Comparaison between TA and Supcom closed view

poll made:

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=36652&start=0

I personally think the game should be playable without having to use the strategic maxed out zoom level permanently. Or the game would just be spamming units and attack moving them and watch till the enemy icons disappear.

I don't mind if strategic zoom gives a slight advantage, but you should still be able to win without being zoomed out all the time against non-pro opponents.

Personally I would go for medium ranged artillery, that could shoot across about 75% of the screen, on a zoom level you could clearly make out the unit from the terrain, without having to use the icons.

The scale of PA is very close to TA, the developers made this very clear during the interview, they want armies to be easy recognizable by color and type of unit.
I dunno about most Supcom players but the way ranked was played was nearly identical to TA, loads of unit microing with heavy multitasking.

What's you point? You're not expecting TA 2.0 are you? You'll be sorely disappointed then.

Mike

I'm sorry but are you one of the developers?

Just because PA may have one feature I wont like doesn't mean I won't like the entire game.

The anti-zoom people keep raising this straw man. Supcom does not work like that. No one ever plays entirely zoomed out all the time. If that was how people played we wouldn't care about zoom, we'd be arguing that the time spent on all the models and zoom code was a waste and it should just run at max zoom all the time. Icon level view is useful for controlling vast armies or extreme range/low accuracy/area effect weapons and for getting around the map. Close zoom is useful for controlling smaller forces in more tactical situations, laying out build orders precisely, and targeting precision strikes on critical targets. Moderate zoom is in between.

Actually it kinda does, you can't like an entire burger if you hate one of the toppings.

But if you think everything BUT Zoom is going to be the same as TA, you might be in for a bumpy ride, there are going to be a lot of differences, but via plain old changes to update the theory and via incorporations of elements from other games/systems(strat zoom, ect ect)

I mean, the whole Solar System and beign able to go to moons and such is all new and not like TA at all.

but you're still fresh to the forums, you've missed all kinds of discussion and developer nuggets, you might want to check out the Sticky Thread: Confirmed Features and Suggestions for a kind of 'cliffnotes' version.

Mike

Sometimes people think they hate a food, but then they try it again and decide that it's awesome. Othertimes, people refuse to ever eat it, and will never know if their tastes have changed.

What else should anyone expect. This IS the successor to TA. Not SupCom or any other RTS.

You're terrible at analogies.

Bad analogy, especially because, if the burger is good enough, you might like it even with some toppings you don't like. Anyway, do you really think you won't like any games if there is something you don't like about them? Is every game you like perfect in every way?

Which would be okay if he said he could like a game in spite of a negative feature, instead of contradicting himself, probably just a poor choice of words thought.

Mike

I'm fairly sure it was just a poor choice of words; I'm positive he meant he could enjoy the "overall" (instead of "entire") game despite not liking one feature.

... thats extreme xD

Yeah poor choice of words on my part, but yes, this is what I meant.

True that.

The point is, that Total Annihilation's units might still be "bigger". When using raevn's assessment of the scale using engine metrics, you can see that the TA Commander is slightly bigger than the ACU of Supreme Commander. Again, trying to transfer anything into real-world-scale is problematic at best. The cars and trees in Total Annihilation maps might be tiny, they might also been huge. Same goes for Supreme Commander. Assuming that a car in Total Annihilation ought to have the same size as a car in real life is still only that: an assumption to make a comparison, not a ground truth.

You never played Supreme Commander. Play it first for a week, a month or a year and then you are "allowed" to come back and say it is "TERRIBLE". Which it might be, for you, but you as you stated, you never played it.

-> viewtopic.php?p=544678#p544678

So is Supreme Commander.

I never understand why people try to make some link with reality, I really don't care if a tank is 2 meter or 40 meter high or whatever. If you like to do it, fine. But don't take gameplay decisions with "reality" in mind ...

I did play Supcom and I couldn't not stand playing without icon for more than 5 minutes.
I get quickly bored and I do not play it anymore. I still sometime play TA.

I wasn't talking to you . May be you misread the quote. -> "thefirstfish wrote:"

I didn't say the game is terrible, I said the art style and sizes of the units made the view terrible. That can easily be verified from any YouTube video that shows the player view, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRKoxUx9zSk. Never see anything but icons and indistinguishable grey dots, maybe occasionally something huge is just about discernable but not the average unit.

I did play SupCom for a week when it was first released by the way. I also picked up SupCom 2 recently, that's very slightly better in terms of view but still has the fighting-with-single-grey-pixels problem to some extent.

Why is this even being debated, we've all seen the PA concept trailer. The art style, scale etc are all evident.

Maybe you just need to learn to distinguish bad people from people who hold different opinions to your own.

Please see my above post and the video, where a serious SupCom player never sees his units (this is just one of the top results on YouTube for the search "Supreme Commander Fallen Alliance").

"Terrible" for you may be. Watching the video reminds me of all the awesome times I had in SupCom and FA and makes me want to play again .