Supreme Commander is worst RTS game I ever played

I tried so hard to like this game but It has no fun or good thing graphics are crap sounds and musics are the worst

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

I think its the best RTS in years.

Guess this proves how diverse people's opinion's can be :P

Get a good computer to enjoy the graphics.

And don't even think about making fake statistics about how powerful your computer is and how it still plays poorly.

Either that, or this just isn't your style of RTS I guess. 

man that game is awsome.I dont know how u think the graphics are crap, there pretty good on high, what are u running it on all the way low setting.

I think this is one of the best rts games ever made, to me. 

It actually does suck. I have a great computer and can run this game on pretty high settings, but it just gets boring after about 30 minutes. C & C 3 has more action and more fun.d0ctorb

C & C 3 is a good game but u cant have big huge battles like in supreme commande, thats the only reason why i like supreme commander a little more.

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

Iranian_Guy

Luckily, you don't have to wonder. The review is 2 pages long. It explains itself.

I tried so hard to like this game but It has no fun or good thing graphics are crap sounds and musics are the worst

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

 

Iranian_Guy

Maybe you should try COH.

If you say the 3 sides are the same then you havent played the game long enough to have a worthy opinion.

Just because they have the same basic unit types at each tech level (all three sides have a tech 2 tank, ect) doesnt mean EVEN CLOSE they are the same.  You must be too blind, or just a newb at the game, to not see it :|

Supreme Commander is one of the best RTS i ever played.

If you say the 3 sides are the same then you havent played the game long enough to have a worthy opinion.

Just because they have the same basic unit types at each tech level (all three sides have a tech 2 tank, ect) doesnt mean EVEN CLOSE they are the same. You must be too blind, or just a newb at the game, to not see it :|

 

KorJax

the sides are pretty much all the same except for tech 4 like he said sure they mite do slightly different things and look alittle different but they all play the same. 

By the way, I half agree with this guy. I was expecting a easy, drop-in drop-out, game. This game ended out to be very hard and had too much micro-management. Really hard to play. But if I was a hardcore RTS player that would spend 4 hours every day on an RTS, this would be the best game ever.

I didn't like it, but that's just because it's not what I like in my RTS games.

For me, Supcom is just too slow whereas I like my "get-up-and-go" RTS games.

Wil Supcom, you just spend sooo much time orchestrating these massive battles, and I can see how massive battles can be fun and the whole controlling every unit on a massive map thing can be cool.  But I'm more of tactics on the fly type person.  And before fanboys start flaming, yes, I am a RTS fan and have played a good amount of them.

PS if you are like me and prefer a more fast paced RTS but still want to try massive battles, you should probably take a gander at Ground Control 2.  It's an old game but was waaaaay ahead of its time and is severly underated imo. 

I think its the best RTS in years.

Guess this proves how diverse people's opinion's can be :P

KorJax

It feels just like Total Annihilation except it hogs resources like a hungry pig. The gameplay has only been slightly improved. As far as I'm concerned this game could've been much better if they made it so it could run on everyones computers. I know graphics are a pretty to look at but after you've played a game for a while you really don't notice them. Gameplay, number of modes, variety of gameplay(good example: Total Annihilation), speed of gameplay, music and story are all that matter in games these days. I wish they made more games like total annihilation. Supreme Commander is its spiritual successor but it falls flat on speed of gameplay.

Like someone said earlier, its designed for a pretty specific audience: fans of Total Annihilation and people who play RTSs online.

I thought the gameplay was rock solid yet didnt deliver the revolution the developers promised, and the singleplayer was dull, and while I personally dislike playing RTSs online, I admit I see huge potential there.

Its a great game, one of the better in the past few years, it just doesnt have what I am looking for.

On a side not, I personally dont think RTSs are at the stage where they should be marketed as "multiplayer only" such as with the Battlefield series.  I feel they still need to include a solid singleplayer experience, especially since just about every other RTS out there has, from C&C 95 to Age of Empires, and Dune 2 to Company of Heroes.

I tried so hard to like this game but It has no fun or good thing graphics are crap sounds and musics are the worst

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

Iranian_Guy

each their owne,

i liked it, it tried to do somthing different and it did it well,

i can see how having to play it on limited settings can sap the experience. maybe if you leave it and come back to it in a year maybe with a new pc. but dont get rid of it, i think its got somthing for everyone who has an interest in rts 

well, I've never played total anniliation; Supreme Commander is the first grand scale RTS I play...it's ok, but does not really suck me in like Warcraft III, Company of Heroes and Warhammer 4K: Dawn of War...some thoughts, about both the game itself and the discussion here...

1. don't toast out names such as "graphic whores" mindlessly,, because for me, the design of switching between chess board view and detailed battle view is the dev's way to "whore" this game with fancy visuals => as I experience the game, to play it most effectively, its' better just play with the chess board view the whole time since you get to take care of everything in big battle zone much easier, BUT how can I not want to zoom in to check out those detailed units and explosion effects, which are one of the marketing focus? Civilization games pretty much stick to nice-looking chess board view, and Total War games deliver in-battle experiences when you get off the chess board and into real battle.

2. the story of three factions is actually quite appealing to me, but it's not quite well blended with the single-player compaign (which I only play) as Warcraft III, CoH and Dawn of War; every mission seems to proceed in the same way - clear out one map area, then expands, and then expands, and then expands...not much variety in missions and objectives. 

3. some had commented that this game is hard...I have to disagree; this game basically allows me to take time building up defense and then establish a mighty attacking army to do the map-cleaning thing...personally, I feel LotR: Battle of Middle Earth and Age of Empires III are more difficult in which I have hard time gathering enough resources quickly.

in the end, I'm not hook by this game, and just play it on and off; definitely not the worst RTS I've played, but not incredibly fun either.     

this topic reminds me of all the n00bs that say oblvion is the worst game theyve ever playeddaftpunk_mk5

rofl, I thought oblivion was boring, and don't call be a n00b bucko ;P

everyone's taste is unique 

the graphics are excellent on high, the sound is excellent.

The gameplay is unique, different from most RTS apart from TA (duh) 

this topic reminds me of all the n00bs that say oblvion is the worst game theyve ever playeddaftpunk_mk5

how exactly do you discern who are "n00bs" and who are not? by taste? by skill? by the years of playing PC games? by the amount of games played? regardlessly, resorting to name calling -- branding someone as "n00b" and thusly disregard his/her opinion -- is cheap.

I personally never form any opinion about the "worst" games, since if I don't like certain games, I'm hardly interested in thinking about how bad they are. I know which games I spend most time on and have fun, there then will be "best" games to games.

The "bad" or "worse" games to me are simply those I lose interest and stop playing quite quickly. Oblivion happens to fall into this category (quit right after emerging out of the underground tunnel). Am I a "n00b"? taste? skill? maybe, but certainly not games played and years with PC gaming...My first rig was a Compaq Presario with mere 32MB system memory, which at the time was quite a decent machine; I played NBA Live 95 with it, and never stop PC gaming since then. I've played each of Fallout games, BG games and Planescape: Torment more than twice (BG-TOB, with various mods, I lost counts how many times I went through), but I was not able to stay with Oblivion after about 1-2 hours.

I tried so hard to like this game but It has no fun or good thing graphics are crap sounds and musics are the worst

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

 

Iranian_Guy

I tried so hard to like this game but It has no fun or good thing graphics are crap sounds and musics are the worst

I wonder why gamspot rated it 8.7

 

Iranian_Guy

1. It has loads of fun.  If you have more than a 30 minutes attention span, which is what most RTS' out anticipate you DON'T have.

2.  Graphics are very good, IF you have a PC that can handle highest settings.

3.  Sound isn't good?  Are you deaf?  Or maybe your sound system sucks.  Either way the audio is fantastic!

That's why GS gave it a 8.7. 

Oh well, there are plenty of other RTS' for you to enjoy...napalm_winter

QFT

Opinion is precisely that, opinion. It's not evidence, it's not right or wrong. It's opinion. Don't beat this guy up because he didn't like SupCom. Personally I like prefer a game that delivers massive maps with a scope for hundreds of units in massive confrontation. Now I just wish my rig could handle it when I DO deploy 200 units, and I've seen this game running on some mad rigs, and they fair no better when there's 100+ gunships or bombers zooming around the map.

this topic reminds me of all the n00bs that say oblvion is the worst game theyve ever playeddaftpunk_mk5