Supreme commander vs C&C 3
- Thread starter duncsharp
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 3,955
- Location
- guildford, surrey
will run very nicely, i assume thats a 7900gtx go on the laptop? or a 7950gtx?
i cant wait for it
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- England
Noxis said:
Tis what I was thinking lol
I do enjoy and like SC grand scale but really online MP.... very very possible though CnC will proove popular, it is a lot more simple and fun I feel it may just pip it over SC
This kind of thread always prompts fanboy arguments and C&C3 HAS a lot of fanboys.
My case example being the day that first few minutes of scattered footage of C&C3 was released there were about 10 people in this forum alone already claiming it was better than SupCom. I mean it may look pretty, but Doom3 looked pretty, saying it is better is just totally pretentious.
C&C3 will no doubt offer a better single player campaign than SupCom. Of that I am sure!
However I think the real test for any of these types of games is the last ability. Hate it or love it StarCraft has lasted ALONG time proving itself to be a pretty robust game.
I can see myself wanting to play skirmishes and multiplayer battles in C&C3, but I honestly got bored of playing the demo real quick. It just doesn't offer the complexity and unit diversity of SupCom.
C&C3 has ALWAYS been about quick tank rushes and super weapons. It is great fun to play with mates around a LAN because it isn't something that requires much thought to play!
I feel SupCom offers a lot more diversity and some seriously new evolutions in gameplay. I don't feel let down by the hype of SupCom at all. Where as I have already uninstalled my C&C3 demo.
I will most likely be buying C&C3, but I expect to be still playing CoH and SupCom long after Xmas this year when the NEXT big thing is out.
More importantly to the OP though is that anyone who can afford a rig to run them both can easily afford both games. Each offer different aspects of fun and gameplay, so please don't compare chalk to cheese!
My case example being the day that first few minutes of scattered footage of C&C3 was released there were about 10 people in this forum alone already claiming it was better than SupCom. I mean it may look pretty, but Doom3 looked pretty, saying it is better is just totally pretentious.
C&C3 will no doubt offer a better single player campaign than SupCom. Of that I am sure!
However I think the real test for any of these types of games is the last ability. Hate it or love it StarCraft has lasted ALONG time proving itself to be a pretty robust game.
I can see myself wanting to play skirmishes and multiplayer battles in C&C3, but I honestly got bored of playing the demo real quick. It just doesn't offer the complexity and unit diversity of SupCom.
C&C3 has ALWAYS been about quick tank rushes and super weapons. It is great fun to play with mates around a LAN because it isn't something that requires much thought to play!
I feel SupCom offers a lot more diversity and some seriously new evolutions in gameplay. I don't feel let down by the hype of SupCom at all. Where as I have already uninstalled my C&C3 demo.
I will most likely be buying C&C3, but I expect to be still playing CoH and SupCom long after Xmas this year when the NEXT big thing is out.
More importantly to the OP though is that anyone who can afford a rig to run them both can easily afford both games. Each offer different aspects of fun and gameplay, so please don't compare chalk to cheese!
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 215
I find it very difficult to compare both games as they are quite different to each other even though you can class them in the same genre as each other. Supreme commander is much more hardcore than any previous RTS game ive ever played because if the sheer amount and volume of units you have at your disposal. Some of the missions you play regardless of them bieng single or multiplayer can at times last 4-5 hours even when you know how to play tactically to win the map as fast as you can. If you add in the fact that its a very demanding game both on your graphics card and even more so on your CPU then you start to realise SC isnt for the faint of heart of gamers lacking in cash to spend on system specs.
The C&C3 demo ive played however is completely different in that its a far more slick 'action adventure' affair. C&C3's approach is to take the same gameplay we're all used to from the franchise 10 years ago and wrap it up in a super slick high budget hollywood blockbuster style package. Whilst i did enjoy the demo it lacked the depth and tactical options available in SC. I dont think this is a bad thing for EA however as it means more mass market appeal and the fact that console conversions become much easier to do. The demo also seemed to be far less demanding on system specs which i believe is down the the sheer amount of units you can build in SC as the slowdown i get in that game only manifests itself when i have a vast army available to me.
overall i think it just comes down to what game you prefer. C&C3 doesnt offer anything new gameplay wise but its still a very slick and enjoyable game. SC also doesnt offer anything really innovative but what it does offer is RTS gameplay taken to the extreme in both a tactical sense and the system specs required to play it to its potential. The OP's system specs are enough to do this however and even much more than what is needed to play C&C3.
The C&C3 demo ive played however is completely different in that its a far more slick 'action adventure' affair. C&C3's approach is to take the same gameplay we're all used to from the franchise 10 years ago and wrap it up in a super slick high budget hollywood blockbuster style package. Whilst i did enjoy the demo it lacked the depth and tactical options available in SC. I dont think this is a bad thing for EA however as it means more mass market appeal and the fact that console conversions become much easier to do. The demo also seemed to be far less demanding on system specs which i believe is down the the sheer amount of units you can build in SC as the slowdown i get in that game only manifests itself when i have a vast army available to me.
overall i think it just comes down to what game you prefer. C&C3 doesnt offer anything new gameplay wise but its still a very slick and enjoyable game. SC also doesnt offer anything really innovative but what it does offer is RTS gameplay taken to the extreme in both a tactical sense and the system specs required to play it to its potential. The OP's system specs are enough to do this however and even much more than what is needed to play C&C3.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- England
PoD said:
Summed it up nicely I too think SC will perhaps do better in the long run it just offers so much more its complex and great but at the same time simple yet fun is dangerous ingredients yet sounds boring as well, I mean with all the units and experimental units in SC but then I saw the Alien units attacking in CnC3 and then
CnC3 is by far the better game in my opinion. For all Supcoms fancy graphics (which I don't personally think are *that* good) I spent most of my time zoomed out looking at red and blue dots just to see what was going on. Really loose the atmosphere. Games take FOREVER too.
CnC3 > *
CnC3 > *
CnC3 imo ;d
Also I think its unfair to say cnc lacks depth when all we have played is a tiny 2 player map. Stratergy gets a lot more interesting in larger maps and more players. I also think that CnC can be a lot more strategic than people think.
Also I think its unfair to say cnc lacks depth when all we have played is a tiny 2 player map. Stratergy gets a lot more interesting in larger maps and more players. I also think that CnC can be a lot more strategic than people think.