If you don't already own SupCom Forged Alliance then get that and skip the sequel.

Did I ever say I wanted Starcraft II to be "exactly" the same as SCI? No, I didn't. I said similar. But generally, decent sequels improve on the original, better graphics, fix bugs, more units. You don't go backwards. Again, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

If you want a really good example of this, look at Pokemon (think what you will, but hear me out). It has been around for almost 15 years now. Each new generation improves the graphics, maybe tweaks some game mechanics, adds some new stuff, etc, and it is the second most successful video game franchise in history, after Mario. And most importantly, the games are still fun, despite the fact that the core remains fundamentally the same.

You really think that having sequels be just that would lead to no progress? Again, thats what new IP's or spin-offs are for. Dammit, do more of what made the original great, not less, that should be obvious.

Was I talking about SupCom1 (which, btw, the support on flat out sucked, like every other GPG game)? I bet you that given the opprotunity, Stardock would have published SC2, as well as plenty of other companies. And no amount of excuses about tight schedules/budgets can excuse the fact that they left out very basic features, like saves in skirmish.

 

I'd just ignore OMG Spooky, some people aren't worth the effort

They're not strawmen, since that's exactly what he said - if the game had been called something else, he "would have had no issues with it and probably would of purchased [it]". To me that suggests that had the name been something else he wouldn't have disliked it. Issues with false expectations/marketing wouldn't affect the quality of the game, so Spooky's argument is valid - it seems illogical on the face of it to not buy a game that you would normally buy simply because of it's name.

Yeah, you didn't say that, but StarCraft II is just "exactly" the same, in many aspects. A sequel that only improves better graphics and fixes bugs and just pushes more unit into it is not a sequel... that's content for an expansion. Best seen in Forged Alliance, which did all those things.

 

Pokemon and Mario games are a good example of how a game should evolve, you are right. Both those games always stay true to their core mechanic, but still try to do things differently. SupCom2 also stayed true to its core mechanics, i.e. the battle simulation, strategic zoom, waypoint managment, infinite queuing etc..

But their goal was to do things differently in SupCom2 and tackle on the core problems of the first games. These are problems that you and I don't see as problems, but GPG/SE still wanted to change these things, in order to be profitable.

SupCom2 is already the 4th instalment of these kinds of games and changes are bound to happen. Don't get me wrong, I wrote numerous, long rants on the GPG forum about how the new economy is not a good idea, why the research tree could be a problem, why I don't like all the new micromanagement stuff etc. But in the end it's still an enjoyable game, that uses the core mechanics of SupCom and simply does a lot of other things different.

 

No... I was just describing the whole situation for the SupCom IP.

 

Yeah, I mentioned that too in my post . As already said, THQ's support was awful, especially after Forged Alliance (the pinnacle of awfuleness was the retention of a new patch that is ready since a year ago or so now ).

 

I don't know if Stardock would have published SupCom2. We only know that SupCom2 was also on the verge of not getting made at all.

 

It's not an "excuse", but it was the sole reason why skirmish saves didn't make it into the release version. SE put a tight budget and schedule one the game, knowing that a lot of things might not make it in. But fortunately, post release support from SE has been excellent so far and they even decided to let GPG implement Skirmish saves, which originally was way down the list of things that GPG would like to do for SupCom2 (was included in patch 1.15).

As I already said:

"My 'proof' is this -- had the game met his approval for a 'sequel' but had a different name, would he like it?  Seems pretty clear he would.  That demonstrates it's not about the name but the failure to achieve 'sequelness'.  Your focusing on the name thing obfuscates his point while attempting the pretense that you're responding to his criticism of the game."

He didn't buy not because of the name but the broken promise.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=75055

That the regular price of SupCom 2 is 20 bucks after 2 months says all we need to know. 

Really? I often found that the huge battle was the bit right at the end, the climax of the war, like the end of a film. I had an AI match just recently on FA (I find that if you want to play a huge map, you're best with AI, as it's rare that many people will all have hours on their hands at the same time. This map was four big islands, a central one with tons of hostile neutrals, and some small islands inbetween the big four, but I've forgotten the name...) with the Fourth Dimension mod (just some new units and better explosions). I took one of the four commanders (there should have been eight, two per big island, but I cut it down to four so everybody had loads of resources) with some T2 Anti-Heavy gunships, (they're from 4th dimension. They're slow, but pack a punch. Get owned by AA and Fighters etc.) because the AI hadn't built much in terms of AA (because AI will always do stupid stuff...), and another AI got beaten by the remaining AI. So, we both built up our defences, and started building the big stuff. He kept sending gunships, but I had interceptors and T2 fighters, so it was all good. My game-ending force consisted of two Tempests, two Omens, two Torrents and quite a few other T2 and T1 ships. I also had two GCs and two Overlords (4th Dimension. About half the health strength and size of GC, but has more varied weapons and is cheaper) who would walk onto land and kill the ACU. Oh, and 25 Anti-heavy gunships. So I moved them in, it all kicked off when I got in range of his many Summits. There were about eight of them, but I just sent in my gunships and used the navy to distract them as my experimentals went ashore. The guy had spammed Titans, because AIs will always do something stupid like that, (it was a sea map... jesus...) but they can't kill GCs easily. So he ACU went boom and I won. Looked pretty epic though, even if I had massive overkill with two GCs.

Now, how many times do you get something like that in SupCom 2?

Yes, Total Annihilation defined for me how a "classic" real time strategy game should be.

 

And in my opinion such battles of epic proportions are only possible with the concepts of TA/SupCom/FA/SupCom2. In games like StarCraft, it always feels like there are small skirmishes going on, not even real battles, and in a very abstract way, since projectiles aren't simulated.

 

Obviously you don't get exactly that in SupCom2 . I love SupCom/FA, I was always hunting for epic battles (which were still pretty rare there, since a lot of times the battle was decided very early or simply by multiple small events in a competitive environment). The battles in SupCom2 are still way more epic than in StarCraft or other games. In SupCom2 they simply happen earlier, for the most part.

One game I always like to remember was a 3v3 on Boreal Naval Test Range. It's a map with 6 circular starting positions, with a sea in the middle. Our middle teammate went for full research in order to build lots of artillery, while we fought our opponents on the flanks. I tried to push early (but failed, oh well), while my other flank partner had basically an arms race with his direct opponent going on. They built up a massive land force and in the end my teammate was able to overrun the opponent. And all that while our middle teammate was hammering the enemy across the map with artillery, which was pretty epic.

 

@Teseer: yeah, the Angel and Flail Supreme videos are really awesome. And with the exception of Part 5 of the Flail Supreme videos, all those are directly taken from real replays.

That video shows everything that made SupCom1 amazing, and just how sh!tty SupCom2 is. Remember when 3 Galatic Collosi could do something to your base? Or when an experimental could actually make it to your opponent's base before being cut down by 5 gunships?

How isn't it bullshit? Again, it's a feature that's been standard for well over a decade. GPG has experience with creating games with a save option, it's not like it was a new concept to them or anything. If the AI is actually so amazing that it took them 5+ months to make it "save safe;" 1. It should be taking over the world by now, and 2. They should have delayed the release. They even had the stupid 2.5 GB "patch" on Day 0, and they couldn't get it in by then? Sins of a Solar Empire has more stuff for the AI to manage, bigger maps, more units, had a smaller budget, and less people working on it, but it had saved skirmishes from release.

And you're an idiot if you think that. What's your point?

If you think that, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and have a lack of experience with Sins.

Supcom and Sins are compleately different.  Each shot in Supcom can miss, only strike craft miss in Sins.  There are far more ways of winning and losing in SupCom.  The economy is the only thing i would consider more complicated in Sins.

 

Terrain navigation alone makes things much more complicated...