Supreme Commander CAM video

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-11 02:05am

I was really impressed with the early trailer myself - but when I realised that everything from the screenshots, to the little trailers from previews was made for THIS PRESENTATION, it was suddenly a lot less impressive. Especially since I can't see a mouse pointer anywhere, so it might not even be 'play' footage.

Now that you said that, that happiness is gone, and is replaced by worry.

That's what I see, all the time.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-05-11 02:07am

Stark wrote:Yeah, every screenshot is taken from this one video. Makes me somewhat suspicious, really.

Every screenshot is taken from the same scenario. My guess is they have some scripts running what happens, and they just keep re-running the scenario as they make changes to the engine to see what happens.

I'm guessing they are using game replays to set up the repeatable runs, since they have stated on thier forums somewhere they wanted to include this. Obviously they are going to pick screenshots which look cool, they arent going to show a unit stuck infront of something as it tries to go around.

Best thing about the video is it doesnt show any of the 2-3 dozen units we see having any apparent pathfinding difficulties.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-05-11 02:10am

At the very least they have till 2007 to work everything to shape, so we could have some peace of mind on that, I suppose.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-11 02:10am

Xon wrote:Every screenshot is taken from the same scenario. My guess is they have some scripts running what happens, and they just keep re-running the scenario as they make changes to the engine to see what happens.

I'm guessing they are using game replays to set up the repeatable runs, since they have stated on thier forums somewhere they wanted to include this. Obviously they are going to pick screenshots which look cool, they arent going to show a unit stuck infront of something as it tries to go around.

Best thing about the video is it doesnt show any of the 2-3 dozen units we see having any apparent pathfinding difficulties.

All the screenshots I've seen come from the battle this video was edited from - the spider with the laser, the big blue land-tank, etc. I'll feel better once the first new post-E3 screenshots come out.

Yes, the pathfinding/formations impress me. RTSs are famous for having a tight group of guys moving so badly that they end up spread out and some going the wrong way - hopefully we've got a watershed on our hands.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-05-11 02:15am

Stark wrote:All the screenshots I've seen come from the battle this video was edited from - the spider with the laser, the big blue land-tank, etc. I'll feel better once the first new post-E3 screenshots come out.

Every screenshot(not just the e3 stuff) GPG has released comes from this scenario the video shows. The only difference is the vast improvements in graphics and a few of the minor details which indicate the unit AI has probably been tweaked.

Yes, the pathfinding/formations impress me. RTSs are famous for having a tight group of guys moving so badly that they end up spread out and some going the wrong way - hopefully we've got a watershed on our hands.

Amen

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2006-05-11 02:17am

Stark wrote:All the screenshots I've seen come from the battle this video was edited from - the spider with the laser, the big blue land-tank, etc. I'll feel better once the first new post-E3 screenshots come out.

Yes, the pathfinding/formations impress me. RTSs are famous for having a tight group of guys moving so badly that they end up spread out and some going the wrong way - hopefully we've got a watershed on our hands.

I did a quick search of the board, looking for the earliest screenies. These are the earliest I could find, from July 2005. Now compare those to these in the recent Gamespot Preview. While there is a definate improvement in the graphics, it does look like it's running the same canned scenario from a year before.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-05-11 02:19am

It's an effective way to develop a game, I suppose, but I too would like to see unimprovised action later on in the future.

Miles Teg · Post by **Miles Teg** » 2006-05-11 02:22am

Oh.

My.

God.

That's fucking sweet ass shit, what I've been waiting for since TA came out =)

Anyway, I'll be in my bunk

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-05-11 02:34am

It can't be all from the same little snippet of gameplay. Where's the transport ship getting shot down? Where's the missile sub launching nuclear missiles? Where's the fleet getting nuked?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-11 02:36am

I saw a picture of a sub launching a missile, and a big nuclear blast over the water, like nine months ago. They may have simply been staged events, not part of a proper map.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 02:54am

I think I must join the spooge bandwagon.

Never before have I jumped over such an RTS like an african over a twinkie.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 03:27am

You know what? Heres the preview, you decide for yourself.

Taylor also demonstrated again for us the ability for players to give global "waypoint" orders to different contingents of units, such as naval, land, and air groups, to converge on a flashpoint at approximately the same time. We were also shown how the game will apparently follow the pathfinding course of individual units, with approximately traced-out waypoint paths (so, if you're the sort of obsessive player who must know whether your soldiers will go around the forest or through it, you'll be able to tell with this new system). Taylor reiterated, however, that Supreme Commander isn't a game about micromanaging individual units or focusing solely on tactical battles. To drive home this point, we were again shown a comparison of an incredibly huge battleship to a small squadron of medium tanks. The battleship had to have been at least 20 to 30 times the size of an individual tank, and as Taylor explained, the battleship's greatest strength is the incredible range of its main cannons (rather than simply being able to sustain more damage, as it might have been designed in a different modern strategy game), which would reduce the tanks to ash before they got into range. As Taylor put it, other modern strategy games tend to focus primarily on making games look nice, and on starting the action early; while those games might be about battles, he says, "Supreme Commander is about war."

Perhaps the most striking example of what the studio CEO was talking about was the land/sea battle we then witnessed between two armies, as one invaded from the water while the other charged through a forest, knocking over nearby trees and setting the rest alight with weapon fire. Yes, individual units can be huge, but actual battles will take place between hundreds of different units that can be custom designed by "the one kid sitting in his basement in Utah who discovers something no one else has," as Taylor puts it. Apparently, the game has been designed from the ground up not only to take advantage of modern PC hardware, but also to scale well against differing hardware configurations. Taylor suggests that the game's largest maps will be on the order of about 6,400 square kilometers in size, though they can scale down for smaller skirmishes.

However, if you, like Taylor, want to keep things big, you'll be able to take advantage of some of Supreme Commander's other unique features--dual monitor support, which lets you keep one eye zoomed in on one of the game's huge battles, and the other on a zoomed-out view of the world to keep track of larger developments in the war. And if you have a widescreen monitor and don't care to have the game's interface sitting at the bottom of the screen, completely stretched out, you can instantaneously reconfigure the interface elements to appear on the left side of the screen. Taylor expects that the inquisitive fan community will probably end up monkeying with the interface, among other aspects of the game, because, as the CEO hints, the game may ship with support for editing and modifying its content.

If anyone still doubts the game..

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-05-11 04:29am

Dual-monitor support?!

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 04:32am

Tell me Stark, from the previews, what flaws can we expect the game to have?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-11 04:33am

That is the absolute SEX. I've played the few indy games with dual monitor support, and having a constant fullscreen strat map is something that I've wanted for a decade.

So clearly, we need to eliminate Chris Taylor before he can complete his mad scheme to make an RTS that isn't derivate shit.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2006-05-11 05:49am

I think I'm going to cancel my subscription to WoW.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-05-11 09:26am

I'm blown away by the trailer, but it is worrying the screenshots we've seen all come from it.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2006-05-11 09:51am

...Crap, now I'm gonna need to find room for a third monitor on my desk.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2006-05-11 09:59am

Vympel wrote:I'm blown away by the trailer, but it is worrying the screenshots we've seen all come from it.

Why's that? The game isn't due for another year.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-05-11 10:09am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Why's that? The game isn't due for another year.

Yeah, but it gives the trailer a choreographed feel that makes me think it won't nearly be as epic as it's made out to be. I hope not, of course, but I'm extremely hyper optimistic with a touch of caution at this point.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2006-05-11 12:21pm

Sweet Jezus! Looks even better than I hoped

Siege · Post by **Siege** » 2006-05-11 12:50pm

I'm blown away. Can't believe how sweet that looks.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-05-11 12:57pm

Gamespot has a live interview with an SC dude(atleast thats the schedule), I'll be sending questions regarding unit control and hopefully they will be asked at them.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-05-11 01:46pm

Vympel wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Why's that? The game isn't due for another year.
Yeah, but it gives the trailer a choreographed feel that makes me think it won't nearly be as epic as it's made out to be. I hope not, of course, but I'm extremely hyper optimistic with a touch of caution at this point.

Why not? TA at it's best was something like that. Just let ships pummel each other in two fleets, and a bunch of tanks and infantry rumbling with their own AIs in a huge mob somewhere, as a few dozen airplanes zoom about shooting stuff. Sounds and looks familiar.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-11 06:11pm

Because it means it's just another RTS. I've been doing this for decades, and the idea of playing TA on super-large maps - but with the same unit control problems, shit pathfinding, etc is NOT good. I will NOT pay for such a game. And since we're only seeing a very controlled aspect of the game, the trailers are both useless and somewhat suspicious.

Of course, if Taylor pulls it off it'll be great. We're simply not being told everything. But hey, don't you like Ground Control 2? It was a waste of AU$15!