I just finished downloading and playing through the first 3 levels of Supreme Commander 2. It's really awesome so far. Although I'm only 3 levels in I think I can give you all a good "heads up" on what to expect if you plan on picking this up. First off lets talk about the changes between the first game and this one.
Graphics: 7 out of 10
When they made the first game, even though it got great reviews, some people knocked the game because of it's rather steep running requirements. When it came time to make the sequel they wanted it to run on a wider range of systems and they wanted it to run smooth. They made some pretty drastic changes to the engine to improve performance on slower rigs and it shows. Of course you can turn up all the options, increase resolution, change the detail levels of the water and shadows and terrain detail. Even on the highest settings though for some reason (to me at least) it doesn't seem as "crisp" as the first one. They were actually able to increase the polygon count on the models AND the amount of units you will see on screen at once. That in its-self is quite a accomplishment considering the already epic scale of the first game, however this came at a cost of less detailed textures on the models themselves. They also made the colors much brighter and more "cartoony". I don't like this much either. In the first game the units looked "plausible". Sure they were futuristic, but for the most part the colors were realistic and not over-powering. In this game it feels more like you're commanding a army of vehicles from a Saturday morning cartoon show. They still look cool, but they should have kept the colors toned down like they were in the first game. The cut scenes are well done but again the coloration used makes the characters look cartoony, but "realistically cartoony" if you get my meaning.
I'm all for making games that run on a wider range of systems, BUT, it's really not worth it if it comes at the cost of making the game Look Worse then the first game in the series. (You should be taking notes there, Brad, "Mr. I want it to run on my Notepad" ) . Personally I think making the game look worse so it can run on more systems is a BAD idea.
Performance: 9 out of 10
This game runs Smooth as Glass. The tweaks they made to the engine definitely shine here. Before I started my current campaign I played a Skirmish match just to see what I was getting into. Mainly I just started spamming my basic tank unit and getting resources. I waited until the yellow player went after the green player then I joined the battle and took them both on. There must have been 600 units on the screen and not once did it slow down or hiccup or glitch. Granted I've got a powerhouse gaming rig, but I imagine the result would have been the same even on a slower rig. I may install this on my wife's system as well just to test that theory.
Sound: 10 out of 10
There's not a lot you can say about the sound in the game other then to say it sounds good and fits the game perfectly. The explosions and gun-fire sound crisp, the music some-how is able to be subtle and epic at the same time which isn't something that can be accomplished easily. The voice acting is done well and you get the sense that the actors enjoyed their lines.
UI: 9 out of 10
The User Interface for Sup Com 2 is pretty well done. It's not obtrusive at all, it doesn't get in the way, and it provides plenty of info to get the job done. It's sleek and pretty intuitive. They completely revamped the research system and the way units are upgraded and the UI makes it really easy to use.
Game-play: 8 out of 10
If you are a RTS fan and enjoyed the first game you'll love the sequel. They changed the research system and upgrade system and it fits really well into game-play. There are some negative aspects though such as the fact they incorporated some of the larger factories directly into the map its-self. This means you often don't have a choice in where to build your bases. Resources are placed and grouped in more centralized locations and there aren't as many of them on a map as in the first game, again limiting where you're going to build your bases. All the maps I've played so far have been fun, and there are plenty of HUGE maps as in the first game, but, even so some of them seem limiting and some-what predictable.
There are lots of new Experimental units to play with, some of which have very specialized abilities. This means these units can be great for very specific tasks but otherwise complete scrap metal waiting to happen for other tasks. Some of them can be a real dual edged sword because you may make too many of one and not enough of another and you can't make any more in time to save your ass. Others of them are exactly how you expect and they are massive killing machines which are devastating and fun to use. I can see already there are going to be a lot of subtle strategies to use in on-line matches.
Over all, if not for the minor step down in graphics and some of the maps being limiting, this would be the Perfect RTS game. I probably won't get into multiplayer action with this one. The only RTS I really enjoyed multiplayer are Starcraft and the Star Trek: Armada series. Supreme Commander 2 can definitely give Starcraft 2 a "run for the money" for top RTS game. I think Starcraft has the lead in fan base because it's out a lot longer, but Sup Com 2 could be just as huge given enough time. The factions are well balanced against each other and play evenly though with different abilities. They each have a unique flavor while keeping basic game-play elements the same.
If you liked the first one you'll really enjoy this one. You shouldn't pass it up if you have a little spare cash and like a good RTS.
Ending Score: 8 out of 10
Interesting review. I see your not one of the people demanding the heads of all those involved. Do you own a console system?
Anyway would you say this is a stratergy game, or a real time tactics game?
I played TA and SupCom as stratergy games. Large groups of combined arms forces supported by air. Large reinforcement groups. A loose "platoon/brigade" system based on 3/4 units as a 'squad'. (it wasn't the best way to play - its just what I like)
Tactics games are like CnC or Star craft. Sub 200 unit count with indavidualy activated abilites and lots of micro management.
I have seen a lot of comments from people saying the new version is dumbed down and has smaller maps. You do not think this is the case? The first Supreme Commander was my favorite RTS game. From what I've seen I think I will like this game but I'm worried I won't like it as much. Still on the fence if I should get this or wait for a good sale.
lol I do own a couple consoles. A X-Box 360 and a Wii, not to mention all my old consoles. I'm by farm a PC gamer though. I keep my consoles around for only a few special titles that don't make it to PC, like Zelda games or Metroid or Metal Gear that play better with a controller.
I don't see why anyone wouldn't think Sup Com 2 isn't an ok game. It doesn't look quite as good as the original but it still plays great and on a epic scale. Speaking of TA though, that was probably the second RTS game I ever bought after the original "Age of Empires". TA was and still is a great game, though seriously lagging behind in the graphics department compared to today's standards.
When it comes to tactics verses strategy I'd say Sup Com 2 has a little bit of both. In essence all these games boil down to "build units, get resources, attack enemy till dead" with very little planning involved. Because of the Huge maps involved Sup Com 1 had a layer of strategy because you could amass forces, feint attacks with smaller forces to draw off your enemy, then come in with the big force, along with a number of other decent strategies. I haven't gotten far enough in part 2 yet though to see if some of my old strategies still apply.
I also haven't seen that many "abilities" yet except for the first few ones you can get on your factories. I can't really judge yet if any of these will actually be able to turn the tide of a battle or not.
My complaint from only having seen the demo wasn't that it's not an ok game, but that it's only an ok game. The changes they've made to give it mass market appeal have ended up making it so generic that there's little to make it rise above the million other RTS titles out there. The first game had a lot going for it, even if the level of depth made it difficult for mainstream gamers to get into it. From what I saw of the demo, they did away with most of that depth. It wasn't that the game was bad, really, but that it was so generic.
I haven't seen any maps quite as big as in the first one yet. I'll let you know as I get farther in the game though. By being "dumbed down" I think people are referring to the lack of how resource buildings would tie together in the first game. They don't in this one. In the first one if you built energy gatherers near mass extractors you would get a boost. Aside from that I haven't seen any "dumbing down" yet. Have you tried the demo?
This would be greatly appreciated if you have the time
Nice review btw
Yeah I tried it but it was pretty limited. The maps were pretty small and the battles were somewhat scripted. I saw enough to know I'll at least like the game but I can't tell if I'll love it like the first one. I have my doubts.
Economy changes don't bother me too much but it seems like bases don't need to be very big anymore. Maybe that won't be the case in longer battles though. If that is gone then I'll miss the massive sieges against fortified bases.
Do they still have the automated transports from the first game? I never unlocked transports in the demo.
I just read the Gamespy review (i use places like this to keep tabs on the mainstream fools) for SupCcom2.
Heres a quote: "If you were hoping for the original game's orbital, detached unit management, prepare to be sorely disappointed. If, however, you want a very solid Command & Conquer clone, you should definitely wait two weeks until C&C4 comes out. But in case you hate Electronic Arts and/or the number four, SupCom 2 makes a fine alternative."
Personally I only liked Red Alert 3 because it had co-op... I thought C&C3 was a childs game and that SupCom (which came out at the same time) had a much more advanced and stratergic concept.
Another quote from the review:
"The high-level zoom-out dealie is still present but is rendered totally unnecessary, because SupCom 2's maps are much, much smaller than they were in the original. As a result, battles tend to involve swarming units and rushing the enemy Antietam-style, completely obviating the need for a satellite view."
I didn't expect Gamespy type people (not sure who the author is) would be able to understand such advanced concepts but they seem to agree with all the h8ers.
Ouch... Since I havent played the Forged Alliance SupCom, I will rather buy that (and Total Annihilation ofcourse).
I read elsewhere that you can't save a skirmish game in SupCom 2. Is that true?
That is true Mbaron. I'm sure that will get patched soon though.
Thanks. I'll wait until that's patched. I'm a save early and often player.
I want to say something about SupCom2 here. I have finished the single player and explored skirmish a bit.Let me start by outlining what I 'wanted' (not expected) from SupCom2. I wanted it to be streamline, the number of units to be reduced to a more manageable level. I wanted strategic options to be more important, better terrain to exploit, like gullys and passes, hills and rivers. I wanted cool improved graphics and animations. I wanted it to keep the planning focused gameplay.SupCom 2 doesn't deliver any of that.Diversity: The unit list was drastically reduced, scouts are gone, long range artillery is gone. Stealth and jamming was removed entirely. Intel is reduced to basically just the radar. On top of that formations and facing was removed. They increased the number of experimentals but many of them seem 'forced' rather than useful and interesting and with them being almost literally dime a doesn't they don't feel very epic. This is clearly the console market influencing design.Gameplay: The economy wasn't changed that much, the pay-up-front style doesn't really make much of a difference - especially when you have lots of resources. They kept the very powerful waypoint/queue system even. The problem is that you can't queue up structures of units that you can't afford RIGHT NOW. With the exception of repeat factories - which just seems like bad design. Pausing factories (which do NOT auto-resume) and the inability to plan things without resources reduces the overall gameplay to a very micro heavy approach.Strategy: While they have improved the map design a lot, due to their work on Demigod - most of the maps could be ripped out of there without changes, they still haven't focused it on creating features which you can use to your advantage, its still just some flat land but with some pretty non-flat land between it. The biggest problem for me is the lack of unit options. Its been devolved down to build units - attack. I want scout, setup forces at choke points, develop plan of attack, execute with a well planned large combined arms approach with amazing visuals as transports drop off units into a hot landing zone and bombers streak overhead to take out specific defenses and artillery and missiles pound enemy positions in preparation for the ground advance. (You can see why I don't play multiplayer much - like the vast majority of the player base). These changes are probably to make it playable on console.Look and Feel: The graphics are definitely improved (incidentally it runs better because of the massively reduced scale, it is literally about 10 times smaller than the original) but feel seem to have been reduced. Tactical missiles are just automatic short range artillery now, rather than high payload strike assets. And a real killer for me are the dropships, they used to be so cool. They would fly in, dive and drop off their units then fly off again. Now they just fly over the LZ and teleport the units on to the ground. Yes, teleport. The transport barely even stops - not to mention the UEF one looks like a barge hauling pointless cargo in a dreary pointless existence. This is probably to help console users.Other stuff: The music has been dumbed down and no longer feels like TA's amazing tracks. The research system, while a good idea, feels arcade and silly - mostly due to the instant upgrades. UEF stuff looks like children's toys.I'm very disappointed with GPG and their lackluster development. Consoles ruined SupCom 2. Square has clearly pushed GPG to get this out before and to compete with Starcraft II and bad design and bugs followed.
I don't understand why everyone seems to think that this game has been "consolized".
Diversity: The unit list was drastically reduced, scouts are gone, long range artillery is gone. Stealth and jamming was removed entirely. Intel is reduced to basically just the radar. On top of that formations and facing was removed. They increased the number of experimentals but many of them seem 'forced' rather than useful and interesting and with them being almost literally dime a doesn't they don't feel very epic. This is clearly the console market influencing design.
How is this "clearly the console market influencing design?" It doesnt seem to have anything to do with consoles to me. In supcom 1, the only reason I would use the formation move is because the pathfinding was so god damned horrible that nothing would get accomplished if I didnt, my units would just trickle feed themselves to the enemy. And as for the experimentals, yea theyres more of them and theyre not as powerful but I like that. You still have a few that are the very powerful game winner ones (though they're not as powerful as they were in the first) but it takes much less time to build them, and I see them much more. I can build 10 of the new experimentals in the time it took to build one of the old ones. Leads to faster more interesting gameplay instead of sitting in your base using all your resources to spend 10 minutes building one unit. Again how did consoles have anything to do with this?
reduces the overall gameplay to a very micro heavy approach.
Oh really? Have you ever played an RTS that actually requires micro? Supcom 2 has very little of it, if you think this has a micro heavy approach go play starcraft or to a lesser extent CnC.
Strategy: While they have improved the map design a lot, due to their work on Demigod - most of the maps could be ripped out of there without changes, they still haven't focused it on creating features which you can use to your advantage, its still just some flat land but with some pretty non-flat land between it. The biggest problem for me is the lack of unit options. Its been devolved down to build units - attack. I want scout, setup forces at choke points, develop plan of attack, execute with a well planned large combined arms approach with amazing visuals as transports drop off units into a hot landing zone and bombers streak overhead to take out specific defenses and artillery and missiles pound enemy positions in preparation for the ground advance. (You can see why I don't play multiplayer much - like the vast majority of the player base). These changes are probably to make it playable on console.
Everything you just described can still be done (except for scout, though that can still be done there just arent dedicated scout units). The game has been made a faster pace and the maps are smaller because of it. I never played any of the massive maps in supcom 1 because I don't want to spend 8 hours to finish one game. This has NOTHING to do with consoles, the console version can only have 4 players max. If the game was "consolized the pC players would be limited like that as well.
Look and Feel: The graphics are definitely improved (incidentally it runs better because of the massively reduced scale, it is literally about 10 times smaller than the original) but feel seem to have been reduced. Tactical missiles are just automatic short range artillery now, rather than high payload strike assets. And a real killer for me are the dropships, they used to be so cool. They would fly in, dive and drop off their units then fly off again. Now they just fly over the LZ and teleport the units on to the ground. Yes, teleport. The transport barely even stops - not to mention the UEF one looks like a barge hauling pointless cargo in a dreary pointless existence. This is probably to help console users.
Are we playing the same game? the ONLY thing that is smaller scale in supcom 2 is the maps. EVERYTHING else is the same scale. Still a unit cap of 500 units, still crazy intense battles. And sense the The game has been optimized via clean code, much better programming, and a little bit of graphical reductions such as lower poly count(not due to "smaller scale") It now runs much better and doesnt lag on even the best machines anymore. Is it really that big of a deal that the units teleport? And how does this "help console users"? You seem to just blame everything you don't like at console users, like they are all extremely stupid and us PC gamers are gods in comparisons. Get off the high horse.
Other stuff: The music has been dumbed down and no longer feels like TA's amazing tracks. The research system, while a good idea, feels arcade and silly - mostly due to the instant upgrades. UEF stuff looks like children's toys.I'm very disappointed with GPG and their lackluster development. Consoles ruined SupCom 2. Square has clearly pushed GPG to get this out before and to compete with Starcraft II and bad design and bugs followed.
I'm sorry I thought we were comparing it to supcom here, not TA. And I like the research system, much better than the tiers and whatnot, though that's just preference. This game doesnt seem to be rushed out at all, you just don't like the route they took. And what bugs? You never mentioned one in the whole post. Every game has bugs, and this one doesnt have that many. And again consoles had nothing to do with it.
@Aractain and @Resist_The_Dawn
I would guess that you two have different origins and experience with TA and SupCom
Aractain seems to be an oldtimer with love for TA (like me) and Resist_The_Dawn seems to be more of a RTS fan without the TA baggage. Thats my guess anyways.
There is no doubt that making a game for both PC and Consoles will influence the design. Making SupCom2 games run faster and shorter doesnt make it a bad game, but it removes one of the things that made TA(and thereby SupCom which is a TA update of sorts) different.
I wish they never thought about increased accessebility, cause it only makes all RTS game play the same. They are now all fast paced tactical games instead of the huge free flowing games of TA/SupCom.
I like tactical games like Dow2 and CoH, even starcraft and all the C&Cs. I also like epic games filled with massive scale strategy - games like TA and SupCom (and Sins, and Civ etc). As joasoze says.
When I say bugs I mean things not being changed properly. Like a queue system being unresponsive, the 3D transparent buildings being left behind if you can't build a structure. The texture on the side of the engineers track lol. The way an engineer when assisting another engineer will move to an object being built etc but no do anytihng. Large units getting stuck very easily (don't put experimental gantrys in the back of your base, lol).
When I say micro heavy, I mean I'm micro managing my base not doing something interesting like thinking or planning or scouting. In Starcraft, the interesting part is microing your troops (there isn't much else to do lol).
Its not like everything is bad. I never liked adjacency bonuses apart from mass storage around the extracters, or powergens and power storage. That made it feel like you were building a 'facility'. Pathfinding is better. Paint attack is cool. Research is a better idea than upgrading indavidual units (instant upgradeing isnt).
When I say console, I mean "new design direction that trys to emulate a small scale tactical approach and at the same time enable it to play on consoles with the minimum work nessesary leading to comprimises in the design and feel of the game". But thats too long to write.
Well according to GPG adding a "save in skirmish" feature is just too time consuming for them to bother with right now. But it is on a "list" of things they'd like to do someday. The "AI and pathfinding" are big issues. I wonder how Sins, Super Com/FA, Distant Worlds, Total Annihilation, Warzone 2100 were able to manage it? You mean to tell me that SupCom2 can save a replay of an entire game but saving a skirmish mid game is beyond their scope. mmmmmkay. Oh well. You pays your money and you take your chances.
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=779183#p779183
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=779295#p779295
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?p=780875#p780875
GPG used to be a great company, but with their last few releases it really seems like they just want to start the next project and never take the time to properly fix what they have out. Hugely disappointing. Chris Taylor may be legend in PC gaming, but his legacy is being dragged down by his more recent acts.
Now saying all of that, and wanting to really not like SupCom2 I got surprised. I actually enjoyed the game and have played through the campaign twice thus far. It just feels like they released the series backwards. I originally didn't get into SupCom:FA(the one I own) to much, but after playing 2 I went back and now have a better connection and understanding playing the first. Maybe that's just me, but it seems like 2 would of been a much better introduction to 1/FA than a sequel.
I am totally new to SC because I never had a PC that could run it. I bought the THQ pack on sale so got SC and FA in the bundle. I like it. That said SC2 was under my radar until then. I'm not a SC2 hater, but yeah, I can see where people would think it's a step backwards. The strategy of choice in SC2 is ACU rushes. The game maps are so small and teching up is so fast it makes this possible. Try an ACU rush in SC/FA on one of those huge maps and good luck with that. Far better to call this new SupCom something like Super Com: Rush or Super Com: Extreme than trying to sell it as a sequel to SupCom. Marketing dropped the ball on that one.
My main complaint with SupCom 2 is how much smaller they made the maps. Looking back, now I think I should have played a bit farther through the game before writing my review. It's a decent game, yes, but it's no SupCom when compared to the Epic Scale of the original.
How does it compare with Sins, gameplay wise? Is it more click intensive?
That's actually a pretty hard question to answer. Depending on how you play these types of games doing some things may take more clicks then others. I'd say they're about the same in that respect honestly.
I think they might play similar if Sins research and economy were set to the faster setting? Does that sound right?
Hmm...Yeah, I think so. Also though the Tech Tree in Sins is a little more expansive then the excuse for a tech tree in SupCom2.
Also, Sins has some pretty large maps; SupCom2 is very small.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
