Not to try and dissuade you, I just thought you'd like to know more about what you'd be getting into. Generally SupCom is a slower paced game but large in scale, so I'm not sure how well that goes for you if you're only really into action or faster paced style RTS's. Just as important as your tactical decisions are your base building, defences, and upgrade decisions.
Yeah, but this game is meant to be a lot faster, at least to get to the 'meat' of a game. Instead of 20-30 minutes of setting up, it's now more like 5 minutes.
This pleases me.
Naw, I tried playing CnC on 360, I appreciated the premise but gave up a little after the tutorial. Halo Wars worked out a little better.
And of course Supreme Commander for something much larger in scale but oh please play sacrifice. It is one of the greatest games no one played.
TheGerbil on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Sacrifice is really quite special. Remember the original version of Warcraft III they showed off? It looked and seemed to play like Sacrifice ("role-playing strategy," Blizzard called it). And then the fanboys bitched, and it ultimately became something more traditional.
If there is one thing I can say about sacrifice its that everyone should play it, it is such a good game, I have completed it probably 5 or 6 times though so I might be biased. It still is an excellent game however that really made me realize how great action-RTS's could be.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited January 2010
Those trailers are promising, with 1 exception - scale. None of the videos so far shown are on the scale of the original game. My only guess to why is being developed with a console in mind, with specs lower than the original games minimum specs. I'm sure it'll still be great, but I doubt it'll have the immense battles from the first game.
Probably why they have more experimentals and the whole unit upgrade/tech tree thing. Less, more powerful units give a bit of an illusion to that scale.
Not to try and dissuade you, I just thought you'd like to know more about what you'd be getting into. Generally SupCom is a slower paced game but large in scale, so I'm not sure how well that goes for you if you're only really into action or faster paced style RTS's. Just as important as your tactical decisions are your base building, defences, and upgrade decisions.
Yeah, but this game is meant to be a lot faster, at least to get to the 'meat' of a game. Instead of 20-30 minutes of setting up, it's now more like 5 minutes.
This pleases me.
Naw, I tried playing CnC on 360, I appreciated the premise but gave up a little after the tutorial. Halo Wars worked out a little better.
And of course Supreme Commander for something much larger in scale but oh please play sacrifice. It is one of the greatest games no one played.
Dude.
Someone from Sacrifice worked on Brutal Legend's multiplayer. It's what I've been trying to tell people since October. Brutal Legend is basically Heavy Metal Sacrifice.
Not to try and dissuade you, I just thought you'd like to know more about what you'd be getting into. Generally SupCom is a slower paced game but large in scale, so I'm not sure how well that goes for you if you're only really into action or faster paced style RTS's. Just as important as your tactical decisions are your base building, defences, and upgrade decisions.
Yeah, but this game is meant to be a lot faster, at least to get to the 'meat' of a game. Instead of 20-30 minutes of setting up, it's now more like 5 minutes.
This pleases me.
Naw, I tried playing CnC on 360, I appreciated the premise but gave up a little after the tutorial. Halo Wars worked out a little better.
And of course Supreme Commander for something much larger in scale but oh please play sacrifice. It is one of the greatest games no one played.
Dude.
Someone from Sacrifice worked on Brutal Legend's multiplayer. It's what I've been trying to tell people since October. Brutal Legend is basically Heavy Metal Sacrifice.
They should have advertised it as such. That sounds much better than "It's a Character action game!" "... er, and an open world? I guess..." and then what seemed like minutes before release "Oh yeah, it's also an rts"
-SPI- on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Which just makes Schafer's "Well it's really an action game, that when you play it you'll see that it was meant to be on a console" statement sound even more horseshit than it already was.
Which just makes Schafer's "Well it's really an action game, that when you play it you'll see that it was meant to be on a console" statement sound even more horseshit than it already was.
I'm not bitter. Really.
Well it always more of a trendy game, and we all know those aren't viable on the PC. :P
It can be annoying, but I stopped worrying about most console exclusivity crap a long time ago. You miss out on stuff whichever platform you don't own, and it's not like there isn't a tonne of stuff on the platform of choice. I mean if you're talking RTS's the bulk of the genre's still on the PC. It's been hard to try and get the more traditional strategy games working without a mouse, as evidenced by Blizzard not even attempting to do a console port of Starcraft 2. Most publishers would call a move like that crazy with such a huge title, but Blizzard are pretty strict about their quality control if they feel something isn't going to work out in the end (cf. Starcraft: Ghost).
Still, It'll be interesting to see whether SupCom can make any headway there. The dynamic tactical grouping sounds like a fairly useful feature for example, plus the engine itself appears to run quite well on the 360 from the footage we've seen. On the other hand, even a huge established juggernaut of a franchise like Halo found it hard to push RTS on the console market. Chicken and Egg I guess.
Not to try and dissuade you, I just thought you'd like to know more about what you'd be getting into. Generally SupCom is a slower paced game but large in scale, so I'm not sure how well that goes for you if you're only really into action or faster paced style RTS's. Just as important as your tactical decisions are your base building, defences, and upgrade decisions.
Yeah, but this game is meant to be a lot faster, at least to get to the 'meat' of a game. Instead of 20-30 minutes of setting up, it's now more like 5 minutes.
This pleases me.
Naw, I tried playing CnC on 360, I appreciated the premise but gave up a little after the tutorial. Halo Wars worked out a little better.
And of course Supreme Commander for something much larger in scale but oh please play sacrifice. It is one of the greatest games no one played.
Dude.
Someone from Sacrifice worked on Brutal Legend's multiplayer. It's what I've been trying to tell people since October. Brutal Legend is basically Heavy Metal Sacrifice.
They should have advertised it as such. That sounds much better than "It's a Character action game!" "... er, and an open world? I guess..." and then what seemed like minutes before release "Oh yeah, it's also an rts"
Why did I figure it out two months prior and you didn't?
Was Halo Wars any good? I know it got decent reviews, but I always got the impression the praise was primarily because it was based around Halo and for it being a console focussed RTS instead of a port.
subedii on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Praise is mainly for the second part and not the first.
So, any whispers on how much SupCom2 is going to cost on Steam...? Or should I just write it in my calendar for Christmas 2010?
It'll probably be priced at standard retail price (£29.99). I can't really see any reason they'd go with a different price point. Maybe a £5 discount or some other deal for pre-orders.
I would have threatened to kill him too since RTS on console immediately means people freaks out and thinks it is piss before it is even released
I call that phenomenon lolRTS.
GP: For something that was a large part of the game, the stage battles weren't introduced to the media until late in development. Why was that aspect of the game not shown earlier?
Schafer: We wanted to emphasize that the game's main story was a wish fulfillment for this character. It's about a roadie who wanted to live in an earlier time when the music was real in a medieval combat fantasy. That's our story, and we wanted people to understand that was what you'd be doing in this game: swinging an axe, playing a guitar, driving your car around and eventually commanding an army of headbangers. You can't tell people that whole package at once; when we pitched the game to publishers a lot of times the meetings would end with a series of stunned looks, because that's a lot to digest at once. We had to mete out the different features, and it made sense to start with the simplest aspects and build up to more complex ones. When it was time to announce it we had this huge press event, which I'm sure you came to... didn't you?
GP: The multiplayer event? Yeah, yeah we were there.
Schafer:Yeah, I was interviewed on G4, Morgan Webb called it out as an RTS game and everything. It was late, but we definitely got it out there. When we pitched the game a lot of publishers were fearful of the letters "RTS" and when we were with Vivendi the marketing plans were never going to say RTS ever. At first we weren't sure how we felt about that, but as our game developed and we started changing it, simplifying it and removing RTS elements we started to feel okay about that because we realized that if players come to the game with the expectation of it being an RTS and look for RTS controls, it would actually make the game less fun. So from a creative position we were totally fine with not releasing that info first. In the very first pitches for the game, publishers didn't want to talk about heavy metal or roadies at all, they thought it should be about something more popular. Like country.
When we showed the game to EA, they were interested but wanted to test the concept. In focus tests, the stage battles rated high. What's interesting is the people in those groups aren't told anything about the game and have no expectations for it. One of the things you notice looking at Metacritic ratings is that the highest scores come from those who really enjoyed the stage battles, and when you get down to the critics who didn't like the stage battles those reviews often center around their expectations about what we were going to make, instead of looking at the stage battles for what they are in a fresh way.
Hrmm - I actually kind of liked the first one (mostly the design, the actual play wasn't anything too special). And if you could run the damn thing with a high unit cap/details it looked awesome.
The biggest issue I have with the first one technically is even with an amazing PC you can still get massive slowdown on huge 8 player maps with lots of units. Though I wasn't all that surprised. Hopefully the second runs silky smooth the whole time on my current rig.
TheGerbil on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
SupCom was pretty shittily designed in that aspect
Ground Control was so good. I didn't play the second one but I hear it was OK too.
Ground Control was awesome. That and Homeworld still rank as my favorite RTS's. Though Homeworlds pretty much my favorite game ever.
Fuck
Yes
Also I never played the first ground control but GC2 was definitely one of my top rts's. I think the reason I like it and the HW series so much is the emphasis on battle, I mean HW has the completely linear tech tree and the single resource to worry about, and GC2 had a similar system going. It gets rid of everything I'm bad at in rts's and keeps everything I love.
Man, I may finally be finding my legs with Dawn of War multiplayer, but I never played SupCom online now that I think about it. Around that time my net connection was dodgy as heck.
Man, I may finally be finding my legs with Dawn of War multiplayer, but I never played SupCom online now that I think about it. Around that time my net connection was dodgy as heck.
Kool Eagle and I played online a few times but we were never amazing. Half the fun of sup com though was seeing the sheer number of dudes (that killed your base) and then your commander going nucleur. I still got a kick out of that.
Kool Eagle and I played online a few times but we were never amazing. Half the fun of sup com though was seeing the sheer number of dudes (that killed your base) and then your commander going nucleur. I still got a kick out of that.
Sorta like a consolation prize. "Sorry, you lost so here's a pretty lightshow!"
Darmak on
0
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
I always built my power farms into a giant FUCK YOU
Posts
If you want the action-RTS hybrid I Highly HIGHLY recommend this game.
And of course Supreme Commander for something much larger in scale but oh please play sacrifice. It is one of the greatest games no one played.
But yeah, damned sweet game. R.I.P. Shiny.
Gametrailers has a couple of new gameplay vids up.
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/battle-gameplay-supreme-commander/60993
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/battle-gameplay-supreme-commander/60995
~It's a secret!
Probably why they have more experimentals and the whole unit upgrade/tech tree thing. Less, more powerful units give a bit of an illusion to that scale.
Ground Control had a little in common, but I don't think many people played it.
Ground Control was awesome. That and Homeworld still rank as my favorite RTS's. Though Homeworlds pretty much my favorite game ever.
Dude.
Someone from Sacrifice worked on Brutal Legend's multiplayer. It's what I've been trying to tell people since October. Brutal Legend is basically Heavy Metal Sacrifice.
They should have advertised it as such. That sounds much better than "It's a Character action game!" "... er, and an open world? I guess..." and then what seemed like minutes before release "Oh yeah, it's also an rts"
I'm not bitter. Really.
Well it always more of a trendy game, and we all know those aren't viable on the PC. :P
It can be annoying, but I stopped worrying about most console exclusivity crap a long time ago. You miss out on stuff whichever platform you don't own, and it's not like there isn't a tonne of stuff on the platform of choice. I mean if you're talking RTS's the bulk of the genre's still on the PC. It's been hard to try and get the more traditional strategy games working without a mouse, as evidenced by Blizzard not even attempting to do a console port of Starcraft 2. Most publishers would call a move like that crazy with such a huge title, but Blizzard are pretty strict about their quality control if they feel something isn't going to work out in the end (cf. Starcraft: Ghost).
Still, It'll be interesting to see whether SupCom can make any headway there. The dynamic tactical grouping sounds like a fairly useful feature for example, plus the engine itself appears to run quite well on the 360 from the footage we've seen. On the other hand, even a huge established juggernaut of a franchise like Halo found it hard to push RTS on the console market. Chicken and Egg I guess.
Why did I figure it out two months prior and you didn't?
And there's the other g4 video where the female host goes "hey! It's like Sacrifice from back in the day!..."
Vivendi, and EA, threatened to have Tim Schafer killed if he said R, T, and S in the same sentence, and that's their problem.
Anyhow, how about that Cybranosaurus Rex?
It'll probably be priced at standard retail price (£29.99). I can't really see any reason they'd go with a different price point. Maybe a £5 discount or some other deal for pre-orders.
I call that phenomenon lolRTS.
I am a freaking nerd.
Fuck
Yes
Also I never played the first ground control but GC2 was definitely one of my top rts's. I think the reason I like it and the HW series so much is the emphasis on battle, I mean HW has the completely linear tech tree and the single resource to worry about, and GC2 had a similar system going. It gets rid of everything I'm bad at in rts's and keeps everything I love.
I could get Kool Eagle in on it no problem, he is always bugging me to play Sup com.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
Playing with me would probably be a handicap.
In-house
Sorta like a consolation prize. "Sorry, you lost so here's a pretty lightshow!"
That's a good idea.