I'm beginning my offical wait here and now. The original still gets a decent serving on my game rotation list, hopefully the second one will live up to the legacy. Having said that, I still can't help but feel a little worried that they might have tonned down the scale for the second one, nothing I've seen so far matches the scope of the original game.
now thats interesting ... why are they fighting in the city? Why not simply fight with their all-powerful ACUs? hmm? Well, if a city can grow to that size, then I think the flood will have the advantage afterall! Muahahahahahahahahahaha
I admit, I kind of agree with you on that. The maps I've seen just seem to be way more limited than the 1st maps. Granted, that's based entirely off of some limited screenshots and one video, but they just seem smaller. But I'm still looking forward to it!
there's plenty of reasons to be worried about the sequel imo, but the lack of big maps/heaps of units wont be one of them
its just more battle-field variance. I for one find it refreshing that you can actually "invade/fight" on a homeworld where actual people might live ... instead of simply a mass-filled installation.
(like those really REALLY big cities, reminds me of those bases where everyone ... lives when they aren't in an ACU)
Looks pretty sweet to me. Although I am a bit worried that this one is going to be even more CPU demanding than the first. It's barely playable for me on my old can as it is.
Also, am I the only one who was really excited about the story in SupCom1 and was sorely disappointed after playing the campaign?
cant believe that GPG will nail down that thing so fast !
as I know SupCom2 has an unusual briefly developement time for that kind of epic RTS
until now we have only seen some creenshots and 1 official ingame video
I hope this "time pressure" has no influence on the quality !!!
My understanding of it thus far is that it uses the same, modified version of the SupCom (not the offical name) engine that Demigod uses - thus most of the work was basically done, and they could focus on content rather than building the engine and technology from scratch like they had to do with the original.
I've been looking at as much content as I can find, and my spider sense is tingling - I can't help but feel they may have 'Starcraft-ed' SupCom to appeal to a larger audience than the original, which was by comparative standards very Hardcore. I hope I'm wrong.
Well the original was far ahead of its time graphics-wise (one might say too far ahead, it took a truly badass pc to run it smoothly a few years ago, I have friends that still can't play it), so it makes sense that they wouldn't have to reinvent the game engine, SupCom still looks good by today's standards. I also get the feeling that they're going to try and appeal to a wider audience, but I'm not too worried.. I trust they won't change the original too drastically, even if they dumb it down a bit it'll still be a far deeper and more interesting game than the likes of Command & Conquer.
One thing is keeping me from being excited.
I read about a 'Core Dump' where you can have you ACU's death nuke do less dmg to your base. If that's true then your ACU can die. If my ACU dying doesnt end the game then I'm not intrested.
As long as Assassination is the main game type, I'm down. If not, I'm out.
supcom 2 will have lower requirements than the original. that has been one of the goals in making the sequel.
i dont know too many people that enjoyed the campaign. i never even bothered to play it. the campaign is another area GPG want to improve upon.
IMHO 4 parts of the game should be redone/fixed/upgraded/left unchanged in order for this game to succeed:
From what I have seen and heard, all of those above four points will be achieved. I'm slightly worried about CybranZilla. the concept is fine, but the name is laughably bad. It should called "Draconis Heavy Assualt Bot" or something.
Do not worry on that because the same happened with the MonkeyLord in SupCom and it was probably the most cool unit for the Cybran nation. Anyway, remember that you may type customized names for your own XP units, as in the original SupCom titles.
The guys at GPG are worth little private jokes like that.
I don't know, I'm still a bit bitter towards GPG for lying about the system requirements on SupCom 1. My old machine exceeded the recommended requirements on the box, but after 30 mins or so against 3 AIs I'd be seeing single digit frame rates during combat. Throwing settings on low didn't even help, the game simply NEEDED the fastest C2D processor at the time. It wasn't a recommended setting, that was pretty much the true minimum requirement for anything above 1v1 as the game was heavily CPU-based. It's funny because Total Annihilation did the same thing. I think it claimed you could run it well on a P166 with 16 MB of RAM . Good one Cavedog/GPG.
I have to agree though; you can really tell the game has been dumbed down for the multiplatform release. Good ol' Microsoft ruining yet another game by forcing devs to work with the lowest common denominator.
If I am correct, the system recommendations were based on the campaign, not skirmishes or MP games. I think that they should set recomendations to a what is needed for a 4 player game on a medium sized map, but whether this should be 1 human and 3 ai or 4 humans is debatable. IMO the only time AI should come into calculation of comp. recomendations is for the campaign. This wouldn't be a problem if the majority of people realized that the engine is physics based, and therefore calculations are happening (on top of pathing), and doing all of that for 3 AIs with 500+ units each takes a ton of CPU power.
If you played more, you'd realize that's really false. The most obvious difference lies in the teir 2 tactical missile launchers, but there are differences up and down the line. Most of those differences are stat rather than role driven, but even there you get differences. For example, an Aeon artillery barrage is fairly accurate where a cybran artillery barrage does massive damage to a wide area... if you can hit the broad side of a barn. Aeon's 'anti-group' weaponry is it's PD (which has a relativly wide area of effect) as a result, while artilery does massive damage, while Cybran's rely on pin-point accuracy with their PD, with their artillery taking on the anti-group role.
You also get the high-end units, where one might hvae a tactical missile defense, another has shields, and another can reclaim / repair. And, the most incredibly obvious item, the Cybran have a heavy stealth outlook rather than shields (lack of mobile shields, but have mobile stealth; no T3 shield facility; T2 shields are distinctly inferior in a number of ways to other races).
The differences are not negligable... they only look that way.
Other things, like multiplayer limited to 4 players, are specific to the 360 version and do not apply to the PC version.
Haven't you learned anything yet Spooky, the moment a game is release for the Xbox 360 it's automatically a bad game and doesn't deserve the attention of the PC crowd! Controllers make people dumber - true story; happened to a friend of a friend of mine
I'm not bitter about that, I'm bitter about FA not actually being stand alone (why do I have to have both to play all races in MP?) and my not being able to get onto GPGnet for 8 months because they couldn't release a %^&* patch! 3 weeks after FA came out, I suddenly stopped being able to get to GPGnet. It kept giving me some wierd error message. It turned out a bunch of people had the same problem.
The tech support people couldn't help, they just kept blaming some internet provider (that I don't have) basically saying, "It's not our fault." 8 months later they put out a patch, and guess what? it fixed the problem. Why they couldn't have done that sooner, I don't know.
Lets just hope that SC2 is written with multi-core processing in mind from the start. I don't want to have to use some third party optimiser tool to try and spread the load across the cores like I did with SC1 and FA.
Everything in the screenshots makes me exited about the game. I got bored of the maps in the origional and these look a lot better. I had a badass comp and still had trouble running the origional. I went out and built a comp just to play that game. I have to agree with spooky here, I think your jumping to conclusions too soon...
I have, and I label these children the 'Halo Kids' - however, the PC crowd has their own versions that are vastly more annoying. Look at any of the communities surrounding any Blizzard title for proof of this. PC Gamers are by no stretch of the imagination more mature or more intelligent.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
