Supreme Commander 2 demo!


Recommended Posts

I just tried it. It's fun and it runs much better than Supreme Commander. This one is on my buy list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish that they would at least have Skirmish enabled for it. But yeah, performance wise, it ran just fine on my MacBook Pro (Windows 7 Boot Camp).

I haven't played it for long enough yet, but from my first glance, I like how easy it is to select multiple units when you're fully zoomed out. They have a circular icon with a number inside it that you can click on to select a cluster of units. I'm not sure if the first game had that (I don't remember it), but it beats the hell out of dragging when each unit is a small dot on your screen. Anyways, I'll give it another whirl in a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[..]

And btw the original Supreme Commander (Which is still an amazing game in my opinion) is available from Amazon.com for ?2.99 (Brand new) http://www.amazon.co...67117715&sr=8-3

Now that's a steal. The original Supreme Commander was good but it didn't run that well. Performance would go down the drain as soon as you engaged in a full-on battle with many units on screen. Thankfully, that isn't the case with Supreme Commander 2. It runs very good on my dual-core E6750 @ 3.2 GHz + HD 4870.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that's a steal. The original Supreme Commander was good but it didn't run that well. Performance would go down the drain as soon as you engaged in a full-on battle with many units on screen. Thankfully, that isn't the case with Supreme Commander 2. It runs very good on my dual-core E6750 @ 3.2 GHz + HD 4870.

It does indeed run better than either the original or FA here.

However, the screaming has also begun; worse, it's the SAME sort of yowling I've been hearing over the past year-plus regarding sequels to popular RTS titles.

If you fix what's broken (even stuff that everyone KNOWS is broken), the "old heads" hammer you for it.

EA got hammered for RA3 (and now C&C 4).

Even Blizzard is catching it for Starcraft 2.

And now Square Enix (who takes over from THQ as publisher) and GPG (who remains the developer) are taking it in the shorts.

SupCom 2 not only has better performance than the original (or FA), it even performs better graphically than the original Total Annihilation (or even TA: Spring) on the *same hardware*.

Also, some of the changes (and quirk elimination) was (unfortunately for the old heads) sorely needed!

Yes; economy management (from a macro POV) is simpler (in fact MUCH simpler) than SC, FA, or even TA. Why is that a bad thing?

Researching (and teching/tiering up) is also simpler in SC2 (and you don't lose the capability of building lower-tech/lower-tier units if you have to, which could well be the case with the original SC, FA, or TA). Again, this is bad *why*?

If anything, SupCom2 reminds me more of a modern military strategic simulation than the original, FA, or TA (modern military simulations don't bury the commander in extraneous nitpicky details; why should an RTS, especially one set in the far future?).

As much as I liked Supreme Commander and FA, I have to admit, I like SupCom 2 more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if this one will have dual screen mode like the original did.

Chris Taylor the Founder and CEO of Gas Powered Games has confirmed that the new Supreme Commander 2 supports Dual Screen play. It also supports ATi Eyefinity for 3-6 Monitors!

I'll be playing it at 5120x1600 across two 30" Displays :p I play the original like that without any performance issues so I'm looking forward to playing the sequel in kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Agreed. Even the pacing of it is faster which is a good thing. The only that bothered me about Supreme Commander was the pacing. It was too damn slow. In Supreme Commander 2, it's fast enough for you to enjoy the game without getting bored. It's been awhile since I last played SupCom1 but the building speed and unit production speed seems much faster in SupCom2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those saying SC2 runs better than SC: Have you upgraded your computer since SC (now over 3 years old)?

From the screenshots, it looks like the same game pretty much. Plus it's by Square Enix which I have little faith in lately.. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried the demo, finally got around to it. And to be honest.. I'm not a fan. I think they actually ruined the game. The graphics look the same to me but I think the change to the interface has been done poorly. They have changed things just to change them I think. Oh well.

Shame cause I played Supreme Commander collectively for like I dunno 100 hours at-least. I loved that game and this sequel just feels rubbish. The new interface especially is a big step back from the old one I don't understand why they even changed it. If anything the interface now is more complicated and requires a lot more clicks to accomplish the same goals as before.

I'm going to contact Steam and cancel my pre-order. (N)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those saying SC2 runs better than SC: Have you upgraded your computer since SC (now over 3 years old)?

From the screenshots, it looks like the same game pretty much. Plus it's by Square Enix which I have little faith in lately.. I'm not going to hold my breath.

May need to learn the difference between distributor and developer

the game is still by Gas powered Games and Chris Taylor as an independent company. SE only has the distribution rights, which I suppose the steamheads should be happy about since SC2 is now available there, while SC1 and the expansion is not, requiring you to install impulse or something if you want it digitally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my impressions in random order:

- the maps look good, but it's unclear whether they are interesting from a strategic/tactical viewpoint; it seems that they lack large open battlefields, which is essential to move large armies. So maybe this is a move towards smaller armies? The fact that the unit cap was 300 instead of FA's 500 in the first 2 missions is another worrying indicator.

- the UEF units look technologically retarded. I think SupCom 1 nailed the "blocky but futuristic" look of UEF, SupCom 2's UEF is just plain "blocky", and adds a bit of "toy-like" flavor to it.

- the 2nd campaign mission was somewhat interesting, with the continuous flow of Fatboys in all directions. A good sign, FA's campaigns were quite dull.

- I hate the automatic groups, they prevent me from clicking on my units. This is a really a useful feature for the console players maybe, but I got a mouse and I can point at things, let me do it!

- Performance and pathfinding are awesome. Units seem to play bumber cars a lot, but that's a minor irritation.

- The "simplified" economy means that I can't queue up nearly as many structures, because they all must be paid entirely beforehand; this means more micro. On the other hand, a lot of micro has been removed because you don't need to upgrade mexes anymore, which was an incredible annoyance, so overall the new system is better.

- the tech tree is quite complex, but I'm sure the pro players will have it analyzed and found all the optimal paths within weeks.

Agreed. Even the pacing of it is faster which is a good thing. The only that bothered me about Supreme Commander was the pacing. It was too damn slow. In Supreme Commander 2, it's fast enough for you to enjoy the game without getting bored. It's been awhile since I last played SupCom1 but the building speed and unit production speed seems much faster in SupCom2.

Did you play Forged Alliance multiplayer? Generally (at least if you're playing a standard 1v1 ladder map) you start rushing after 2 minutes. That's about as fast as Starcraft.

Is this some sort of base building game? if so I might give it a try!?

No, it's about building HUGE armies of HUGE units and then going PEW-PEW against your opponents. There is some base building involved but it's accessory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those saying SC2 runs better than SC: Have you upgraded your computer since SC (now over 3 years old)?

From the screenshots, it looks like the same game pretty much. Plus it's by Square Enix which I have little faith in lately.. I'm not going to hold my breath.

I upgraded my PC since I bought Supreme Commander but I did play it again so I know how it runs with my current hardware. Graphically, both games look similar. Supreme Commander 2 runs better and has higher overall detail. Also, the explosions are a little better. The biggest thing for me was the smooth performance.

I just tried the demo, finally got around to it. And to be honest.. I'm not a fan. I think they actually ruined the game. The graphics look the same to me but I think the change to the interface has been done poorly. They have changed things just to change them I think. Oh well.

Shame cause I played Supreme Commander collectively for like I dunno 100 hours at-least. I loved that game and this sequel just feels rubbish. The new interface especially is a big step back from the old one I don't understand why they even changed it. If anything the interface now is more complicated and requires a lot more clicks to accomplish the same goals as before.

I'm going to contact Steam and cancel my pre-order. (N)

Yikes. I sorta like the changes they've made, but that's just me.

[...]

Did you play Forged Alliance multiplayer? Generally (at least if you're playing a standard 1v1 ladder map) you start rushing after 2 minutes. That's about as fast as Starcraft.

[...]

No, I missed out on Forged Alliance. I barely played Supreme Commander online anyway, haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for those saying SC2 runs better than SC: Have you upgraded your computer since SC (now over 3 years old)?

From the screenshots, it looks like the same game pretty much. Plus it's by Square Enix which I have little faith in lately.. I'm not going to hold my breath.

I built this computer (and did a graphics upgrade) since I originally played SupCom, but only played FA on this computer. Still, I don't have the burliest hardware (either processor or graphics-wise), and SupCom was hard on both (the only game harder was Crysis, which says a great deal, and little of it good).

SE is the *publisher*; the developer is still Chris Taylor and Gas Powered Games.

GPG (and Chris Taylor) actually listened to the criticism they got over the burly graphics requirements for the original Supreme Commander (Forged Alliance has lighter graphics and CPU requirements than the original Supreme Commander, for example).

Quite frankly, the simpler macro lets you *concentrate* on the micro (not the least of which is the research, which is now part of micro, not macro). That is, in fact, a major plus compared to Forged Alliance, the original Supreme Commander, and especially to TA. It's one of only two RTS games that look as good as their cutscenes (Starcraft 2 beta is the other), and far better than we could usually expect from an RTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my impressions in random order:

- the maps look good, but it's unclear whether they are interesting from a strategic/tactical viewpoint; it seems that they lack large open battlefields, which is essential to move large armies. So maybe this is a move towards smaller armies? The fact that the unit cap was 300 instead of FA's 500 in the first 2 missions is another worrying indicator.

- the UEF units look technologically retarded. I think SupCom 1 nailed the "blocky but futuristic" look of UEF, SupCom 2's UEF is just plain "blocky", and adds a bit of "toy-like" flavor to it.

- the 2nd campaign mission was somewhat interesting, with the continuous flow of Fatboys in all directions. A good sign, FA's campaigns were quite dull.

- I hate the automatic groups, they prevent me from clicking on my units. This is a really a useful feature for the console players maybe, but I got a mouse and I can point at things, let me do it!

- Performance and pathfinding are awesome. Units seem to play bumber cars a lot, but that's a minor irritation.

- The "simplified" economy means that I can't queue up nearly as many structures, because they all must be paid entirely beforehand; this means more micro. On the other hand, a lot of micro has been removed because you don't need to upgrade mexes anymore, which was an incredible annoyance, so overall the new system is better.

- the tech tree is quite complex, but I'm sure the pro players will have it analyzed and found all the optimal paths within weeks.

Did you play Forged Alliance multiplayer? Generally (at least if you're playing a standard 1v1 ladder map) you start rushing after 2 minutes. That's about as fast as Starcraft.

No, it's about building HUGE armies of HUGE units and then going PEW-PEW against your opponents. There is some base building involved but it's accessory.

You can *break up* your groups in SupCom 2. A new item in SupCom 2 (which FA *should* have had, but didn't) was the ability to assign air units to a ground unit to provide air cover (in fact, the only way to win the second mission was to provide air cover to your own Fatboy IIs on their way to ruin Coleman's day; notice that was something Coleman didn't do). That tells me that SupCom2, more so than Forged Alliance (or even the original SupCom or TA) is more about not necessarily LARGE forces, but combined forces (something NATO calls AirLand Battle). That is actually a staple in most other RTS titles (back to the original Starcraft), and I'm surprised that SupCom (or FA) didn't use combined forces more, especially given experimentals and countering them. (In the first campaign, you actually face two different experimentals, and you have access to but one yourself. I took down both the experimental submersible carrier *and* the Megaliths with barely using my own experimental, a carrier; I used conventional air and sea forces (fighters, bombers, gunships, surface ships, and subs) to turn the Kraken into kelp and the Megaliths into mush. The bigger they are.....*SPLAT*)

Lastly, the demo is limited, and on purpose. (That's one thing that is typical of game demos.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.