|
|
|
|
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
34 Comments
|
 |
by dfgd (Unregistered) - 2007-02-21 |
|
 
|
Well personally both games are very different.
Although i think C&C will do much better out of the two because of what it is. C&C is really the god of RTS and if they get it right this time should stay that way.
I dont see why there needs to be a battle though. Both games are great in their own respects and very different in others.
Lets just get both and enjoy both what they offer! :)
|
Re: Older gamer (Unregistered) - 2007-02-21 |
|
|
C+C the original WAS great when westwood was purely in control. But after the take over of EA, things gotten muddy to a point that I can clearly tell they rushed the designers and programmers to launch a profit-breed-only product just to get the revenues up. SupCom is designed w/ enjoyable gaming perspectives first, profit second. Their tech trees are far more advanced strategic-wise. With C+C, all you need to know is to get tons and tons of tanks to win, but with SupCom, a fixture of units and a bit of strategy/experience is a must-have to win.
Just my opinions. Younger gamers can beg to differ.
|
by Battle4Apathy (Unregistered) - 2007-02-21 |
|
|
Spring is only a system hogger if you set everything to maximum settings.. http://taspring.clan-sy.com, it's free to download and play!
|
by Fingolfin (Unregistered) - 2007-02-21 |
|
|
C&C was a great game, had an immense story and pioneered many things in the genre, but TA, especially for so small a team and budget and for the sheer depth and creativity of gameplay was IMO by FAR the greatest RTS ever made. Modern day RTS games *still* lack the control features TA had 10 years ago. 10 YEARS! Anyway I have my copy of Supreme Commander on pre-order - ooo I cannot wait! However, I'll probably buy C&C3 as well, but it's a totally different angle - all about story and immersion rather than strategic and tactical depth. Bring 'em both! I love it!
|
by jimmyzhong (Unregistered) - 2007-02-21 |
|
|
Lets see.. Old C&C-like 40 units/buildings total. TA-like 80 for each side. Plus the huge fanbase creating mods and aditional races and stuff. Besides, you can't even find a working dl for the RA2 map editor anymore... And the nukes and weatherstorms can't be intercepted. But hey, why bicker about it when you can get both?
|
by spork182 (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
It seems to me that Chris Taylor didn't make either game to contend for the title of best RTS game, but rather to create a world of strategy as he saw fit. For those of us who enjoy the way he made the game, SupCom will be best. The C&C story was a great story, and up until Tiberium Sun I was a fan. However, like mentioned above, they seemed to start rolling out games on the same engines, with little or no effort put into them and honestly it showed REALLY badly. But strangely enough, there's this crowd that follows Westwood Stds no matter what crap they put out, like a pathetic girl that won't break up with an abusive alcoholic. But hey, if CnC3 is good, I'll get it. The odds are definately against them anyways.
|
by christaylor v2.0 (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
supreme commander has such strategic depth ...its insane there are soooo many things you can do ...it is going to keep ppl busy for years to come...BUT C&C3 looks pretty awesome too..it looks fast and action packed a real adrenaline rush AHHH just get BOTH !!
|
by RTS fan (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
Hello guys,
I am making the above statement based on my experience with ALL but the very first C&C game. I really liked the story-driven campaign and the (somewhat) cool-looking units and effects but...there really is NO strategy in the C&C games...Whomever pupms out the most tanks first wins. And there's the engeneer/tanya/crazy Ivan/whatever rushes as well... The whole series is made for profit and enjoyment, not strategic thinking.
I am yet to try out SupCom, so no word on that yet. If it lives up to the hype level it should be great. I hope to see it on World Cyber Games one day. This will really change the way people look at the event as there will be more mature players joining in.
I will still get BOTH games though! :) C&C will be much easier and more relaxing and fun to play. SupCom will be the hardcore RTS for me.
Cheers!
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Ambo (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
As almost everyone else has said, they really are totaly different games.
I've been playing supcom for the last few days and love it, it's absolutley superb and imo it's the only RTS I've ever played where large scale strategies can be truly effective as opposed to simply rushing.
I was a big fan of C&C1, Red Alert and Generals (C&C 2 was not great and because of that I didn't bother with RA 2)
I'll probably be getting C&C3 because it will probably be a good game. tbh though I would not expect any suprises from it, no real greatness and not much in the way of strategy.
For this reason I'd say supcom is the better RTS. (though I obviously havn't played C&C3 so you never know!)
|
by lifekatana (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
Supcom is the best!
|
by Eschatos (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
I've never played C&C for more than a few hours. On the other hand, I've been on the SC Beta, and the game owns. Finally true strategy. Sure, it's not perfect, but nothing is. I'm buying it today.
|
by Arnold (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
CnC was great for it's time, but the minute TA came out it was done, they really are two different games, but if you REALLY want a smaller scale Tactical RTS Company Of Heroes is the same CnC type of game, but it does it way better to be blunt.
|
by rts (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
I am a big rts fan and I own every single cnc game and Total Anhilliation. Ive been playing the SupCom demo and it's great. The advantages of the old TA is that it is a very hardcore strategy game. Cnc is more relaxed but the story and units make it more fun. The old cnc's differed from TA in that there were different units. In TA all the units for both sides were the same, but with different names. Ive heard in SC the units are similar like in TA, but there are some changes. Overall I think both offer different advantages, and both will be great games.
-P.S. - Tiberian Sun is not as bad as everyone says it is. It was actually a really good game for the time it came out.
|
Re: RTS (Unregistered) - 2007-02-27 |
|
|
TA Units were not the same for both sides. Core units were in general cheaper and faster to build, but less powerful than ARM units. Their weapons were different, movement rates, armor, etc. Yes, they often had similar units, but not always the same, usually one unit was designed on one side to counter a unit on the other. Similar to other games where swordsmen are weak against cavalry, but cavalry are weak against pikemen and pikemen are weak against swordsmen.
|
Re: BlackLiger (Unregistered) - 2007-02-28 |
|
|
Um..... you got that reversed. Arm were fast and mobile, Core were slow and overwhelming. And in many ways, C+C had the same setup, just not to the same extreemes.
|
by Paul (Unregistered) - 2007-02-22 |
|
|
Well ive been playing Sup Comm, played RA and TA back in the day, loved RA right up until TA came out, then it was all TA, apart from the odd other game like Star Craft etc, I got Tiberium Sun (spell?) and i think i played it for about an hour and never played it again. I enjoyed the Story in TA, the intro in that game was so cool :-P, to be fair though I would agree TA was more tactical than story driven and vice versa for C&C games. As for Sup Comm, well im loving it, and it has far more story to it than TA did, Units can be similar, but have different strengths and weaknesses, also the Experimentals make a difference to the sides, However I found it hard picking a side to play in the Campaign as i liked them all. Im yet to finish the story but im enjoying it. lets not forget, New units also helped TA's Life span, and Gas Powered Games will be doing the same for Sup Comm as far as ive heard, just not on a weekly basis though :-)
But yeah if you like both the style of the C&C Games and the Sup Comm type then get them both, for me its Sup Comm, but i may take a look at C&C 3 so im not missing out ;-)
|
by www.nodewave.com (Unregistered) - 2007-02-23 |
|
|
I had a lot of fun with C&C as a single player.
But with TA I had a lot more fun, mainly in multiplayer where deep strategy is required and where good and balanced tech trees are required.
Now SupCom and C&C3 are out I see it that things have not changed.
SupCom is a dream for multiplayer stategists, whereas C&C3 has a better storyline and graphics/sounds.
Try the SupCom demo, if you love the strategy then buy it, if you feel to far away from the cool graphics then buy C&C3
www.nodewave.com
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Judge Fluff (Unregistered) - 2007-02-23 |
|
|
If we have not played both games then we cannot really compare them - we can compare histories but that's about it.
We can talk about Supreme Commander's pros and cons but since C&C3 has no demo out yet - at least not for public use - then there is no way to tell if it'll be good or not or how it will play. All we have seen are screenshots and videos. I long to try it out but will there be a competition?
Supreme Commander has a campaign with a storyline, and it is an okay storyline as far as I have played. It has huge maps. It has a wide variety of strategies to use. It even runs pretty good on what could nowadays be called a low end machine.
What will C&C3 give us besides the known fact of pretty faces in the FMVs? What do you need to run it? Will there be as many people able to run it as Supreme Commander? Will it last?
For me C&C Generals didn't last very long. We don't even play it at LAN parties any more. If a game can last you for more than 6 months then you have a good game. If you can re-visit it 2-3 years later and still enjoy it then it's a good game. So basically, if it has a very good and long replay value then you'll have the winner of these two games even if they differ in many ways.
Yet I foresee that C&C3 will be labelled as a classic. Just because of the older games. What will become of Supreme Commander I cannot say. Even the entrails of the evil lawyers cannot tell. Boiling might be in order.
QED --- Judge Fluff
|
by Core Commander (Unregistered) - 2007-02-23 |
|
|
I started play RTS starting with Dune2, played CnC and Warcraft but the came wich really szuck was Total Annnihilation. Totala had a very good interface which was really ahead of its time. Especially together with the 3rd party DemoRecorder it was very easy and convienient to build a base and control a huge army withouth tousands of clicks. Plus there where lots of player made maps,units and even total conversions. i playes TA for years as there was no similar game for a long time. TA:Kingdoms was not so bad but it was hyped to much so peopel were dissapointed. Spring is a good game. It gave a lot control to the player plus it can use all the existing TA units. For hobbyist programmer an excellent work and clearly the best open source RTS today.
I bought supreme Commander yesterday, i am not the big gamer anymore but i still couldnt resist. The game setting is very similar to TA its not th eeternal war anymore but th einfinite war and there are three faction but a lot is tha same there are the gates, the two ressources and of course the commander.
There ar not that many units like in TA, but thats ok TA got a lot of redundant units every side got a tank, a mech, and a hover unit doing basically the same. Depending on the faction Supcom has either a wheeled, legged or hovering unit. So the faction have more optical differences and each hav esome spacial abilities. The campaingn i quite good, there are no movies or so, but you get a briefing and during the mission you get new targets and the map will get larger and larger with the time.
The interface is really good. Again the father was TA but developers improved exactly the rigth things. The seamless zoom is really cool and needed for the maps and the huge differences in size between the smallest and largest unit. Still used to Play TA+Demo Recorder the behaviour was exactly as espected even most shortcuts are the same. Its really fun to command the forces . It was never so easy to command a amphibious landig involving air, sea and land units and all are timed. The Supcom interface is really supreme it helps to concentrating on the best strategy and not on mastering the interface.
Another thing was learned from TA is the user content will make the game popular over long time. GPG states that it will be the most moddable RTS and there are already the first user maps in the web.
CNC has the better story, has movies and a good optical presentation its like a good entertaing hollywood movie.
Supcom really focussed on the game itself it will be played online for year, for strategy and multiplayer fans it has a very hig long term value. I am sure the money spent on Supcom was a good investement and it will be played for years.
|
by Athlon (Unregistered) - 2007-02-24 |
|
|
I've played C&C but Supcom is more for me. Games like DoW and CoH are strategy in order to win the games. Sup Com is a little like that but there is a lot of explosions and the debris stays after the destruction of the unit like CoH and the debris can be destroyed like CoH, its related to dawn of War by its graphics and strategy play. But the down side is its high standers.
|
by DB (Unregistered) - 2007-02-24 |
|
|
C&C was the father of RTS games but it has been around and I think it is time to let new game titles take
over.EA have pushed the C&C title since Generals and
it shows. Let it die and let new games take over before
the title gats a bad name.
|
by Irregular Peanut (Unregistered) - 2007-02-24 |
|
|
I love supcom, I've only had the full game for a couple of days now, and when I played the demo, playing against the hard AI was a blast, even if I lost every time (I'm pretty bad at it :P), because I realize I forgot to upgrade my anti air when they send in the soul ripper or realizing that when playing Finn's Revenge, it's a good idea to have a navy (yes I'm that stupid sometimes). But meh, I'll get better at it, only thing I have a problem with in SC is the need for a badass CPU just to run the game when everyone has decided to build 200+ units on a 4 player map.
|
by Maverikal (Unregistered) - 2007-02-25 |
|
|
(TA)SC and TA have massive scale. Compare the original Seven Islands map to ANY OTHER RTS map. It was insane. The only other game I've seen with that large of maps was O.R.B. but the units in that game weren't really made for the maps. In (TA)SC and TA the units are made to fit the maps size, the defense is suited for the maps, and my favorite, the defenses actually WORK. There isn't that much cheapshotting them like in most RTS games *GENERALS COUGH*. However, TA wasn't anywhere near perfect, the AI was pretty horribad, and there wasn't apparently a large amount of testing for multiplayer (the infamous Atlas/Tranny Rush). However, the scale was still there. It tries to focus more on the entire battle as a whole, which really adds to the strategic depth. This shows through the experimental units mostly, but also in some of the tech three structures. The unit that proves the battle as a whole theory? The UEF Marov Artilley.
However, in defense of Command and Conquer, the series really started the whole RTS series. The originals were really good for their time. I mean who couldn't resist wanting to see a massive fleet of super-sized mammoth tanks rush the enemy forces? My only real complaint was how lacking the super weapons were. The Ion Cannon couldn't really do that much, it's power IMO was lacking very much. The nuke? In a game where you could only build two blocks away from your base, it usually was a pretty big problem. I feel that the difference between the two games is C&C focuses more on the command of units than the command of your base. It's faster paced, which isn't a bad thing, but if you really want strategy, go with (TA)SC. I promise it won't disappoint you as long as you keep your mind open.
|
by Broodman (Unregistered) - 2007-02-25 |
|
|
The kings of RTS is StarCraft and WarCraft. The only few games that compare to those are Company of Heroes, Total Annihilation, and C&C. Ive played Supreme Commander, and it was dissapointing for me (I had very, very high standards). Really complicated and just not very fun to play.
Tiberium Wars looks alot better to play. I really liked the Tiberium, Generals, and Red Alert series. The new insect race (I think its called the Scrin) looks very interesting. Although, not as customizable as Supreme Commander, EA promised a pretty good editor for the game. I hope we get to play the Scrin on multiplayer (heard they might not do that for some dumb reason). Mark March 28th on your calendar, looks very promising.
|
by B3RserK (Unregistered) - 2007-02-27 |
|
|
I've just finished playing both the SC demo and the CnC3 demo. Surprisingly, it ran lag free ultra settings on my A64X23800+ w/ GF7900GT. Perhaps I had higher expectations. I've been playing RTS games since C&C all the way to Company of Heroes. I've never played TA, and have played all the C&C games even renegade. Although a big fan of the CnC franchise, I must give this one to SC. Unless there's more to the full game than what I've seen in the demo of CnC3. Playing CnC3, the one thing I saw cool was the Ion cannon, but in all aspects there wasn't anything new. All I could see are parts from different games. It had a feel of LOTR (squadrons instead of single units & the clickable abilities on the left) & Generals, perhaps EA wanted to cut down on dev. costs. Story seems interesting now, perhaps since I've only played the demo, CnC has a surprise in store with the new Scrinn race.
Liked the zoom-out feature of SC and the scale of the structures and the units really bring life to the game. Kinda wish a new StarCraft could be made using this engine, imagine a Protoss Carrier w/ interceptors like the experimental Gunship in SC. You would also notice that CnC didn't spend much time brushing up on its effects. Perhaps its the limitation of the game engine but explosions would often appear as a semi-circle with a horizontal cut. When it comes to skirmish games, I prefer to play SC more than CnC, there's just so many more ways I could win in SC compared to the tiberium mining race. perhaps coz both are demos, my stand may change once I've tried both full versions. Kudos to SC for adding the multiple windows in which u can zoom independently. The Shield Generator is also cool, I'm now wishing for a Star Wars game using the SC game engine. You could also zoom in the radar screen. Although CnC moved from left click default to right click default, it changed its keymapping again with [alt] for queued commands instead of the standard shift in WarCraft, SC. I also found it annoying when I used the attack+move, only units would be attacked and structures are skipped. Unless users knew how to use the ALT key for queuing commands, each building would have to be clicked one by one, which I think is troublesome. While playing CnC3, I often found myself scrolling down as I got used to the zoom-out feature of SC. In terms of gameplay and effects I would prefer the Company of Heroes engine, lol even the units in CoH had facial expressions before they died. You would even see medics pick up the dead and bring them back to base. Like the CoH engine, structures in SC blew up with particles giving a better feel in the game. CnC3 units disappeared or everything seemed like they would just be absorbed into the ground soon after it's destroyed. Buildings were just sucked into the ground.
I'm a die hard CnC fan, having played the demo, but I felt that there's something missing in the game. I guess EA should really bring up their game. LoL even the actors/actresses in the old CnC series were better, not to mention Yuri.
I hope 2008 can bring a strategy game with the physics of CoH, the scalability of SC, and the story of CnC3. The zoom-out feature, would have been nicer on CnC3, hehe just thought it would be better than just seeing those 2d world maps. When I hear C&C, I can't deny that it's a strong brand, perhaps I had higher expectations from it and felt a little disappointed with the final outcome. In terms of setting a new standard, SC wins this round.
Again these are just the demos =P, the full version might just have a surprise for us... just my 2 cents...
|
by NapalmEnema (Unregistered) - 2007-02-27 |
|
|
C&C: Candy. Sweet, yummy, aimed at kids/enjoyed by all. Not something you can eat day in, day out.
SupCom: Steak & Baked Potato. Filling, delicious, but the vegetarians get all bent out of shape if you put it in front of them. Silly vegetarian, beef is for eating. New York strip every night? Heaven!
C&C Strategy: Mass produce tanks and hope you have more than they do.
SupCom Strategy: Porc up and tech to some game ender (nukes, experimentals, mass t3 units), rush with tanks, air domination (bombers & gunships).
And all the SupCom strategies have potential issues. Someone going with bombers and gunships can get torn to pieces by a bunch of fighters, rushing with lots of t1 can get EATEN by an equal investment in t1 defenses & walls. Porcupines are giving most of the map to their enemy, meaning they WILL be out-produced... it's quite possible to bury them in hordes of cheap units.
Your ground groups can mix in shield generators for added durability, but that can add up in energy costs.
A group of all tanks is more effective against a group of mixed ground units at attacking ground targets, but a wing of bombers can blast those tanks to reclaimable scrap.
RECLAIMING adds a whole new angle to things. Failed assaults give your enemy a pile of resources (except naval units, though they did in TA). Its only worth some fraction of what was invested in the attacking units, but you're still HELPING your enemy unless your attack did some real damage. Loosing 10 or 20 tanks in exchange for a couple defensive towers and a t1 generator or 3 puts the attacker behind.
Scouting can be critical. If you know your enemy has 4 air factories and no ground unit production, you can tailor your forces to kick his ass. If you don't know, you can either invest in one kind of unit (tanks, bombers) and hope they can't handle it, or you can diversify (leaving you less effective at any one task, but able to make a good showing against whatever they throw at you.
C&C has historically been 1-dimensional. TA & SupCom give you options... ground, air, navy, long range arty, various base killers (nukes, experimental units). Every strategy has a counter, and not just rock/paper/scissors.
|
by Apc (Unregistered) - 2007-02-27 |
|
|
First, I thought: "When Supcomm is out, TA Spring will die".
After SC is out i still think it lacks ALOT of things those fans made in a totally freeware game (mostly of usability). The only thing SC really has better is graphics and some different 'Shift' behaviour with waypoint dragging. The gameplay differences can be negated by mods from both sides. Currently Spring mods span the spectre from StarWarsTA up to MechWarrior-like team FPS, with such bizzarre (yet brilliant) devialions as NanoBlobs. So, I guess, Spring has the full right to compete.
It looks to me, that Mr. Taylor is aiming for SC:CC (or whatever) that will make things right, just as it was with TA and TA:CC.
And for C&C3 - we all know, that EA is good at making pop-games, that are flashy and easy to play, but spot no real perks. They are not bad - they're just different.My dad is 60yrs old, but he still likes to play Generals:ZH =) I also enjoyed playing Westwood/EA games from Dune2 to Gererals & ZH, save C&C2/Firestorm, that sucked alot.
|
by Advertising - |
|
|
|
by Ceasar S. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2007-02-27 |
|
|
Let's not forget that TA Spring was one of the games eyed by the folks at Gas Powered Games during Supreme Commander's development. It's highly unlikely they missed it, any TA fan longing to play the game again would stumble upon it.
TA Spring will definitely stay side-by-side with SC on my computer. While we wait for the old Napoleons to get a hang of SC first before the long haul over to dual screen bouts.
Still, there's something about the old TA units that keep me coming back to TA Spring (or TA+TA:CC on my old laptop). There's nothing better than spamming the map with Big Berthas and Guardians to piss off the naval commander you're up against. ^_^
Keep an eye out because I'm already at work on the second part of the topic. Just finishing off the download of C&C3 and I'll be off to see what we can expect from C&C3 soon.
Oh and thanks for keeping the comments clean. Owe you guys one.
|
by James (Unregistered) - 2007-03-01 |
|
|
If I wanted a story, I'd read a book or watch a movie. If I wanted pretty cut scenes, I'd play a Blizzard game. If I want strategy, there is nothing better than TA/SC.
Supreme Commander, putting the 'S' in RTS.
|
by Tic-tac1098 (Unregistered) - 2007-03-03 |
|
|
I've played both CnC and TA way back when. I enjoyed them both very well. From what I see though it seems like CnC 3 will be more for quick fun aimed games while SC will be for games that last entire days. A superweapon in SC can take up to 2 hours to build!
|
by somerandomdude (Unregistered) - 2007-03-05 |
|
|
Just hope CnC3 has less demanding systems... I didn't pay attention to the specs on the SC box and now i need a better graphics card... Fortunately, graphic cards are cheap now=P.
|
by Cabbage (Unregistered) - 2007-03-09 |
|