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.
Did you play Sup Com 1? That game was epic awesome.
You won't find strategy on a grander scale than in Sup Com.
I had forgotten that 2 was even coming out, my laptop probably can't handle it.
Lol spacesiege. That game was horrible. I stopped playing it after 10 minutes, and that was stretching it. I even payed for it, doh!
Looks to me like the OP is missing the point of the game (and obviously never played the first one). The game has massive battles with up to 500 units per side. How is that not a "unique feature"? And the graphics are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. sure they don't blow my mind but they're much better than any CnC game especially the old ones.
Btw the unit limit is not a 'feature'. Its simplly that without a high unit limit you would never be able to DO half the stuff in the original game.
The new unit limit is misleading. You can have huge armies but they are all the same so its a linear increase in scale with no effect on gameplay. This also lowers the requirement for textures etc since they are all the same unit rather than 10 times the number (literaly, there is 10 times less units in total).
The new gameplay dose not benefit from having 500 units out. You need to upgrade one tree as fast as possible then hit hard with as many of that unit as you have avalible. The meta gameplay is choosing the right tree.
With all due respect to the OP, I must disagree:
I pre-ordered SupCom 2, and I have to say, I'm very pleased with it. Obviously it's not like SupCom 1 ... that would have disappointed me, because I didn't pay $45 to get more of a game I already own. It's not supposed to be an expansion, nor is it supposed to be SupCom version 2. I love Demigod and I love SupCom 1, and to me this new game is like a cross between those two. I launch SupCom 2 when I want to play a skirmish that is longer and more, um, futuristic than Demigod, but yet not quite as long as a SupCom 1 match, which usually takes me several hours.
As for the graphics, I think they're great. I am able to crank all the settings to max on my computer, and that looks great at 1920x1200 resolution. I can't see why the OP thinks they're so horrible. The best part for me is that the graphics are as good as SupCom 1 (IMO) but yet don't cause $2000 computers to lag, like SupCom 1 did. Zoom in on a teleporting unit in SupCom 2 ... I have never seen a visual effect in a game as cool and seamless as the effect shown when a unit teleports out.
I have to agree that the game doesn't have anything really groundbreaking to tout. But so what? Just because it's not groundbreaking, that doesn't mean it's a bad game. There are a huge volume of PC games out there, and not all of them can be groundbreaking. Not all of them can be thrilling, either. No, this game doesn't have anything completely brand new. But I still find it immensely enjoyable nonetheless.
I have to say, I think this game is suffering from the "iPad syndrome." In other words, false expectations. If you buy this game expecting it to be a new version of SupCom 1, yes, you will be disappointed. In fact, you will probably feel ripped off. Do NOT compare this game to SupCom 1, it's like comparing apples and oranges. SupCom 1 is an epic war RTS like Sins of a Solar Empire; SupCom 2 is a skirmishing RTS kinda like Demigod (which the OP obviously hates just as much).
If anyone is on the fence here, do yourself a favor and download the demo. See how you like the gameplay. If you can get your head around the fact that it is not a new version of, or replacement for, SupCom 1, you just might like it. If you don't, you're not out any money. I, for one, will continue to enjoy both SupCom 1 and SupCom2.
I still love SC I (hell some of the mods alone too are great), but II is just your average RTS... I dont care about graphics its just lots of the features they removed, well is what made SC I unique and great. Really sad with this release... I and II are totally different games...
But ya do try the demo out...
I have SC, SCFA and SC2... the last is not so bad... it only miss the little thing who make the original SC special... my main complain is how easy the game is become in SC2... in normal mode, i have finish the game in less that one day !!! Biggest map taken maybe 1/2 hour... to much easy for my taste... but it don't make the game bad... sure that a lot of people will like it...
Personally, I probably won't be buying SupCom2 because I REALLY liked the unique parts of SupCom1 and FA (this is based wholly on only having played the SupCom1 demo). I love how payment is a rate-based system.
SupCom2 SEEMS to be more about tactical assaults than strategic warfare. If I want to play a game that is more tactically oriented, then I will play the Dawn of War series (DoW2 does not exist for all intents and purposes of this gamer), especially since it is probably WAY more fun, and has MUCH more unique factions (not to mention more!). Plus, DoW1+Xpacks are FAR more gory and glorious in battle.
I like how someone put it in a thread about DoW1. I'll paraphrase here, since I can't quite remember the whole thing- "most RTSes are you and your opponent slapping each other with white gloves. Dawn of War [and expansions] are you and your opponent kicking each other in the groin until one of you bends over and is beheaded by a buzzing chainsword [sword with a blade comparable to a chainsaw in general design]".
I only read the OP as I have to leave in a moment, so please excuse me if I repeat something that has already been stated.
I LOVE Supcom 1, as does my friend who got me into it. It's one of the most strategic games I have ever played. It is quite complicated at first, but once you get the hang of it, the complexities really enhance the gameplay. Also, AMAZING graphics.
Now, I haven't played supcom 2 yet, but what I've heard quite a few times from around the interwebs is that they wanted everyone to be able to understand how to play, so they took out a lot of the complex and strategic trademarks of the game. This allows for a much bigger player base, but I personally play strategy games for the, well... strategy.
One plus: The downgrade in graphics lets my friend play it more smoothly on his computer.
I think the OP is being a bit too harsh on the game, but as a fan of SupCom 1 & FA, I agree with the general gist of it, and more with what Hawawaa said. It's not really a bad game, it's just that I've played it many times before under dozens of different names. I just hope that one day we'll see a real sequel to SupCom/FA, which I still consider to be the best RTS made.
Wow guys if you like half finished games with no storyline what so ever I really cant say nothing. I played sup com 1 and expansion and really enjoyed it, but this title isnt even as half good as 1st part.
Earth 2150 (release date 2000) with 2 expansions cost now 6$ USD. In this game you can teraform the terrian, even build tunnels under enemy base. Also all units can be modified (u can put granade launcher on mech istead of rocket launcher or miniguns). Game is fully 3D. It also have groundbreaking ability to record commands for units (macros like). Storyline is very interesting and there is over 90 mission to complete (3 fractions). Graphics aslo look quite good even after 10 years now.
Earth 2160 (realease date 2005) featured some awesome features like: ability to save your multiplayer game to finish it later, you can join running game, replayes and spectator mode is also supported. An allien fraction has also been added. Also AI is able to 'learn' (adopt to your playstytle) and become even more challenging as the game procedes. Only mistake in this game is the storyline - it really takes time to develop (nothing like 2150), English version of this game didnt get much love from developers too but it dosnt matter that much in multiplayer). But you can get it for 20$ USD. (requirements 1,5 GHz CPU, DX 9 GPU, 512 ram)
In both of them there is no unit limit (u can spawn 1000 of them) and I promise you they will deliver much more fun then this game.
Its just my opinion youhave right to have your opinion too. I really belive this game is not worth 50$ USD for what it offers.
PS. BCXtreme I see that you didnt even try to play demigod online??? You really think i hate that game lol. Check my stats before you say somethin like that. However the number of bugs that are still exist in this game (close to 1 year from release now) made it really frustrating expierience. And since GPG abandon it to work on Sup Com 2 and there is little hope this will change I gave up on it (i played it almost 10 months at one stage got to rank 13 in custom games).
d
I disagree. I think it is realistic to expect a sequel to be like the original. Sequels typically build on all the the good things of the original, and maybe remove some of the annoying things. If you liked the first one, you should like the second one, not be disappointed with it.
Somewhere else, I read someone say that if SupCom2 were a different IP, it wouldn't be bad. But because it is SupCom, it fails. I agree with that. Taken by itself, it's not a bad game. But just about everything I liked about the first one is gone in the second one.
I actually think the new graphics aren't too bad, and the story is at least a little more original than FA. The two things I miss the most are the experimentals and the T2 artillery. I was a huge turtler in the first one; I could make a wall of artillery that could stop a Galactic Collosus before it even got close enough to fire its laser at my wall of shields.
But far more important than that is the experimentals. They no longer feel as "big" as they used to. They used to be able to rack up a kill streak in the hundreds, now they're lucky to even make it to 20. I can barely even get them out of my base. They'll die to less than 20 regular units, and won't even manage to take very many of them with them. And I really miss my Monkeylords
I was skeptical about Supreme Commander 2 and waited for the veterans of the original to have their play and say. It's got positive feedback from some of them, so I've decided to buy it to see for myself.
The OP has all the right in the world to give his opinions about the game, but going so far to say that he's "warning" other players is assuming everyone thinks like he does.
No one would buy half finished games with no storyline, but what has that got to do with Supreme Commander 2 again? If you have a point to make, do so without exaggeration please.
There can never be a consensus about what's good or bad. As much as the hard core crowd (and I belong to it) enjoyed certain features, it was too inaccessible to many others. There could have been a SupCom 2 with all the hard core stuff in it, but the sale potential (or lack thereof) of such a game may jolly well had made such a project commercially unfeasibly. As much as SupCom 1 has scored high points in the reviews, it wasn't exactly a smash hit. GPG employees still need to eat you know. I will miss the flux economy and other features missing, but I think I'm enough of an RTS gamer to embrace the change and just go enjoy it for what it is.
I bought SupCom 2, because I liked Supcom1 very much (played about 1000 1v1 ranked until February 2008, stopped then because all the good player left (I was sick of playing 10 games in a row against GovtCheese and his 10 smurfaccounts,lol), and 10000 unranked teamgames until March 2009)
The best thing in SupCom 2 is the Research Tree. You can start research without constructing any building. Research buildings in SupCom2 only increases the speed of getting research points. This is the best thing in this game. I really hate games like Starcraft2, where you have to build a research building for everything (one for infantry, one for vehicles, on for air, . . .. . .That is ridiculous).
The next advantage against ...craft games is, in Sucpom games u dont need to build fucking houses or depots to increase the unit limit.
BUT SupCom2 is now nothing else than a late beta version of the game! I am feeling like in Demigod before.
NO decent ranked ladder, this ladder steam offers is just a joke. A guy with 50 wins and 49 losses is better ranked than a guy with 49 wins and 1 loss.
NO singleplayer automatch
NO multiplayer automatch
NO unranked games, doesnt matter now, because of stupid ladder, but custom games should not count!!
In the opengames list, I cant see who is the host (lol how stupid is that), u have to put everyone in your steam friendlist to see who hosts a game!!!!!
Good work again GPG, looks like they wanted it released before C&C4 at all costs.
Cant talk about singleplayer campaign, because I am not interested in.
I hope they will update multiplayer fast and we will get a ladder like in Vanilla and FA.
I sense mixed impressions and thoughts
That is true, it is ultimately a matter of opinion. The point I was trying to get at with that was that all sequels are going to be compared to their predecessors. BCXtreme seemed to me to be implying that you shouldn't do that with sequels, that you should take them as they are with no regard for the original. Does anyone expect Starcraft 2 to not be compared with the original? Will Civilazation 5 not be compared with 4?
SC 2 as itself offers little value, just belov average RTS with nothing special that you will be bored of after 50 or so games.
SC 2 however holds more value for people who get it because they liked SC1 and they will blindly claim that this is great game that is worth 100's of dollars.
Hmmm... the Dinosaurus experimental in the last map is really a big one if it have some air support... have fully clean the last map with two of them... on the ground level, they are the king...
My main problem is that map are small and fast... finish all the map in less that 24 hours, for a game at 50 euro, it is almost like thief... i have think that once the campaign was done, i will be able to play again, being the "bad" side but no way... there is one single storyline who mix the 3 races...
OP, I assumed that you hate Demigod because you claimed that GPG "butchered" it, and also that it was a reason not to expect anything good from GPG anymore. I would not expect someone to speak that way about a game they actually like. 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.
To everyone else, of course it is natural to compare a sequel with the original. But sometimes you shouldn't, because maybe the sequel simply was not intended to be in the exact same vein as the original. I think it's important to realize when the developer is switching tracks, and be able to switch along with them. SupCom 2 wasn't supposed to be like SupCom 1; they were obviously going for something simpler that can appeal to a wider audience. I believe they succeeded in that, but just because the game is simpler doesn't mean it's a bad game. I still feel there is a great amount of strategy, tactics, and skill involved.
I'm just saying, you shouldn't base your WHOLE opinion of the game solely on the fact that it's not like the original. Far too many great games, TV shows, movies, and gadgets have been killed by that mentality.
Oh, and kudos to SyDaemon.
Why do you keep saying that "just because" its different it dosn't automatically mean its bad. Who do you tihnk keeps saying its bad because its different?
SupCom 2 is, however, bad - not because its different, but because its badly designed.
And the name is very important. If Sins of a Solar Empire 2 is a peggel clone, I will be very very annoyed - and yes it will be a crap game because it would be a really crap strategy game. Just like SupCom2 is a crap strategy game. Its a mediocre real time tactics game however (the exact thing TA and SupCom were designed to be better than for strategy gamers).
I heard that the game is going to be released on the xbox 360 as well. If so that would explain why so many features were removed. and the toned down visuals.
Seems to me that most of the people disappointed in SupCom 2 feel that way because they wanted something in the exact same vein as (though better than) SupCom 1, which is not what they got.
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? (Trust me, I don't go for badly designed games.)
The difference between SupCom 1 and 2 is not even close to the difference between SoaSE and Peggle. SupCom 1 and 2 represent different veins/levels of the same genre; SoaSE and Peggle represent entirely different genres.
Now, I would be interested to hear how you feel SupCom 2 is somehow less strategic than SupCom 1. I own and enjoy both games, and I have not noticed any huge difference in strategy.
I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that everyone should like SupCom 2, or that I have a problem with someone not liking it. I've played the game and I really like it (this coming from a fan of SupCom 1). You've played the game and you obviously don't like it at all. That's cool. The fact that a lot of people like it and a lot of people don't like it tells me that, as SyDaemon inferred, there really is no grounds for any of us to insist that our opinion of the game is "correct."
My position is that it is worth the time to download the demo and try it out.
The original SupCom was released on the 360 as well. In fact that is how I had to play it (my computer at the time couldn't handle it, and it was on sale for $10) and I thought it was good, though I'm sure it would be better on a quality computer.
it was released on xbox long after the PC version, it wasn't designed to be xbox from the start like SupCom2
Irek's been quite vocal about his dislike of the support Demigod received. I tend to agree on several of his points re:DG, though he articulated them elsewhere. I certainly feel like I got my money's worth out of Demigod though, but am disappointed with the finished product. It could have been so much more than it is.
Regarding Supcom2 - I owned the first 2 games but never got into the competitive MP side of things. I was never a huge fan of total annihilation, but found I enjoyed the original supcom + the expansion. Generally, I enjoy Supcom 2 and think I will get into MP some as time allows. I had fun with the single player. The story was a little unispired, imo, but I'm glad they put the story mode in there certainly enjoyed SP. I didn't find the AI to be all that impressive though and wasn't all that adpative. I chose a turtle playstyle followed by massing units. I'm not overly impressed with the game graphically, but I'm not complaining either. It plays smooth and looks good on my computer. The sounds were mostly pew pew pew and uninspired imo as well.
All of that said, I've had fun playing the game. Is it worth $50 for the SP mode - no. But, once you tack in MP and skirmish, I think I will more than get my money's worth out of this one.
If you don't play badly designed games, how do you know what one is or isn't?
Starcraft was a great game, it beats SupCom2 both in game design wise and storytelling wise. Im talking Starcraft ONE here, not two. Im pretty sure 2 will beat the living nanite snot out of SupCom 2.
Strategy? Strategy is large scale planning level. You can still DO most of this, but there is now no POINT doing them. Thats what I mean, the land mass is so small you don't need to think about logistics or planning attacks. Trying to control important locations is gone since there IS no important locatoins other than "where your commander is".
Its a fast paced RTS but it has no tactics but it also has no strategy - this means its just a spam and go C&C clone from the 90s. Do you rember Dark Reign? This game could have been called Dark Reign 3 (I think they didn't do a 3) and nobody would have cared, just another RTS rite?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
