|
Forum: Games Topic: Supreme Commander - Pre-release discussion started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON on Jun. 01 2006,20:58
< http://www.supremecommander.com/ >Peep the video under "media." It really does look like TA 2. Posted by Cakedaddy on Jun. 02 2006,01:24
If you go to the forums, people are talking about hoping the old ctrl+d is back, etc. People talk as if it is TA 2.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 02 2006,05:24
Wow.I cannot wait to get my ass kicked in that on a regular basis. How do you think the guys making the "official" TA2 feel after seeing that? Posted by GORDON on Jun. 02 2006,07:11
I heard Cavedog went under... who's making "official" TA2?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 02 2006,07:11
People are worried about a self destruct key? Posted by GORDON on Jun. 02 2006,07:23
I just had to watch the video again because it kicks so much ass.Not even the next Command & Conquer gets me this excited. Posted by Cakedaddy on Jun. 02 2006,09:03
It was just the one thing I pulled from it. I went into the 'Requested features' forum and there were a ton of things in there.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 02 2006,10:07
Chris Taylor is the guy behind Cavedog and Total Annihilation.They sold out or something and ended up at MS and made Dungeon Siege 1 & 2. Now he's doing Supreme Commander. I'm pretty sure he has other peeps with him from the TA days, but not all of them. You have seen the results. As for TA2, the original publisher has the rights to the name. Chris didn't feel it was worth paying for the name. He just wanted to make the sequel. It was something he always wanted to do and he knew people wanted it. In one of my old PCGamers or CGWs it says who is making it. They did a blurb on all the new games in the RTS genre or for next year or something like that and Supreme Commander and TA2 were two seperate entries. So that's why SC is more TA2 than TA2 is... Posted by GORDON on Jun. 02 2006,10:09
Well fuck-a-doodle-do.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 02 2006,13:49
The worst part of that E3 movie is I'll be watching it for the rest of the year.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 19 2006,11:04
From the new PC Gamer:In Supreme Commander, you'll be able to hook up a second monitor. It can be used to increase your view of the gameplay or be used as an interactive map with fixed camera feeds from user defined location. Fuck YES! Posted by GORDON on Jun. 19 2006,11:06
Holy shit. This might just lead me back to Jesus.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 19 2006,11:11
I'm already trying to figure out the business justification for me to have two monitors at home.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 19 2006,11:16
Two different AS400 sessions.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 19 2006,11:55
I can get away with having a seperate 17 inch monitor, but I wanted dual 22 inch monitors.I guess the 17 inch will be fine since I'll use it for the map. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 01 2006,20:45
Some new unit screenshots.< http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/supremecommander/news.html?sid=6153450 > Posted by Leisher on Oct. 25 2006,07:26
Both PCGamer and Computer Gaming World have features on it this month. PCGamer even got their hands on it. They also list it as being released in Winter of 06.I think we may be pretty close to a release date. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 29 2006,22:42
I'm currently dl'ing a (supposed) beta... let's see if this works.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 30 2006,11:28
It's just a multi-version of the game. AI is not yet included.Just FYI. Posted by Leisher on Oct. 30 2006,12:01
Early thoughts?Gas Powered Games says the game is hitting shelves early next year. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 30 2006,17:24
Early thought is that I've not yet done the appropriate snooping around for a KEY so I can access the multi game.But the startup screens look nice. Posted by Leisher on Dec. 15 2006,11:38
< New details. >
Posted by Leisher on Jan. 11 2007,13:00
2/20/07I've seen more early reviews from people who have played the Beta and they all claim that Supreme Commander is Total Annihilation only with every complaint anyone had about it solved. Start the countdown for me to get my ass kicked in multi. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 14 2007,06:50
Less than one week until it hits stores...I've got dual 22 inch flatscreens hooked up and ready to go. Should we start planning a multi night? Posted by GORDON on Feb. 14 2007,08:37
I'm already planning a new mobo and a dual-core processor.
Posted by WSGrundy on Feb. 14 2007,09:11
I download the demo from < fileplanet > but I haven't opened it up yet. For those that can't wait a few more days.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 14 2007,09:23
I got the email saying beta was closed, and all beta keys they handed out would be deactivated.QUOTE The Supreme Commander Multiplayer Beta will be closed at 5 p.m. Pacific (8 p.m. Eastern, 1 a.m. GMT) on Feb. 12, 2007.
After the closure, you will not be able to properly connect to GPGnet without a retail version of Supreme Commander and a valid product key. Supreme Commander goes on sale in the next several days -- please check with your local retailer for exact dates in your country/state/area. Please note the following, as it contains important information about your copy of the beta and your beta account. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 14 2007,09:51
All the early reviews have been excellent. The PCGamer podcast crew couldn't stop gushing about it and they highly recommend the dual screen option.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 14 2007,11:27
(GORDON @ Feb. 14 2007,11:37) QUOTE I'm already planning a new mobo and a dual-core processor. Highly recommend the E6300 with OCing. Or whatever I posted about in the other thread. Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 14 2007,14:24
If you are going dual core, make sure you go with the Intell chip. Faster and cheaper than the AMDs. And make sure it's the Core 2 Duo, and not the Core Duo, which was slow.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 14 2007,16:40
I saw a dual core AMD yesterday, 2.6ghz, for....... under $150.IIRC. Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 14 2007,17:22
E6300 is $200, and can OC like a mother to the performance of a $500 chip.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 15 2007,04:02
(GORDON @ Feb. 14 2007,11:40) QUOTE I saw a dual core AMD yesterday, 2.6ghz, for....... under $150. IIRC. Which is quite possibly slower than the Intell chip you could get for $150. Shop around and don't automatically go with AMD like you would in the past. Intell actually got competative for a change. Check the stats. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 15 2007,11:21
< AMD is cutting prices. >Not arguing, just FYI. BTW, is Intel still identifying chips with unique serial numbers that they started with the Pentium III? Posted by Paul on Feb. 15 2007,12:46
(GORDON @ Feb. 15 2007,11:21) QUOTE < AMD is cutting prices. > Not arguing, just FYI. BTW, is Intel still identifying chips with unique serial numbers that they started with the Pentium III? They stopped doing that after people got pissed that their PIII's could be tracked... if they weren't smart enough to could turn that feature off in the BIOS. I think they stopped about 5 years ago. edit: < http://news.com.com/2100-1040-239833.html > Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 15 2007,17:57
(GORDON @ Feb. 15 2007,06:21) QUOTE < AMD is cutting prices. > Not arguing, just FYI. BTW, is Intel still identifying chips with unique serial numbers that they started with the Pentium III? Ya, I saw that the other day too. But didn't really research. Just saying, it's not an AMD slam dunk any more. Intell actually seems to be trying instead of just riding on their name/market share/influence type thing. Posted by Vince on Feb. 15 2007,19:40
AMD's been cutting their prices because they're suddenly finding their chips being out performed for the first time in about three years.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 16 2007,05:24
(Vince @ Feb. 15 2007,22:40) QUOTE AMD's been cutting their prices because they're suddenly finding their chips being out performed for the first time in about three years. Yeah, this last machine in January was the first time I didn't even see comparable AMD chips. Posted by WSGrundy on Feb. 16 2007,17:44
< 9.0 out of 10 from IGN. >
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 21 2007,10:07
$42.88 at Target.I have my copy. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 21 2007,17:28
Dizzam.I should have some free time starting in a couple weeks. Hope I can finish Half Life 2 by then. I'm in the "Follow Freeman!" levels. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 21 2007,20:18
I'll throw some initial thoughts up after I get some solid playtime.I'm up for multi right away though. Also, the next C&C xomes out on 3/27. And Gordo, have you seen the new space empire game from the people who made Homeworld: Cataclysm? It looks just like Homeworld. Looks like it's going to be an RTS year. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 22 2007,19:01
(Leisher @ Feb. 21 2007,23:18) QUOTE Also, the next C&C xomes out on 3/27. And Gordo, have you seen the new space empire game from the people who made Homeworld: Cataclysm? It looks just like Homeworld. I have that page from PC Gamer ripped out and sitting on my desk, and you know what that means. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 22 2007,20:01
QUOTE I have that page from PC Gamer ripped out and sitting on my desk, and you know what that means. You've masturbated while looking at it? Posted by Paul on Feb. 23 2007,07:07
(Leisher @ Feb. 22 2007,20:01) QUOTE You've masturbated while looking at it? What *hasn't* Gordon masturbated to? Hmmm... that sounds like a good trivia game. ...a trivia game where there are no winners. Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 24 2007,17:08
I will be commanding supremely as well. Copy in hand (two actually. The kid like to game). $43.44 at Sam's Club.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 24 2007,18:32
$46.99 on Amazon.com......< http://www.amazon.com/THQ-493....eogames > But in most states you don't pay sales tax, and this item has free shipping. Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 25 2007,12:31
Well, after about 5 hours of training and playing. . . I'm commanding only mediocerly. First impression: I'm gonna need a bigger boat. Even with all settings/effects turned to low/off, the games slows to a choppy crawl when there's lots of action. That sucks. Every time I'd launch an assult, things got bad. I've got an AMD 3500+ and 1GB RAM 7800 GT. I probably have to upgrade to a higher end core 2 duo. It recommends a 3.0 Ghz+ CPU.Things to get use to: The range of all the units is far greater than it was in TA. So, you are always zoomed out. Zoom in to see the units fighting and exploding, and you lose perspective of the battle. So most of the fighting is done at an 'icon' level. Zoom out and everything is just a colored icon. Most of the time, that's fine. But in the old TA, I'd target specific units first to get them out of the way. Hard to do when zoomed way out and things are moving. It helps to have a second screen, one zoomed out for perspective, one zoomed in for detail. But it's easy to lose your place. The larger, second screen needs to have a window showing what you are looking at on the zoomed in screen. Similar to the tactical overlay. Severly cut down the number of available units. There isn't NEARLY the variety of TA. Will limit the stratigic mix you could achieve in TA. Ground defences, with their longer range, are damn near impossible to penetrate. Especially if there are teeth (which can be destroyed now). Anti air defences suck and are highly inacurate. Those two things = over powered air. You can defend against air attacks better with other aircraft. But point being, ground troops won't play as big a roll. The kills will come from the air. Cool things: They implimented many of the third part utilities people made for TA. Such as, click and drag for building walls of teeth, rows of power generators, etc. Transports are much more inteligent and actually useful now. Those are my initial impressions so far. I've only been playing the campaign mode, so I haven't even built many of the units in the game. So, my impression will most likely change as I've mainly been playing with tech I units. But really, I'll need a new computer before I can really play this game. And that does suck. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 25 2007,20:21
I was thinking I should hold off until I upgraded my system, but then I remembered I an running XP64 and maybe I should see how it runs on a faster OS.... since it has a 64 bit client.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 26 2007,10:20
QUOTE The range of all the units is far greater than it was in TA. So, you are always zoomed out. Zoom in to see the units fighting and exploding, and you lose perspective of the battle. So most of the fighting is done at an 'icon' level. Zoom out and everything is just a colored icon. Most of the time, that's fine. But in the old TA, I'd target specific units first to get them out of the way. Hard to do when zoomed way out and things are moving. It helps to have a second screen, one zoomed out for perspective, one zoomed in for detail. But it's easy to lose your place. The larger, second screen needs to have a window showing what you are looking at on the zoomed in screen. Similar to the tactical overlay. I love the way they handled the view. You can scroll all the way into a unit to see it's exact details, all the way back out into space where you see the whole battlefield. I also like how you move your mouse when in "satellite" view and that's where you'll zoom in. Very good stuff. Very intuitive. QUOTE Severly cut down the number of available units. There isn't NEARLY the variety of TA. Will limit the stratigic mix you could achieve in TA. I started in the solo game and was thinking the same thing, but then I noticed that the number of units available were increasing based on what level I was on. Even in the training mode I noticed that while you could build certain tech levels, it didn't allow you to build everything. QUOTE Ground defences, with their longer range, are damn near impossible to penetrate. Especially if there are teeth (which can be destroyed now). Anti air defences suck and are highly inacurate. Those two things = over powered air. You can defend against air attacks better with other aircraft. But point being, ground troops won't play as big a roll. The kills will come from the air I noticed the same thing. Air units were VERY hard to bring down. Not that they have a million hit points, but they seem to be able to avoid missles, lasers, etc. The ground defenses are brutal, 5-6 stationary artillery pieces almost knocked out my commander in seconds. Mixed unit assault groups are a must. The single experimental unit I've seen in action so far was pretty cool. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2007,10:23
(Leisher @ Feb. 26 2007,13:20) QUOTE QUOTE Severly cut down the number of available units. There isn't NEARLY the variety of TA. Will limit the stratigic mix you could achieve in TA. I started in the solo game and was thinking the same thing, but then I noticed that the number of units available were increasing based on what level I was on. Even in the training mode I noticed that while you could build certain tech levels, it didn't allow you to build everything. It was that way in the original TA, too. You gained new playable units after "advancing" in your tech tree, or whatever. Hell, some units in TA were NEVER unlocked in campaign mode. It was the same in the C&C games, as I recall. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 26 2007,10:56
QUOTE It was that way in the original TA, too. You gained new playable units after "advancing" in your tech tree, or whatever. Hell, some units in TA were NEVER unlocked in campaign mode. It was the same in the C&C games, as I recall. I remember now. I seriously cannot believe how long it's been since I've played an RTS. Last year was all about RPGs and FPSs. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2007,13:49
Just picked up my copy of SC.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2007,17:59
So they advertised this game as the flagship of the "Games for Windows" brand.One of the requirements to get that brand is to have a 64 bit version of the game. This game, when launching under Windows XP, checks to make sure you have Service Pack 2 installed. Windows XP64 does not have a Service Pack 2, therefore I need to either downgrade my system to XP32, or purchase Vista in order to play this game, apparently. Sigh. EDIT - Yeah, says on the box under "Minimum Requirements" that it wants "Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2, Vista." Never mind that XP64 had all of the SP2 stuff put in SP1. I guess I'll just shelve the game until they issue a patch, or I upgrade to a new PC that can run Vista. Posted by Leisher on Feb. 26 2007,18:33
Why did you ever go to XP64? It's the Sega32X of PCs. Check their FAQs or forums, you can't be the only person on the planet to suffer this issue. Games for Windows (if you have the version we want you to have...) Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2007,20:35
1. 64 bit OS is the future, for a while. I imagine we'll be on 128bit CPU's and OS's within 20 years, or so. I have a 64 bit CPU, why would I want a 32bit OS? I process 64-bit CPU commands (because I am running 64 bit windows, and 64 bit software, when I can) almost twice as fast as you. Ha ha (nelson).2. Don't ask me how, but I got the game running. I was screwing with .ini files, and I tweaked the right thing, I guess. 3. Yes, other peeps in the support forums say they couldn't even get the game to launch under XP64, due to the SP2 issue. There were no developer comments in those threads. ++++++++++++++++ Ok......... on to my initial impressions after the first campaign mission: 1. Graphics: With every graphical setting set for the lowest setting, dual-monitor was choppy as hell. 1 frame every 5 seconds. Obviously unplayable. But, when I set the game to only use one monitor (I actually had to disable the 2nd monitor in windows, though, as to scroll the map you have to mouse to the edge of the screen... dual monitor just took the mouse to the next screen with no scroll), I was able to crank the graphics up to max with only very slight lag when there were big battles happening. So, here I am, 1 monitor, maxed graphics. AMD Athalon 64 3700 2.21ghz, 2 gb RAM 7800 GT video card w/256mb RAM. 2. I like how this is very much a TA sequel. 2a. Most of the hotkeys are the same. 2b. The c-units have the black and yellow "construction" stripes, but they need to be more obvious. Hard to see at a glance. 2c. Maybe it is my single monitor setup, but I'm going to have to get used to the zooming and scrolling. I almost wish the game were LESS epic and it didn't require you to have 2 monitors and a PC with power that hasn't been invented yet. A regular old graphical update to TA would have been great. 2d. I don't like how power and metal indicators are on opposite sides of the screen. Can't see them both at a glance. Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 27 2007,06:55
I don't know if anyone's noticed, but when you run dual monitors, it actually runs a second instance of the game. So, dual core, or dual CPU will probably help a dual monitor setup alot.There are alot of people who claim to run dual monitors with 50+ FPS through the whole game one hardware that's not much more powerful than mine. They don't go into details as to how they do it. But I agree. There's too much game here right now and there's no affordable hardware to run it on. Much like TA, we'll have to wait a few years for technology to catch up to really enjoy multi playing this game, I think. It really does bother me that in their 'Make the game perform better' FAQ, they say things like: 1. Turn the second monitor off. (In fact, that's one way to improve dual monitor performance?) 2. Play with no sound. 3. Turn your settings down. Disable shadows, AA, etc. 4. Zoom into an empty space of ground where there are no units or anything else happening. Ummmm. Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 27 2007,07:23
You left off:5. Don't play the game, just imagine what it would be like instead. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2007,09:17
(Cakedaddy @ Feb. 27 2007,09:55) QUOTE I don't know if anyone's noticed, but when you run dual monitors, it actually runs a second instance of the game. I hadn't made that conenction yet, but it makes perfect sense according to what I was seeing last night. So are quad core CPU's out, yet? Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2007,09:19
You know..... damn..... if they are running 2 instances of the game, anyway.... they should invent a new LAN style of gaming that lets you play a single game on TWO networked PC's, and therefore distribute the load on 2 computers.I should patent that idea for a single player game. Posted by WSGrundy on Feb. 27 2007,09:44
I saw an interview with the creator of the game and he was saying that there aren't any PC's on the market right now that can run the game with the largest maps and max number of players going at it.I'm sure some of that is bragging but from the looks of it there some truth there also. Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2007,17:16
Not sure if I'd call that a bragging point. Not saying he didn't see it as that, but... "Our code's so bloated and inefficient that you can't run it!"Way to go! Posted by Leisher on Feb. 28 2007,05:17
QUOTE So are quad core CPU's out, yet? Yes. I just spec'd out a Dell with a quad core CPU. I think I had the final price somewhere around $12500. Posted by Cakedaddy on Feb. 28 2007,08:28
< Quad CPU prices >Not sure about motherboard/mem and stuff. Didnt' research at all. Posted by GORDON on Feb. 28 2007,11:31
Goddammit.
Posted by WSGrundy on Feb. 28 2007,15:42
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2007,17:16) QUOTE Not sure if I'd call that a bragging point. Not saying he didn't see it as that, but... "Our code's so bloated and inefficient that you can't run it!" Way to go! I think it was more of "Our game maps are so large and massive and beautiful that PCs don't have to power to run them at the highest level yet." Posted by Vince on Feb. 28 2007,15:58
distinction without a difference, really.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 01 2007,03:01
I DO remember TA, when it came out, pushed my then-midrange-PC to it's limits and beyond... but TA is one of the immortal great games, so I will give SC a chance, and build a new machine to suit the software.Just like I've been doing for pretty much 15 years. IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe? Posted by Vince on Mar. 02 2007,10:59
(GORDON @ Mar. 01 2007,05:01) QUOTE IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe? True, but if the PROGRAMMERS were really clever they could get the same (or near the same) results with fewer cycles. Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 03 2007,11:31
(Vince @ Mar. 02 2007,12:59) QUOTE (GORDON @ Mar. 01 2007,05:01) QUOTE IT COULD be the software requires so many cycles because the AI is so clever.... maybe? True, but if the PROGRAMMERS were really clever they could get the same (or near the same) results with fewer cycles. That sort of programming is expensive. Posted by GORDON on Mar. 03 2007,12:49
Ok, played mission 2 of the UEF last night, and when assaulting the Aeon base with max units the game slowed down to about 1 frame per second. This is with just 1 monitor. So. K.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 03 2007,22:06
I haven't suffered any sort of slowdown yet. Although I haven't reached unit max either.
Posted by Cakedaddy on Mar. 04 2007,00:11
I'm doing mostly skirmishes now. Beat my first supreme AI. The only slow down I noticed was when my tech 2 radar came online. I froze for 1/4 when it was gathering intel. Ran fine otherwise. Biggest 'army' I've used so far has been about 40 units. Enemy has had alot more than that, but normally attacks with smaller groups. So there have been no large scale engagements yet.I play on two monitors and have not had any slow downs during skirmish play. Will beat the supreme AI a couple more times, and then will be doing multiple medium AIs. Should increase unit count. . . My CPU is normally pegged at 100% the entire game. |
||||