A construction project would drain resources continuously as it was built, where most other strategy games require full payment upfront, and then the player waits for the unit to complete- the model to which SupCom 2 switched. In TA and SupCom 1, resources were generated and spent continuously.
This is very obviously the biggest step backwards from the original game. The core mistake of the sequel was to change the fundamental economic mechanics used. However it is not the complex, intricate, and grand scale strategic juggernaut that its father was- there are smaller maps, fewer units, and simpler, easier, and fewer decisions to make. Before I rip it a new orifice I need to say that it is a fun game, and actually an excellent candidate for introducing someone new to the RTS genre. What I want to discuss in this post is what, specifically, went wrong, and why.ĭespite my reservations about the game, I have spent a few hundred hours playing it (which pales in comparison to my time spent with TA and SupCom). It is common sentiment among many of SupCom 2’s player base that, while a decent game in its own right on many points, it fails to live up to the original Supreme Commander for a variety of reasons. Suffice to say, the sequel did not live up to the hype. Still, Supreme Commander showed great promise as a franchise, and I was looking forward to the direction Chris Taylor would take the series. The original game and its expansion, Forged Alliance, were worthy spiritual successors to their precursor, Total Annihilation, but had room for improvement.
Speaking for myself, Supreme Commander 2 was easily my most anticipated title of 2010.
0 kommentar(er)
