I just got full version of sup com 2 and I really disapointed about it.
Graphic:
You may not belive it but in my opinion C&C generals (released 2003) looked a lot better then this game. I cannot think of any other RTS released in last 3 years which looks so poor. I would even say Earth 2150 have more unique and richer graphics then this game (released 2000) (LINK).
Sound:
Its there, nothing really thriling. Voice acting not great at all.
Gameplay:
Quite simple you get 2 resources to collect and research points to develop fev technologies. Only new and not seen before thing is that every fraction get mech like unit that playes role of comander. This unit can be developed into quite devastating force, but if its get killed game is over. Except that there is nothin new or thrilling or ground breaking features.
Plot/Storyline
Shallow, almost non existend
Final thoughts
The reason why I am making this post is simple. I want to warn anyone who is thinking to spend 50 USD for this game. IT IS NOT WORTH IT. Down of war 2 is now 25 USD and its so much advanced and enjoyable game then this one, even anny of C&C titles from last 8 years will be better investment then this.
Seems GPG started to mass produce half finished games hoping to get quick buck and jump into next title. The way they butchered Demigod I tought they will learn their lesson but Sup Com 2 is yet another exaple that we can't expect much from them anymore. Dont get wrong I really enjoyed Dungeon Siege II and spend many hours playin but even now it still has bugs that can make the game impossible to finish (after 5 years from release!!!). Space siege wasnt really briliant either.
I played the demo and it seemed ok. Nothing ground breaking but I will probably pick up the full version when it gets cheaper in a few months. So far the people complaining the most about it are Sup Com 1 fans (of which I am one). Its not as bad as they say, but it is quite different than the OG
"And no, I haven't tried MP on that game yet because I'm not big on online multiplayer in general; I prefer SP and LAN with friends."
Wonder how long that game last for you if you would play its single player. Which is basicly skirmish matches vs half smart AI who keeps running into towers for no reason or stop chasing you even when you are about to die (from hard to easy settting its all the same, diffrence is on hard AI got more gold to buy items).
Well I bought demigod to play the way it meant to played which is online. Because game with no storyline, no missions and no tutorial at all so it cant be single player focused right?
You also dont play Supcom in multiplayer? Really stop posting, you making joke out of urself. How can you comment on game who are multiplayer based if you never played it in multiplayer......
Speak for yourself. SupCom has a large multiplayer community, but like most games with a solid skirmish mode, which SupCom has, many people, myself included, play single player. SupCom is no exception.
Yeah sorry to be the one to inform you but the VAST majority of the 'player base' I.e. the people who bought the game and play it (not the pirates, the demoers, the trade ins) are single player. Even Demigod or as far back as Quake 3 has many single player only types. If they were going to drop a peice, it would be the multiplayer - not the single player.
Note: Referes to ALL games not just this one.
Edit: refer to the Mod Uberfix in demigod for an example really quick...see how much 1 guy fixed in so little time and it took GPG months to fix SOME of the stuff he has....they still haven't even got it all the bugs are horrible (no not the multiplayer connectivity while thats what most people whine about I've had very few con related problems) the pathfinding is the worst I've seen in a LONG time I've lost kills/died cuz my demigod decided he wanted to do a 360 run back turn around then procede to run...
Multiplayer based? No. Counterstrike is multiplayer based, where the single player (vs bots) is incidental to the experience. SupCom is single player based with a multiplayer.
I've had numerous hours of fun with SupCom and haven't needed to play it multiplayer once. I prefer working my way through campaigns to playing skirmishes, and supcom was great for that. With a campaign that could soak up loads of hours to complete it just once there's no way it could be described as a multiplayer game where the single player is incidental/just tagged on as an extra. As a strategy game it's also one of the best I've ever played. It has a few imperfections, but the overall result is still great. Unfortunately almost everything I liked about the first seems to have beem changed or removed in the second.
Supcom 1 had a beautiful resource system, and great base building / template ability
Sucom 2 has the vanilla system of every other RTS out there, boring.
I like the unit reserch system now (i hated that teir 1,2,3 crap) - and the units and abilities that are there are great, there are just too few.
I can't justify paying more than $30 for this. Actually, I wouldn't buy it at all... it isn't a TRUE supcom title.
if you dont play supcom against other people, you've never played supcom.
man from what i'm hearing from you guys its nothing new not worth the money either.
KillzEmAllGod
True its not worht the money right now. I dont belive it will change since GPG start making another game.... sigh, so most likely they will abandon this one like they did with demiog to make sup com 2
For people who want to play good single player rts with great storyline and unique units there is Down of War or Command and Conquer.
Right now Sup com 2 can be compared to Genereas in C&C. If you compare it to tiberium wars it would loose in every aspect.
man i was so pro on C&C G pwned almost everyone online, C&C has kinda lost its edge over the years
My favorite RTS would be Age of Empires 2, I believe I've played it for 7ish years only single-player and I still put the disk in to play every once in awhile...best RTS I've ever played.
Definitely like C&C 3 better but what other new base building rts's are there ? I actually like supcom 2 better then the first one. in the first you had to upgrade engineers just to build higher level buildings and when you got to 500 units you couldnt find the upgraded one right away which was annoying. strategic view isnt that important since almost every rts comes with a minmap that does the same thing. As for multiplayer they need more large maps. I am enjoying the game both single and multiplayer though.
Well uhhm. Most of 2010 so far has been FPS/RPG: Mass effect 2, bioshock 2 anliens vs predator etc etc.
As far as rts goes C&C 4 will be released 14th of march (and it will burry sup com 2 i think ). Right now there is Dawn of discovery (u need to have good pc to play proper) and Dawn of War 2. There is also Napoleon total war but i havent had chance to take a look at it.
didnt like the c&c 4 beta. I like basebuilding and am a turtle type player. Thought about dawn of discovery but have seen mixed reviews.
Anno is fun just remember that its quite demandging:
� OS: Windows XP (SP 3), Windows XP (64-bit), Windows Vista (SP1), Windows Vista (64-bit) � CPU: Intel Core2 Duo E4600 (2,4 GHz) or AMD Athlon64x2 4800+ (2,5Ghz) � RAM: 2 GB RAM � GPU: DirectX� 9.0c compatible mit 512 MB with Shader 3.0 � Minimum disc space: 6 GB
If you ask me above specs are bare minimum when it comes to the end of game. But still rewarding expierience
Anno is as needy as the noblemen it gives you to play with!
Dark Reign was fantastic! But I agree with the sentiment that there's only one SC2, and it isn't made by Gas Powered Games.
I played Supreme Commander and didn't care for it. Tried the Supreme Commander 2 demo and also disliked it. But I thought that there were some improvements. The new tech system is much better than the old, all-or-nothing tier system, and the game length is shorter.
Am I to understand that it's foolish to expect a game to follow in the footsteps of it's predecessor? If you're reading this, are a fan of the original and it's expansion, and are interested in buying it then bear in mind that the original isn't even a relevant comparison. You don't even need to read between the lines. Everyone here is pretty much saying the same thing, and that is that this game might as well be named something else entirely. The only difference is whether they liked the "new game" or not. Sure, it's still got the acu, point defenses, factories, etc. But the scale is gone and the diversity of the buildings and units isn't there. One faction doesn't even have a navy. Whoops, there goes one third of their units. So anyways, should be fairly obvious where I stand. If you want a simplified version of C&C then give this a try. If you're looking for a game like the original or SOASE then this might be a dissapointment. Fair warning.
[quote]So you want to make the point now that SupCom 2 is badly designed. Then why has it received generally favorable reviews? And why do I like it?[/quote
Are you talking about real critics or your average consumer, cause I haven't seen a whole lot of positive feedback from the player reviews on steam.
I read a post here a little while ago that was fairly neutral and an interesting read. I recommend it to anyone who feels as though they've taken this franchise in a completely different direction. http://forums.impulsedriven.com/377945
well from the demo, the color palate looked very flat, and not eye catching in any real aspect.
i passed on supcom 1 and i will do the same now with supcom 2.
Maybe in the future - as of now, Sorian has been tasked with improving the AI and some other enhancements for supcom2.
http://soriandev.blogspot.com/2010/03/im-back-baby.html.
Don't get me wrong, btw - I'm personally disappointed with how Demigod was handled and tend to think that SupCom2 may likely get the same treatment in 6 months, but for now, the patches will flow.
I did not like the first supcom but do enjoy the 2nd one even though I wont say its one of the best games i've played. I will say that the campaign could've been ALOT longer. The story isn't too bad but it jumps too quick to accomodate the lack of levels(15). as compared to CnC 3 which had 35 plus 10 more if you consider Kanes wrath into the equation.Of course its not exaxtly fair to compare it to the best single player campaign(IMO) for any RTS.
Yes and I loved that game. I have plenty of machine for any game and am a fan of blue byte..I actually had the dos game of the original settlers called 'serf city'. Unfortunately I think it was the best one. I tried 3 and 6 but didn't lke them as much. The 7th installment looks interesting but I need to play a demo of it to make sure.
Oh and for games without dedicated servers (like AoE) try using gameranger.. I use it for Stronghold crusader and CnC tiberian sun. You shouldn't even have to forward any ports through this service.
From that blog: Some nice changes, some cool new features, and of course, ranked 1v1
Are you kidding me? This is something they didn't think to include from day 1, the most popular form of multiplayer? You know, the main reason any competitive player sticks with a RTS? So what innovations will they patch in next, a lobby and chat system?
And GPG support has always been poor. People complained about SupCom 1 balance, bugs and performance issues (even on the most powerful machines at the time) but where damn lucky if GPG threw them a patch once every 6 months or so. It's the EA support method; release game, throw a couple patches out quickly after launch, move on. Throw a patch out a year later to make it seem like they still care about their old products, just before announcing a new title.
So you got what you wanted and still complain about it. No wonder they stop after only a few patches.
Of course I will agree that these features are pretty standard but that doesnt mean absolutely every game has to have them to be good.. I also would like to see a lobby and chat system as well but I wont complain about it right after they implement it..(if they do) That just discourages devs from working on the project any longer. Its like the parent that has a straight A student for a kid but just says your supposed to get and that they are lucky they got that or they would be grounded for the semester instead of applauding they're efforts.
And I wouldn't put any game company in the same horrible class as EA. (from which i will not buy any more of their games) And if you think they are that bad then do what I did to EA and dont buy from them.
Also I would like to add the number one reason I like supcom 2 over the first one is the units are alot stronger than the first. It was like the units in the first one were made out of paper.. That was also my gripe with Red Alert 3.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
