Supreme Commander : Anyone else excited?

Hell yes! 7 years is too long a wait for a game like this. It's a testament to game design that TA has had the staying power that it has had.

In case you missed it, PC Gamer did a whole write up on this in last month's issue. Looks fantastic.
 
Is this going to be better than C&C Generals? I never heard of TA before.
 
T&A is great. What? TA? Oh, it's good too.

SupCom looks amazing and I am am praying that this game will deliver on the massive warfare that the preview shows.
 
> I never heard of TA before.

It's just the greatest RTS ever. No reason you should have heard of it. :-\

As for SupCom... haven't read up on it, but I'm going to remain sceptical for several reasons. One; I personally tired of RTS after TA. Everything after TA, including StarCraft, sucked in comparison. They got neither the interface nor the gameplay right. I must say, RTS feels like a dead-end evolutionary wise (I'd go in to why I think so, but I don't want to bore you any more than necessary) -- at least compared to my personal favourite genre of CRPGs.

Secondly; I once thought that Taylor would use Dungeon Siege to do for CRPGs what he did to RTS with TA -- creating the prime jewel of the genre. Sadly, that didn't happen, and what's worse (from my POW) is that he wasn't even trying. I long believed that Taylor "got games", but the horrible crap that is Dungeon Siege disproved this for me.

So what we know about Taylor is that he "Gets" RTS, but even so I'm going to take a "seeing is believing" stance on this new project. It's very possible he'll manage to create a great game, but I can't see what would make it interesting enough to pull _me_ in.
 
The part about managing the economy sounds a bit like rise of nations. In that game, it seemed like all you did was build a good economy and send mass of troops to wear the other side down. Not a ton of strategy there.

As long as the actual strategy of fighting is good, though, I won't mind the economic portion. Graphics don't look the best, but graphics arn't all there is too a game (although they are nice.)

I missed the original TA, so I'll be sure to pick this up.
 
Jonsey said:
The part about managing the economy sounds a bit like rise of nations. In that game, it seemed like all you did was build a good economy and send mass of troops to wear the other side down. Not a ton of strategy there.

As long as the actual strategy of fighting is good, though, I won't mind the economic portion. Graphics don't look the best, but graphics arn't all there is too a game (although they are nice.)

I missed the original TA, so I'll be sure to pick this up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is always an economy in an rts, but through the articles they talk about how automated it all becomes, especially with base commanders.

If you look at the dynamics involved in the game that they are talking about, the size of the maps being as huge as it is, the defenses present, the mobility for your troops, the many types you can use... there are a thousand different ways to win, and i'm sure they kept the atrition type warfare that other games did. (By that i mean, tons of units thrown into a meat grinder.)

However, they did exemplify a bunch of ways you could use the massive variety of units to win a war, using submarine transports to invade a beach, or amphibious units... or using air mobility to flank your enemies... or ambushing by hiding your units behind treelines or jammers... theres just sounds like there will be a ton options (as there were in TA.)

If they can deliver on the gameplay portion of the game, whether they need to remove a feature or two, or add a bunch more... the game will be successful. More-so if it delivers the coop portion, as thats a feature almost everyone wants but no one delivers.
 
Tiny said:
Is this going to be better than C&C Generals? I never heard of TA before.
Click to expand...
I'll say its looking a lot better than generals. Imagine if generals took place on entire planets... pretty killer, eh? heh.

You should go find yourself a copy of TA somewhere, can't be that expensive, still a worthwhile game... i still play it myself :p
 
Vagamus said:
....and i'm sure they kept the atrition type warfare that other games did.
Click to expand...

I ::heart:: Big Bertha. :D


EDIT: And the preview shows a screenie of a nuke!!!! :eek: :D Oh, I can't wait. :cool:
 
TA is one of the best games of all time (even gamespy named it best rts ever).
I've played it for years and even though the graphics look like nes compared to today's games it's still my favorite. We'd play lan games that would last six hours (that's one game of TA); I cant wait for SC.
 
CypherNinja said:
I ::heart:: Big Bertha. :D
Click to expand...

Definitely. Sniping with a huge cannon and watch the red dots disappear even though it's out of view. Pure satisfaction.
 
FanZ said:
Definitely. Sniping with a huge cannon and watch the red dots disappear even though it's out of view. Pure satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but now we'll be able to do it with nukes!!! :D

I'm already having visions of an "Atomic Annie" mod. :eek: :D :cool:
 
you people are crazy, total ahnillation had nothing on starcraft, and this one doesnt look like it will either.

starcraft is the best rts out right now, and most of the people that dont like it only say that because its too hard for them and they suck at it.
 
Myth is my favorite RTS series of all time.
TA was a good game, but the main thing that i'm worried about with this game is that it looks WAY too "Flat."

I see no hills/3d terrain, and that's a BIG Thing for me, I hate how in a lot of rts games you feel like you're playing on some flat surface(AOE/RON/EE,etc).

With Myth/Ta/Total war series you didn't get that feeling, and I hope that it looks so flat in those pics because they haven't got all the details in yet and they are planning a LOT with the terrain, otherwise i'm going to be disappointed.
 
chrusher97 said:
you people are crazy, total ahnillation had nothing on starcraft, and this one doesnt look like it will either.

starcraft is the best rts out right now, and most of the people that dont like it only say that because its too hard for them and they suck at it.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would take to get the obligatory "if you don't like my game you suck at it" post. :rolleyes: I've played both games, and both are fun. But if you think Starcraft is the end-all-be-all RTS, you are the one smoking crack. TA had everything. You could pull off any tactic you want, not just a one trick pony for each side like a Zergling rush. Want an amphibious assault? How about a massive air force? Want to use radar jammers to hide? Or maybe prevent yourself from being nuked with an ABM system? TA could do all that. Starcraft could not.
 
wfalcon said:
You could pull off any tactic you want, not just a one trick pony for each side like a Zergling rush
Click to expand...


see thats what im talking about. You were obviously never any good at the game if you think a ling rush will win you the game, when in fact they almost never work against good players, and once you defend the rush you are ahead in economy.

You can use any tactic you want in starcraft as well.
 
wfalcon said:
I was wondering how long it would take to get the obligatory "if you don't like my game you suck at it" post. :rolleyes: I've played both games, and both are fun. But if you think Starcraft is the end-all-be-all RTS, you are the one smoking crack. TA had everything. You could pull off any tactic you want, not just a one trick pony for each side like a Zergling rush. Want an amphibious assault? How about a massive air force? Want to use radar jammers to hide? Or maybe prevent yourself from being nuked with an ABM system? TA could do all that. Starcraft could not.
Click to expand...

TA > Starcraft any day any time. Everything you said but the one HUGE part is all the third party units, maps, AI's etc etc that can be added to the game.
 
chrusher97 said:
see thats what im talking about. You were obviously never any good at the game if you think a ling rush will win you the game, when in fact they almost never work against good players, and once you defend the rush you are ahead in economy.

You can use any tactic you want in starcraft as well.
Click to expand...
I think more what he's getting at is that TA is sim balanced and Starcraft was "traditionally" balanced, or chart based.

Starcraft = set number of units per side, all balanced with a contemporary on each side, all very "sterile" rts gameplay.

TA = a tank couldn't hit a very fast unit, and hitting something isn't absolutely assured due to the physics of the projectiles, so its mostly a balancing act of who has what weapons, how tough they are to kill, and whether or not that unit will be effective vs X unit/building.

If you ask me (and I was in the top 20 on the Starcraft Ladder back in 98) the gameplay in starcraft is nice until you've literally figured EVERYTHING out and it becomes a calculator battle of "who can build X in X amount of time.) And you can't deny this, because the korean players have websites with downloadable build lists and time charts. And you can't use "any tactic you want" in Starcraft because it lacks the all encompassing gameplay that TA has; small maps, no sea warfare, limited air warfare, limited defensive capability, nukes that aren't that powerful, and it was almost solely designed to be a rushed or quick paced game.

In TA, you may only have two sides, but how you build and what you build evolves... there isn't an end all combination for every single game, and depending on the map, you've got time to plan. With the addition of new units and maps (which can be a LOT larger than anything in starcraft) your gameplay just increases. TA also has a unit that can ressurrect units (because dead units will liter the ground when you get into massive battles, which is also something you have to plan around), and there are mega units such as the krogoth or the maverick. There is sea warfare, which starcraft has none of, air warfare which starcraft has little of, and for the ground warfare system there are things that you'd never see in starcraft; such as a bertha/intimidator, big gun batteries, rapid fire laser guns, and missile launchers ON ALL SIDES.

So really, the difference is gameplay types. If you like a short and easy approach to an RTS, starcraft is your game... but if you like long, smart, tough fought games, TA is your answer. Or Conquest: Frontier Wars, but thats another thread :p

In my opinion, there more there is to do in an RTS, the more freedom is has, the better... which is why i like TA and will more than likely enjoy Supcom.
 
chrusher97 said:
see thats what im talking about. You were obviously never any good at the game if you think a ling rush will win you the game, when in fact they almost never work against good players, and once you defend the rush you are ahead in economy.

You can use any tactic you want in starcraft as well.
Click to expand...

I'll come down to your mentality for a moment - J00 su><ored @t TA and had to play Starcraft n00b!!!!oneoneone...

Ahem...now that you realize your primary argument about being good at the game to enjoy it is absolutely worthless...

Where did I say a zergling rush wins EVERY game or that no one could defend against it? You can not deny it was the predominant tactic for zerg players. How many other tactics can the zerg pull off effectively? Can you block a nuke from hitting your base AFTER it's been launched? Can you occupy every section of the map without the use of air/space units? Is the terrain variable enough that you have to analyze weapons placement to take fields of fire, mobility, and visibility into account?
 
I play Age of Empires (w/The Rise of Rome) and Age of Empires II (w/The Conquerors) all the time still.

I use to play Rise of Nations for a while, but the lack of ability to make walls bugged me.

I play Badger style, I need my walls. :D

I checked out some screens of Total Annilation. It does look NESy. I will wait for the new one.

I am spoiled by eye-candy and even AOE is starting to look ugly to me. (and I love AOE)
 
If TA was the greatest RTS of all time, how come it was SC that left the greater impression in the most people :confused:
 
Starcraft was good, no doubt. It probably left a bigger impression because of two very important things:

A. It was simultaneously released for the Macintosh which gave it fromt page rogue press.

B. Blizzard has better visibility and distribution then Cave Dog was it? I myself never got TA but I recall the people slobbering over it awhile back...
 
>If TA was the greatest RTS of all time, how come it was SC that left the greater impression in the most people

Because life isn't fair.

See, Britney Spears make more money than Pain of Salvation. Is it because she's a one million times better musician? It's all about coverage.

(that last question was rethorical)
 
Tiny said:
I checked out some screens of Total Annilation. It does look NESy. I will wait for the new one.

I am spoiled by eye-candy and even AOE is starting to look ugly to me. (and I love AOE)
Click to expand...

Well, it did come out in 1997. I was playing it on an old Pentium 133 when it first came out, so of course it'll look dated. I've always wanted an updated version. (I try to forget about that crap they released called TA:Kingdoms.)
 
hmm... the style of graphics do not impress me at all. perhaps the game play will make up for it.
 
Jason711 said:
hmm... the style of graphics do not impress me at all. perhaps the game play will make up for it.
Click to expand...
More than likely will. TA was very free in respects to what you can do hehe.
 
too many bright colors... not my cup of tea i guess.

ill give it a shot though, graphics are not the end all be all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top