![]() ![]() Speaking as a TA fan and modder, I consider SC less of a sequel than a step to the side and tripping over it's own shoelaces. (which itself was a spiritual successor to Total Annihilation) It will need tweaked and balanced and updated like all games, but I can tell they did a VERY good job with it. I DO wish they had included a skirmish mode, but for what the demo presented, I think over all this game is going to be very good. If you're a hard-core FA fan, you probably won't like it. Do I need more health on my tanks or cheaper naval units? Experimentals or faster income? I've found the Tech Tree to be very interesting and strategic, since Research is another resource to manage. I appreciate the fact that most units aren't obsolete by the time you hit those powerful T3/Experimental units and used as just fodder. The pathfinding is vastly improved, the gameplay mechanics, while different, are still very good. I got the demo and yes, I was a bit disappointed in how it looked visually, but I quickly realized that the game was running MUCH smoother than FA EVER did. Like most of us, I am very excited about Sup Com 2. I enjoyed the pace, though I must admit the economy was a bit of a beast. I apparently seem to be having a different experience than a lot of people here. My advice: wait for Starcraft 2 or go back to SupCom, depending on your preference. Even if you just wanted a new RTS, and you didn't necessarily care about all the things that made SupCom great, it's mediocre. Nevertheless, it's what I've been given to go on, and based on it, this game isn't worth my time, let alone my money. I know the demo may not adequately represent the final product. The whole game is a step down in appearance from SC1. The new units are new, and that's the only good thing you can say about them. The most unique aspect of the previous games (TA & SC) - the 'income' economy - has been completely stripped out in favor of an economy that differs little from most other modern tactical rts's (dawn of war, company of heroes). The 'research' system is uninspired and forces micromanagement, a constant annoyance in a supposedly strategic game. They've removed everything that was great about Supreme Commander (which itself was a spiritual successor to Total Annihilation), without innovating almost at all. Speaking as a hardcore, hundreds-of-hours fan of Supreme Commander, I can say with no hesitation whatsoever that SupCom2 is awful. The game itself went fine.Ī giant robot spider with a huge laser canon eating someone's base from nowhere? Give me more please! I liked it, it was well done, but SupCom's matching system was always kinda quirky and IMO a bit hard to use. I never got much into the multiplayer though. Unfortunately, the engine often crawled even on new hardware so I hope this new engine solves those problems. SupCom was over the top, and innovative but intuitive, and I still find myself trying to control games usng the scroll in and out method that SupCom started. Being able to move those waypoints after you'd placed them was often a godsend, especially on patrol paths. ![]() They always over-achieved as far as that went, and while some things never quite worked right (like the joint attack in SupCom), they were mostly well implemented and used pretty common standards for doing such things, like shift-clicks to add waypoints, or additional targets in a queue, etc. ![]() God, I hope this isn't dumbed down for the 360 crowd or the Starcraft crowd.Ĭhris Taylor's games have always had innovations that made them so much easier to control, so you could invest your attention on your strategies and not on micromanaging things like production or troop movement. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |