Jump to content


Photo

Supreme Commander 2 Trailer Out


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:32 PM

http://www.gametrail.../49801?type=flv

You know, I never had high hopes for this, considering I knew from the start Square Enix was going to be involved.

But I never thought it would be this bad...IT LOOKS LIKE A FINAL FANTASY TRAILER SWEET JESUS SLIT MY WRISTS.

WHY IS THERE A BIG ROBOT DINOSAUR TGJHEHGJJHEH.

Okay, I'll be fair, I have not seen the gameplay, so I have no idea...oh wait:

There won't be resource management in this game, so it is more a Real Time Tactics game than a Real Time Strategy game.


Oh, great. Turning an awesome, innovative RTS game into a watered down piece of shit eye candy-focused Real Time Tactics game to appeal to the majority of autistic Dawn of War and World in Conflict players. Wonderful. This ceases to be Supreme Commander and becomes a generic RTT with a Supcom skin. That's all it is to me.

Oh, and with Final Fantashit cutscenes to put icing on the shit cake.

I am not looking forward to this. Square Enix is to Supreme Commander what EA games is to Command & Conquer.

Chris Taylor sold himself out.

Posted Image

This is Doug after viewing the Supreme Commander 2 trailer. He is thoroughly displeased.

Edited by Kacen, 02 June 2009 - 04:37 PM.


#2 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,706 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 02 June 2009 - 04:35 PM

You seem like a very angry individual. Have you considered therapy?

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#3 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 02 June 2009 - 07:21 PM

no resources makes it lame. but if they got base building stuff in there somewhat i guess it could be salvaged. if not its meh. prolly going to be console oriented.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#4 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:29 PM

Truth is, RTS has never been the same since it's now mostly 'no resources, no thoughtful basebuilding, instead a rushfest and game that's over in 5 minutes with the same tactics being used each and every time' games being made. Damn, I miss those good ol' RTSes. Age of Empires 2... Great times.
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#5 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:52 AM

Truth is, RTS has never been the same since it's now mostly 'no resources, no thoughtful basebuilding, instead a rushfest and game that's over in 5 minutes with the same tactics being used each and every time' games being made. Damn, I miss those good ol' RTSes. Age of Empires 2... Great times.

100% agreed.

World in Conflict, Company of Heros, and to an extent Dawn of War (due to simplicity) are just real time tactics games.

Hell even C&C is to an extent like that, not much is put into base building at least in comparison to Supcom, Total Annihilation, Warzone 2100, etc...considering you have the retarded from the start construction yard.

Supreme Commander...well before this abomination is the epitome of the definition of REAL TIME STRATEGY.

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 07:54 AM.


#6 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:53 AM

Another reason to dislike the series further. Excellent.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#7 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:55 AM

Another reason to dislike the series further. Excellent.

This "sequel" to the game will probably appeal to RTS players like you anyway, considering it scraps the "slow" gameplay, or whatever your reasoning is. It's geared towards the generic market, not towards sophisticated people.

You've just said that to try and irritate me. Posted Image

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 08:35 AM.


#8 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 08:11 AM

This game is going to appeal to the average autistic RTS gamer. Great, wonderful. :wink_new: It'll probably be more popular than the previous.

Because it dumbs down the gameplay so even aspies can play it! =)

Good job square, kill my favorite RTS series. I already hated you for making Final Fantashit, now you have to rub it in by ruining Supcom? I hate you. I hate you and I want you to die.

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 02:35 PM.


#9 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 03 June 2009 - 04:18 PM

Kacen, I don't know how you didn't see this coming when Square signed on as publisher for GPG. I lost all faith that SC2 would be what I wanted about a year ago...

Don't worry, us people who like REAL rtses can still play the original :rolleyes:. Still they might make a good game, though it certainly won't be the "right"one.

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#10 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:02 PM

This "sequel" to the game will probably appeal to RTS players like you anyway, considering it scraps the "slow" gameplay, or whatever your reasoning is. It's geared towards the generic market, not towards sophisticated people.

It doesn't. I didn't like the first for more than just the gameplay and god knows the second won't get me into it either.

Don't worry, us people who like REAL rtses can still play the original :rolleyes:. Still they might make a good game, though it certainly won't be the "right"one.

Hah... real RTS and Supreme Commander do not go hand in hand. Ever.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#11 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:10 PM

Hah... real RTS and Supreme Commander do not go hand in hand. Ever.

Supcom is the epitome of a real RTS since it focuses on real time strategy. Key fucking word.

You manage EVERYTHING, resources, etc. If you find it boring fine, but it's still the epitome of the RTS definition. C&C just doesn't compete in that department. Anyone with any form of intelligence can see that. Not saying your stupid, more in denial because you're a hardcore fanboy of C&C who thinks just because a game doesn't suit your taste it means it's automatically bad and not a "real RTS/whatever genre". Blah blah blah, boo hoo. Quit your whining. You're obviously overly impatient, so you can't appreciate the game.


C&C is more of a real time tactics game. Being a fan of C&C and saying Supcom isn't a real RTS is a serious case of denial. Just explain "how" it is not an RTS...no you can't. Just accept the fucking truth. You're in fucking denial because you're probably an aspie, like most furfags are, sadly. So every single unit being "cool and gimmicky" over usefulness and units blaring funny catch phrases catch your attention more than having a little patience and thinking strategically on a large scale.

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 06:13 PM.


#12 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:18 PM

Hey Kacen. Guess what. I don't need to explain myself because I flat don't like the fucking game.
Stop labeling me as something because I disagree with your stupid point of view, you fucking cunt.

In short, fuck off.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#13 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:21 PM

Hey Kacen. Guess what. I don't need to explain myself because I flat don't like the fucking game.
Stop labeling me as something because I disagree with your stupid point of view, you fucking cunt.

In short, fuck off.

No, you do need to explain yourself because your logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You apparently hold RTS games to fake high standards that you made up in your head. Rather than saying it's an RTS game that doesn't suit your fucking taste, you claim it's not a real RTS and downright terrible in every way shape and form, and give no logical unbiased reason for that claim.

Thank God you're not an official reviewer on IGN or something.

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 06:25 PM.


#14 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 06:28 PM

Kacen, I don't know how you didn't see this coming when Square signed on as publisher for GPG. I lost all faith that SC2 would be what I wanted about a year ago...

I didn't have high expectations, but I didn't think it would be this terrible...granted, I haven't seen the gameplay, so I haven't completely given up hope.


Don't worry, us people who like REAL rtses can still play the original ;). Still they might make a good game, though it certainly won't be the "right"one.

:rolleyes: Yup.

#15 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 03 June 2009 - 07:34 PM

No, you do need to explain yourself because your logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You apparently hold RTS games to fake high standards that you made up in your head. Rather than saying it's an RTS game that doesn't suit your fucking taste, you claim it's not a real RTS and downright terrible in every way shape and form, and give no logical unbiased reason for that claim.

Yes, because we all know Supreme Commander is just the best. Get Gas Powered Games cock out of your mouth for ten seconds and realize that Sup Com is boring tripe. You spam the fucking resource building, 'power' counts as a 'resource', the gameplay is boring and meaningless, games drag on for-fucking-ever, the plot is extremely dry, it's nothing but eye candy and lastly, it feels like a cheap, shitty knock off of Total Annihilation.

Beyond that, your over-romantic glorification of this pile of shit is none too helpful either. It shows you lack any capacity to discern a decent game from overhyped shit.

Before I forget, SupCom took the Dawn of War system, turned it upside down, raped it and left it in a Dumpster out behind some seedy nightclub.

There. That is why I hate Supreme Commander.

Now go pleasure yourself to Supreme Commander on max and fuck the hell off.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#16 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 03 June 2009 - 11:12 PM

Yes, because we all know Supreme Commander is just the best. Get Gas Powered Games cock out of your mouth for ten seconds and realize that Sup Com is boring tripe.

<sarcasm>Yes, because people blab on and on about Supreme Commander</sarcasm>, which is the spiritual sequel to one game.

<sarcasm>And few people are fans of C&C</sarcasm>, which is essentially six games with the same gameplay with updated graphics and stories (not counting generals). :rolleyes:

You spam the fucking resource building,

So? Makes for tactics and counter tactics. You need more and more power and it leaves targets for enemies, and the explosions do collateral damage. Makes a lot of options for attacking. Also it's realistic.

'power' counts as a 'resource',

Power and mass aren't the same. You have to balance them. If your power goes out your shields go out, your radars stop working, stealth goes out, etc etc. If your mass stops your construction/production stalls. They interlink to an extent but only power is the most dangerous to loose during hectic fights. Both resources act differently, so I don't see how that criticism is relevant.

the gameplay is boring and meaningless,

How, exactly, is it boring and meaningless say compared to another RTS? Because the units don't make funny, campy lines whenever given an order? Do the units look "bland" or something? Not that that's what makes a good game or anything.

games drag on for-fucking-ever,

Granted, but that's not necessarily bad, depends on your patience. Though the game is even fun on smaller maps, and skilled players can end games pretty fast, especially in annihilation mode. Goes for any RTS.

the plot is extremely dry,

It's generic, but I don't play RTS games for the plot, that shouldn't even matter. It's a decent story and it works for the game. Hell I haven't even completed the campaigns, I just play skirmish or online.

Hell most RTS players know the best part of any good RTS game is not the campaign it's online gameplay. It always seemed to me C&C focuses too much on the story and campness.


it's nothing but eye candy

Seriously? I've heard the exact opposite from critics of the game, saying the units looked dull, however perhaps this is related to...

and lastly, it feels like a cheap, shitty knock off of Total Annihilation.

You say this as if it's a shameless ripoff of it, but when you consider it was made by the exact same creator of Total Annihilation as a spiritual successor, Chris Taylor, it makes your argument someone void. Chris Taylor shameless ripped off his own game...wait, what?

But more importantly, HOW is it a "cheap knockoff" of Total Annihilation? Let's pretend for a second that Supreme Commander is just Total Annihilation 2, which it sorta is. In what way is the game worse than TA? In what way? Does it lack certain features the original didn't have? Did it not advance and innovate further enough from TA? If you're gonna criticize it for increased graphics that's pretty dumb, it's a modern game, so it gets modern graphics. People demand that. Duh. Hell Dawn of War has way more eye candy than Supcom has, I mean you have troops fighting close quarters, gutting each other, etc etc.

Might as well complain how every C&C game besides Generals is a knockoff of the last, same gameplay, same construction yard, just updated graphics and different storylines.

And that's what...6 games, not counting expansions and not counting Generals? I have an issue with them not innovating on the gameplay. And yet TA and Supcom are just -2- games. You're kind of a hypocrite when you consider my point about C&C games being mostly the same just with graphics updates and different storylines.


Before I forget, SupCom took the Dawn of War system, turned it upside down, raped it and left it in a Dumpster out behind some seedy nightclub.

This part confuses me the most. I've played Dawn of War, I see literally no similarity. Dawn of War is close quarters brawling with not much focus on economy. You literally build powerplants and forget about them, and capture points for "resources" (more command points, I guess, not real mass/ore/whatever), and focus mostly on close quarters infantry fighting with some vehicle support, with lots of eye candy in up close battles (giant demons ripping people apart, etc etc). I see little to no resemblance between the two games. At all. I'm not saying DoW is bad, I'm merely saying the two games are completely different types of RTS's, so I fail to see how Supcom ripped it off in any way.

Hell I could complain that Red Alert 3 ripped off of Supcom with their amphibious destroyer, was a bit too coincidental too me...but I'll let that slide. ;)

Edited by Kacen, 03 June 2009 - 11:17 PM.


#17 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:03 AM

I'm not sure where you're getting this "Supcom = eye candy" thing Beowulf. It's not a massively graphically advanced game... sure there are a lot of units onscreen, but that's about it. Resolution and poly count of the models is generally lower than most contemprary RTSes and therefore it doesn't look great up close. It tends to look epic though, and that's one of the reasons I like it.

Really your complaints about the game are pretty much irrelevant - essentially you're saying "don't like it, it's not an RTT." (well RTT is probably the wrong term for C&C, the scale is a bit too large). Fine, that's very true, it isn't. Nothing particularly wrong about playing those types of game, for example I play CoH and DoW a lot as well and love them. It's just a different scale of game to play. Really, if you're talking the strategic level, it should take a tank a long time to cross the map. If it's the tactical level, the tank can cross the map in a minute, no worries. People who enjoy the longer-game format will play Supcom... if I want to watch tanks blow stuff up prettily for half an hour I'll load CoH.

And really, the distinction between strategy and tactics is another reason I don't find your complaints valid. Sure, you can execute some primitive tactics in Supcom (say, microing mantises), but the gameplay is more on the strategic level, with force positioning and base construction being among the things that decide the game (not just the economy). On the flip side, CoH and DoW leave little room for actual army deployment and positioning, while they offer significant advantages in terms of the control you have over your troops.

The distinction is the same as the one you find in those "tactical" RTSes, like Armed Assault, some of the older R6 games, and the arcadey style of shooter that's common nowadays (call of duty, gears, halo X). Diffferent style of game. Different people like each.

If it's not your cup of tea, don't play it, and don't complain so much!

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#18 Beowulf

Beowulf

    Shipgirl

  • Advisors
  • 7,219 posts
  •  Azur Lane Fangirl

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:18 AM

<sarcasm>Yes, because people blab on and on about Supreme Commander</sarcasm>, which is the spiritual sequel to one game.

I don't hear much about it anymore, except from fanboys. And we all know how totally obnoxious you stupid fucks are about your games.

<sarcasm>And few people are fans of C&C</sarcasm>, which is essentially six games with the same gameplay with updated graphics and stories (not counting generals). :rolleyes:

And yet I still hear about it more often than Supreme Commander... and I've even been able to speak with people at shops, restaurants and jobs about C&C as well. Nary a mention of Supreme Commander...

So? Makes for tactics and counter tactics. You need more and more power and it leaves targets for enemies, and the explosions do collateral damage. Makes a lot of options for attacking. Also it's realistic.

I find the idea much less tactical because there's no thought involved with it and literally no management. Construct a shitload and forget it; you don't even need to expand, which leads to those oh-so-delightful turtle games that drag on for hours.

There's a hell of a lot more management with a gatherer mining resources; be it a miner with ore or a builder with minerals. You have to protect your economy much, much more and that alone opens up zillions of tactics and countertactics.

Power and mass aren't the same. You have to balance them. If your power goes out your shields go out, your radars stop working, stealth goes out, etc etc. If your mass stops your construction/production stalls. They interlink to an extent but only power is the most dangerous to loose during hectic fights. Both resources act differently, so I don't see how that criticism is relevant.

It's probably not but a lot of games, C&C included, use power structures as the base for everything. Power goes out, most of your structures blackout or stop working. But to lose construction altogether... eh, kinda makes it extremely cheap.

How, exactly, is it boring and meaningless say compared to another RTS? Because the units don't make funny, campy lines whenever given an order? Do the units look "bland" or something? Not that that's what makes a good game or anything.

Oh look. I'll just spam resource buildings and then build so many defenses no one can get through. Fucking yawn.

Granted, but that's not necessarily bad, depends on your patience. Though the game is even fun on smaller maps, and skilled players can end games pretty fast, especially in annihilation mode. Goes for any RTS.

I play for blood and speed, not a battle of who can get more fucking artillery.

It's generic, but I don't play RTS games for the plot, that shouldn't even matter. It's a decent story and it works for the game. Hell I haven't even completed the campaigns, I just play skirmish or online.

I do play games for the plot and I don't find games with boring or generic storylines very much fun. Granted, there are always exceptions to that but not in this case.

Hell most RTS players know the best part of any good RTS game is not the campaign it's online gameplay. It always seemed to me C&C focuses too much on the story and campness.

An RTS is meant to have an excellent story, it has the room and capacity to do so, much like an RPG. Most games with a generic plot feel cheap and mass produced. To take the time to craft a deep story is the true test of greatness. Again, exceptions here and there and Supreme Commander is not one of them.

You say this as if it's a shameless ripoff of it, but when you consider it was made by the exact same creator of Total Annihilation as a spiritual successor, Chris Taylor, it makes your argument someone void. Chris Taylor shameless ripped off his own game...wait, what?

It doesn't make any less void. You can rip off your own work.

But more importantly, HOW is it a "cheap knockoff" of Total Annihilation?

TA was actually pretty good from what I remember. Supreme Commander just feels cheap and thrown together just to make a modern game. But that seems to be the case with a lot of games these days.

Might as well complain how every C&C game besides Generals is a knockoff of the last, same gameplay, same construction yard, just updated graphics and different storylines.

You know, I'm not even trying to say C&C is teh ub0r greatest. You keep bringing it up like I'm comparing it to Supreme Commander, which I'm not.

And that's what...6 games, not counting expansions and not counting Generals? I have an issue with them not innovating on the gameplay. And yet TA and Supcom are just -2- games. You're kind of a hypocrite when you consider my point about C&C games being mostly the same just with graphics updates and different storylines.

This proves my point further. I'm not sure what it is that makes you believe I'm using C&C as my base comparison, other than that I actually enjoyed them over Supreme Commander. If anything, my base for comparison would be StarCraft.

Either way, I'll put it simply, I did not enjoy my experience with Supreme Commander. It felt cheap, bland, dry and unimaginative. I'll never convince you otherwise so the whole debate is an exercise in futility. Though it is amusing to watch you foam at the mouth for disliking your holy grail of fail.

NZ.org | BBPCG
Discord: The Astronomer#1314
Steam


#19 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 12:53 AM

I don't hear much about it anymore, except from fanboys. And we all know how totally obnoxious you stupid fucks are about your games.

Note that was intended to be sarcasm. And there are way more obnoxious fanboys of C&C than there are of Supcom.

And yet I still hear about it more often than Supreme Commander... and I've even been able to speak with people at shops, restaurants and jobs about C&C as well. Nary a mention of Supreme Commander...

Once again, you failing to notice my sarcasm.

I find the idea much less tactical because there's no thought involved with it and literally no management. Construct a shitload and forget it; you don't even need to expand, which leads to those oh-so-delightful turtle games that drag on for hours.

You think that, and you're simply wrong. It's not really a matter of opinion since such things play out and can be judged as fact. You obviously, having had a bad impression of the game at first, haven't played it online much. Games can drag on, but there's plenty of ways to breach defenses. You just need a combined assault of multiple different types of units, and most importantly artillery. This goes for many RTS games, not just Supcom. Hell I've seen people break through defenses on Warzone 2100, and if you've ever played that game you'll know the capacity for turtling is way higher than even Supcom. Dear sweet lord the base defenses on WZ2100 are insane...

There's a hell of a lot more management with a gatherer mining resources; be it a miner with ore or a builder with minerals. You have to protect your economy much, much more and that alone opens up zillions of tactics and countertactics.

In Supcom your economy can go up in flames in a single well placed bomber strike. I've seen it happen. Besides in some ways comparing the gameplay of C&C to Supcom is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also a lot of the issues that Vanilla supcom had (issues I agree were bad) were fixed in Forged Alliance. The economy is much harder to defend, and things such as mass fabricators are more expensive, take way more power per amount of mass they create, and aren't as effective. Seeing as how you've not played Forged Alliance not much more I can say.

It's probably not but a lot of games, C&C included, use power structures as the base for everything. Power goes out, most of your structures blackout or stop working. But to lose construction altogether... eh, kinda makes it extremely cheap.

It's a method of making it realistic. If you loose power you can't build shit. That makes it cheap? Didn't you say that the game made it easier for games to drag on, but now you're complaining that power going off makes it cheap? That's essentially game balancing. Saying it's a "cheap" way to balance the game is very relative and very subjective.

Oh look. I'll just spam resource buildings and then build so many defenses no one can get through. Fucking yawn.

It is not easy to spam resource buildings. And the defenses, as I've said before, all have a weakness. Hell if you want to complain about turtling play Warzone 2100 and you'll be fucking horrified. You can build layers and layers of walls and bunkers, and every weapon you research to mount on a tank can be researched into a defensive hardpoint.

I play for blood and speed, not a battle of who can get more fucking artillery.

Wouldn't this same complaint be lobbed at TA, which you liked? Hmm...

You can't just use artillery. Everyone knows unguarded artillery is a sitting duck to fast units, even low tech units. The aim of the game is to mix units well. Granted a lot of RTS games have that, but this game makes it absolutely necessary in most cases, well that is if your opponent is smart...unlike the people I was playing against earlier today. Fucking idiots didn't even put up a fight.

I do play games for the plot and I don't find games with boring or generic storylines very much fun. Granted, there are always exceptions to that but not in this case.

Honestly the storyline was just decent, generic, but decent. It wasn't contrived and terrible, and it's very fucking hard to be original nowadays.

An RTS is meant to have an excellent story, it has the room and capacity to do so, much like an RPG. Most games with a generic plot feel cheap and mass produced. To take the time to craft a deep story is the true test of greatness. Again, exceptions here and there and Supreme Commander is not one of them.

No I honestly think RTS games should be more gameplay than story oriented. Story is a bonus, not a requirement for me. Storyline priority is for RPGs mainly and adventure games.

It doesn't make any less void. You can rip off your own work.

And I once again bring up my point about all C&C games being the same gameplay with updated graphics and story.

TA was actually pretty good from what I remember. Supreme Commander just feels cheap and thrown together just to make a modern game. But that seems to be the case with a lot of games these days.

That's too general a summary. Elaborate.

You know, I'm not even trying to say C&C is teh ub0r greatest. You keep bringing it up like I'm comparing it to Supreme Commander, which I'm not.

Whether you are or not, my main reason for bringing it up is the fact one of your primary arguments against Supreme Commander is it's a "half-assed" rehash of TA. Yet every C&C game, and you're a fan of C&C, is essentially the same gameplay with a different story and updated graphics. Considering there's way more C&C games, it just shows that your argument is hypocritical, since that logic can be used against C&C threefold.

This proves my point further. I'm not sure what it is that makes you believe I'm using C&C as my base comparison, other than that I actually enjoyed them over Supreme Commander. If anything, my base for comparison would be StarCraft.


See above, and Starcraft...well, I'll be honest, I don't hate Starcraft, but Starcraft 2 just seems like Starcraft with updated graphics, playing mostly on nostalgia. Then again, I have no idea what your opinions are, or are going to be on Starcraft 2, so I guess that's irrelevant.

Either way, I'll put it simply, I did not enjoy my experience with Supreme Commander. It felt cheap, bland, dry and unimaginative. I'll never convince you otherwise so the whole debate is an exercise in futility. Though it is amusing to watch you foam at the mouth for disliking your holy grail of fail.

Considering I refuted all your other quite and simply broken points about why you think Supreme Commander is a bad game, and that it is simply not a holy grail of fail (not an opinion, a logical conclusion by a sane unbiased individual), it seems to me you simply just prefer fast paced games. AKA the equivalent to someone preferring an RPG over an FPS, or a racing game over an RTS, same principle, really. So you saying the game was shit is obviously due to a skewed elitist standpoint. It's not like I'd go out of my way to bash racing games because I don't care for the racing genre.

Oh, and you know I could go into and endless rant about the utter retardation of the masses and masses of C&C fanboys jacking off to Kane and Soviets.

I never see "raving fanboys" who are actually courageous enough to defend Supreme commander...I have noticed that it tends to be played by an older audience, so I guess they -generally- act more mature (generally, not as a rule, but really I have not seen rabid immaturity amongst supcom fans.) I just feel the need to defend a game that is simply not defended enough. Hell even most of the Supcom players on this forum don't have the guts to defend the game. I actually do, because when I got Supreme Commander, I finally, after all these years, have found the one fucking RTS game that is -just- right for my playstyle. This is, mind you, after playing C&C Red Alert, C&C Generals, Empire at War, Universe at War, Dawn of War, War Front: Turning Point (oh sweet God what wasted potential that game was...). The only game that came closest was Warzone 2100, and I only play Empire at War (with the massively game changing Phoenix Rising mod, seeing as the original game was an insult to everything that was Star Wars canon) because I am am and was a raging Star Wars geek for everything involving the ships, and this gives me just what I want in RTS format.

So to put it simply, I defend Supcom because well, would you be pissed if the one RTS game that fit -your- particular play style was bashed unfairly? Sure you would.

Just be glad I'm actually maturely debating and not screaming "OMG SUPCOM ROXXORS HOW CULD YOU".

Edited by Kacen, 04 June 2009 - 01:20 AM.


#20 Casen

Casen

    title available

  • Members
  • 1,039 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 02:02 AM

Oh, and how can I forget? All of the Cybran Amphibious units, open up tons of strategic options since they all submerge. You can fucking hide wagners in a river and ambush, no one sees it coming. It's satisfying and hilarious all at the same time. The amount of stealth options in Supcom, mainly for the Cybrans, are amazing strategically and tactically.

I've never seen another game impliment stealth the way supcom does. It usually feels tacky and fake in all other RTS games, in this the stealth is realistic and practical. It can be seen visually but not detected on radar; and most RTS games do not even differentiate between sight and radar. That, I think, is an amazing feature. Makes gameplay all the more interesting.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users