Command And Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars V Supreme Commander....

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25413155

It's already been posted,C&C3 won with around a 46%.Ign also had a poll and C&C3 won that also.

Hi all, I was just wandering which of the 2 games is better and what the key differences were? For example, in C&C you have to harvest Tiberium, is there such a thing to do in SC and so on??
Which of the 2 games do you recommend me to get, I will be buying it tonight!?

Also, I have done a little poll asking people who thinks which game is better.
LonelyGhost

Supreme Commander was a total letdown now that Ive played and finished the campaigns.  The singleplayer is uninspired, and after the first 20 minutes I realised that I would almost rather be playing Total Annhilation.  Once the "wow factor" of big armies (if your PC is capable of running the game with them) and huge maps wears off, you are left with a below average game.

At least with Command and Conquer 3 I know what I will be getting.  Awesome units, a great story with decent acting, classic gameplay, and that nostalgic feeling I get every time I load up any part of C&C: The First Decade.

Supreme Commander was a total letdown now that Ive played and finished the campaigns. The singleplayer is uninspired, and after the first 20 minutes I realised that I would almost rather be playing Total Annhilation. Once the "wow factor" of big armies (if your PC is capable of running the game with them) and huge maps wears off, you are left with a below average game.

At least with Command and Conquer 3 I know what I will be getting. Awesome units, a great story with decent acting, classic gameplay, and that nostalgic feeling I get every time I load up any part of C&C: The First Decade.

mrbojangles25

They are both good games and if cash is not a huge concern and you love RTS games, I would get both.

I would say if you have C&C Generals then, at least from what I see from the demo, I would go with Supreme Commander.  C&C 3 is probably a bit better than Generals and it may have a great single player which we haven't seen. That is an unknown and could put C&C 3 on everyone's must have list.  But at least from the demo the C&C 3 plays a lot like Generals, C &C, Red Alert ,etc.  Better graphics and it's definitely good. After all it is C&C.  But it's just not different enough to pick over Supreme Commander.

I've been playing Supreme Commander now a ton. My first impressions were not extremely good, particularly from the single player demo. Skirmish was ok for the first few games but after 10 or so games that was when I really started liking it. Particularly keying up massive building queues, waypoints, patrols, transports, engineer assiting, adding units to existing patrol routes... that is really where it is at but is really for hardcore RTS players. I still suck and don't even try MP online as I would get owned for sure.  But now I've probably played 200 games now and can take on the hard AI on any map. If I want to win, I can by really hitting it hard from the very, very beginning. If I want a real challenge I just let the AI get a bit of breathing room the first 10-20 minutes of the game and I get a serious challenge that can go on for 2-3 hours easy. 

Don't get me wrong here, C&C 3 is great and it appears the AI seems to be quite good from what I see in the demo. So much depends on if you have Generals with Zero hour already, how C&C 3 full game is, and what kind of computer you have (can you even run SC with decent performance).  Another possibility is if you have an Xbox360 you could rent C&C 3 for the Xbox360 and then you could see the whole game and how the single player campaign stacks up plus get a chance to play it a bit on Xbox Live. You can't rent SC, but you do have that option with C&C 3

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Supreme Commander was a total letdown now that Ive played and finished the campaigns. The singleplayer is uninspired, and after the first 20 minutes I realised that I would almost rather be playing Total Annhilation. Once the "wow factor" of big armies (if your PC is capable of running the game with them) and huge maps wears off, you are left with a below average game.

At least with Command and Conquer 3 I know what I will be getting. Awesome units, a great story with decent acting, classic gameplay, and that nostalgic feeling I get every time I load up any part of C&C: The First Decade.

trix5817

If it was meant for multiplayer, why didnt they market it that way, and why did they even bother to include a campagin?

No, RTS games are not at the point in evolution where they are built for multiplayer only, as is the case with first-person shooters (Battlefield series, Counterstrike, Joint Operations, etc).

Next you will be telling me that Starcraft is meant for multiplayer.