C&C3 vs Supreme Commander

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:36 am

Rock wrote:Come, friends/enemies! We shall raid Blizzard and force them to make Starcraft 2!

Here's my take on this: Starcraft was a great game (Broodwars included). Blizzard could make a Starcraft 2, but there is a strong possibility that it will suck. Also, it will almost certainly be graphically and technologically quite separate from the original, and look and feel quite different. There is great potential for suckage here, as well. Personally, I don't really want to see another Starcraft game -- it might be great, but I think that there is too much potential for it to suck.

From another perspective, it is an axiom of any art or craft that you should leave the audience wanting more. For an example, see Star Wars ;) . Leave the audience/player wanting more, and they will remember how good a work is. Sate them, give them everything they want, and they will harp on the poor qualities of the work. Leave Starcraft as it is. Don't try to follow it up with something else. Make a new game.

xander
User avatar
Dirty Harry Potter
level3
level3
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Postby Dirty Harry Potter » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:18 am

Icepick wrote:I prefer C&C3 myself (although I have only played the demo.) Supreme Commander is a fine game, but its not particularly special. If there was any way of using a tactic besides tank rushing, I certainly didn't see it. I played 1 of the 3 campaigns all the way through, but I doubt I'll ever play the other 2. Command and Conquer has a lot more character to it, and each team actually feels different when you are playing them, unlike Supreme Commander where each team basically has the exact same units (with a couple of exceptions.)
So yeah, C&C all the way.
Why do I find it painfully funny that you prefer C&C3 over SupCom, because SupCom only has tank rushing ?

In other words, SupCom has more stone-paper-scissor mechanics than C&C3 has, C&C3 can seemingly just be won by rushing one type of unit (the tank for instance) - in SupCom you will have a much, much harder time doing this, as different unit types can completely slaughter specific unit types (ex. ground defenses > nonartillery ground units). Though, yeah, the factions in SupCom are very alike, which was a let-down for me :/

Hmm.. If you by tank-rushing mean that as soon as you've sent off your units at something, you can't really do much else than watch(ie. a lack of micromanagement), then yes SupCom doesn't seem to really have that, due to the battles being so big, no unit abilities and whatnot.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:57 pm

xander wrote:
Rock wrote:Come, friends/enemies! We shall raid Blizzard and force them to make Starcraft 2!

Here's my take on this: Starcraft was a great game (Broodwars included). Blizzard could make a Starcraft 2, but there is a strong possibility that it will suck. Also, it will almost certainly be graphically and technologically quite separate from the original, and look and feel quite different. There is great potential for suckage here, as well. Personally, I don't really want to see another Starcraft game -- it might be great, but I think that there is too much potential for it to suck.

From another perspective, it is an axiom of any art or craft that you should leave the audience wanting more. For an example, see Star Wars ;) . Leave the audience/player wanting more, and they will remember how good a work is. Sate them, give them everything they want, and they will harp on the poor qualities of the work. Leave Starcraft as it is. Don't try to follow it up with something else. Make a new game.

xander


With any company other than blizzard, I might agree with you. But even an average game from blizzard is better than 90% of the market. And SC:BW ended it such a tease that it is almost unbearable.
User avatar
Dirty Harry Potter
level3
level3
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Postby Dirty Harry Potter » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:16 pm

aye, they're different, I actually meant to put "" around 'lack', as it's not lacking as much as it is simply not really present. that is, it's not part of the game's design. I like SupCom, I've just yet to actually have games of it with some mates.


If you by C&C mean C&C Generals: Zero Hour, then YES, that was just downright silly.. C&C3 factions seems pretty similar, but still with a seperate flavour, though, I've yet to see the Scrin, but tbh, I can't see them being much different, except they might have some kind of alternative to infantry, I dunno.
User avatar
faemir
level1
level1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:41 pm

Postby faemir » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:09 pm

after playing both briefly, I can't really say which i prefer, but since as supreme commander is successor to TA, and C&C3 successor to the previous C&C games... well def. supcom get my vote xD. starcraft is close behind ^^
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:24 pm

faemir wrote:after playing both briefly, I can't really say which i prefer, but since as supreme commander is successor to TA, and C&C3 successor to the previous C&C games... well def. supcom get my vote xD. starcraft is close ahead ^^


fix'd

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests