C&C 3 or Supreme Commander

Pages: 1

Index »
Games »
All Other Games »
C&C 3 or Supreme Commander

2007-04-25 16:22:59

-CARNIFEX-[LOC]: Da Blooze; +111|6918

I've played Montargis Region one too many times, and I want a new RTS, and have decided between these two. I have always loved C&C, but Total Annihilation was pretty much my favorite RTS ever until CoH came out.

My comp. is a Athlon 64 3000+, 1.5 gb PC3200 ram, BFG 7800GS OC (AGP card =\ )...I can run CoH at medium settings with a few on high, and it runs great except for really, really big battles, during which it occasionally chugs, but still is playable.

I'm pretty sure C&C 3 will run decent and look good, but I fear that Supreme Commander is going to eat this system alive at any decent settings.

If anyone has one (or even better, both) of these games, I would appreciate any feedback as to which one you like and why, as well as your system specs and how they run performance-wise.

Thanks.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg

2007-04-25 16:26:32

Pernicious544: Zee Tank Skank; +80|6964|MoVal So-Cal

Sup Com will devour your system, maybe you'll get by with medium setting but thats the price you pay for the greatest RTS of all time because of its unique camera, amazing battles of a scope you have never witnessed before, crazy end-game units, huge maps, the fact that a rush for one thing wont with the game and nukes that feel like they really mean business (a nuke in Sup Com would cover almost the equivalent of a 4 player C&C map.) Get Sup Com because its different and isn't a re-hash of previous games in a series like C&C 3 is.

Last edited by Pernicious544 (2007-04-25 16:30:26)

2007-04-25 16:42:20

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7030|UK

Sup Com most likely will be harsh on your computer but it will still be the best RTS game you ever played.

2007-04-25 16:55:06

-CARNIFEX-[LOC]: Da Blooze; +111|6918

Yeah I just looked at some in-depth reviews of that game with various hardware installed, and it looks like Supreme Cmmdr. is out of my system's reach for the moment. When I eventually upgrade, which coincidentally will probably be 30 minutes after Crysis is released and I watch a friend play it, I will surely get SC, but I don't want to be disappointed by a great game with bad performance.

And after watching more gameplay movies of C&C 3, I think I will still want to play CoH more than it, so it's pointless to buy it.

I think I'll just continue chipping away at BF2, and save my $45 for when I upgrade.

Thanks for the replies.

2007-04-25 20:57:14

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7036|PNW

Download the C&C 3 demo and give it a shot. It'll run a lot better than Supreme Commander.

2007-04-25 21:03:25

The_Mac: Member; +96|6489

Vilham wrote:
Sup Com most likely will be harsh on your computer but it will still be the best RTS game you ever played.

Disagree. When I played it, I felt like I was just playing on a giant mini map. I had everything maxed out, I just felt totally detatched. There was no real strategy, just another inflated tactics game. The units were also boring, starting with small spider units, and it took a while to get to tanks. That and the gameplay is fast and action packed, so you don't feel you took any time to actually make a strat, which is supposedly what this game is all about.
A true RTS game would:
1) Have a bigger scale
2) have slower gameplay and allow players to build up and create strategies
3) In Multiplayer bouts SAVE their games, and resume them later. This would also encourage clans and make better players, as well as encourage more players.

As it is, I'd go with C&C3, because at least there, the gameplay is fast paced, and you won't feel ripped because you didn't have enough time to actually formulate a strategy.

2007-04-25 21:24:08

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7036|PNW

SupCom and C&C3, despite being of the same genre, cannot really be weighed against each other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and come out even at the end.

C&C3 has the advantage of a well-developed single player mode and units with style (though they chose to keep the Renegade version of the Mammoth). C&C has a wider base of potential customers, because its requirements are lower. Classic gamers can easily slip back into the freshly-restored C&C interface with no difficulty.

Supreme Commander has a superb interface and plenty of controls, though by doing so have left me wanting for more even functionality. It's difficult to explain, but it's like releasing a game with a high-polygon shotgun and a low-polygon pistol...or better yet: a helicopter that is flown with a keyboard only while the jet allows a joystick. A game released with neither of the last two wouldn't irk a player, but one with--would. The graphics are alright, but most of the time you'll be too far zoomed out trying to micromanage every aspect of the battle (a technique which gets people into trouble in real life) and, as mentioned before, end up playing on a minimap. The large-scale maps are run in a prohibitively choppy manner, especially in multiplayer, and even on quad-core systems with 4GB RAM and 8800GTX's. Still, it is a solid title.

===

I own both, I've played both (also online), I've beaten both, I've enjoyed both, and I don't regret having bought them, but recommending SupCom to someone with a trailing-edge computer is criminal. While there's nothing wrong with the OP's video card (I play just fine on a BFG6800UOC), it's the CPU and the memory that'll get him. A large-scale battle of the sort that is advertised will crank that computer down to epilepsy-inspiring framerates. I know, because I run it on a 3500+ with 2GB RAM.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-25 21:26:29)

2007-04-25 22:39:43

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6939|Canberra, AUS

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
SupCom and C&C3, despite being of the same genre, cannot really be weighed against each other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and come out even at the end.

C&C3 has the advantage of a well-developed single player mode and units with style (though they chose to keep the Renegade version of the Mammoth). C&C has a wider base of potential customers, because its requirements are lower. Classic gamers can easily slip back into the freshly-restored C&C interface with no difficulty.

Supreme Commander has a superb interface and plenty of controls, though by doing so have left me wanting for more even functionality. It's difficult to explain, but it's like releasing a game with a high-polygon shotgun and a low-polygon pistol...or better yet: a helicopter that is flown with a keyboard only while the jet allows a joystick. A game released with neither of the last two wouldn't irk a player, but one with--would. The graphics are alright, but most of the time you'll be too far zoomed out trying to micromanage every aspect of the battle (a technique which gets people into trouble in real life) and, as mentioned before, end up playing on a minimap. The large-scale maps are run in a prohibitively choppy manner, especially in multiplayer, and even on quad-core systems with 4GB RAM and 8800GTX's. Still, it is a solid title.

===

I own both, I've played both (also online), I've beaten both, I've enjoyed both, and I don't regret having bought them, but recommending SupCom to someone with a trailing-edge computer is criminal. While there's nothing wrong with the OP's video card (I play just fine on a BFG6800UOC), it's the CPU and the memory that'll get him. A large-scale battle of the sort that is advertised will crank that computer down to epilepsy-inspiring framerates. I know, because I run it on a 3500+ with 2GB RAM.

Well... er... the nuclear missle explosions in CNC tend to kill your framerate (below ONE frame per second!) but if you look at another section of the map while it happens you should be OK.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-04-26 00:20:18

TimmmmaaaaH: Damn, I... had something for this; +725|6703|Brisbane, Australia

Spark wrote:
Well... er... the nuclear missle explosions in CNC tend to kill your framerate (below ONE frame per second!) but if you look at another section of the map while it happens you should be OK.

True that Spark! It's sad not being able to watch it . The Ion cannon is better anyway, and it doesn't kill your framerate.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png

2007-04-26 00:36:32

=SoE=GuStick: Member; +2|6475

I like C&C 3 more,but thats just me

2007-04-26 00:42:21

Pernicious544: Zee Tank Skank; +80|6964|MoVal So-Cal

The_Mac wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Sup Com most likely will be harsh on your computer but it will still be the best RTS game you ever played.
Disagree. When I played it, I felt like I was just playing on a giant mini map. I had everything maxed out, I just felt totally detatched. There was no real strategy, just another inflated tactics game. The units were also boring, starting with small spider units, and it took a while to get to tanks. That and the gameplay is fast and action packed, so you don't feel you took any time to actually make a strat, which is supposedly what this game is all about.
A true RTS game would:
1) Have a bigger scale
2) have slower gameplay and allow players to build up and create strategies
3) In Multiplayer bouts SAVE their games, and resume them later. This would also encourage clans and make better players, as well as encourage more players.

As it is, I'd go with C&C3, because at least there, the gameplay is fast paced, and you won't feel ripped because you didn't have enough time to actually formulate a strategy.

1) It has the biggest scale of any RTS game I have ever played, when it takes 3 minutes for a jet to get to the other side of the map you know the scale is massive.
2) It has some very very slow gameplay compared to every other RTS on the market, it takes 80 minutes to make a battleship with out assistance, for god's sake
3) You would have the problem of the two people being on again at the same time. A good thought but not a practical one.

2007-04-26 00:42:48

_NL_Lt.EngineerFox: Big Mouth Prick; +219|6794|Golf 1.8 GTI Wolfsburg Edition

C&c 3

2007-04-26 11:26:13

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7036|PNW

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Spark wrote:
Well... er... the nuclear missle explosions in CNC tend to kill your framerate (below ONE frame per second!) but if you look at another section of the map while it happens you should be OK.
True that Spark! It's sad not being able to watch it . The Ion cannon is better anyway, and it doesn't kill your framerate.

My framerate don't seem to have a problem with superweapons. Since it seems to be more of a video thing than anything else, I think a 7800 could succeed where my 6800 does.

2007-04-27 17:38:06

Dizik: It tastes like burning; +23|7079|Moore, OK

C&C3 for smaller maps and more tactical gameplay. Supreme Commander for larger (i.e. friggin' huge) maps and more strategic gameplay.

2007-04-27 17:41:26

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7030|UK

The_Mac wrote:
Vilham wrote:
Sup Com most likely will be harsh on your computer but it will still be the best RTS game you ever played.
Disagree. When I played it, I felt like I was just playing on a giant mini map. I had everything maxed out, I just felt totally detatched. There was no real strategy, just another inflated tactics game. The units were also boring, starting with small spider units, and it took a while to get to tanks. That and the gameplay is fast and action packed, so you don't feel you took any time to actually make a strat, which is supposedly what this game is all about.
A true RTS game would:
1) Have a bigger scale
2) have slower gameplay and allow players to build up and create strategies
3) In Multiplayer bouts SAVE their games, and resume them later. This would also encourage clans and make better players, as well as encourage more players.

As it is, I'd go with C&C3, because at least there, the gameplay is fast paced, and you won't feel ripped because you didn't have enough time to actually formulate a strategy.

You know RT stands for REAL TIME. No RTS has a bigger scale, slower gameplay or worthwhile saves, you are confusing this with TBS (turn based strategy). Like civ.

2007-04-27 17:44:47

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6936|Colorado

Supreme Commander FTW. No other RTS will come close to this game for atleast a decade. I've been extremly pleased with it even though it's a resource hog & runs best on dual core or higher. I have a p4 2.5 ghz & it runs well even with 6 playing unless one of the guys is a dual core in which case it lags for him.

C&C3 is just another rehash but good if you like the series but there is no comparison IMO.

2007-04-27 17:47:16

Ninja_Monkey: I TK For Blackhawks; +60|6829|UK

niether both suck get starcraft

2007-04-27 18:04:21

The_Mac: Member; +96|6489

Vilham wrote:
You know RT stands for REAL TIME. No RTS has a bigger scale, slower gameplay or worthwhile saves, you are confusing this with TBS (turn based strategy). Like civ.

I've been playing RTSs and TBSs for a while. You don't need to define them for me. What I am saying is that SupCom is not strategy, and it attempts to be, but its not.

2007-04-27 18:15:52

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7030|UK

The_Mac wrote:
Vilham wrote:
You know RT stands for REAL TIME. No RTS has a bigger scale, slower gameplay or worthwhile saves, you are confusing this with TBS (turn based strategy). Like civ.
I've been playing RTSs and TBSs for a while. You don't need to define them for me. What I am saying is that SupCom is not strategy, and it attempts to be, but its not.

Clearly your another one of these players that doesnt know how to play it. The is a hell of a lot of strategy in it, there is little to no tactics. I think you are majorly confusing your terms and please dont get me started on the "ive been playing RTS for a while" thing, ill have to pull up the list of RTS ive played...

2007-04-28 04:04:40

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6845|SE London

Vilham wrote:
The_Mac wrote:
Vilham wrote:
You know RT stands for REAL TIME. No RTS has a bigger scale, slower gameplay or worthwhile saves, you are confusing this with TBS (turn based strategy). Like civ.
I've been playing RTSs and TBSs for a while. You don't need to define them for me. What I am saying is that SupCom is not strategy, and it attempts to be, but its not.
Clearly your another one of these players that doesnt know how to play it. The is a hell of a lot of strategy in it, there is little to no tactics. I think you are majorly confusing your terms and please dont get me started on the "ive been playing RTS for a while" thing, ill have to pull up the list of RTS ive played...

Indeed. Supreme Commander is great.

Best RTS I've ever played, and I've been playing them since Dune 2 (then Warcraft, then C&C (the original is still the best)).

2007-04-28 04:08:13

JoshCooper: Member; +20|6593|Stoke

id say C&C3 cuz most of the sumpreme commander stuff is the same on all teams but jst wiv differ colours

2007-04-28 04:14:00

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6936|Colorado

At tier one it is but it differs greatly from tier 2 - 4 , so no your argument isn't a valid point.

2007-04-28 04:24:25

iMPaCT.uK: Member; +72|6760|UK , Birmingham

CNC3 FTW im currently ranked in top30 for 2v2 with my 2v2 partner leet game.

name: iMPaCT^
Buddy: loCk-On^

Pages: 1

Index »
Games »
All Other Games »
C&C 3 or Supreme Commander

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums C&C 3 or Supreme Commander

Vilham wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spark wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Vilham wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

Spark wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Vilham wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Vilham wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Board footer