New to SupCom2...

[:1]Ok, I've been playing AI for a while now on SupCom & FA & i have to admit i love it. I come here with more of a complaint in the disappointment i felt when i first started to play SupCom2, not only is the UI big & bulky the units, buildings & everything else is shocking, i cant help but think that SupCom & FA they spend a long time & a lot of money developing & you can clearly see the pride in the game & then you have SupCom2 where i feel it was rushed on a low budget & took 10 steps backwards. I have games that never made it to the big boys table of strategy games & the graphics & general game play is much better than SupCom2 where as SupCom & FA blow everything else out the water, it even made me stop playing my beloved C&C games.
The only + on SupCom2 is the speed as its got an up to date Engine that uses multi core cpu's where as SupCom & FA dont which is a shame because i wont be playing SupCom2 anymore & will try & hope to see if some patch comes out for the latter that improves its speed.|||Cool story, bro.|||VsUK|||LayZboy|||VsUK|||madface|||^^ no imo he meant that you should try mods for SUPCOM2 which they are developing right now if you look his sig|||check out the revamp mod, and pow, you gotz a better than fa experience.|||LayZboy|||henkbein|||really is 80% trolls and tards on the boards at this point...and that feels like I'm being nice, regardless.
VsUK, I understand you have a problem with Supcom2 but beyond the fact you think it's a cheap rush job you aren't really saying why.
Is it the lack of unit variety? smaller map size? Experimentals that don't feel experimental? balance? Campaign? What?
if so, you aren't the first, you probably went into Supcom2 hoping for more of what supcom and FA gave ridiculous scale and power at your command on vast battlefields. If so, I am sorry, you bought the wrong game.
Supcom2 is taking supcom and trying to make it more fast paced, balanced and playable. the revised econ is easier for new comers to grasp, the limited unit selection is for the main part quite good(the DLC helped fill it out a bit) with units becoming more robust and useable as you invest research on them. Experimentals are practical, mainly working as long range seige engines or super factories rather than gods-made-machine.
Supcom2 isn't a bad game, but it isn't Supcom or FA either, if you can get some friends to join you or head online, give it a chance as the game it is.|||You'd think people coming in to post SC2-isn't-FA whining threads would look, oh, halfway down the page, and see the dozen that are already started. I guess these are the same keen observational skills that lead them into expecting a direct sequel despite the fact that every review on the internet says otherwise.|||Tren|||I just got Back from a LAN gaming weekend, where we played mostly FA, then for a change switched to supcom2, and as much as I want to like supcom2, FA makes it look dull and boring in every regard.|||C&C? Really? Did you miss the part where the entire C&C series has been going downhill in every regard but graphics since, uh, Red Alert?|||Tren|||Right, I would agree, but they've gotten 'higher resolution' I guess.
The whole C&C series is pretty awful, poorly-balanced, boring, and targeted toward casual play only. So someone who waltzes in claiming to be a 'C&C fan' who thinks the later, more terrible games are an improvement over the early ones (which at least had some charm if nothing else) doesn't really have a lot of credibility.
Nevermind the whole buying the game blind thing. Who does that? Who doesn't at least look for a basic overview of a game, if not actually read a few reviews first? There isn't a single comment anywhere on the internet that would lead anyone to believe that SC2 is meant to be a direct continuation of FA's gameplay. You could spent about 1 minute on these forums and come to the conclusion that SC2 has a totally different style of gameplay than FA.

Edit: I also don't get this 'more unit choices' thing that people keep bringing up about FA vs SC2. FA may have had far more units, but it actually had fewer viable choices. Playing against anyone who was any good, if you deviated from T1 tank/arty spam -> mixed in T2 bots -> mixed in T3 bots and massive T3 air spam, you would lose. That's like 5 total units of 3 different types in play throughout the course of an entire game. If you choose to use MMLs, most T3 mobile artillery, even non-rush experimentals (ML, to a lesser extent GC), you would inevitably die against a half-decent, aggressive player.
FA offers the illusion of unit choice. SC2 eliminates the illusory choices, and makes everything that is available viable (with some unfortunate exceptions - Willfindja, Kraken, etc).|||C&C is irrelevant in this discussion.
also we are talking about the game itself, not the neatness or use of coding madface.
Though going into the fact Supcom2 was rushed, I have to agree at launch Supcom2 was a mess, the team however worked their arses off fixing that and to say the game is somekind of unplayable mess would be bullshit.
Now however back to the point at hand you only seem to have a problem with the looks of the game, I played Supcom when it was fresh out the gate and the UI was horrorific and took up about 40% of the screen if not more, the UI in supcom2 lacks obvious features(no actual button the on the UI to ping though you can through F4-6) but these are ultimately superficial and don't actually damage gameplay.
Ultimately this comes down to personal opinion and what you are looking for in a game at this point you have supcom2 and just helping you get the most out of it.
Still, the obvious lack of support for supcom2 on it's own forum says it all, so, peace all...though why are you still here?|||The code is an indication that possibly the game that was released was not the game intended to be SC2. For example, take a look at the other thread regarding the Megalith. Another example, even in the most recent version of the game, there are unused references in the research tree files. It appears that GPG had certain things in mind that they wanted to incorporate, but under time constraints had to abandon those ideas because there wasn't enough time to implement and test.
Consider also that the textures and icons relating to a tier-based system akin to FA are present in the SC2 datafiles even though the engine is not reading any of these files. If anything, SC2 appears to be a hack-job of FA.
Now, before getting all wound up, I'm not criticizing the game or gameplay - it is what it is. I'm just providing input on the comment that the game was rushed. In addition to the code suggesting an unfinished game with quite a bit of experimenting still in the works, if you look through the forums, you will see comments from GPG staff that say they would have liked to put more time into development but that SE imposed the release date. And only so much could be addressed post-release and through DLC. Sorian stated that he has a list of things he would like to work on if SE would commission the work.|||As the devil's advocate, I just want to mention that there is more than one explaination(rushed out) for incomplete systems/ideas.
But in my opinion I do feel it was a tad rushed, but not to the extent most believe.
Mike|||Almost all game development cycles see lots of planned features or code being left by the wayside. That alone isn't an indicator of rushed development. The fact that the game was mostly done inside of a year and was somewhat buggy on release (as OrangeKnight just pointed out) is a much better indicator of rushed development.
However, the post-launch support has been pretty good, and the game is relatively bug-free at v1.25. It needs some further balance tweaks, but it's clear that tight balance isn't GPG's specialty. They certainly try though, and they got much closer with SC2 than with previous games.|||madface: There is plenty of unused code in FA as well. Also, FA code can be buggy at times, as with the AI code (many problems with the AI were due to spelling errors and inconsistencies with capitalization).|||If we want to compare "percentage complete", I'd say SCom2 (in its current state) to be closer to completion than SCFA ever was. Simply due to the fact that it's far less ambitious.
But we respect ambition that fails more than conservatism that succeeds ;)|||OrangeKnight|||AdmiralZeech