In SupCom , instead of going out to cap mass points you can just sit in your base and build mass fabricators . If thats not enough , at tier3 just produce SubComs that you can upgrade to produce mass and power . Once you mass these things just hide them under water and viola , you have an economy that is hard to harass. If your subcoms are found by the enemy , dont worry , they are one of the units with the highest hit points and they can fight back . So you essentially have an economy that can move around the map , attack and take lots of damage .Did I mention they are the best builders in the game ? They build faster than engineers. This is just one unit I am talking about .

Funchucks

Canada2113 Posts

September 03 2007 12:13 GMT

#62

These games shouldn't really be compared.

Supreme Commander fully fits the description of Real-Time Strategy. You play it like a commander giving orders, you have time (though not unlimited) to think and plan, and the quality of your strategy is the biggest determining factor in whether you'll win or lose.

Starcraft was intended to be an RTS. However, it turned out to be something new and unexpected. You don't play it like a commander. You take the role of something like a god of war, possessing normally clumsy, bumbling units and briefly making them deadly efficient.

You don't just tell dropships what to do, you pilot them through tricky maneuvers. You don't just tell dragoons where they should go and who they should attack, you guide them through each step and shot. You dodge marines around the spines of lurkers. You don't just order units to be made, you go to each factory and you make them, often at a severe cost of front-line troop incompetence.

For that reason, I don't consider Starcraft a strategy game. It's a strategic game, one which involves strategy, but strategy is not the dominant feature of play.

So it's an apples vs. oranges comparison. Pointless.

brambolius

Netherlands448 Posts

September 03 2007 12:17 GMT

#63

Asura - ramen ftw says:
haha dude u dont know what ur talking about

you shuldve stopped here, this guy isnt worth the time

Zanno

United States1484 Posts

September 03 2007 12:20 GMT

#64

I had a similar argument with a friend about SC vs Warhammer and all I had to do to shut him up was tell him that the best SC players execute about 300 actions per minute whereas Warhammer is more like 50

he really didn't know how to respond to that

vstar

Korea (South)693 Posts

September 03 2007 12:25 GMT

#65

People who think any other RTS is better than Starcraft should think again.

Falcynn

United States3597 Posts

September 03 2007 12:47 GMT

#66

I can't comment on the actual gameplay seeing as how I"ve never played SupCom, but as far as how fun it is to watch and which game makes a better spectator sport. Definetately Starcraft. I've seen some VOD's of SupCom games and I always find myself just screaming, "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?!?!?!". With Starcraft however, my friends have never even once played the game, but when I show them VOD's they really get into it and enjoy them a lot.

Also my soundcard's been fried for the past couple of months so it has nothing to do with the Korean commentators.

pyrogenetix

China5098 Posts

September 03 2007 12:50 GMT

#67

starcraft vs other RTS arguements do not exist. there is no arguement. there is only lack of understanding on the latter party. you on the other hand should just turn on your heel and walk away. if he persists bet him his two hands that sc is a better game. see if the motherfucker dares say anything else.

maybenexttime

Poland5888 Posts

September 03 2007 13:05 GMT

#68

On September 03 2007 21:13 Funchucks wrote:
These games shouldn't really be compared.

Supreme Commander fully fits the description of Real-Time Strategy. You play it like a commander giving orders, you have time (though not unlimited) to think and plan, and the quality of your strategy is the biggest determining factor in whether you'll win or lose.

Starcraft was intended to be an RTS. However, it turned out to be something new and unexpected. You don't play it like a commander. You take the role of something like a god of war, possessing normally clumsy, bumbling units and briefly making them deadly efficient.

You don't just tell dropships what to do, you pilot them through tricky maneuvers. You don't just tell dragoons where they should go and who they should attack, you guide them through each step and shot. You dodge marines around the spines of lurkers. You don't just order units to be made, you go to each factory and you make them, often at a severe cost of front-line troop incompetence.

For that reason, I don't consider Starcraft a strategy game. It's a strategic game, one which involves strategy, but strategy is not the dominant feature of play.

So it's an apples vs. oranges comparison. Pointless.

Except for the fact that SupCom has 3 identical factions where only one is playable ROFL. It's a game where the best abuser wins. Little strategy involved; maybe if it wasn't so imbalanced, rendering certain units way overpowered, one could at least strategize a bit.

PePe QuiCoSE

Argentina1204 Posts

September 03 2007 14:27 GMT

#69

On September 02 2007 23:40 iNFeRnO wrote:

Show nested quote +

i'm pretty sure SC is a better game than supcom, not only for the reason its more fun for me. SC was a milestone for the entire RTS genre, and it still is popular after 10 years. What about supcom? I played when the game came out and there were some ppl but it was all hype, nowadays u get to see as many as only 500 players on their server, the game lasted what, a couple months? This fact alone already tells you which game is more superior, not to mention the gameplay mechanics.

That tells you that SC has been far more popular than Supcom, not that it is a better game. By that thinking you could say that Windows is better than Linux because it's the most used OS. I like SC more than Supcom, i haven't played Supcom so i just make it up of vods and trailers i have seen., but i can't just say that one is better than the other out of nowhere (bandwagon).

TRUESCFAN

14 Posts

May 30 2012 00:46 GMT

#70

The amount of ignorance here is too much to pass up. Here is a new ending to this thread: