Supreme Commander 2, and Confusion

[Mr.Switchblade]

If any of you have played SupCom, or its spiritual, and its ass kicking predecessor Total Annihilation. You probably know that these games are actually interested in pushing RTS boundries instead of the standard cut and paste formula of Halo Wars or SC2. However, SupCom does more damage to your PC than the average chrome bat, and is nigh impossible to play online due to heinous graphic requirements, as well as being a processor hog. (Please don't brag about your PCs that can do it, you're one in a million). However, the game itself was quite sound, spectacular, new, and fun to play. SupCom 2 is surprisingly far along considering how much work it takes to make a game like that, but the few videos that have surfaced show more IMPROVED graphics..... If anyone can find a good explanation for why they are stepping the PC requirements UP, instead of lowering them, or hell, even keeping them where they were so more people can play, please give it. The first game was great, and deserves to be played, but that can't happen if the gaming population can't run it. So in order to deliver a sequel that will actually succeed, we need to see some changes.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

It's because the PC is what all the cool kids play on. We won't lower our standards for the console tards. If you really care about gaming, especially RTS games, invest in a good gaming rig.

I'd recommend PCGamer magazine, they show you how to make a good one for £500 or so.

 

[MR T3D]

the requirements are seriously not that bad, my machine struggles with crysis medium, and it runs supcom fine.
it just needs a dualie-core and an okay G-card.
there is room for graphical improvement without raising system requirements in games...called optimizaation.
the issue is SupCom was basically the first game to strongly ask for dual-core when dell was still shipping P4's.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

It's because the PC is what all the cool kids play on. We won't lower our standards for the console tards. If you really care about gaming, especially RTS games, invest in a good gaming rig.

I'd recommend PCGamer magazine, they show you how to make a good one for £500 or so.

Don't use the words console tards. And i agree with OP, your machine should last more the 1-2 years before games start to lag like hell.

Aaaand why not?

 

[Mr.Switchblade]

the requirements are seriously not that bad, my machine struggles with crysis medium, and it runs supcom fine.
it just needs a dualie-core and an okay G-card.
there is room for graphical improvement without raising system requirements in games...called optimizaation.
the issue is SupCom was basically the first game to strongly ask for dual-core when dell was still shipping P4's.

Exactly my point. When shipped, it was not compatible with most PCs out there.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

It's because the PC is what all the cool kids play on. We won't lower our standards for the console tards. If you really care about gaming, especially RTS games, invest in a good gaming rig.

I'd recommend PCGamer magazine, they show you how to make a good one for £500 or so.

You aren't going to be able to make a gaming PC, OS and monitor included, for £500 - minimum £700 as you really need the GTX260 or better as the 9000 series and 8000 series use the same chip, which really isn't that great, e.g. 8800GT(9800GT) SLI won't give you a constant FPS on the Call of Juarez benchmark of 60.
Whereas a PS3 is £280 and gives spectacular graphics (Uncharted 2) straight out of the box. Consoles (Well imo the PS3) are much, much better value for money.

Mine was £560 (Although I recently had to replace the PSU) just over a eyar ago now and it runs most high-end games perfectly well.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

It's because the PC is what all the cool kids play on. We won't lower our standards for the console tards. If you really care about gaming, especially RTS games, invest in a good gaming rig.

I'd recommend PCGamer magazine, they show you how to make a good one for £500 or so.

You aren't going to be able to make a gaming PC, OS and monitor included, for £500 - minimum £700 as you really need the GTX260 or better as the 9000 series and 8000 series use the same chip, which really isn't that great, e.g. 8800GT(9800GT) SLI won't give you a constant FPS on the Call of Juarez benchmark of 60.
Whereas a PS3 is £280 and gives spectacular graphics (Uncharted 2) straight out of the box. Consoles (Well imo the PS3) are much, much better value for money.

Mine was £560 (Although I recently had to replace the PSU) just over a eyar ago now and it runs most high-end games perfectly well.

Well there's your idea of perfect, which is your own creation, and then there is what a gamer calls perfectly well, which includes 60 frames a second, anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the latter two something the PC has over consoles. There is no way your PC will play games such as CoD4 on full graphics at 60FPS, and have fun playing Far Cry 2: Powerpoint edition.

Those ideas of perfect are the same. I have no console so I use my PC. It runs Modern Warfare 2 at high graphics at around 60fps, along with Crysis at about 50.

A budget gaming PC can be built.

 

[MR T3D]

the requirements are seriously not that bad, my machine struggles with crysis medium, and it runs supcom fine.
it just needs a dualie-core and an okay G-card.
there is room for graphical improvement without raising system requirements in games...called optimizaation.
the issue is SupCom was basically the first game to strongly ask for dual-core when dell was still shipping P4's.

Exactly my point. When shipped, it was not compatible with most PCs out there.

but my 2year old machine running an 8600 runs the game perfectly, so i would expect that the new one, with optimization, will run just as fine.
the game wasn't that bad on g-cards, 'twas mainly processor, most machines a year or two or three old should run it fine. I see no problem with them improving visuals over the couse of a couple years.

 

[Mr.Switchblade]

the requirements are seriously not that bad, my machine struggles with crysis medium, and it runs supcom fine.
it just needs a dualie-core and an okay G-card.
there is room for graphical improvement without raising system requirements in games...called optimizaation.
the issue is SupCom was basically the first game to strongly ask for dual-core when dell was still shipping P4's.

Exactly my point. When shipped, it was not compatible with most PCs out there.

but my 2year old machine running an 8600 runs the game perfectly, so i would expect that the new one, with optimization, will run just as fine.
the game wasn't that bad on g-cards, 'twas mainly processor, most machines a year or two or three old should run it fine. I see no problem with them improving visuals over the couse of a couple years.

Your two year old machine was built the year SupCom came out, and I don't think asking the gaming community to update or buy new comps for a game and then expect good sales is somewhat unrealistic.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

If any of you have played SupCom, or its spiritual, and its ass kicking predecessor Total Annihilation. You probably know that these games are actually interested in pushing RTS boundries instead of the standard cut and paste formula of Halo Wars or SC2. However, SupCom does more damage to your PC than the average chrome bat, and is nigh impossible to play online due to heinous graphic requirements, as well as being a processor hog. (Please don't brag about your PCs that can do it, you're one in a million). However, the game itself was quite sound, spectacular, new, and fun to play. SupCom 2 is surprisingly far along considering how much work it takes to make a game like that, but the few videos that have surfaced show more IMPROVED graphics..... If anyone can find a good explanation for why they are stepping the PC requirements UP, instead of lowering them, or hell, even keeping them where they were so more people can play, please give it. The first game was great, and deserves to be played, but that can't happen if the gaming population can't run it. So in order to deliver a sequel that will actually succeed, we need to see some changes.

I'm really not bragging, but my laptop can run it. With a 1.7 ghz dual core and an integrated intel graphics chip. Admittedly it's not particularly smooth, and the graphics are pretty much turned off, but still, your average PC should be able to run it. And actually, while the graphics have improved for the sequel, so has the entire engine, it'll be a lot more optimised. Chris Taylor has said that they're aiming to get it running on a wider range of machines than the last one. He talks about it here.

 

[Mr.Switchblade]

If any of you have played SupCom, or its spiritual, and its ass kicking predecessor Total Annihilation. You probably know that these games are actually interested in pushing RTS boundries instead of the standard cut and paste formula of Halo Wars or SC2. However, SupCom does more damage to your PC than the average chrome bat, and is nigh impossible to play online due to heinous graphic requirements, as well as being a processor hog. (Please don't brag about your PCs that can do it, you're one in a million). However, the game itself was quite sound, spectacular, new, and fun to play. SupCom 2 is surprisingly far along considering how much work it takes to make a game like that, but the few videos that have surfaced show more IMPROVED graphics..... If anyone can find a good explanation for why they are stepping the PC requirements UP, instead of lowering them, or hell, even keeping them where they were so more people can play, please give it. The first game was great, and deserves to be played, but that can't happen if the gaming population can't run it. So in order to deliver a sequel that will actually succeed, we need to see some changes.

I'm really not bragging, but my laptop can run it. With a 1.7 ghz dual core and an integrated intel graphics chip. Admittedly it's not particularly smooth, and the graphics are pretty much turned off, but still, your average PC should be able to run it. And actually, while the graphics have improved for the sequel, so has the entire engine, it'll be a lot more optimised. Chris Taylor has said that they're aiming to get it running on a wider range of machines than the last one. He talks about it here.

Love the link, that makes me feel better. But remember, you can run SupCom NOW, two years after its release. If Halo 3 wouldn't run on most Xbox's when it was released, it would have been a sales failure. Don't forget, RTS's by definition must almost always be able to go multiplayer, cause AI sucks. and SupCom's crashes and burns if more than 1 player is added.

 

[Mr.Black]

Wasn't a fan of SupCom. All of your units are so tiny on the screen I feel like I'm controlling ants. Didn't even know what I was doing half the time.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

Snip

Fair point, it wasn't the most effiecient of games at release. It did improve a lot with patches though, which allowed you to turn the graphics down loads. Unfortunately, there isn't much they can do about the CPU whoring, that comes from the fact that every single projectile has its very own simulated space, calculated in real time with no set outcome from each shot. Which really is quite impressive. And awesome, actually, since it means you can theoretically hit a fighter plane with an artillery shell.

I am excited about the second one actually, be interesting to see what they can do with it. The improvements to pathfinding are very welcome. As is the Cybra-sauras.