aw, poor Chuck

Is SupCom also micro intensive? Or is it like SC2, where you can hotkey all your buildings to 1 hotkey and not worry about going back to your base and individually clicking each rax and building a rine?

jimminy_kriket

Canada5546 Posts

September 01 2007 19:36 GMT

#22

Tell him no matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to beat you at starcraft. Then tell him you could anally rape him after playing one month of supcom.

Thats the difference.

azndsh

United States4447 Posts

September 01 2007 19:53 GMT

#23

On September 02 2007 04:36 jimminy_kriket wrote:
Tell him no matter how hard he tries, he will not be able to beat you at starcraft. Then tell him you could anally rape him after playing one month of supcom.

Thats the difference.

QFT

Rice

United States1332 Posts

September 01 2007 19:53 GMT

#24

whats supcom

i think that pretty much answers your question

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

September 01 2007 19:55 GMT

#25

are you playing micro tourney or something, or supcom gives you 30 types of units at the start of the game

New Zealand6138 Posts

September 01 2007 19:56 GMT

#26

This thread is not going to end well.

DrainX

Sweden3187 Posts

September 01 2007 20:24 GMT

#27

When you can zoom out the way you can in supcom micro becomes nonexistent since everyone plays on max out zoom since macro is much easier that way. It just removes a dimension from the game ._.

.MistiK

Netherlands347 Posts

September 01 2007 21:08 GMT

#28

now is a tank, then its a fortified gun

so funny but so true

Nyovne

Netherlands19141 Posts

September 01 2007 21:24 GMT

#29

On September 02 2007 03:41 cravy wrote:
Starcraft is a much better game if just because of the UI

ROFL, haha its even true thats the worst part.

Frits

11782 Posts

September 01 2007 21:29 GMT

#30

I played supcom and got bored of that unbelievable shitgame in 2 days.

-A game takes fucking hours to complete.
-Boats suck because it costs about 30 minutes to actually get to build one.
-The units look TOTALLY uninspired.
-There are 3 races but I can't seem to find a single different thing about them, what the fuck.
-5 tier 2 turrets > 150 heavy tanks
-There is no height difference.
-It takes 2 hours to build a nuke, it takes 30 seconds to counter a nuke.
-units move and turn slower than my grandma, meaning there is ZERO micro in this game
-What macro there is is totally lame because you can just take 10 buildings, put a rally point and click build and those 10 buildings will produce 10 units, while the resource management takes about 10 clicks until you're done with that. Resulting in sitting on your ass for half an hour watching the screen.
-stuff like dropships units are useless, you can only transport crap with them and they get killed in 2 shots or something

Supreme commander is the kind of game for casual gamers who like to play at a slow pace. I guess the whole "battles on a huge scale" is kinda cool, which is probably why some people like it. It comes nowhere near the strategic depth that starcraft has.

Also: Graphics is more than utilizing good new-age technology, sure supreme commander has 100x better graphics technical, but starcraft is still soooooo much more pleasant to look at. =[

Clutch3

United States1344 Posts

September 02 2007 04:15 GMT

#31

I've played some SupCom and I agree that SC is a far superior game, but honestly a lot of the criticisms here strike me as ignorant.

SupCom does allow you to build units from multiple buildings, making macro a lot easier, but the resource gathering part of macro is actually more time-consuming (esp. at tier 3) than in SC. I feel that macro alone in SupCom actually takes more skill to do very well, because it's truly an exponential growth curve, but that overall the multitasking is quite a bit easier. Also, you need to task engineers to those macro buildigns if you want to play competitively. In SupCom, if you are rich in resources, you don't build more and more factories (to a point), you task more and more engineers to existing structures.

The units for each faction are identical, which sucks terribly. IMHO the biggest disadvantage of the game. Alone, this feature makes the game well inferior to SC.

Micro does happen and is quite useful in many games.

And I actually don't think that static defenses are overpowered. Five tier-2 turrets will get taken down by many many fewer than 150 tier-2 tanks.

And actually, while the UI isn't great, anyone playing competitive games on multiplayer plays zoomed-in at the squad level most of the time, since micro is quite important.

As far as strategic depth, there are actually a lot of ins and outs, although the lack of three truly individual races hurts this, the availability of more different classes of units adds to the depth somewhat.

And I really disagree about the slow pace. I've played not too many multiplayer games of SupCom online, but the games are generally decided about as fast as SC games on b.net, from what I've seen.

Fast edit: Oh, and the argument that SupCom is superior to SC because "more units is better" is just terrible. Chess only has 6 types of units. Does that mean there's no strategic depth??

intrigue

Washington, D.C9935 Posts

September 02 2007 04:27 GMT

#32

wow umm the things that guy is saying about starcraft in the first post is enough to end a friendship

EpiK

Korea (South)5757 Posts

September 02 2007 04:32 GMT

#33

On September 02 2007 13:27 intrigue wrote:
wow umm the things that guy is saying about starcraft in the first post is enough to end a friendship

qft

just kill him actually

i.play.ZERG

Canada276 Posts

September 02 2007 04:39 GMT

#34

Dude you got bullied

New Zealand6138 Posts

September 02 2007 04:43 GMT

#35

On September 02 2007 13:32 EpiK wrote:

qft

just kill him actually

Seconded, dunno why it wasn't suggested earlier.

iNFeRnO

Canada254 Posts

September 02 2007 04:59 GMT

#36

On September 02 2007 13:39 i.play.ZERG wrote:
Dude you got bullied

i m trying to convince him to play sc lol, if i approach him with bm attitude he'd never even give a second thought. he obviously thinks supcom is the shit, and he thinks he played sc long enough to know why it sucks

some people just wont move no matter how hard u push them

jimminy_kriket

Canada5546 Posts

September 02 2007 05:06 GMT

#37

Maybe we just havent played supcom enough? Maybe it is better than starcraft?

Fuck that. Kill your friend.

Excalibur_Z

United States12266 Posts

September 02 2007 05:20 GMT

#38

While ordinarily I would flame your post because it's yet another chatlog of yet another person bashing SC yet again, I'll simply say that if you want your friend to play SC, you simply need to show him one or all of the following 3 things:

1) Pro replays (to get an up-close look at the skill involved, and when watched in multiplayer you can explain some of the more amazing parts of the game and direct his focus)
2) Televised league games, esp. championship games like an OGN Final (to get a feel for the size of the fanbase)
3) Pro FPVODs (to showcase the necessary speed and multitasking to compete at high levels)

Usually that is enough to inspire even the newbiest of newbs to try playing. Then once they try, the game will either inspire them further to become determined to improve (which is when the game can be appreciated on so many different levels and becomes truly enjoyable) or it will break their spirits once they realize how hard it is. Both outcomes accomplish the same goal: your friend will have the utmost respect for SC.

Gokey

United States2722 Posts

September 02 2007 05:22 GMT

#39

die non-sc believer, die!

Equinox_kr

United States7395 Posts

September 02 2007 05:23 GMT

#40

Urgh, I hate people like this who compare BW to some random game and they ALWAYS think BW is inferior.

Take one of my friends for example; he plays LOTS of War3; he thinks BW is imbalanced due to Dark Swarms and Siege Tanks. I say War3 is completely imba.