 1 building, then as soon as that tank is finished you would tell it to build 1 more, etc etc. Basically, in order to play competetively you need to do much more nitpicky micro that wasn't necessary in supcom1.
Supcom 1's resource system was very deep and allowed you to focus on the overall macro, your overall strategy, being creative, scouting, etc. Balancing your economy was important and difficult to do well while doing everything else, but it didn't involve hundreds of actions per minute or nitpicky micro, it involved planning and a perfect balancing act of resources. Having knowledge of the effect on your economy your actions would have and being able to estimate that on the fly (estimating math) was key.
The way it is in supcom2, they tried to make it more "noob friendly" but in doing so they made the game much more micro intensive in the worst way possible. Games like starcraft/warcraft are highly micro intensive, moreso than supcom1, but their micro at least is regarding combat (at least in wc3 maybe not so much in starcraft) - having tons of micro in order to make the most of your resources when the original resource system was excellent is a step backwards for this game. If I wanted to see how many times I can tell 10 units to do inane actions in 60 seconds I would be playing warcraft 3. Supcom1 was a true real time STRATEGY game, not a real time action game like most rts these days.
Fairly disappointed atm since supcom was one of my fav games of all time and I played the shit out of it. Was probably the game I was best at of any game, and the most rewarding imo. Probably will still play supcom2 more when I get the full version and see if I come around or not.
In supcom 1 and Total Annihilation, you could always build things but the build speed was slower depending on how much resources you are generating in real-time vs how much you are using (with some amount of stockpiling allowed) and you could hasten buildtime by assigning additional engineers or by manually pausing production of some things to let others build more quickly. This allowed you to queue up things far in advance and plan ahead, ie: you could tell a tank factory to repeatedly build 3 anti-tank vehicles and 1 anti-air vehicle over and over, and then move on to something else.
In supcom 2, when you "purchase" something, the resources are instantly removed from your stockpile and you cannot begin to build something unless you have the total amount of resources it requires (like in command and conquer say). This requires a skilled player to do a lot of unnecessary micro, for example you would tell your factory to build 1 and only 1 tank, so as not to tie up your resources, then tell an engineer to build 1 building, then as soon as that tank is finished you would tell it to build 1 more, etc etc. Basically, in order to play competetively you need to do much more nitpicky micro that wasn't necessary in supcom1.
Supcom 1's resource system was very deep and allowed you to focus on the overall macro, your overall strategy, being creative, scouting, etc. Balancing your economy was important and difficult to do well while doing everything else, but it didn't involve hundreds of actions per minute or nitpicky micro, it involved planning and a perfect balancing act of resources. Having knowledge of the effect on your economy your actions would have and being able to estimate that on the fly (estimating math) was key.
The way it is in supcom2, they tried to make it more "noob friendly" but in doing so they made the game much more micro intensive in the worst way possible. Games like starcraft/warcraft are highly micro intensive, moreso than supcom1, but their micro at least is regarding combat (at least in wc3 maybe not so much in starcraft) - having tons of micro in order to make the most of your resources when the original resource system was excellent is a step backwards for this game. If I wanted to see how many times I can tell 10 units to do inane actions in 60 seconds I would be playing warcraft 3. Supcom1 was a true real time STRATEGY game, not a real time action game like most rts these days.
Fairly disappointed atm since supcom was one of my fav games of all time and I played the shit out of it. Was probably the game I was best at of any game, and the most rewarding imo. Probably will still play supcom2 more when I get the full version and see if I come around or not.
Last edited:
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
Lots of Supcom 1 folks are angry with 2. I don't remember much how Supcom 1 worked though even though it wasn't out all that long ago 
(I actually played it a lot, too...) - Won't someone just eventually just be able to mod Supcom 2 to reflect the way Supcom 1 works? Easier said than done, I suppose.
(I actually played it a lot, too...) - Won't someone just eventually just be able to mod Supcom 2 to reflect the way Supcom 1 works? Easier said than done, I suppose.
VashHT
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2007
- 3,353
- 1,434
- 136
I don't like all the stuff they changed, it feels so dumbed down now. I would rather upgrade through buildings than have the research tree, and I hate how they've changed the resource system. I guess I could go back and play supcom1 tho since I have a PC that can actually run it now lol.
The game's graphics are worse than StarCraft 2, and I didn't think that was possible. Looks like someone tried to merge anime into an RTS, and then designed the engine for 5 year old computers.
I like how the games have been getting progressively worse since Total Annihilation. In fact, TA might look better than this garbage.
I like how the games have been getting progressively worse since Total Annihilation. In fact, TA might look better than this garbage.
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
I think this is what a lot of people will end up doing. And sales will go up a lot for Supcom 1.
The graphics are fine in Supcom 2...people are so spoiled when it comes to graphics these days. Talk about a big overreaction.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
but you agree graphics do matter. remember how epic CoH was when it came out? you think they could have pulled that kinda of realism and character out of that game without outstanding graphics?
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
zerocool84
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 36,041
- 472
- 126
I didn't play SC1 but just played the demo for 2 and it's meh to me. Nothing really sticks out at me that makes me want to buy it.
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
They don't matter too much, as long as they aren't hideous. The advanced wars games on GBA were a lot of fun even though they were 2D and...well on the GBA.
Gotten to the point where we don't really have to worry about graphics being bad, because they're all at least decent these days.
Inspector Jihad
Lifer
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
guess i disagree with you. i need good graphics and i don't like playing a game with compromised graphics any more than i would if it had a shitty story or crappy gameplay. just like i don't like listening to 56kbps mp3s and watching movies on VHS.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,402
- 0
- 71
fair enough ^_^
Am I the only person that sucks at RTS? I guess it probably takes a while to get back into the groove since I go many years between RTS games. The mass unit builds can get tiring pretty fast, though.
vshah
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2003
- 19,003
- 24
- 81
i don't think the new one looks any worse than the first, and it definitely runs a lot better. its progress, but not the most visible kind.
After reading all of the negative comments about the Supreme Commander 2 Demo has made me question if I made the right decision about pre-ordering Supreme Commander 2. So far i've played, completed and enjoyed ALL of the Total Annihilation games, Supreme Commander and Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. Only a week to go before I will be enjoying or not the full Supreme Commander 2 game.
From what I have seen of Supreme Commander 2 on You tube it looks good and the flowfield pathfinding looks great. If the final PC version of Supreme Commander 2 looks like the 360 version then that is disappointing because the PC version should look MUCH better than the console version.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter