Hahaha

funny.

Probably still got the better deal.

Supcom 2 had completely different tech beneath the hood compared to supcom/FA, at least in part. Perhaps they should have waited another 2-3 months to fix the save in skirmish issue before release. but it doesn’t make your original comparison to sins remotely relevant or fair.

Only muppets play skirmish anyway.

Since when does the fact that it is a different engine matter? Almost every year a new game comes out with a new engine, and they all have saves in skirmish. And it wasn't even a new engine for GPG. It was the same as Demigod, and guess what? Demigod had saves in skirmish at release.

Had you been paying attention to what I've been saying, I think the "AI/pathing improvements issues" excuse is BS, and in the very unlikely case that they really did have technical issues, they shouldn't have release an unfinished game.

i've known GPG to get things wrong from time to time but ive never felt their posts on the forums were dishonest. i agree that some aspects of the game needed more love before release, i just disagree that a lack of skirmish save constitutes an 'unfinished game'. some people, myself included, have never saved a skirmish against an AI in any title ever. it is ironic though after talking up their concentration on SP gameplay, they didnt manage to implement saves haha.

Hmm... I still prefer SupCom 1 over Sins and SupCom 2.

I've finally discovered the BlackOps mod. I've used 4th Dimension mainly, but now I'll try this. BTW, has anybody here used the Experimental Wars mod? I swear it overcomplicates the game. I mean, there's a seperate engineer for air, land and sea!

One final point, is it me, or do GPG think that, because the standard of gaming is lower on Xbox and PS3 (people think COD's the best game ever...), they can release a sub-standard game for console and PC, and expect it to sell amazingly? I'd have expected the console sales, which I think is what they were aiming at, to flop, because all of my friends who play on consoles don't like strategy games, and I think that that is representative of console gamers as a whole. Then, there other source of sales, the PC, is full of pissed-off fans of the original. How have their sales been anyway? I'm too lazy to check...

Coming from someone who loves SupCom 1 and FA it was still worth my money, even though I bought it for 45, but it is clearly a step down from FA. However, it is different enough and has a more casual feel to it so I don't feel like I'm just playing a worse version of FA.

However, it is pretty simplified and the online community is one of the dumbest I've seen. Seriously, I'm in the top 50% of players for most RTS games I play and generally I find playing online RTS's to be very challenging especially compared to other genres. Anyways, even though I'm usually only in the top 50% of players I'm globally #2 in win ratio for assassination games, which is pathetic.

Most matches are snooze fests where I can just build a factory or two and win in less than 6 minutes. I have never seen such braindead opponents. Even if you are a strategy noob and just build a few factories and send units out units you'd be far above the average player I see. Way too many people try teching up to an experimental without building other units or they try building 30 energy plants and few units. Everyone in my hometown clan is on the top 20 players and we had to stop playing because the only way to make it challenging was to purposely handicap ourselves. I'm not trying to sound like we're godlike; we frequently get our asses handed to us half the time in every other RTS. Something about this community makes it seem like everyone is 8 years old.

Other than the community my biggest annoyances with the game are:

-The building of research centers. Slow research should have been the default (with a little bit faster gain for killing stuff. This would also stop all the noobs that just build energy and research centers from getting killed so easily since they wouldn't even attempt this strat.

-Research itself. I think it closes more strategic doors than it opens. It's far harder to react to opponents and it encourages players to keep railroading down the path they've already chosen and keep making units they've already researched. Whereas in FA I would see all sorts of innovative midmatch strategy switches, these are far rarer because of how many points would be "wasted" by switching.

-Team games. Because of the research system any team games end up with each player building only one class (I go ground you go air) or in larger games (I build adapters, you build crabs, you build fighter bombers and you build gunships).

-Bases. I am a very aggressive player so I'm not primarily talking about turtling here, but I miss being able to have all sorts of forward bases, radar jammed secret bases and such in FA. A single mid-map factory complex seems to be all I ever need in this one. There definitely seems to be a lot less fun in making base defenses too.

-Weak Experimentals. They are just less satisfying overall. Most of them feel weak and I'd rather just have them cost more and be stronger instead of building 2 or 3 for the same effect. That's just a minor nitpick though. The real problem is how many experimentals are still useless this far in. The Kraken is probably #1 on the worthless list and I would never build it under any circumstance.

I actually liked the second on better!!!  Of course I only played single player on FA.

Reasons that I didn't like the first one as much

1.  the upgrade/research system was tedious with the engineer babysitting.

2.  The only way to win later missions on the hardest settings was to spam your base across the map.  This was because the units were so weak that even a pop-cap army would be decimated well before reaching the enemies base forcing you to basically wage a trench warfare style of moving your front line by building the base across the map.

Which leads to why I liked the second one better...

1. the research system is much improved..

2. Smaller maps meant less base spamming.. Also the units seemed to be a little stronger. 

They are both not close to perfect in my eyes. I would give the first 3/5 and the second 3.5/5.  Starcraft and C&C(except RA3 and Tib4) are superior games.   I did enjoy the SupCom 2 multiplayer.  Do turn off nukes. 

Did you know that Sorian was hired by GPG and has been working on enhancing supcom2 and had a hand in coding these release of supcom2? Google sorian blog.  He posts lots of interesting stuff. 

Indeed. It's good for the eight-player huge maps though, if you don't want to spend two-hours-plus non-stop online.