Supreme Commander 2

[Chaotic42]

Link

It looks interesting. I'm nervous about Square Enix being involved. I can see them taking out the nice, interesting features and putting in crap. It had better come with a damned map editor this time. :|

 

[lupi]

that gamespot guy needs to DIAF.

 

[lupi]

those infantry transport things look cool.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: lupi
that gamespot guy needs to DIAF.

He's a little rough, isn't he?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Why are we starting to see sequels to games that flopped lately?

 

[Redshirt 24]

I'm not hating on the interviewer too much...both he and Chris had their "uh" on more than once. Interviewing ain't easy.

At this point I'm holding out for specifics on that revamped tech tree/chart. Smacks of something console players can get into far easier than the original tree...

 

[Pantlegz]

I think SC was/is an awesome game. it was coded really really bad, and the 'memory leak' or whatever they called it would crash anything. but all the concepts were great and the game was tons of fun up to the crash. It looks like they've solved a lot of the problems, with square's help. I am really looking forward to this.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Why are we starting to see sequels to games that flopped lately?

I don't know if Supreme Commander flopped, but it is a fantastically awesome game.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Pantlegz1
I think SC was/is an awesome game. it was coded really really bad, and the 'memory leak' or whatever they called it would crash anything. but all the concepts were great and the game was tons of fun up to the crash. It looks like they've solved a lot of the problems, with square's help. I am really looking forward to this.

If only they would have fixed the problems. They've been hanging around EA too long.

 

[Pantlegz]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Pantlegz1
I think SC was/is an awesome game. it was coded really really bad, and the 'memory leak' or whatever they called it would crash anything. but all the concepts were great and the game was tons of fun up to the crash. It looks like they've solved a lot of the problems, with square's help. I am really looking forward to this.

If only they would have fixed the problems. They've been hanging around EA too long.

haha yea, I think with the list of issues and the game engine it was easier and faster to make a squeal. They'll make more money and hopefully keep the fans happy.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Why are we starting to see sequels to games that flopped lately?

I don't know if Supreme Commander flopped, but it is a fantastically awesome game.

I agree it was a good game, but when it was released the performance was so pathetically poor that very few people could play it. This killed the online play very quickly, and obviousl nerfed sales. By the time people were able to play the game on reasonable hardware it was in the budget bins. Obviously I don't really know how well it sold but I'm sure it wasn't great.

 

[Zenoth]

I could never get over how each of the three races in SC felt all the same, even if they did looked different, outside of the experimental units they was nothing that was truly making each of them play differently, it never reached the well known standards of StarCraft and Warhammer 40K in my opinion, in terms of unique race "perceptions" from the player.

I'm not sure how to explain it precisely, but I can compare how it felt with Empire: Total War for instance, each of the different nations are... "different" by their names and their flags, and textures, but the models are the exact same, their stats are the exact same as long as their role is the same, it's basically a question of which textures you prefer, you pick that nation, and you simulate the rest in your mind, the only thing that makes "your" selected nation unique compared to your adversary is how you play, and not what the race/nation/faction actually is.

The game's concept of having a freakin' huge map and being able to zoom out that high in the air however was decent, although not necessarily that useful unless you'd play gigantic and very long lasting games, which for me never happened on-line, people never had time to stay too long or they eventually crashed, or the server crashed... on top of all that the game itself had stability issues on-line (it never crashed off-line though). I guess it wasn't a terrible game, I mean... I bought it, but after about five months I uninstalled it and honestly I've never re-installed it ever since, and I don't miss it one bit, I don't even remember where I put the box.

 

[Chriscross3234]

Doesn't seem like they have the tactical zoom that lets you see the whole continent/planet with just icons flying around... seems like they are making it more like the original TA.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Doesn't seem like they have the tactical zoom that lets you see the whole continent/planet with just icons flying around... seems like they are making it more like the original TA.

I'm scared that they're going to make it more like Starcraft.

 

[TidusZ]

Supcom for me has been the best rts of all time thus far. Total Annihilation a close second. Wc3 a distant third. Balancing and expanding your economy while scouting /countering your enemy, the game plays out like a chess match at 300 mph. You are constantly processing and planning - it's not a game where you can be watching the simpsons in the background. I don't mean to toot my own horn but I got to be very good at it, to the point where I could go into any public 2v2 or 4way ffa game and generally have my score equal to the sum of all other players scores (x2, x3, etc). The level of skill you could attain was ridiculous, and it wasn't based on flick of the wrist finger twitching micro like Starcraft, but rather on overall strategy and balance of eco + military. GD I wanna play Supcom now.

I'm really not looking forward to the "streamlined, easier" economy they are advertising in Supcom 2.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
Supcom for me has been the best rts of all time thus far. Total Annihilation a close second. Wc3 a distant third. Balancing and expanding your economy while scouting /countering your enemy, the game plays out like a chess match at 300 mph. You are constantly processing and planning - it's not a game where you can be watching the simpsons in the background. I don't mean to toot my own horn but I got to be very good at it, to the point where I could go into any public 2v2 or 4way ffa game and generally have my score equal to the sum of all other players scores (x2, x3, etc). The level of skill you could attain was ridiculous, and it wasn't based on flick of the wrist finger twitching micro like Starcraft, but rather on overall strategy and balance of eco + military. GD I wanna play Supcom now.

you have seen koreans play starcraft, right? 3-400 APM. downright insane. and fwiw, starcraft isn't all about micro. it's a necessity, yes, but some players are better macro-ers than others, and that makes a difference later when you get an economy that lets you build a massive army.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Awesome, looks like they added a crap load of new units like they did later with TA.

I want this game already.

 

[TidusZ]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: TidusZ
Supcom for me has been the best rts of all time thus far. Total Annihilation a close second. Wc3 a distant third. Balancing and expanding your economy while scouting /countering your enemy, the game plays out like a chess match at 300 mph. You are constantly processing and planning - it's not a game where you can be watching the simpsons in the background. I don't mean to toot my own horn but I got to be very good at it, to the point where I could go into any public 2v2 or 4way ffa game and generally have my score equal to the sum of all other players scores (x2, x3, etc). The level of skill you could attain was ridiculous, and it wasn't based on flick of the wrist finger twitching micro like Starcraft, but rather on overall strategy and balance of eco + military. GD I wanna play Supcom now.

you have seen koreans play starcraft, right? 3-400 APM. downright insane. and fwiw, starcraft isn't all about micro. it's a necessity, yes, but some players are better macro-ers than others, and that makes a difference later when you get an economy that lets you build a massive army.

I am not denying that pro starcraft players are ridiculously amazing, but that's not the kind of rts I like to play. Starcraft is way more micro focused than Supcom, which is far more macro focused. Supcom is a rts for strategy gamers, Starcraft is a rts for action gamers.

 

[Crono]

I didn't play SupCom too much when it came out because my computer at the time couldn't handle it well. I definitely like the gameplay and strategy elements (been a fan of TA since 1999), so I'll probably buy it as soon as I get a new graphics card. Looking forward to SupCom 2. Chris Taylor is brilliant. As long as they handle everything well technically with the game, I think it will be better than any of his previous games.

 

[cirrhosis]

I loved TA and played it fairly obsessively for a number of years. SupCom was a joy to witness and a pleasure to play. Spring and its myriad of modded TA versions is simply awesome and I really enjoy playing my friends in mult-killfests.

I died inside when I saw Squenix's tag included with the trailer. I fear this is going to suck massively and will be so far from the first in terms of atmosphere and gameplay.

 

[Pantlegz]

why does everyone seem to dislike Square Enix?

 

[Redshirt 24]

IMHO it's not so much dislike as wariness. Squenix is known for RPGs and such, things which usually have a completely if not utterly different tone than your average RTS game; Chris Taylor himself spoke at E3 of "three friends who find themselves on opposing factions" in SupCom 2, which to me sounded rather RPGish. It's a matter of what sort of influence Squenix might have had on the game itself.

 

[TidusZ]

There's also my opinion that Square Enix has gone slowly but surely downhill for a number of years now.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Pantlegz1
why does everyone seem to dislike Square Enix?

I love Square for their RPGs. But they aren't exactly a company known for RTS games, and definitely nothing approaching the complexity of epic scale warfare as in SupCom. Their target audience is different (with some overlap, counting gamers like me), and so is their production style, from that of GPG. It doesn't mean that SupCom 2 will be bad, but they are probably pushing for all the gameplay changes that will take place in order to broaden appeal for the game. I don't want a StarCraft version of Supreme Commander (not that there's anything wrong with StarCraft), though.

Originally posted by: TidusZ
There's also my opinion that Square Enix has gone slowly but surely downhill for a number of years now.

The last game I enjoyed from them was FFX (loved it). Haven't really wanted any of their games as of late.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Why are we starting to see sequels to games that flopped lately?

I dunno. What does that have to do with this thread?