Supreme Commander 2 - Demo... sucks?

Recommended Videos

MadeinHell

New member
Jun 18, 2009
656
0
0
Maybe I'm one of the few but I hate the new SC2 demo. The game is completely different from what the first one was (and I loved the first one) it became extremely uncomplex. Things that were possible before are now impossible to do, for example:

- Only ONE engineer can work on a construction at a time. ONLY ONE.

- Micromanaging units became pretty much impossible since the bullets in game seem to have "target tracking" turned on (in the first one you could "dodge" them) and the only way to escape fire is to get far away out of the unit range.

- Tech tree based on the economy of the base (you had to upgrade buildings to reach higher level units) is gone, now all we have is a stupid tech-tree that has no real purpuse other than adding third resource (research points) to a perfect duo that mass and energy were.

- ACU now has to unlock the overload ability and is considerably weaker than the ones in the first game which IMO is a kick to the groin to rusher players. Right now it seems that a small cluster of basic units can kill your ACU without even breaking a sweat. In the first game ACU could destroy small armies himself, even more so since when he reached higher level he got damage and health increase that now have to be researched because commander need for experience points to level up is just outrageous.

- And the most ridiculous one... You know how in the first game you could order your engineers a long line of orders that would probably put your economy on hold but you could manage those orders in such way that they did not? That was possible because mass and energy were in fact an infinite resource. You could never go - it would just slow your progress, yet you were still allowed to use as many resources as you wanted just slower. Now it's gone. Literally gone. If you don't have enough mass or energy for a unit, you can go **** yourself cause you are not going to build it. At first I thought that the game was just warning me about that fact by making the buttons red. No. It just disables the button until the resources are available. WHAT THE HELL! Oo. That changes the entire game!

Overall... I know it's just a demo and it does not represent the quality of the final product but I'm severely disappointed. This game looks nothing like the original SC (even the strategy map is messed up) and it's authors should be ashamed to call it that.
I don't know if that's GasPoweredGames decision to make it more... "casual" (ugh) or if Square Enix was the one pulling the strings. It doesn't change the fact that the demo made me feel bad about the game and completely vaporised it from my "must buy when it comes out" list.
*claps* bravo developers, bravo.
 

Tommy T.

New member
Nov 9, 2009
103
0
0
All I see is the Supreme Commander l33ts blabbering how this game sucks and yada yada yaa but fuck it, I liked it. Liked it very much actually. Maybe because the HC RTS Supreme Commander w/e fans dislike it, maybe, but I still thought the graphical details looked amazing, it ran smoother and it felt much more user friendly. The UI wasn't such a clusterfuck and I actually had a clue what was going around. The music during the game was making things even more intense and I felt like I actually gave a damn what was going on in the "story".

Sure the one engineer per construction was little strange but other than that I have pretty much no complains.

Maybe it's better to have all the SupCom vets stay at the first one and let the casual RTS fans get into this one.

/Activate flame shield 2.0
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
...There's a SupCom 2 demo!?

OHMAHGAWDITCAMEOUTONSTEAMLIKE5HOURSAGO.

Anyway, OP, it sounds like you're mad at them trying to change their game to appeal to a bigger audience. I know Taylor himself didn't want to remove some of the complexity, but the reality of it is that a lot of people just won't play or even try SupCom because it seems too complex for them, and you know what, I think SupCom and SupCom:FA are fine and should still be supported and will still have their purpose in the world even after SupComII comes out - people like you and I will still appreciate the first game for all its tactical intricacies and 25+ engineers making my factories build ridiculously quick, adjacency bonuses, and fuel...

But in all honesty, Supreme Commander 2 looks pretty damn awesome, and I'm downloading the demo right now, and if I think it sucks, I'll be sure to let you know.
 

MadeinHell

New member
Jun 18, 2009
656
0
0
/Activate Flaming 2.1

Heh ;). I do realise that those decisions are supposed to make the game more accessible to a wider audience. I realise that this is how the industry and the economy of "game making" works, more customers = more money.
Still knowing that fact doesn't mean that I have to like the things that have happened to the game itself. After all the fact that many people think that Bill from Tokio Hotel is a dude can mean that many people are just wrong. Right? :)

As for the point about vets staying with the original one, well I guess you are right. the thing is that GPG was describing SC2 as a game that will be liked by both veterans of the original and by the more casual players who did not have contact with the original one. And while they might have accomplished the second part I still think that the veterans will not be satisfied. And I'm not some sort of uber-leet-pwnzor in original SC. I actually get my ass handed to me quite often, but that fact only makes me feel better when a game is actually CHALLENGING and I finally achieve something.

As an end to my "fan-rage" I just want to say that while many people (probably even many fans of the original) might not agree with me. I still find the way game looks and plays quite disappointing. After all I'm allowed to have my own opinion as is each and every one of us... right?

PS. Also I have to agree that the game runs and looks much better. While I might not like some of the models it still is admirable that they managed to make it look nicer while not being more of a system eater.
 

dududf

New member
Aug 31, 2009
4,072
0
0
I disliked it and I'm not going to buy it, but I wish the best for the company in its sales.
 

Shaegor

New member
Oct 29, 2009
368
0
0
I'm gonna shortly sum up my feelings after playing the demo...
Old game - good, innovative, different and other things
New game - watered down, confusing and Nolan North at his best yet again
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
15,526
4,295
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
it changes the forumula that much? ugh damn, guess Ill have to try the demo, oh well at least dow2 is getting its expansion soon
 

Sebenko

New member
Dec 23, 2008
2,531
0
0
Ok, I downloaded the demo last night, gave it a play just now.

Well, that sucks.

It's gone from an awesome RTS about stompy robots to a completely generic Sci-fi rts.

to add to your points:

-I hate this Maddox guy I'm forced to play as. I'm me, commander, oh yes, my boy.
-Why is everything so brightly coloured? Don't get me wrong, I like bright colours sometimes- Morrowind could do with a brighten up, Crysis would be much less without it's sunny isle, but this is really annoying. Also, the UEF symbol on the naval yard looks really badly pasted on.
-Where are my information overlays? I want to see the range of my sensors and weapons. I can't fucking control anything without information!
-What's with the strategic zoom? It won't zoom out far enough, it feel too cramped.
-the ACU design is even uglier. I never liked the ACU design much, but it was alright. This is awful.
-blue and yellow? ugh, bright is one thing, but vomit inducing is another.
-why is the ACU so tiny? why is everything so similarly sized? it's all the same fucking size
-scale. it was hard to get a head on scale before, but now everything is the same size and looks like a toy, I can't tell what size anything is meant to be. feels like I'm playing with toy tanks.
-where has the formation control gone? I want my tanks facing the right direction! that second of turret turn could make all the difference.
-why the hell are lasers guided?
- why do all the building upgrades look badly stuck on?
-why can't I get my mass extractors/power generators and factories to work together to reduce resource consumption?
-what the fuck is this research shit all about? why should I research a shield generator and artillery? that shit was old back in the previous war.
-tech levels? basic, advanced and experimental? fuck? what happened to I, II, III and Experimental?
-who's this **** giving me orders? if I can "research" a battleship on my own, I can work out how to use it. Now fuck off and let me kill this guy in peace.

on the plus side, the camera was better controlled (with the exception of the strategic zoom), and the build animations were better- no more carving units out of a massive block of jelly.
Also, I liked the new attitude of the enemy commander (even if his animations made him look like a ******), which was different from the usual "urgh, die enemy".
 

akaluk

New member
Feb 26, 2010
2
0
0
Why would you focus on casual rts gamers when starcraft II is going to be out soon!? Why would anyone get this over starcraft!

The story is retarded and cliche, derp saver mah waifu, the units look like they were designed by 5 year olds with a million barrels and missiles everywhere, cost of regular units drop as factories produce longer, combined with the completely unnecesary research pretty much makes regular units twice as powerful as any experimental, and i have NO idea how they can patch that because you need to power up your units with research before you can make experimentals so what the fuck!

You know what this is? This is a regular supcom game with tech 2 and tech 3 turned off, where everything gains veterancy 10 times as fast, and 10 interceptors can take out any air experimental. I killed a fatboy with 17 tanks, just drove up to it and it broke! Remember how you'd piss your pants when a monkeylord would pop up unexpected and you'd be like BWOASHIT A MONKEYLORD WHAT DO I DO OH GOD and would wreck the entire universe with its laser? Experimentals are useless in this, theyre as strong to regular units as T2 to T1; maybe T3 if its a reeeeally big experimental, but they've completely lost their sense of scale. Actually the whole sense of scale is gone; economy dont scale, units dont scale, only thing that scales is the zoom function. Maps were tiny too, but that might just be the demo...

Supreme Commander was the last RTS about something other than build order and micromanagement, all the problems with interface and getting confused probably had more to do with the total lack of a tutorial than the actual game. Dumbing it down this much isnt even casualizing, this is to supreme commander what a unicycle is to a sports car.

Again; why make a casual RTS abandoning your own fanbase when you're just going to get slapped around in sales by starcraft II???
 

Sebenko

New member
Dec 23, 2008
2,531
0
0
akaluk said:
Why would you focus on casual rts gamers when starcraft II is going to be out soon!? Why would anyone get this over starcraft!

The story is retarded and cliche, derp saver mah waifu, the units look like they were designed by 5 year olds with a million barrels and missiles everywhere, cost of regular units drop as factories produce longer, combined with the completely unnecesary research pretty much makes regular units twice as powerful as any experimental, and i have NO idea how they can patch that because you need to power up your units with research before you can make experimentals so what the fuck!

You know what this is? This is a regular supcom game with tech 2 and tech 3 turned off, where everything gains veterancy 10 times as fast, and 10 interceptors can take out any air experimental. I killed a fatboy with 17 tanks, just drove up to it and it broke! Remember how you'd piss your pants when a monkeylord would pop up unexpected and you'd be like BWOASHIT A MONKEYLORD WHAT DO I DO OH GOD and would wreck the entire universe with its laser? Experimentals are useless in this, theyre as strong to regular units as T2 to T1; maybe T3 if its a reeeeally big experimental, but they've completely lost their sense of scale. Actually the whole sense of scale is gone; economy dont scale, units dont scale, only thing that scales is the zoom function. Maps were tiny too, but that might just be the demo...

Supreme Commander was the last RTS about something other than build order and micromanagement, all the problems with interface and getting confused probably had more to do with the total lack of a tutorial than the actual game. Dumbing it down this much isnt even casualizing, this is to supreme commander what a unicycle is to a sports car.

Again; why make a casual RTS abandoning your own fanbase when you're just going to get slapped around in sales by starcraft II???
I disagree. There's some challenge to riding a unicycle.
It's more like a child's tricycle.
 

AlanShore

New member
Nov 26, 2009
126
0
0
Urgh, yet another game ruined by making it more "accessible", oh and what a surprise, it's coming out on Xbox too! Coincidence? I think not.

Completely disapointed and underwhelmed by the demo, will probably only consider buying if it's really cheap. The whole game smacks of appealing to the "instant gratification" crowd. What's the point of having experimental units that are weak and can be built fairly quickly? In SupCom 1, building an experimental was a massive commitment and something to be feared when completed, now they're a total joke.

The queueing system and economy are ridiculous. I can't honestly believe that people thought that the economy in SupCom 1 was "too complicated", seriously? If you thought that it was too hard to understand you should go and get your head examined. Plus, I don't see how the changed they've made simplify things. All it means is that you now have to spend faffing about trying to queue things up and waiting for resources, and less time actually strategising.

And what is going on with the unit design!?! It looks as if Lego and Duplo got into a fight and it all got a bit out of hand. On the plus side though, the engine is fantastic but I wonder if they've fixed the problem with the last one where it tries to address memory outside of its 2gb range...
 

Sebenko

New member
Dec 23, 2008
2,531
0
0
AlanShore said:
Urgh, yet another game ruined by making it more "accessible", oh and what a surprise, it's coming out on Xbox too! Coincidence? I think not.
the first one was on Xbox, too. But any attempt to make RTS work on console will fail.

That said, I think DoW 2 could have worked on console, but I don't think they released it on anything but PC. (four units, for face buttons- each selects on unit, trigger to move, d-pad for abilities, etc.)
 

PopperThingi

New member
Mar 25, 2009
87
0
0
Personally I liked the demo, but the stuff you mentioned are annoying, especially the stupid return to the "classic" economy. I mean, the fact that I could tell an engineer to build a billion point defenses and leave him to do it while focusing on other things was great, now the economy is just... not special.

But apart of that, it was fun. The UI is simpler and the fact that units are upgraded instead of getting new units in higher techs that do exactly the same but better (bomber/strat bomber, light assault bot, armored assault bot etc.) is far better. and the fact that research is a resource is pretty funny, it's not bad.
 

AWAR

New member
Nov 15, 2009
1,911
0
0
I was going to dl the demo but reading this.... What the hell it cant be that bad!
 

AlanShore

New member
Nov 26, 2009
126
0
0
Sebenko said:
AlanShore said:
Urgh, yet another game ruined by making it more "accessible", oh and what a surprise, it's coming out on Xbox too! Coincidence? I think not.
the first one was on Xbox, too. But any attempt to make RTS work on console will fail.

That said, I think DoW 2 could have worked on console, but I don't think they released it on anything but PC. (four units, for face buttons- each selects on unit, trigger to move, d-pad for abilities, etc.)
Ah yes, I forgot about that. They didn't release it until about a year after the PC version though, if I remember correctly. I looked up some videos of the xbox version, man, that looks absolutely dire. If I were Chris Taylor I'd be absolutely ashamed to have my name on that.

They should seriously just give up on trying to put RTS games on consoles. I honestly can't think of one that's actually good (No, Halo Wars is anything but good). The analogue sticks will never be as fast or accurate as a mouse and they sooner they learn that, the better.
 

Talshere

New member
Jan 27, 2010
1,063
0
0
I myself havent played the demo but have played the first one. So this is comment purely based on your observations.


- Only ONE engineer can work on a construction at a time. ONLY ONE.
Seems a little silly tbh, part of the end game is always that you have far more resources than you can possibly use. But limiting the number of drones you can have assist I can see in big game's youll be forced to have literally hundreds of factory to keep up with your resource production.


- Tech tree based on the economy of the base (you had to upgrade buildings to reach higher level units) is gone, now all we have is a stupid tech-tree that has no real purpuse other than adding third resource (research points) to a perfect duo that mass and energy were.
I feel this would be unnecessary. The ethos of dont fit what aint broke comes to mind. I can see that this will be used as a method to slow down advancement. One of my favorite strategy's online was the tech 4 titan rush. By addin a 3rd resource you have to expend time and resources to gain you effectivly slow down the game. This does have the advantage that new players wont get destroyed so badly in their first games. Personally as a well above average gamer I got my ass handed to me the first few times I played SC online and had to resort to replays to find out how the hell I got rushed so fast.

This "may" have the side affect of lowering the skill element in the early game but endgame should be relativity unaffected. Simply with more strategic points you must defend depending on how it is collected.


- ACU now has to unlock the overload ability and is considerably weaker than the ones in the first game which IMO is a kick to the groin to rusher players. Right now it seems that a small cluster of basic units can kill your ACU without even breaking a sweat. In the first game ACU could destroy small armies himself, even more so since when he reached higher level he got damage and health increase that now have to be researched because commander need for experience points to level up is just outrageous.
Personally I think the ACU SHOULD be powerful in the early game as it is in 1. It adds a different element to the rush tactic that can be seen in every game going, and proper use of the ACU can both make and break an early battle both for the defender and attacker if used correctly. It shouldn't be "easily" overcome-able by tech 1 units.

MadeinHell said:
Maybe I'm one of the few but I hate the new SC2 demo. The game is completely different from what the first one was (and I loved the first one) it became extremely uncomplex. Things that were possible before are now impossible to do, for example:


- And the most ridiculous one... You know how in the first game you could order your engineers a long line of orders that would probably put your economy on hold but you could manage those orders in such way that they did not? That was possible because mass and energy were in fact an infinite resource. You could never go - it would just slow your progress, yet you were still allowed to use as many resources as you wanted just slower. Now it's gone. Literally gone. If you don't have enough mass or energy for a unit, you can go **** yourself cause you are not going to build it. At first I thought that the game was just warning me about that fact by making the buttons red. No. It just disables the button until the resources are available. WHAT THE HELL! Oo. That changes the entire game!

This I agree is just insane. I can see the potencial in limiting the battle sizes. Ive had to call more than 1 game on SC1 because every player is down to 1 frame every 20 seconds after 3 hours and 5 opponents in a FFA. So fixing that is a good thing I just feel that this is a bad way to do it. It add's a needless quantity of micromanagement to the game which, if the first is any indication, is already amazingly difficult to manage with potentially 50 or 60 small scale conflicts going on at any one time.

If I understand correctly this also means you are unable to que say 100 units if you dont have the resources for 100 units currently available. I fine this absurd as well, considering on a game that works on such a large scale, planning for what you will have and what you can afford to have/lose is half the game. Having to jump back every 40 seconds to add another unit to the build que while trying to manage a full scale battle will be impossible.
 

Jandau

Smug Platypus
Dec 19, 2008
5,034
0
0
MadeinHell said:
- Micromanaging units became pretty much impossible since the bullets in game seem to have "target tracking" turned on (in the first one you could "dodge" them) and the only way to escape fire is to get far away out of the unit range.

- Tech tree based on the economy of the base (you had to upgrade buildings to reach higher level units) is gone, now all we have is a stupid tech-tree that has no real purpuse other than adding third resource (research points) to a perfect duo that mass and energy were.

- ACU now has to unlock the overload ability and is considerably weaker than the ones in the first game which IMO is a kick to the groin to rusher players. Right now it seems that a small cluster of basic units can kill your ACU without even breaking a sweat. In the first game ACU could destroy small armies himself, even more so since when he reached higher level he got damage and health increase that now have to be researched because commander need for experience points to level up is just outrageous.
These complaints aren't a big deal and don't really affect the game as much. The fact that the ACU isn't a beast anymore is a minor thing and not really worth mentioning. The bullet auto-tracking is also a minor concern. You COULD dodge some slower projectiles, but did you honestly have time to? I'd usually have a ton of other stuff to do than manage a few units hoping they make it a few more meters before getting blown up. The first game didn't have a tech tree, it simply had Tiers. A tech tree can help expand the game.

However, I do agree with a few of your remarks:

- Only ONE engineer can work on a construction at a time. ONLY ONE.
This is pretty much a game changer. A major part of SC1 was balancing the number of engineers and the various tasks they perform. SC was the only game of its time to use this mechanic and it brough additional depth to the game's macro while still being a simple enough system so as to not confuse players. Granted, it makes sense considering this one...

- And the most ridiculous one... You know how in the first game you could order your engineers a long line of orders that would probably put your economy on hold but you could manage those orders in such way that they did not? That was possible because mass and energy were in fact an infinite resource. You could never go - it would just slow your progress, yet you were still allowed to use as many resources as you wanted just slower. Now it's gone. Literally gone. If you don't have enough mass or energy for a unit, you can go **** yourself cause you are not going to build it. At first I thought that the game was just warning me about that fact by making the buttons red. No. It just disables the button until the resources are available. WHAT THE HELL! Oo. That changes the entire game!
This is the biggest kick in the nuts in your entire post. If this is true, then it's basically a totally different game now. And not for the better. The resource/construction system was one of the most unique features of Supreme Commander. This change doesn't add anything to the game and simply aims to make it more like other RTS games on the market. I see no practical benefit to this new system and overall it is a step backwards.

It would seem that they tried to make SupCom2 more like other RTS games. Why? To appeal to more people? By sacrificing what little uniqueness their game had? A shame really...
 

Jolly Madness

New member
Mar 21, 2008
446
0
0
I did actually like SC1, but if this is true I don't think I want to even try SC2.
"If it's not broken, fix it" seems to be the developers' strategy nowadays.