SupCom 2 review is up

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander2/review.html

Thoughts?

I'd give it an 8.5, but it's pretty fun, not the tactical game that it was but fun with an interesting campaign (from the demo at least) and exciting compared to the old one.

I'd give it an 8.5, but it's pretty fun, not the tactical game that it was but fun with an interesting campaign (from the demo at least) and exciting compared to the old one.

DanielDust

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

I'd give it an 8.5, but it's pretty fun, not the tactical game that it was but fun with an interesting campaign (from the demo at least) and exciting compared to the old one.

zomglolcats

thats a relief.

I never really got into multiplayer RTS games, so a good singleplayer is crucial.

I played the demo, loved it, was able to get over the changes (most notably the change from the traditional "tug of war" resource system...I miss the balance) and will definately buy this game.

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

I'd give it an 8.5, but it's pretty fun, not the tactical game that it was but fun with an interesting campaign (from the demo at least) and exciting compared to the old one.

mrbojangles25

thats a relief.

I never really got into multiplayer RTS games, so a good singleplayer is crucial.

I played the demo, loved it, was able to get over the changes (most notably the change from the traditional "tug of war" resource system...I miss the balance) and will definately buy this game.

so guys I am confused, I didn't play the first one should i get it or play the sequel Dark_prince123

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]so guys I am confused, I didn't play the first one should i get it or play the sequel zomglolcats

"Lots of pathfinding irritations" --- huh ? I thought they had some new path finding tech that was going to really simplify pathfinding and that become the game's greatest weakness ? I guess it can fixed in a patch though. Otherwise the review sounds pretty positive. naval

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA2epda-RkM&hd=1

This is the new pathfinding tech. I played the demo and that was definitely good but there were on occasions when some simple pathfinding stuff like a unit getting stuck because it couldn't go around a facility which was in its way occurred.

Having played the demo I agree with the score. Not bad its been made a lot more accesssible(can be seen both way), runs better so lower requirements, still good fun.

I myself just preferred the first. I actually liked Sup Com 1s economy, graphics(the review clearly says its taken a step back but for me its the really bright solid colours) and maps of larger scale. There is other stuff also like engineers assisting, queuing units up and now when you mouse over a unit to build you don't get any info about what this unit is about. Its like one step forward and then two steps backwards imo.

It isn't the Supreme Commander we know but a good fun rts still. I think there are some really nice improvements like flowfield made in SupCom2 and it would have been really nice to have them with everything that made SupCom1 great.

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

I'd give it an 8.5, but it's pretty fun, not the tactical game that it was but fun with an interesting campaign (from the demo at least) and exciting compared to the old one.

mrbojangles25

thats a relief.

I never really got into multiplayer RTS games, so a good singleplayer is crucial.

I played the demo, loved it, was able to get over the changes (most notably the change from the traditional "tug of war" resource system...I miss the balance) and will definately buy this game.

How exactly? the singleplayer element is by far the weakest of any RTS

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"] Yeah I have to agree with you. The campaign in the first was a complete snorefest. Not to say that this one is completely amazing, pretty much your run of the mill RTS campaign, but it's a lot better than the first.DoomZaW

thats a relief.

I never really got into multiplayer RTS games, so a good singleplayer is crucial.

I played the demo, loved it, was able to get over the changes (most notably the change from the traditional "tug of war" resource system...I miss the balance) and will definately buy this game.

How exactly? the singleplayer element is by far the weakest of any RTS

dunno

ive been playing RTS since Dune 2 came out. The singleplayer portions of RTSs have generally been excellent up until a few years ago, when all of a sudden this focus on multiplayer first came around.

but the story, the missions, the diversity available in the RTS genre...it all lends itself extremely well to a good, rich experience.

Homeworld
Command and Conquer
Dune series
Earth 2140 and Earth 2150
Ground Control
Dark Reign
and many, many more.

if the singleplayer aspect of an RTS is weak, it is not simply due to the genre, but because the developer decided to sacrifice it in favor of multiplayer. imo, its lazy to not have a good singleplayer...provided you keep the factions balanced, multiplayer isnt really that difficult to do.

I agree. A good SP is essential for me in RTS games.

World in Conflict and SOASE were the last real-time strategy games that I enjoyed in SP.

I agree. A good SP is essential for me in RTS games.

World in Conflict and SOASE were the last real-time strategy games that I enjoyed in SP.

Baranga

yea i came close to tears with WiC

*salutes Bannon*

How exactly? the singleplayer element is by far the weakest of any RTS

DoomZaW

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]Boy, he really put the multiplayer through its paces, huh? :P Gamespot seems to be getting rather weird with their deadlines or something.Kevin-V

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]Boy, he really put the multiplayer through its paces, huh? :P Gamespot seems to be getting rather weird with their deadlines or something.Dark_prince123

i would imagine so, the old one had excellent balance, and the large maps and variety of weaponry (air, land, sea, and superweapons) lended itself very well for all kindso f players

I am just happy because Supreme Commancer seems like a turtler-friendly game lol. I love my defenses!

Thinking about preordering to get that discount... Just how much smaller scale are the battles compared to the first.

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"] so does it have Solid MP ?Kevin-V

thats good

ive been wanting to get into multiplayer RTS games, but A.) I just dont like Starcraft, and B.) every time Ive tried lately the RTS games have been relatively unconventional (no base building, i.e. Dawn of War 2 and World in Conflict).

Too bad I preordered Bad Company 2 (no regrets, I just want two games lol and cant afford) but I will definately get SupCom 2 come next paycheck. Got my rent reduced by 75 bucks, so makin' mo' money anyway lol.

Btw, I think it's great when Gamespot staff keep in touch personally with the community like this. Thanks!zomglolcats

I agree, its nice when the editors and other staff pop in on occasion. Cant remember the last time its happened tbh

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"] Btw, I think it's great when Gamespot staff keep in touch personally with the community like this. Thanks!mrbojangles25

I agree, its nice when the editors and other staff pop in on occasion. Cant remember the last time its happened tbh

I rarely use gamespot as a website but I read the reviews from time to time, doesn't matter if they're good or bad, but they're enjoyable to read and the good/bad points are most of the time pretty accurate. I only complain a little when I see a clear copy/paste review from a console version but I never start do demand things, call names, etc, some even make a hate thread with lots of swearing even if they get banned after (not just for reviews/reviewers but also mods).

I just don't get some people, you don't like it find another review (there are tenths for every game) or better yet, use that awesome feature of GS, make your own "great" review. It's great to see editors respond to threads (Kevin-V at least :P) but why should they participate more often when all they get is threats?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="zomglolcats"] Btw, I think it's great when Gamespot staff keep in touch personally with the community like this. Thanks!DanielDust

I agree, its nice when the editors and other staff pop in on occasion. Cant remember the last time its happened tbh

I rarely use gamespot as a website but I read the reviews from time to time, doesn't matter if they're good or bad, but they're enjoyable to read and the good/bad points are most of the time pretty accurate. I only complain a little when I see a clear copy/paste review from a console version but I never start do demand things, call names, etc, some even make a hate thread with lots of swearing even if they get banned after (not just for reviews/reviewers but also mods).

I just don't get some people, you don't like it find another review (there are tenths for every game) or better yet, use that awesome feature of GS, make your own "great" review. It's great to see editors respond to threads (Kevin-V at least :P) but why should they participate more often when all they get is threats?

easy there, tiger...I simply said it was nice to see someone official that wasnt a mod post something. I never said they should.

Its like a visit from the president! Even if you dont like him, you still go "Wait, what? Dude, thats the PRESIDENT! Awesome!"

[QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]off topic question: when are you posting Napoleon: total war review ?Kevin-V

Napoleon expects much of you Kevin.

Hope it delivers better then the demo. Game seems ok but really seems rushed based on demo. I think i'll wait a few months until the couple of patches release.

Who will be getting Supreme Commander 2? I might consider it.Jd1680a

*raises hand*..me...preloaded it, awaiting it's release on Steam. Why? Because I enjoyed the first one, and the price was right.

yeah i'm gonna buy it cheap on ebay.

Okay have just found steam downloading 1gb of files (sloooooow tooo). Already preloaded so imagine there is a day0 patch for this.

Well I'm starting to think that maybe the demo was just a horrendous sample of the game? Because it was shocking just by RTS standards, let alone SupCom1 standards.

EDIT: Napoleon: TW review is up.

This looks like a downgrade :?JigglyWiggly_

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]This looks like a downgrade :?DaRockWilder

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

I agree. A good SP is essential for me in RTS games.

World in Conflict and SOASE were the last real-time strategy games that I enjoyed in SP.

mrbojangles25

yea i came close to tears with WiC

*salutes Bannon*

World in Conflict is actually the game that got me into online RTS's. Before it i wouldn't have even thought about it, but venturing online in that game was one of the best decisions i have ever made (gaming wise). I thought i would get my ass handed to me in minutes, but it turned out i was damn good at it.

But i agree, a good singleplayer campaign is definitley important, i remember with Company of Heroes/Opposing Fronts i never played the multiplayer at all, the singleplayer was more than enough to entertain me.

I still have to try the demo for SupCom 2, but if i like it, i'll probably get it since my main concern was crappy performance but apparently thats not an issue.

I was all excited about building Battleships in the demo. I noticed the very low time and resource requirement and I became very suspicious. Then when I deployed my battleship, I must say that I was very disappointed. The range and power from the original seemed to be entirely gone. I miss the old battleship, where once you built it, its fire radius was like 1/4 of the map. But the characters and few missions were very good. Still, I like overpowered battleships. k0r3aN_pR1d3

true, a lot of the units have lost their "epicness", most notably the battleship.

tbh though I think this isnt necessarilly a bad thing...a lot of those old unitsi n SupCom were all but invincible once you had them built...two battleships with some subs for antiship defense and you've essentially secured a quarter of the map and whatever chokepoint.

[QUOTE="Kevin-V"][QUOTE="Dark_prince123"]off topic question: when are you posting Napoleon: total war review ?sSubZerOo

Napoleon expects much of you Kevin.

I liked the first one so I will probably get this one. I know they dumbed it down a bit becuase just like everyone else they probably wanted it to run on the friggen consoles.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="zomglolcats"] Yeah I have to agree with you. The campaign in the first was a complete snorefest. Not to say that this one is completely amazing, pretty much your run of the mill RTS campaign, but it's a lot better than the first.DoomZaW

thats a relief.

I never really got into multiplayer RTS games, so a good singleplayer is crucial.

I played the demo, loved it, was able to get over the changes (most notably the change from the traditional "tug of war" resource system...I miss the balance) and will definately buy this game.

How exactly? the singleplayer element is by far the weakest of any RTS

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

I agree. A good SP is essential for me in RTS games.

World in Conflict and SOASE were the last real-time strategy games that I enjoyed in SP.

mrbojangles25

yea i came close to tears with WiC

*salutes Bannon*