EaW or SC?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2005-07-09 03:33pm

Which upcoming RTS do you think looks better? Personally, I'm undecided. While SC has unbelieveable scale, it lacks the attraction of commanding legions of Stormtroopers and AT-ATs and being able to examine the battlefield at the troop level, and at different angles, like in these screens:

In fact, my major gripe with SC is that it has no infantry at all! Now, I understand the difficulties with implementing infantry with the massive amount of scale in the game, but it takes away from the attraction of the game. At least, to me. I love to zoom in on soldiers and watch them fire their weapons, take cover, etc.

However, SC has immensely and absurdly powerful units that I've always wanted to see in an RTS. Although it lacks space combat, I have a feeling it might be able to be modded in eventually anyway. And, IIRC, EAW doesn't have extensive naval forces like SC.

After all, who doesn't see a Star Wars mod coming out for SC?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-07-09 03:38pm

SupCom does have infantry. They're robotic, sure, but there's infantry anyway. You see a bunch of them in a few of the screens. And you can zoom up close, close enough so that you can sort of see the individual parts on any given unit, it seems.

Now grahpics-wise, EaW definetly looks a lot better. Visual style? I dunno, the AT-AT is pretty cool, but that spider-mech looks positively nasty.

And SupCom has the best-looking nuke I've seen so far (at this current stage of development) in any game.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-09 03:38pm

To be honest, I have ZERO interest in Empires, it looks stupid, has too many grips for me to be "WOW, Star Wars that looks good", and I've yet to see any actual gameplay movies.

SC, while I've never played TA, got me by the "Why do we have BB's in a modern combat game? Because its fun". I don't care about realisim, balence, etc. I want big explosions and minimum fuss getting there.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2005-07-09 04:01pm

Shinova wrote:SupCom does have infantry. They're robotic, sure, but there's infantry anyway. You see a bunch of them in a few of the screens. And you can zoom up close, close enough so that you can sort of see the individual parts on any given unit, it seems.

Bah, that's not infantry. Or at least that's not what type of infantry I mean. I'm talking about infantry as we know it, at most with power armor. Not big mechs. And while you can zoom up very close, it hasn't been demonstrated that you can zoom in at angles so you can view the horizon. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Ace Pace wrote:To be honest, I have ZERO interest in Empires, it looks stupid, has too many grips for me to be "WOW, Star Wars that looks good", and I've yet to see any actual gameplay movies.

Here you go.

I especially like how Vader strides through hails of blaster fire and then duels with Obi-Wan! And the tracking angles achieved in the space battle make it look like deleted scenes from the Battle of Endor...simply amazing camerawork. The only problem is that the DS seemed waaaay too close to the planet...that seems a little strange.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-09 04:12pm

Confirms my thoughts.
While watching that my only thought was "Nice graphics" zero intensity, zero "Wow that was awesome" and esspecially no "I could have done that so much better".

Its not enticing, did you notice the way he ordered down units? Immidiet arrival, brings in units. Not to mention they all acted like stero-typical RTS units.

/dream mode on
What they SHOULD have done was take GC2's ground combat and HW2 space combat and hack them into one engine

Also, they never showed any transitions between the ground/space stuff. We'll probebly get a "First clear up local space, then do ground, if enemy fleet arrives, leave ground combat to space combat"

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-07-09 04:15pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Bah, that's not infantry. Or at least that's not what type of infantry I mean. I'm talking about infantry as we know it, at most with power armor. Not big mechs. And while you can zoom up very close, it hasn't been demonstrated that you can zoom in at angles so you can view the horizon. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Infantry is a role, not a person, so whatever fills that role, whether it's robotic, cybernetic, or flesh, it's infantry. And as big as the infantry in SupCom are, everything else is much, much bigger.

And I don't believe you can zoom in at any angles (unless someone makes a mod that allows for that), but really, what will a player be more worried about when involved in a game: gameplay, or spiffy camera angles?

Someone will most likely make a Recorder like TA Recorder for SupCom that lets you play back games at any camera angle. Save spiffy camera angles for after the game, not during it.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-07-09 04:29pm

I looked at one of the videos. First, space combat reminded me instantly of Star Trek: Armada. This is a bad sign.

And two, when I saw Darth Vader come out and start slaughtering the Jawas, I didn't think, "Oh cool, it's Darth Vader!" I thought, "Oh my god, Warcraft 3!!" and my brain had a seizure.

This is Star Wars. It's vast. The Empire is vast. Even with only three AT-ATs involved in the Battle of Hoth, it still had a sort of huge scale, vast feeling to it that's characteristic of the whole Star Wars universe. The screenshot of Hoth make it look so small.

It's got spiffy graphics and gimmicks, but that's it. Otherwise, it's Star Trek: Armada and Starcraft in Star Wars, from the looks of it.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-09 04:31pm

Not starcraft, it probebly lacks the resource system

More like Age of Empire in 3D, utterly useless battles of "select all units, attack"

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2005-07-09 04:32pm

Personally, I look forward for both of them, because both make appeal to slightly different desires I have regarding RTS's

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2005-07-09 07:46pm

TA was the first RTS I ever played, and its that benchmark for all other RTS I play. While Starcraft had a good story, it just wasn't as fun as TA. The Star Trek games? Meh. Homeworld2? Yeah, it was cool, but still not as good as TA. The only other RTS thats managed to grab like TA did is Rome: Total War (hehehe, a Vulcan versus the barbarian hordes! I'd pay to see that!).

GPG looks to have captured the TA magic all over again.

And personally, this Star Wars RTS just hasn't shown me anything cool. I've read several previews and seen the screen shots, but I'd rather play Rome Total Realism 6 and SC.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-07-09 09:41pm

I feel sc will be worthy of taking that abbreviation from starcraft. This gives it bonus points in my mind by linking the two games. Plus what the other people said.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2005-07-09 11:36pm

Ace Pace wrote:Also, they never showed any transitions between the ground/space stuff. We'll probebly get a "First clear up local space, then do ground, if enemy fleet arrives, leave ground combat to space combat"

What sort of "transition" are you looking for? I don't understand. Do you suspect the ground and space battle won't happen simultaneously in real-time?

Shinova wrote:Infantry is a role, not a person, so whatever fills that role, whether it's robotic, cybernetic, or flesh, it's infantry. And as big as the infantry in SupCom are, everything else is much, much bigger.

No, it's not just a role. Infantry specifically refers to foot soldiers.

And I don't believe you can zoom in at any angles (unless someone makes a mod that allows for that), but really, what will a player be more worried about when involved in a game: gameplay, or spiffy camera angles?

You're probably right. But the first time I play a game I always like to screw around and not actually try to achieve the missions. I play around with the game before I start to seriously accomplish the goals. This would include gawking over the detailed models at close-up angles and finding nice angles when units engage in combat. Also, it gives me a feeling of immersiveness to "ride along" with the vehicles as they go into battle and see the battle the way they see it.

Someone will most likely make a Recorder like TA Recorder for SupCom that lets you play back games at any camera angle. Save spiffy camera angles for after the game, not during it.

That would be a nice feature which I hope they include with the game.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-07-10 12:06am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: No, it's not just a role. Infantry specifically refers to foot soldiers.

in·fan·try Audio pronunciation of "infantry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nfn-tr)
n. pl. in·fan·tries

1. The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot.
2. Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot: The general ordered his infantry to attack.
3. A unit, such as a regiment, of such soldiers: Company B of the 7th Infantry.

sol·dier Audio pronunciation of "soldier" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sljr)
n.

1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.
4.
1. A sexually undeveloped form of certain ants and termites, having large heads and powerful jaws.
2. One of a group of honeybees that swarm in defense of a hive.

Now, follow definition one and for definition two replace person with robot.

When you get right down to the core concepts, it doesn't matter whether it's flesh or metal.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2005-07-10 12:44am

If you replace "person" with "robot," that's changing the definition. You can't do that. Nyah!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-07-10 12:47am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:If you replace "person" with "robot," that's changing the definition. You can't do that. Nyah!

Think outside the box.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-10 02:17am

Personally, I want to be the SUPREME COMMANDER. Everything is so, so, so BIG!

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-07-10 02:52am

Those videos of this star wars game do not impress me at all.

First part. The Space Battle. Looks like someone tried a cheap homeworld knockoff, and it ended up more like a Nexus knockoff, with a very traditional RTS control scheme. Looked a LOT like that LotR RTS, em... Battle for Middle Earth. Doesn't seem very enticing. Average at best.

Second Part. Ground battle. Not good at all. It doesn't even look as fun as that LotR RTS, which it strongly resembles. It's no Ground Control either, far from it. Seems like yet another 'Who masses, wins' kind of thing, when you see how arcade-like the units responded. They stood there and fired, moved a little, and fired.

Not like say.. TA, where having different positions and firing angles could win the day for an inferior force. Or where proper and creative micromanagement of fighters and the like can pull some amazing tricks. Heck, even that Lightsaber battle is second rate compared to some of the neat hand to hand you see in Dawn of War.

So go Supreme Commander, all the way!

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2005-07-10 02:55am

Supreme Commander, absolutely. It's telling I'm still having pangs for TA 4 years after playing it for a few days.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-10 04:35am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:Also, they never showed any transitions between the ground/space stuff. We'll probebly get a "First clear up local space, then do ground, if enemy fleet arrives, leave ground combat to space combat"
What sort of "transition" are you looking for? I don't understand. Do you suspect the ground and space battle won't happen simultaneously in real-time?

Thats exactly what I suspect, the only draw I could have was if for example I could be in the ground combat, look up in the sky and sea battles, or get an alert, set my units some long term commands, then go up, control the battle, while the ground battle is continuing.

Neph, its exactly NOT a HW2 knockoff, by killing the entire "Space is 3D". Which is stupid, and have you seen the interface?
Nevermind black ships with tiny white spots on a black background with tiny white spots. Can you say confusion?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-07-10 12:56pm

Ace Pace wrote:
IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:Also, they never showed any transitions between the ground/space stuff. We'll probebly get a "First clear up local space, then do ground, if enemy fleet arrives, leave ground combat to space combat"
What sort of "transition" are you looking for? I don't understand. Do you suspect the ground and space battle won't happen simultaneously in real-time?
Thats exactly what I suspect, the only draw I could have was if for example I could be in the ground combat, look up in the sky and sea battles, or get an alert, set my units some long term commands, then go up, control the battle, while the ground battle is continuing.

Neph, its exactly NOT a HW2 knockoff, by killing the entire "Space is 3D". Which is stupid, and have you seen the interface?
Nevermind black ships with tiny white spots on a black background with tiny white spots. Can you say confusion?

Visually, it looks like a HW knockoff with fighters targetting subsystems. They kinda kill the 3D, which is what made HW unique. So there. And they made it seem to play like any normal RTS, so bleah. It's Armada knockoff then, at best... with subsystems. Whoopie :/

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-10 01:03pm

Visually looks like HW2? Are you on crack?

From what we saw of the EaW combat, we see bombers launching a few red blobs(torpedoes), lasers flash about, you see fighters launch themselves prettily(on a 2D surface) at each other, moving around nicely.

Compare to HW2 where combat is alive, with everything moving, when fighters dogfight its way around the capital ships.

But yes, Armada in space, with subsystems and a UI I wouldn't touch with a 10 meter pole.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-07-10 01:12pm

Ace Pace wrote:Visually looks like HW2? Are you on crack?

From what we saw of the EaW combat, we see bombers launching a few red blobs(torpedoes), lasers flash about, you see fighters launch themselves prettily(on a 2D surface) at each other, moving around nicely.

Compare to HW2 where combat is alive, with everything moving, when fighters dogfight its way around the capital ships.

But yes, Armada in space, with subsystems and a UI I wouldn't touch with a 10 meter pole.

UI's crap. But it looks honestly like a sterile, traditional jerkyclick RTS version of Warlords, with pointlessly minor turbolaser blasts going back and forth. And fighters doing all of nothing.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-07-10 01:18pm

Nephtys wrote:
UI's crap. But it looks honestly like a sterile, traditional jerkyclick RTS version of Warlords, with pointlessly minor turbolaser blasts going back and forth. And fighters doing all of nothing.

Please, we saw 3 bombers doing 3 bombing runs on some Mon-cal ship and saw the prow explode for 2 seconds.

I submit that every space game designer must play HW2 for atleast 1 month before saying a single word

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-07-10 01:21pm

Ace Pace wrote:
Nephtys wrote:
UI's crap. But it looks honestly like a sterile, traditional jerkyclick RTS version of Warlords, with pointlessly minor turbolaser blasts going back and forth. And fighters doing all of nothing.
Please, we saw 3 bombers doing 3 bombing runs on some Mon-cal ship and saw the prow explode for 2 seconds.

I submit that every space game designer must play HW2 for atleast 1 month before saying a single word

After the ISD opened up with it's turbolasers on the same target.

Vanas · Post by **Vanas** » 2005-07-10 01:24pm

SC all the way. Frankly, I don't really go in for Star Wars games in a big way, but I still play TA. Hell, I have a playlist specifically designed to be listened to while playing TA. As SC pretty much is TA, I want it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

EaW or SC?

Which looks better?

EaW or SC?