Supreme Commander 2 really that bad?

I went to Gamespot's Supreme Commander 2's page and then: 4 users reviews: = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0

I went to Gamespot's Supreme Commander 2's page and then: 4 users reviews: = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0

Lox_Cropek

Well I can't say I was all that impressed by the demo, it felt very sluggish even on my quad with GTX260. The gameplay didn't exactly come across as anything exciting either.

Well I can't say I was all that impressed by the demo, it felt very sluggish even on my quad with GTX260. The gameplay didn't exactly come across as anything exciting either.

charmingcharlie

Well framerate wise it was ok, I think it was around 40 - 50fps with all settings maxxed at 1680 x 1050. I just found it felt sluggish to control for some reason. In the demo version trying to scroll to the right didn't work that well either and you had to resort to scrolling across with the keyboard.. It is a personal thing but when I played it I just got a "been there, seen it, done it and sick of doing it" feeling.

When NOT compared to the original, it's a decent game.

When it IS compared to the original, it's a horrible game. They dumbed it down A LOT

Some of the things they did with it, I liked. For example, upgrading your base structures with defenses and what not. That's pretty cool. I also like the addition of structures to build experimentals. This addition gives you more warning before someone shoves a Colossus up your flank.

Other than those two, I think it's a serious downgrade from the original. The new economic system is fairly confusing. It's impossible to tell if you can support the constant construction of a unit or if you will run out of materials. The old system may be more difficult, but it's much better for a massive scale game than this new, crappy economic system. UEF units look terrible. They have no defining features and the textures on them are mediocre. Cybran units are awesome, though. Maps also feel much, much smaller.

Other than those two, I think it's a serious downgrade from the original. The new economic system is fairly confusing. It's impossible to tell if you can support the constant construction of a unit or if you will run out of materials. The old system may be more difficult, but it's much better for a massive scale game than this new, crappy economic system. UEF units look terrible. They have no defining features and the textures on them are mediocre. Cybran units are awesome, though. Maps also feel much, much smaller. Swiftstrike5

The textures are dumbed down and the unit looks horrible compared to the old SC.

The maps are MUCH smaller this go around. Their biggest map is about the size of SC's medium maps. No where near the size of largest maps on SC.

The voice acting is HORRIBLE, IMHO.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]Other than those two, I think it's a serious downgrade from the original. The new economic system is fairly confusing. It's impossible to tell if you can support the constant construction of a unit or if you will run out of materials. The old system may be more difficult, but it's much better for a massive scale game than this new, crappy economic system. UEF units look terrible. They have no defining features and the textures on them are mediocre. Cybran units are awesome, though. Maps also feel much, much smaller. kilerchese

The textures are dumbed down and the unit looks horrible compared to the old SC.

The maps are MUCH smaller this go around. Their biggest map is about the size of SC's medium maps. No where near the size of largest maps on SC.

Supreme Commander: Resource gathering +XX Metal +XXXX Energy On top of that you have reserves that give you a buffer. XXXXXX Metal Reserve XXXXXXXXX Energy Reserve Unit Production: allows you to constantly produce a unit that requires less than -XX Metal -XXXX Energy or to produce a single unit regardless of the rate of consumption of metal/energy, as long as its total is less than your reserves. Supreme Commander 2: Resource Gathering (same as SupCom1): Unit Production: Some unit requires XXX Metal XXXX Energy **NOTE** It does not give rate of consumption. So you can't maximize your economy by making sure rate of gathering = rate of consumption. Hence, it's more difficult for me.Swiftstrike5

It's ALL or nothing. If you don't have the resources AVAILABLE when you want it, you can't build it.

You HAVE to all resources for the unit available when you build it, if you don't you can't. Just like buildings.

If a building Costs 100 Mass and 1000 energy, if you don't have 100 mass and 1000 energy IN YOUR BUFFER you CAN NOT build it.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]Supreme Commander: Resource gathering +XX Metal +XXXX Energy On top of that you have reserves that give you a buffer. XXXXXX Metal Reserve XXXXXXXXX Energy Reserve Unit Production: allows you to constantly produce a unit that requires less than -XX Metal -XXXX Energy or to produce a single unit regardless of the rate of consumption of metal/energy, as long as its total is less than your reserves. Supreme Commander 2: Resource Gathering (same as SupCom1): Unit Production: Some unit requires XXX Metal XXXX Energy **NOTE** It does not give rate of consumption. So you can't maximize your economy by making sure rate of gathering = rate of consumption. Hence, it's more difficult for me.kilerchese

It's ALL or nothing. If you don't have the resources AVAILABLE when you want it, you can't build it.

You HAVE to all resources for the unit available when you build it, if you don't you can't. Just like buildings.

If a building Costs 100 Mass and 1000 energy, if you don't have 100 mass and 1000 energy IN YOUR BUFFER you CAN NOT build it.

Exactly, I can't optimize my economy because there's no way to match how much I am gathering when how much I am consuming. This is particularly annoying when you set a base to 'repeat' order. You can' tell if 30seconds later you'll be out of resources because the stupid system doesn't tell you the consumption rate of building each unit. Swiftstrike5

If you build a unit that requires a total of 100 mass and 100 energy. If you do not have 100 mass and 100 energy you can't build it.

BUT, if you do have 100 mass and 100 energy and when you build it you, and in your buffer you say had 100/100 mass/energy. You would then have 0/0 when you STARTED building the unit.

If you add a unit to a queue and said unit costs 100/100, when you add it to the queue 100/100 gets taken away from your buffer.

There is no cost over time. It's ONE TIME COST.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]Exactly, I can't optimize my economy because there's no way to match how much I am gathering when how much I am consuming. This is particularly annoying when you set a base to 'repeat' order. You can' tell if 30seconds later you'll be out of resources because the stupid system doesn't tell you the consumption rate of building each unit. kilerchese

If you build a unit that requires a total of 100 mass and 100 energy. If you do not have 100 mass and 100 energy you can't build it.

BUT, if you do have 100 mass and 100 energy and when you build it you, and in your buffer you say had 100/100 mass/energy. You would then have 0/0 when you STARTED building the unit.

If you add a unit to a queue and said unit costs 100/100, when you add it to the queue 100/100 gets taken away from your buffer.

There is no cost over time. It's ONE TIME COST.

Yeah and unless I do the calculations in my head, I won't know if I'll have enough mass by the time the next unit starts building (multiple unit orders). If I don't have enough mass, it will pause the production until human intervention. In SupCom1, this was a non-issue. Swiftstrike5

Nooooooo

When you add unit to a queue if you don't have the mass and energy it WON'T add it. It takes it away, as in you spend it. When you make or build something whether it is the first unit or 2nd in a queue if you do not have the resources available you can NOT QUEUE it or make it.

ANY UNIT THAT YOU QUEUE OR MAKE AUTOMATICALLY SUBTRACTS THE REQUIRED RESOURCES. It does NOT take them away when you start building it, if it's in a queue. It takes them away when you add it to the queue.

If I queue up 100 10/100 M/E units I have to to have 10/100. If I only have 900/9000 I can only queue 90 units. I can't queue those other 10. If I only have 900/9000 and I do queue up 90 units I now have 0/0 available. Each unit that I add to the queue takes away 10/100 M/E.

This was the most disappointing game I have played. By itself its a good game. Compared to its predecessors its horrible. They took out so much that mad Supcom so great. I can't build an optimized base anymore. I can't use adjacency bonuses anymore. I can't build storage for when I feel the need to rush 5 or so super units or when I want to fill my Atlantis with 150 t1 bombers to do, a very funny, sneak attack on my friend. Where is the counter intellegence?! Stealth? Radar jamming? Whats the point of having Cybran if they don't have steath? I hate the new economy system because I can't adjust my play style to account for or improve my economy. I loved doing that in the original. I can't build massive armies anymore. I can't make like 20 tech 3 transports, fill them with 6 tech 3 assault bots, and land them in the middle of someone's base like I used to do, which is hilarious. They took out so many good things about this game and turning it into Command and Conquer. Why would you try and rip off EA?! Are you nuts?

I'm sticking with Supcom 1 and FA. And I'm learning LUA so I can try and improve it with the modding community.

Yeah, it's an AWESOME game. I've been dumping every free second I have into the campaign. I think gamers got dumbed down more than the game if people are complaining that much about SupCom 2. It's great.

Yeah, it's an AWESOME game. I've been dumping every free second I have into the campaign. I think gamers got dumbed down more than the game if people are complaining that much about SupCom 2. It's great.

JonSnow777

Compared to the original it's 1 step forward and 11 steps back.

[QUOTE="JonSnow777"]

Yeah, it's an AWESOME game. I've been dumping every free second I have into the campaign. I think gamers got dumbed down more than the game if people are complaining that much about SupCom 2. It's great.

kilerchese

Compared to the original it's 1 step forward and 11 steps back.

I disagree. I think the first one was tedious and even sort of boring. Don't try to pull that elitest gamer crap with me. If you want to sit around and balance your economy and micromanage the hell out of everything, that's great. But I don't see why you feel that your opinion should be the standard.

[QUOTE="kilerchese"]

[QUOTE="JonSnow777"]

Yeah, it's an AWESOME game. I've been dumping every free second I have into the campaign. I think gamers got dumbed down more than the game if people are complaining that much about SupCom 2. It's great.

JonSnow777

Compared to the original it's 1 step forward and 11 steps back.

I disagree. I think the first one was tedious and even sort of boring. Don't try to pull that elitest gamer crap with me. If you want to sit around and balance your economy and micromanage the hell out of everything, that's great. But I don't see why you feel that your opinion should be the standard.

Well I can understand if you don't want to play that part of the strategy. You should just play C&C then. The econ was part of the stategy, and an important part at that, in Supcom 1 and now its gone. I don't want to play C&C. I don't want to play Lego Supcom either.

When you add unit to a queue if you don't have the mass and energy it WON'T add it. It takes it away, as in you spend it. >kilerchese

If you have "repeat" order on, it doesn't subtract the mass until the next 'loop' starts. That's why it's difficult to manage. You'll have "repeat" on and in a moments notice you'll lose all your mass. This makes it to where you have to micromanage the building queue.

The game is really bad. There are so many things wrong with it that I dont even know where to start.

At least that's how I see it. The graphic is really dull, the characters look like they came out of final fantasy 1.

Even if you never played SC1, I don't think that you could give the game a better grade then 3/10. They literary

killed the strategy component of the game, it's hard to describe in words I recommend you try the game.

Simply unbelievable how they messed things up.

Its not really Supreme Commander 2, its more like Sup Com : The watered down version.

The complexity and resource balancing of the original, was one of its charms. But in Sup Com 2, they have taken all that away, stripped down the buildings and took away the strategy of mixing different level units. Its now very much a cnc version,

and sceptics, which I am, would say this version was build purely for the consoles, and made much simpler. Graphically the colours have got brighter, but the detail as gone down. if your a Sup Com veteran, you may not enjoy this at all, but if you are new to Supcom and enjoy RTS this may hold something for you. Overall its 7/10, on its own Merit.. But Chris Taylor my son, cant believe you sold out to the sound of console $$$$$$$.

When NOT compared to the original, it's a decent game.

When it IS compared to the original, it's a horrible game. They dumbed it down A LOT

kilerchese

you see killercheese this is forgiveable however this i recall is squares first tally forth into the world of rts. this would be like comparing painkiller: ressurection to the origional painkiller. two different developers, more importantly its the new developers first stab at a game PERIOD. so its hard to knock it as bad as they do.

dont get me wrong it is bad but they could have made it BILLIONS of miles worse.