Chris Taylor Calls Supreme Commander 2 The Best in "Large Scale RTS"

[Killjoi]

I have a question for the core-TA/SupCom fans: would you be happier if the game was sold under a new IP and made it clear from the get go that you aren't the only target audience this time?

 

[AceDiamond]

I have a question for the core-TA/SupCom fans: would you be happier if the game was sold under a new IP and made it clear from the get go that you aren't the only target audience this time?

As a person who isn't an egotist that thinks that game companies owe me everything, I wouldn't have minded either way and in fact am more pleased that SupCom 2 is in the same ip as the first game, because frankly the self-centered gamers need to be taken down a peg or two.

 

[omglaserspewpew]

As a person who isn't an egotist that thinks that game companies owe me everything, I wouldn't have minded either way and in fact am more pleased that SupCom 2 is in the same ip as the first game, because frankly the self-centered gamers need to be taken down a peg or two.

I know +1 posts might be considered spam, but this one if so worth to qoute.

 

[mavkiel]

I have a question for the core-TA/SupCom fans: would you be happier if the game was sold under a new IP and made it clear from the get go that you aren't the only target audience this time?

As a person who isn't an egotist that thinks that game companies owe me everything, I wouldn't have minded either way and in fact am more pleased that SupCom 2 is in the same ip as the first game, because frankly the self-centered gamers need to be taken down a peg or two.

I suppose I would be happy if self-centered people who take joy in others wasting cash on crappy games trip and break a leg?

 

[omglaserspewpew]

If anyone feels he wasted cash on SupCom 2, it's his own fault. They put out a demo before the game went on sale - a demo that even paints a vastly uglier picture than what the game really is. You should never, ever, buy anything just based on your expectations alone. If you do, it's your own fault if anything goes wrong.

 

[Deathfish15]

Heh, judging by what I read in this thread, game developers should never, EVER, listen do their fans, since those usually pathologically emotionally attached to their work, which may backfire at the slightest hint of variation.

Supreme Commander 2 is a good game. It's not as novel as SupCom was and has a fair share of wrong approaches and imbalances. And, ultimately, it's not a game completely ylike its predecessor. But still a good game. Demo sadly doesn't do it justice.

EDIT: oh and, whoever says CupCom 2 is a bland console port, has no idea. Way to bash a game you obviously didn't even play for more than an hour.

I agree with you. The demo was kind of slow and weird to me. However, I watched the gameplay video and the YouTube videos other players put up of gameplay and it was a world apart from what the demo was. The noticable difference is for example the lack of extensive ground unit use in the demo (I was so hoping to use the unit cannon experimental).

As far as it being a "console port", I also agree with you that those people don't have the slightest clue. Maybe SupCom2 is slightly simpler than the 1st game, however it is still more complex than C&C3, or AoE III, or Company of Heroes, and Dawn of War II.....well, to be fair anything that allowed you to control more than 5 unit groups in the campaign at one time would be more complex than DoW II. A "console port" game can be exampled in Universe At War or that other one (can't think of the name) with the red and blue units on the box...those are consoles ports and those are honestly ugly games.

 

[Asehujiko]

I can name quite a few RTS games that are much better: starting with Supreme Commander 1

 

[skeanthu]

Sigh, thanks for the heads up you all. I liked SC1 cause it brought this to mind, which I played so much I had to see a shrink about it all and seech.

 

[zakski]

No Mr.Taylor,the best modern "Large-Scale-RTS" is still by far Supreme Commander 1.

Whats terrible is that some of the ideas in supcom 2 are nice like the aeon illuminate having no navy. and the fact that all cybran navy units can walk on land.

I don't know,I would have understood if the aeon had a less ships to choose from,but none feels wrong.But then again,ships are so weak regular tanks rip them apart.
I love the fact all Cybran ships can walk on land though,having a land/sea mobile airbase rocks.
The upgrade system is also a sweet boon.

If I had the time, I would sit down, strip the economy out of supcom2 and replace it with a modified version of the original. Also add monkeylord back.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

As a person who isn't an egotist that thinks that game companies owe me everything, I wouldn't have minded either way and in fact am more pleased that SupCom 2 is in the same ip as the first game, because frankly the self-centered gamers need to be taken down a peg or two.

I know +1 posts might be considered spam, but this one if so worth to qoute.

I never even played TA or either Supreme Commander, but I really cannot understand this mentality. I can think of lots of reasons to hate 'self-centered gamers', but having an opinion about the quality and direction of a video game is not one of them. What exactly has anyone done to earn the 'egotist' charge outside of not liking a game that you like?

I've been seeing this a lot lately. The game industry seems like the only one in which consumers are expected to suck whatever dick they're presented with- by other consumers.

 

[omglaserspewpew]

Rooster, the point is, hate is directed at SupCom 2 only because it's not SupCom/FA. Not because it would be a bad game (which it isn't). These rabid "fans" evidently think they're entitled to GPG making only a game they want and should the studio stray from this rule (which it did), shitstorm like this is legitimate.

Truth is, they're far from forced to "suck whatever dick they're presented". Nobody forced them to buy the sequel. Nobody lied to them that the sequel is going to be the same as its predecessors. They were solely victims of their own absurd assumptions and of their own excessive emotional attachment to a computer game.

GPG had the balls to make things different. They're now being bashed because they did things differently. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Rooster, the point is, hate is directed at SupCom 2 only because it's not SupCom/FA. Not because it would be a bad game (which it isn't). These rabid "fans" evidently think they're entitled to GPG making only a game they want and should the studio stray from this rule (which it did), shitstorm like this is legitimate.

They don't describe their objections that way, but even so- what's wrong with that? Why not voice their opinion on the direction of a series they're following? I guess I fail to see how this amounts to a sense of entitlement. Is there ever a time when it is acceptable to complain about the direction a series takes?

Truth is, they're far from forced to "suck whatever dick they're presented". Nobody forced them to buy the sequel. Nobody lied to them that the sequel is going to be the same as its predecessors. They were solely victims of their own absurd assumptions and of their own excessive emotional attachment to a computer game.

It's not that they are forced to buy it, but that they are expected to be satisfied with (or at least not opposed to) whatever direction a series may take. Whether or not they bought it or the extent of their emotional reaction is kind of an aside.

GPG had the balls to make things different. They're now being bashed because they did things differently. Ironic, isn't it?

I dunno. Not my fight. But I don't think you've captured the substance of the complaints I'm reading here, and I'm not convinced they necessarily represent a sense of entitlement.

Is it that the complaints are not objectionable in-and-of-themselves, but the manner of their delivery (emotional and hateful) is?

 

[omglaserspewpew]

They don't describe their objections that way, but even so- what's wrong with that? Why not voice their opinion on the direction of a series they're following? I guess I fail to see how this amounts to a sense of entitlement. Is there ever a time when it is acceptable to complain about the direction a series takes?

Well, you need to know about all of the games in question to really see where the truth lies. Mostly, people here are really just saying "SupCom 2 is a bad game" and uninformed individual would think the story ends here. But when you actually look a the titles, you'll see they don't like the sequel mostly because it's not alike its predecessor. And not because it would be a bad game.

Secondly, I didn't object to them raising complaints about where the series has gone to. I mayself don't like some of the changes as well. But there's a line between saying "look, I just don't like this title, it doesn't suit my playstyle" and "OMG it's a really bad game". Or "OMGOMGOMG LETS FLAEM GPG WHEREVAR WE CAN" shich is what's happening over the web. Look up Metacritic and Amazon user scores. They are a result of a concerted effort of rabid fanboy rage. Now tell me this isn't emotional.

It's not that they are forced to buy it, but that they are expected to be satisfied with (or at least not opposed to) whatever direction a series may take. Whether or not they bought it or the extent of their emotional reaction is kind of an aside.

Yeah, that's the problem, they're *expected* to be satisfied! Which is stupid and absurd! You should never, EVER expect game designers to make exactly the game you want! You will be inevitably dissapointed. Game designers are not in service of fanboys' wishes, they follow their own creative thoughts, not to mention they're in bussiness, which means what they do is done to earn a living. They have kids to feed. This is the core of the problem here: spoiled kids who are completely disconnected from the adult world of game designers, have imaginary desires about what designers should do for them and expect instant gratification.

Is it that the complaints are not objectionable in-and-of-themselves, but the manner of their delivery (emotional and hateful) is?

Mostly, though as I've said, there's also lack of objectivity - calling the game bad just because it's different. But that's a problem of the whole game community anyway.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Well, you need to know about all of the games in question to really see where the truth lies. Mostly, people here are really just saying "SupCom 2 is a bad game" and uninformed individual would think the story ends here. But when you actually look a the titles, you'll see they don't like the sequel mostly because it's not alike its predecessor. And not because it would be a bad game.

Secondly, I didn't object to them raising complaints about where the series has gone to. I mayself don't like some of the changes as well. But there's a line between saying "look, I just don't like this title, it doesn't suit my playstyle" and "OMG it's a really bad game". Or "OMGOMGOMG LETS FLAEM GPG WHEREVAR WE CAN" shich is what's happening over the web. Look up Metacritic and Amazon user scores. They are a result of a concerted effort of rabid fanboy rage. Now tell me this isn't emotional.

Yeah, that's the problem, they're *expected* to be satisfied! Which is stupid and absurd! You should never, EVER expect game designers to make exactly the game you want! You will be inevitably dissapointed. Game designers are not in service of fanboys' wishes, they follow their own creative thoughts, not to mention they're in bussiness, which means what they do is done to earn a living. They have kids to feed. This is the core of the problem here: spoiled kids who are completely disconnected from the adult world of game designers, have imaginary desires about what designers should do for them and expect instant gratification.

I think you have taken me to mean that they expect to be satisfied themselves, when I meant to suggest that others expect them to satisfied. A small difference, but I agree it is a bad idea to expect too much. I just think that's more a practical consideration than an ideal. I suppose I am also "disconnected from the adult world of game designers", but I don't apologize for it. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, but I'm a gamer first and I'm going to be a lot more interested in the well-being of those who are making the games I want to buy. Plus, there are the suits and their wicked, wicked profit motive to consider hehe.

[snipped my quote- Rooster]Mostly, though as I've said, there's also lack of objectivity - calling the game bad just because it's different. But that's a problem of the whole game community anyway.

I think I see what you mean. I suppose if we use an example of a change to a sequel- say, the economy becomes simpler from one to the next- it can be difficult to ascertain if a complainer actually dislikes the change or merely dislikes change itself. I suppose I am more likely to assume the former, because I have gone through similar frustrations. I see people complaining about SupCom2, and am reminded of sequels which broke my own heart. And of course, I don't see myself as merely hating change. If a complainer is specific about what he doesn't like, and it's at least plausible to construe it as a downgrade, I would probably sympathize with the complainer.

So perhaps I have made the mistake of picking a side in a debate for which I am unqualified (having played neither game). I am relating the complaints of the complainers to another debate for which I am qualified (having played games besides), which is a trend in RTS games toward less sophisticated (some might say, complicated) titles.