Supcom 2 demo impressions

#1 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

Wow, has Gas Powered Games really improved their Supreme Commander title! From what I've played, SC2 looks like a much better game than the first. 
 
They've replaced the clunky tier 1/2/3 system and annoying base building mechanics with quicker resource collection/build times and a research tree that allows you to specialize into five different paths - land, air, sea, structures, and ACU - all with special unit unlocks and great passive upgrades. The research system isn't handled by time, but by gaining and spending tactical points by killing and reclaiming enemy units. Once you research something on the tech tree, it's instantaneous. 
 
In addition, the great waypoint setting/attack move from the first game returns, and the graphics are much improved over the first. With a good CPU and graphics card, you'll be vsynced at 60 fps in moderate engagements, seems like this game doesn't have much higher system requirements than the first. The strategic map is upgraded as well - it clumps units of the same type into numbered groups, so you could play the game without using control groups and hotkeys, if you so choose. I love how Gas Powered Games puts the emphasis on metastrategy instead of micromanagement, even though there is the possibility of micromanaging your forces if you use your ACU offensively. Great stuff. 
 
Supcom 2 also has much better presentation than the first game. The menu's and battle reports are all flashy and unobtrusive, and it took me seconds to set up my graphics and sound settings. The load times are rather quick with 4 gigs of DDR3 ram; I was able to load a campaign mission in about 8 seconds.
 
This game really came out of nowhere, but I think I'll have to preorder it. Seems to have improved on the first game in every way (besides the corny campaign plot and bad VO's). Would recommend PC RTS players to try out the demo and post their thoughts.

#2 Edited by GriffinTyro (17 posts) -

Definitely agree with everything you mentioned. I was particularly pleased with how well the game ran on my moderate rig, but I thought the story stuff seemed to be even hammier than in the previous iteration. Also, I dont like the fact that you cant set a waypoint for the mobile factory units production (at least I couldn't do it). Favourite Unit: AC-1000. Can't wait for the 2nd!

#3 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

I was reading some impressions some other people have had, and apparently a lot of hardcore SupCom/Total Annihilation fans were blasting the game as "dumbed down" and a "step backwards." Personally, all I saw was a more streamlined experience with a more manageable economy. A lot of these players were complaining that they can't turtle anymore because of the lack of defense turret range and changes to base shielding, but turtling was a completely noob tactic in SupCom 1's multiplayer anyway.

#4 Edited by GriffinTyro (17 posts) -
@jmrwacko: 
As a filthy turtler myself I feel slightly torn on this issue. On one hand I really enjoy building a huge base and sitting back, but I can acknowledge that the changes they've made will make the game more fun (and faster). Plus, the whole tech tree isn't in the demo, so there could be other defensive upgrades we haven't seen. I seem to recall reading coverage which suggested a defensive play style was still viable. Also, I thought the sheilds were actually quicker to build this time.
#5 Posted by Colonel_Cool (808 posts) -

I'm downloading the demo now, and am really excited for this game. Supcom 1 was one of the very games I've actually bought on day 1, and Supcom 2 looks look it's gonna be a preorder. I really miss the old resource system, but from what I've seen, I really like the tech tree and research system, the new engine and animations, better-looking levels, and the over-the-top unit design. And it seems to improve upon the pathfinding and formation problems from the first game, which was a real pain in the ass when massing huge land or naval forces. Now they move so fluidly, like a liquid. 
 
One thing I'm concerned about though, is whether or not the scale of the game is as big as the first one. The huge 40x40km maps with 8 players and thousands of units were a big part of what made the first game so special. To those who played the demo, how are the map sizes?

#6 Posted by GriffinTyro (17 posts) -

There aren't any really huge maps in the demo, it's fairly concentrated in that respect, but I'm pretty sure they'll do the same thing they did in SupCom 1 where the area expands over time and as you complete missions. Hopefully GPG understands that epic scale is what people want.

#7 Posted by Jeffk38uk (719 posts) -

Having also played the demo, I have to agree that Sup Com 2 surprised me for being quite enjoyable. I really didn't get into Sup Com 1 due to its huuuuge take 2/3 of the screen UI and it being bogged down to spam tier 1 tanks and go, I just didn't get why it was reverred as it was. Does mean I had no clue in regards to the plot tho, lol

#8 Posted by Colonel_Cool (808 posts) -
@GriffinTyro: Is there a skirmish mode in the demo? The Supcom 1 demo had a limited skirmish mode on the smallest map, and the campaign mission wasn't all that large either. Maybe it's the same here. I never played on the 81x81 km maps in the first game, but I would like to at least see something like 20x20 km in the second.
#9 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

No Skirmish mode, just the tutorial and two missions. The missions take a combined 40 minutes to an hour, depending on how slow you are.

#10 Posted by Shirogane (3580 posts) -

I'm not sure how the resource has been changed, it seems the same to me. 
 
The whole tier thing was kinda nice, cause of the way it was a throwback to TA, but this seems ok as well. Can't say for sure since the demo was so limited. The way experimentals are handled is pretty nice though. 
 
The one thing that really irked me, apart from the horrible plot and voice acting and script in general,  was the fact that there was very little information on the units. When hovering over them or the build buttons, it doesn't tell you about the unit at all, i'm quite sure SupCom 1 did. 
 
From what i know, the system requirements for this are actually lower than the ones for the first game. Some nice optimisation there if it's true. But pretty damn good optimisation either way. 
One other thing, you shouldn't refer to Supreme Commander games with SC, that gets confusing, cause of a certain other RTS. That also has an SC2 coming out.
#11 Posted by Marz (5666 posts) -

I think i heard Nolan North as the main dude maddox

#12 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -
@Marz said:
" I think i heard Nolan North as the main dude maddox "
Yeah Maddox is voiced pretty well, as well as your opponent in the first mission and the two allies in the second mission, but the voiceovers for the UEF commander and the UEF jarhead you fight in the second mission are the typical super macho saturday morning cartoon type voice acting you'd expect in some localized anime. Oh, and did I mention the plot was ridiculous? Also, Maddox's wife has giant sagging tits.
#13 Posted by GriffinTyro (17 posts) -

All that Square-Enix money wasn`t spent on the story I guess. Maybe there will at least be some good cgi cutscenes.

#14 Posted by MmmSkyscraper (315 posts) -

I'll be the negative nancy, prepare the pitchforks! Surprised at this thread as it's the only one I've seen about the demo that's averaging out as positive. I tried it last night and was disappointed enough to ditch the pre-order idea. Cool beans if you're into it, but I think a lot of people coming from SupCom 1 feel the same as me which doesn't bode well. Interested to see a GB review although I'm not sure it'll get one.

#15 Edited by Driadon (3007 posts) -

 To be honest, I didn't like it. I don't like how they changed the resource system, it's no longer about trying to find a balance between power generated and mass; You can't tell several build units to work together on a single project; and the upgrade window is incredibly intrusive to the action.

That said, I do really like the UI tweaks they've made like the auto grouping of units if a bunch of them are placed next to eachother.

I think I'll just stick to Forged Alliance.    

#16 Posted by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

Just a note, you couldn't select multiple engineers and assign the same build orders in SupCom 1, either. You had to have the engineers all assist a single engineer, who you'd assign build orders. Unless you're talking about factories assisting other factories.
 
Also, I feel like the resource system is similar to how it was before, just a lot quicker. You do have to make sure you have high enough mass and energy energy outputs to keep your production lines flowing, it's just now that takes a total of a couple of seconds to set up or tweak because you aren't upgrading mass extractors and power plants from tier 1 to tier 3. Also, you can convert excess energy to mass without building mass fabricators, I suggest you try that if you have way too much energy. 
 
But did they ditch the proximity bonuses for factories? I didn't see power lines running from my power plants to my adjacent factories. That's sort of a bummer.

#17 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

I have not played a ligit PC RTS game for a while now. The last RTS game I played was Red Alert 3 for the PS3, and I want to get a new PC to play C&C 4.

 
How would you say the gameplay compares to the C&C series?

#18 Posted by Maclintok (177 posts) -

I played a bit of the demo last night and stunned how well it runs on my moderately specced laptop.  Granted with the detail cranked down to medium or lower the graphics are nothing to write home about and the visual style is boring to say the least.  I never played SupCom 1 but any game that streamlines their economic & base building models gets a thumbs up in my book.

#19 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -
@dcpc10 said:
"@buzz_killington said:
"

I have not played a ligit PC RTS game for a while now. The last RTS game I played was Red Alert 3 for the PS3, and I want to get a new PC to play C&C 4.

 
How would you say the gameplay compares to the C&C series?

"
Supcom is a million lightyears ahead of RA3 or CnC4 (from what I've played of the beta). Supcom 2...just from playing the demo, is probably twice of that :P "

In terms of complexity or quality?
#20 Edited by Black_Raven (1759 posts) -

Don't like the new economy
graphics are shit, I haven't played Supcom 1 in awhile but I'm pretty sure the graphics are worse than that in some aspects.
 
Optimization is good though, ran maxed out on my 8800GT without a single stutter or drop in framerate.
 
edit: Also the units all have a really short range, so the combat looks really weird sometimes, especially with air units circling eachother in a tight ball. Whether this means the maps are going to be smaller I don't know.

#21 Edited by Rowr (5824 posts) -

Game seems fine. The single player still doesnt have the polish of an A title, which is fine i guess, the missions and story didnt seem interesting at all. Graphics are ok? I dont know i didnt find myself wowing to much, the graphical style as with the last is bland as fuck. 
 
So fucking bland.
 
I guess that all sounds kind of negative, but i enjoyed playing it. Not sure if i will bother with it tho.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.