For Supreme Commander 2 on the PC, GameFAQs has 3 FAQs (game guides and walkthroughs), 82 cheat codes and secrets, 47 achievements, 4 reviews, 30 critic reviews, and 10 user screenshots. Monster pet shop games.
The most noticeable difference is that Supreme Commander 2 sucks.SC2 was dumped down in pretty much every way and is basically a spam fest like so many mediocre RTSs out there.The original Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance, on the other hand, is a strategic masterpiece. You can spam units all you like but careless assault against well fortified position will still get those units killed. You need to use more of your brain and more tactics. Scouting and intelligent gathering/counterintelligent is of utmost importance. You do get to really plan more than just 'what's to spam to win' and it feels much, much more satisfying when the plan you cooked up bears fruits.Oh, and if you're the type who cares about campaign, like me, both SC and FA campaign are great while SC2 campaign seems to be written by a baby who was high on anime at the time of writing.
Originally posted by:The most noticeable difference is that Supreme Commander 2 sucks.SC2 was dumped down in pretty much every way and is basically a spam fest like so many mediocre RTSs out there.The original Supreme Commander and Forged Alliance, on the other hand, is a strategic masterpiece. You can spam units all you like but careless assault against well fortified position will still get those units killed. You need to use more of your brain and more tactics. Scouting and intelligent gathering/counterintelligent is of utmost importance. You do get to really plan more than just 'what's to spam to win' and it feels much, much more satisfying when the plan you cooked up bears fruits.Oh, and if you're the type who cares about campaign, like me, both SC and FA campaign are great while SC2 campaign seems to be written by a baby who was high on anime at the time of writing.Yup. Thumbs up.Forged alliance: Masterpiece.SC2: Mediocre garbage. Just get FA today, not dissapointed.It's like I'm controlling the army of the whole country.
The eco is awesome. But I need more time to learn the system more about tech levelling.But like the above said.
With that size of army like that still can get destroyed. So this game must rely heavily on strategy.SC2 in the other hand. Is more simple and easier to understand. The game is more fast-paced(Which I like because I'm C&C veteran) with smaller maps(Just compare SC1/FA Seton's Clutch to SC2 Seton's Clutch.) and less units.However, units in SC2 is never go useless because of the research system that keeps improve unit as the game progress while in SC1/FA when you get new tech level the last tech units become useless.Another thing I agree with others.
SC2 story is complete bull$hit.Both are good games. But they play differently. Well but why is having to spam a single unit (e.g.: The Aeon Bot) better than having to create a real army with squads of antitank units antiair units and siege units in the right composition?( and positioning them in a correct way)i found myself building facctories setting them to endless construction before they finish and telling my army multiple way points threw the enemy base until its destroyedwhile in SC1 i had to really split my army up so at least one part could penetrate the enemies defenses. Originally posted by:well but why is having to spam a single unit (e.g.: The Aeon Bot) better than having to create a real army with squads of antitank units antiair units and siege units in the right composition?( and positioning them in a correct way)i found myself building facctories setting them to endless construction before they finish and telling my army multiple way points threw the enemy base until its destroyedwhile in SC1 i had to really split my army up so at least one part could penetrate the enemies defensesI believe it is just a matter of prefrence. The game can be played in many ways which makes it an awsome game. Supreme Commander & Forged Alliance: 1153h played. Not nearly done with it.Supreme Commander 2: 6.3h played.
Being an RTS fan since childhood, I REALLY wanted to like it, but I just couldn't.SC2 feels like a typical case where community feedback from game 1 resulted in a sequel that does some things right but feels all around 'meh'. They may have fixed Issues like units bumping into each other repeatedly and taking a long time to get going, slower CPU computers not being able to handle big battles, graphically intense scenes resulting in poor performance on computers of the time, etc.
But the result is, especially on a modern computer, boring.-So bad it's on the 'not worth playing' list for future gaming. I'd rather replay other, older RTS.-It's graphically bad, looks 'messy' in general.-Controlling units is more difficult in it (might be a learning thing)-Unit design might be innovative, but it's a game, where mechanics are more important than coolness factor.-The whole game feels a lot 'smaller scale' when it comes to big wars.-Everything is simpler, which means less options and available strategies.-No game speed adjustment in campaign. I have to disagree with the innovative unit design.
I hate everything about SC2 visual. Units in SC2 feels to me like they're toys or robots from bad quality cartoons rather than something that would really be used as machines of war, a feeling original Supreme Commander completely nailed. The colour scheming doesn't help as SC2 units somehow smear the player colour all over them (which looks very ugly) instead of in a small paint over the material colour like the original.
Also, I really can't tell the difference between UEF and Cybran units in SC2, even though they were so apparent in 1.And whoever came up with the idea of the Cybranosaurus Rex deserves to be dragged out into the street and shot, repeatedly.
Rating: 3.4/5 (7 voted) Share game with friends