Some of us like the services steam provides
+1
*** Supreme Commander 2 ***
- Thread starter Kosmiche
- Start date
+1
Some of us like the services steam provides
+2
It seems to me that the main issue people have with SupCom2 is it hasn't dealt with their (in my opinion) somewhat high expectations.
I feel we were spoilt rotten with the first game, it offered so much, yet in all honesty it never actually achieved it to completion (To date it is no StarCraft beater), if you look at sales figures and you will see that 70% of gamers don't like immersive games, so the new game for a new publisher had to have some compromises.
But what they did was fix all the issues with FA and add a whole other strategic layer on top. The game is deep. It is obvious to me after playing it that after the balances have been sorted there is a huge amount of depth.
Look at BF:BC2 now, it is totally imbalanced and doesn't offer prone and people couldn't even connect to a server to play on-line for the first week, but has this made it a bad game. Hell no, its awesome!
So whilst I can agree with what your saying in part, I don't feel we are looking at the same game here.
Total Annihilation was not about this, it was about massive army's charging into battle and armour was never considered. Same with FA.
Rockhead tanks (the UEF basic tank) are the most dangerous unit in the game. They can shoot air and upgraded in a team of 10 to kill an unupgraded ACU in literally 5 seconds flat.
I see SupCom2 as being an evolution of FA, yes it did away with much of the econ and the number of units has been on the decrease since TA, but in fairness that was seen as its biggest imbalance and boundary.
I personally loved the micro and no game has ever required me to put that much focus into play (it has actually made real life easier for me as I can now multi-task with extreme efficiency). The point is though that the average user found it extremely hard to pick up and even harder to play online because once you had picked it up there was a ton more info to learn and that meant newbies have ABSOLUTE ZERO chance of beating someone even low ranked. This isn't fun for a new starter and doesn't create competitive play as is evident by the FA ladder now days. That is why most like 90% of games were Isis/Setons Clutch 20min NR x2 Res (just so the noobs could play for 20 mins) and all the average user ever did was turtle or build nukes.
In SupCom2 you can go defensive and win, You can go Air and win, You can go Sea and Win, You can go Land and win, You can Rush to a win and you can do them right off the bat.
These are just some really basic strategies and they are ALL valid right now, name me another RTS that offers that?....high expectations and unrealistic demands I tell you!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
. Ignore 
Last edited:
Its ironic that MMOs (at least good ones) tend to be balanced around the top tier of play yet the majority of other games are balanced around the lowest tier they can find.
If a new player can come onto a game and may be able to beat high ranked people used to the game, the game is broken. Theres is supposed to be a learning curve. And Sup Com and TA could've prided themselves on having a good one with a proper top tier of players.
If a new player can come onto a game and may be able to beat high ranked people used to the game, the game is broken. Theres is supposed to be a learning curve. And Sup Com and TA could've prided themselves on having a good one with a proper top tier of players.
Bought it on Steam despite the iffy reviews praying it would be ok.
Never been so disappointed in a game in my entire life. Pathetic, pathetic effort.
Retards are going to buy C&C, no matter how much they chose to dumb down this game so they should have left this the way it was.
Never been so disappointed in a game in my entire life. Pathetic, pathetic effort.
Retards are going to buy C&C, no matter how much they chose to dumb down this game so they should have left this the way it was.
For those talking about the simspeed issue in FA, this might be of interest:
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=39740
Keep in mind GPGnet doesn't allow modified exes, so it will only be any good over Hamachi or for SP games.
http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewtopic.php?t=39740
Keep in mind GPGnet doesn't allow modified exes, so it will only be any good over Hamachi or for SP games.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
That looks interesting, will it speed up langames?
You'll see the most difference with AIs, or mixed games. I'm told using Duncane's AI is better for performance than Sorian's. Your processor has to be good to keep up with your setting though, so don't try setting a large game to +10.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
I'm looking for LAN games in coop vs AI enemies. I'll try Duncane's AI then, I thought his was just a collection of bug fixes though unless it's progressed a lot since I last checked in.
What happens if you set a game too fast for the processor? I think the slowest processor on the LAN will be a 2.3Ghz Core2Duo, it holds us back quite a bit sadly.
What happens if you set a game too fast for the processor? I think the slowest processor on the LAN will be a 2.3Ghz Core2Duo, it holds us back quite a bit sadly.
It'll stutter and not respond to your control inputs in a timely fashion.
Sorry, maybe i missed something but where does this come from?
(source please
...in fact, what does it even mean?
"70% of people don't like to be drawn in by the games they play"
I considered adding an actual sales figure and explaining in more detail when I wrote this, but I thought 'most people will understand what I am talking about and won't bother poking holes into some minor parts of what I am saying about compromise', which evidently took place during the development cycle and I stated the reasons for this as well to support my argument. (At this point I am seriously wondering if you want to know this or your just picking holes for the sake of adding some role in this discussion as I noticed you changed some of my wording from 'immersion' to drawn in, so as not to be shot down maybe)?.
okay onwards with this digression:
"Immersion is the state of consciousness where an immersant's awareness of physical self is diminished or lost by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_(virtual_reality)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immersion
I hope that helps you understand the definition. By using it I was trying to avoid using this phrase 'Casual Gamer' because it is far to pop and I hate it, because of all the negative stereo typing it carries with it, but there you go.
"Casual gamer" is a loosely defined term used to describe a type of video game player whose time or interest in playing games is limited compared with a hardcore gamer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game
http://www.binaryjoy.co.uk/games/features/who-are-casual-gamers/
As for figures well I admit I didn't research it in detail only quoted a number I heard on Gametrailers or somewhere.
The actual figure is misty, but a good representation could be taken from ((Wii Sales - X-Box 360) and PS3 Sales and those who ONLY play on-line flash games) + (I suppose a small percentage of X-Box and PS3 sales could be considered casual as well, but this digresses far beyond the point).
So the figure is very hard to get without far to much research, but for the purposes of the actual discussion the figure is obviously larger for 'Casual Gamers' because the market has moved that way and a number of sources claim it has for this reason alone (source it yourself, I couldn't be bothered).
Halo could be considered non-imersive like many casual games. What I mean by this is its pop titles that sell well, but don't really last. It doesn't mean a game is bad, it just means the substance within the game is geared towards an audience who want something catchy, popular and simple to use that they can share with friends and get some instant satisfaction from.
Pop - meaning popular, does not imply poor standards or low quality, but from a media companies perspective selling a product to a potential audience, it is very easy to get an audience by selling a generic product that is simple and easily marketable because by this definition is reaches a larger market share. Now you would have to be an idiot to not understand this, so I will not describe it any further.
Perhaps we can consider MW2 when contemplating this. Yes the game could by many be considered deep (argued aggressively, by many to I hasten to add ^^), but the fact is that very little was added to the game and most of the features that the immersive market like have been toned down and even removed). The game is very successful, but does it cater to the games traditional audiance? Well I feel it is very highly argued the answer is NO
Last edited:
Not going to bother quoting the whole post in one go, for reference to viewers see PoD's post above
Ok well I didn't expect quite such a response to that..I feel we can skip over the dictionary definitions. I appreciate them as much as any pedant on these forums, but happily i do have a vague understanding of what the terms mean.
I actually changed it to "drawn in" because i didnt want to directly requote the statement you made.
Ok..actually wait I might need that dictionary definition..
Sweet. Let's delve into your post
PoD said:
Right, I think this might be where my post should end. If you meant "70% of people who play games would be considered 'casual gamers'", then I'll hold my hands up and say "fair enough mate".
I think the problem is that you've given me 2 definitions, having said one when you were really referring to the other. Let me start by saying this: "Immersiveness" and "casual" are not compatible adjectives, especially in the argument you've given.
You've gone ahead and talked about people who buy in to so called "casual" games, alluding to figures comparing people playing browser-based games alongside casual pc/console gamers against more "hardcore" gamers (whatever that may mean, I hope we're tacetly agreed on what I'm referring to here). That's fine, I'll happily believe that figure.
What's not necessarily fine is to say that the figures of people who enjoy "casual" games is reflective of those who do not enjoy "immersive" games. You need to establish a rigorous, logical causal link between the two before you can do that. Frankly, that's a link that I simply don't see.
Let's take a sample of people who play browser-based games..say, for example, Bejeweled. Now, I know people who get extremely immersed in it. Heck, remember tetris?! People certainly seemed to be lost in the total environment that was a rectangle with falling blocks inside it. We might call Tetris a casual game, but there were certainly people who played it in a non-casual way.
I'll give another example, FarmVille/Mafiaville/whatevervillenowadays. I know people who are very dedicated to playing and I certainly wouldnt say they play in a manner qualifying them as a casual gamer. Similar argument to above basically.
What I'm trying to get across is what we call "casual games" does not imply someone who plays them being a "casual gamer", at least by your definition. Furthermore, someone playing "casual games" does not imply that that person is not "immersed" in said game.
Gaming is, after all, about escapism if nothing else, finding entertainment in a medium which stimulates the various senses of the body in order to challenge us in various different ways.
I think I agree with what you were trying to say, but what you actually said in your post earlier ended up meaning something totally different, and in my honest opinion totally wrong as well. It's not the content of the entire post that bothers me, it's just that one line.
Don't take this the wrong way, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. So please, if you can, produce some figures about casual game use, and provide a full argument as to why that implies that 70% of people who play games don't like immersion.
PoD said:
huh..well, maybe just the argument part then?
EDIT: It occurs to me i'm arguing with you over what I believe to be a misused word. Does my pedantry know no bounds?
This digression arguing over a word completely misses the point that I made SupCom2 is a damned good game and the sooner people get over the initial changes and start playing the game for what it is, the sooner they will start to have good fun and appreciate its depth. If they don't like the game I would ask why a great number of them pre-ordered, I mean these changes have been clearly stated since the first production videos were shown.
just to point out also that Farmville and Mafia wars are not casual games in the sense that Ogame is not a casual game.
I meant that a fair representation of the people who play just browser based games can be considered casual. Also to justify my point further, a lot of people don't like the new Bejewelled II games compared to the originals, but they were obviously made to tailor specifically to the target audience rather than the hardcore, however in the Bejewelled case they make money from advertisement revenue, so it pays to have the same players logging into a game over and over, but the previous version will continue to generate revenue so that isn't in question. This is what EA have attempted to do with the Battlefield series.
As you have omitted that pedantry is all you are arguing then I notion your point to be irrelevant and would like to ask that you please keep to the topic, I don't want to complain because you seem like a nice enough forum member.
just to point out also that Farmville and Mafia wars are not casual games in the sense that Ogame is not a casual game.
I meant that a fair representation of the people who play just browser based games can be considered casual. Also to justify my point further, a lot of people don't like the new Bejewelled II games compared to the originals, but they were obviously made to tailor specifically to the target audience rather than the hardcore, however in the Bejewelled case they make money from advertisement revenue, so it pays to have the same players logging into a game over and over, but the previous version will continue to generate revenue so that isn't in question. This is what EA have attempted to do with the Battlefield series.
As you have omitted that pedantry is all you are arguing then I notion your point to be irrelevant and would like to ask that you please keep to the topic, I don't want to complain because you seem like a nice enough forum member.
EDIT: It occurs to me i'm arguing with you over what I believe to be a misused word. Does my pedantry know no bounds?
thus closes the digression then.On topic, finished the campaign with a rather large "ehhhh..". I suppose it was alright, but I won't be playing it again for the story that's for sure. (personally I found the first one's story far more engaging..maybe not FA but that's not really what FA was about).
On multiplayer, I can only hope that over the next week or two they'll continue rebalancing and we'll end up with a better experience for it. Other than that, have to agree with most of the complaints in this thread
awww
didnt mean for it to go on like that but I felt compelled to respond after you made such a large post on the matter..Even the AI knows the balance score of the game. MOAR Air Powah!
PoD i agree in a way with you, the first game set such a high benchmark there was no way IMO the second could ever surpass it? i personally pre-ordered the second primarily on merit from what i had experienced in the first game, which was brilliant. be keeping a close eye on modding community since the engine is brilliantly smooth compared to the first