So it has come.

Torontonias · Post by **Torontonias** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:02 am

I don't know why it has to go down to a "Which game is better -fest" I'm just looking forward to the game coming out, I don't anticipate it'll be a radical shift in any Genre, I just really enjoyed the game.

Personally, I think all the major RTS developers are conspiring to steal away all my time rather than letting me get a summer job.

Derscon · Post by **Derscon** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:04 am

Arizona Nova wrote:*wonders why no one catches the inherent irony in using a Halo 2 quote to talk about Starcraft 2*

No, I lol'd a bit.

Sun May 20, 2007 4:09 am

Torontonias wrote:I don't know why it has to go down to a "Which game is better -fest"

Because Supreme Commander is twice the pw that Starcrap 2 could ever be!

Blademasters · Post by **Blademasters** » Sun May 20, 2007 1:36 pm

Central Facehuggeria wrote:
Torontonias wrote:I don't know why it has to go down to a "Which game is better -fest"
Because Supreme Commander is twice the pw that Starcrap 2 could ever be!

QFT

Though Starcraft 2 could be good

Aegeus · Post by **Aegeus** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:06 pm

Meh. I've liked pretty much all the blizzgames i've played. (even lost vikings was fun), and I'm willing to commit the 50 bucks to the sequel to my single favorite game of all time, Hell I reinstalled it and beat the normal and BW campaigns over again this most recent Christmas for giggles.

As to graphics, I've never once seen a blizzard game with "cutting edge" graphics or w/e, but that isn't really the point. Games can have amazing graphics, but play like a brick, where blizzard games almost always play beautifully, though they don't come waxed and spit-shined.

I've never liked supcom, the lack of micro and the impersonality of the game just sort of excludes it from my tastes, that and I never could really get into the story, there weren't strong enough characters to make it interesting.

Give me Raynor, Kerrigan, and Zeratul, and I'm happy any day of the year.

How about, rather than griping about why it's this that or the other, or how another game is arbitratily better, why dont we talk about why we do or dont like it, rather than just "Yayayayaminesbetteryayaya"

Sun May 20, 2007 5:56 pm

Aegeus wrote: the lack of micro

Lack of micro is a good thing, IMO. It means the game doesn't devolve into who can click the fastest, but instead who has the best strategy.

there weren't strong enough characters to make it interesting.

I take it you didn't play either the Cybran or Aeon campaigns?

How about, rather than griping about why it's this that or the other, or how another game is arbitratily better, why dont we talk about why we do or dont like it, rather than just "Yayayayaminesbetteryayaya"

Nuclear weapons. Supreme Commander nuclear weapons are actually impressive. You can see them on the minimap when they go off. They wipe out whole screens of enemy units unless stopped with a strategic missile defense unit.

Starcrap nuclear weapons are more akin to SupCom tactical missiles. Weak, slow, and quite unimpressive.

Hand in hand with the nuclear weapons is the sheer scale of SupCom. On the larger maps, a single *screen* would take up an entire Starcrap map.

Proper artillery, too, is a big thing about SupCom. Artillery which actually has a range greater than a hundred feet.

And then there's the whole naval aspect. Starcrap has none. SupCom has a fully developed and useful navy with everything from subs and frigates to battleships and submersible aircraft carriers.

Speaking of huge warunits... SupCom experimentals are actually scaled correctly. A Czar isn't only slightly bigger than a Mech Marine, unlike with Starcrap and its Battlecruisers that can barely fit a *single* marine inside them.

And then there's the whole siege aspect which I love. An enemy can hunker down behind their shields and turtle, and you actually have to have skill to break them. Unlike Starcrap where you can always just zerg rush their base.

Fluffwise we all know that SupCom would anally violate Starcrap like Mekanta in a girls' school. They grow as fast as the Zerg (probably faster, but I'm throwing you a bone here.), but their units are much, much more powerful.

Let's compare: The UEF's basic infantry unit, the Mech Marine, is an eight meter tall combat robot with dual 150mm autocannons capable of running at around 500 kilometers/hour. The Terrans' basic infantry unit is the Terran Marine, a six or seven foot tall man in crappy power armor, carrying a crappy gun that always seems to ping off even Zergling carapace (as in the Broodwar intro.)

Sskiss · Post by **Sskiss** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:11 pm

An impressive comparison analysis I must say!

Post by **Arizona Nova** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:14 pm

Derscon wrote:
Arizona Nova wrote:*wonders why no one catches the inherent irony in using a Halo 2 quote to talk about Starcraft 2*
No, I lol'd a bit.

Excellent. I promise your death will be quick and painless ere the end of all things.

Otagia · Post by **Otagia** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:19 pm

Here's a factor: My computer can't run SupCom. Blizzard, on the other hand, is pretty much known for making games that'll run on nearly anything.

Post by **Arizona Nova** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:56 pm

HA HA HA. How hopelessly naive you are Blaesa! It would warm my heart if it already wasn't a BLACKENED CINDER.

This is the brave new world where you have to have a 128 mb video card to run Windows Vista: Non-Lobotomized Edition. If SC2 doesn't require anything short of a Cray supercomputer to run, I'll be very surprised.

EDIT: Yeah, I just saw some screenshots. Your computers? Throw them away. They're paperweights. USELESS.