Supreme Commander 2 Discussion
i'm with u on this. i just hate when people keep whining about graphics. i thought games were supposed to be fun...its supposed to be entertainment.
Welcome to 2010. Everything is supposed to be faster, better, and graphically amazing. At least, that's what a lot of us expect. However, just because a game is NEW does not mean it needs to have bleeding-edge graphics. Yet again, graphical technology in games should NEVER digress. Whereas the graphics in this game are quite nice, I firmly believe they 'dumbed down' the graphics just because they were lazy. As has been said, this game is to be ported to consoles as well as the PC; if the graphics are substandard on the PC (which I don't think they are, just using as an example) then it's that much easier to port it onto a console without the computing power of a PC.
The weapons animations are amazing; MOST of the units' animations are nice, however, they do suffer from 'sliding', which should've been easily remedied. The graphics do have a bit of a cartoony feel, especially compared to the first one, but cartoony isn't necessarily bad; look at WoW, or the entire Warcraft lineup in general. It's just a different angle on graphics.
I for one was satisfied with the graphics in this game...max settings, etc, it's very pleasing to the eye. And the unit design is AMAZING...I can't say there are any units in this game that don't just stand out. I'd imagine Squeenix had something to do with that
They said this at the beginning (if you decided to follow the dev reports...) that it would be easier on systems *translation* not as much fluff and fancy stuff, more about strategy, combat and sheer numbers. You saw the video E3 stuff, you knew it would be just a bit less..but the environments are top notch!
I do not see why you people are complaining. yes the graphics are different, they used a lot more team colors, however the bump maps are there, the effects are great and the unit animations again are great. Your units now have dual purposes instead of one single thing..which cuts down on the unit numbers. I can run this game without any issues with all the units on the screen battling it out. I say they did a great job in balancing the looks vs the actual gameplay.
exactly! i just don't agree with people who whine about every lil' thing. y do we play games? we play them to be entertained. so...if Donkey Kong or Tetris or Pacman gets u going till this day..then that's the game for u. simply because those games r from over two decades ago with 2D gfx doesn't make them redundant.
Don't let it slide, mate Fuel for air units - why not for ground units then? The reactors should be similar, power outputs and the like. (It's the future, it's not like they're gonna run on fossil fuels - and as said, why don't ground units use fuel too then?)
C&C4 is NOT a Dawn of War 2 rip by the way, C&C4 is so bad it hurts, while DoW2 is an awesome tactical game.
Regarding several graphics comments; it isn't as easy as "beautiful or ugly" - it's the design that's at fault. RA3's graphic engine is quite decent (although optimized for a childish game), but the textures, models and unit designs are just to hell.
Supcom 1 is demanding as hell, but they could've redone the graphics engine, made it more scalable, and still kept the awesome unit designs - the complexity and the "mature" (for the lack of a better word) looks. C&C3 was pretty good at this too - the Scrin was somewhat odd, a little over the top perhaps, but - it worked out well. The units were quite believable and seemed quite (at least in most cases) logically (realistically, to some extent) designed.
For an RTS, that is - of course. RTS's will never (in the forseeable future) reach the same complexity and unit detail as, say, an FPS, for several logical reasons.
That would rule.
* Updated game trainers and cheats daily
* Get notified when new cheats are added
* Request which games get new trainers
* Priority support with any problem