Big budget Starcraft vs Low budget SC2. Why no love for the underdog?

[Nanobot o0O0o]

Starcraft probably has had a cumalitive budget over the years of 70 - 80 million, and C&C probably has had a budget of $30 million. (Halo Wars had a 40 - 60 million dollar budget)

So, why has SupCom2 not gotten the support that underdog games usually get from the American public? There's no way SupCom2 got a big budget, and we all saw what a piss poor Ad campaign Squeenix launched. Is SupCom or GPG not underdog enough? (Eg. League of Legends, Torchlight)

Not trying to start a flame war guys, but I played the Starcraft Demo last night and I realized that GPG has to be given credit for putting out a fun game that needs polish, yet with at LEAST 1/10th the budget of Starcraft.

Looking for mature responses here, guys.

[Banu]

There will be greater support, I am certain, when they release modding tools to the community. That was the great strength of Total Annihilation, and kept the game alive far past its prime.

But I do support this game, and bought an extra copy for a friend, coerced two other friends into trying it (who subsequently bought it), and may have to just breakdown a buy a copy for a fourth friend who should also have it.

Anyone who thinks the main story is bad, should go back to the original TA story. Though sometimes I found myself looking at the character strings of a Square game. Too much Final Fantasy under my thumbs.

The demo was quite a shock. This isn't the game I was expecting. And failing to set my expectations was perhaps a misstep. I wanted the expansive maps of FA. I wanted the expanding missions of FA. The change to economy was jarring, but eventually I came to accept it for what it is. By changing the economy to cost-up-front and shield-for-free, they took a weight off the CPU, which contributed to the game running much smoother. Chris Taylor was right, I don't even notice the new economy any more.

There remain gaps that need to be filled. I have a wish-list of stuff that I'll spare you. These gaps can be filled by DLC, or modding tools or expansion packs. All of these are things that Mr. Taylor has supported in the past, and I look forward to him doing so again. Signs are good that I'll be playing this game for a long time to come.

[Aesir Rising]

Specifically about LoL and Torchlight - I have Torchlight, and I have had/played LoL betas.

Neither fit the definition of underdog in my mind. LoL would have to had sucked as a DotA-like game. People were pining for an updated DotA. It, as well as HoN, were about as close to a sure thing as one could reasonably expect.

In the case of Torchlight... I could say almost (..almost..) the same thing. It has the old Diablo gameplay and Warcraft III graphics (high performance, yet still looks polished). I thought when I got it, that it was the best 20 bucks I put into gaming for quite some time, and that is probably a true statement. But underdog? Maybe. I don't know.

I would point to a game like AI Wars (which I haven't played) as fitting the underdog definition a bit better. A new developer.. working solo for x years afaik, puts out a game that does well being sold through both Impulse and Steam, and gets good player and press reviews along the way. And he's put out patches and content updates continuously since it's release. Good for him. (Or them, if my facts are off). That is a winning underdog to me.

Anyway, at some point in time I will add StarCraft II and Command & Conquer 4 to my collection of games. They are different enough to warrant their respective purchases. In the case of both, I will be waiting for the post-launch sales however.

If I could only pick one game, between StarCraft II, C&C4 and SupCom2, then I think StarCraft II has the greatest potential in terms of longevity (and therefore, overall value) - but I would be gambling on past history. Let me explain...

GPG games, of which I own all but two, seem to get left behind as GPG moves to other projects. Blizzard, an extreme opposite example, is still updating the roughly 11 year old StarCraft, WarCraft III, and battle.net. WarCraft III in my mind still holds up particularly well even now in terms of 'fun' and in terms of graphics. Though StarCraft is a bit too low end (graphics-wise) for me to really want to play anymore.

Conversely...
Demigod... I no longer expect any maps, other content updates, or patches.
SC is finished. SC:FA .. I still have a shimmer of hope that they're going to polish off the v3603 patch and do a final release. But people smarter than I say it ain't happening.

"But," you say, "Aesir, don't be a ♥♥♥♥ing idiot. GPG is small and Blizzard is L A R G E." Yes, I say. This is true. But that critical fact changes neither the end result, nor my own personal expectations. Sorry.


I don't know if it's a mature response or not. If you've read this far, honk.

[Mr. M]

I really dislike SupCom 2.
This is not because it is no Starcraft or CnC.
I played the first SupCom and FA and I really loved it. In fact I still play it. So when SupCom 2 was announced I was pretty hyped. When I finally played the demo then, I was just shocked. They took nearly everything good out of the game and made some REALLY lame copy of your everyday RTS like CnC or Age of Empires (which aren't bad at all), but it has a really bad story, lots of bugs and next to no possibilities for any real strategy since the maps are really claustrophobicly small and there are about 25 units and 15 buildings.

to close this: I really like underdogs. SupCom was a really underrated game and just made me happy, that someone was making a deep an really intense RTS which offered everything for a tacticsfreak like me.

[Valor958]

I've got to say I'm really disappointed with how SupCom2 has turned out. There was am amazing amount of potential for this game if they had just BUILT on the prior two games and not just scraped it all and started from scratch... bad, stale scratch. I AM looking forward to big titles like Starcraft and Diablo 3, but not b/c they're from big companies. Really, I'm quite peeved that they decided to split Starcraft 2 into three games. Diablo 3 is still hyping me but i guess time will tell with that, and hopefully it doesn't flop.
It would be great if they would one give final polish to SC:FA before admiring it and shelfing it. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't touch it for whatever reason, it would be nice. I am very anxious to see how they improve and build upon what SupCom2 is and hopefully make it more what it should be. My major gripe is that this should all have been done months before now, and most importantly BEFORE they sold what was basically a late beta version to the public and market it as a final product.
I share the same concerns about maps and several other points already mentioned so I won't reiterate, but seriously, they need to give us some free DLC to make up for all the money they bilked out of us with this. I don't think anyone would disagree that they owe us what they promised us.

*S*

[LA Snow]

Valor, I'm surprised that you embrace the complexity of SupCom and TA, yet you also like the crystal/vespene gas gathering in Starcraft. That seems like two completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Regarding support, I think it depends on how many people still play the game. They've shown good support so far with 2 patches out before the first month with SupCom 2, and this addressed most of everyone's concerns. I really hope SupCom 2 stays in there and competes with Starcraft 2, because I've played both games and like SupCom 2 better.

That being said, there was almost NO online following for SupCom and Forged Alliance. The online lobby was absolutely vacant. If people continue to play online, I think GPG will continue to support.

When the online games turn in to ghost towns and it's 30 minutes to get 1 opponent, then I think GPG will move to another title.

Dev support and community participation go hand in hand. Best thing you can do is keep playing online and encourage everyone you know to pick up a copy if you think they would like it.

[thePyro_13]

So, why has SupCom2 not gotten the support that underdog games usually get from the American public? There's no way SupCom2 got a big budget, and we all saw what a jarate poor Ad campaign Squeenix launched. Is SupCom or GPG not underdog enough? (Eg. League of Legends, Torchlight)

Their's no American public in my neighbourhood.

I find that on average, gamers don't pick sides. they don't really care how much was spent on a game or how hard it was to make(hence everyone wanting their own WoW).

All they care about is if they enjoy it. Torchlight is a great game. I got lots of fun out of it. Doesn't matter if its underdog or if it was made by EA. Its a good game, that's why people support it.

I haven't seen any underdog support type behaviour from any gamers I know.


The important thing to remember here is that their isn't a large correlation between budget size and game quality. If CnC4 had double its budget, do you really think it would have been any better?

All it takes to make a game is skilled devs and time. you can't buy time, and you can't always get skilled devs(even with enough money)

Just my opinion on the matter, take what you will.

[Deeviant]

Perhaps because it is a dumbed-down version of the original game. I also have to actually go out of my way to find ways in which the game advances on its ancestor. Furthermore, it's incessant pandering to the console generation and generate lack of effort to leverage the PC platform is blatantly evident.

Now, massive holes are now appearing in game play, balance and overall flow of the game as the incredible lack of the unit/structure diversity it failed to inherent from its predecessor is bringing the number viable strategies to a mind-numbing minimum.

Full disclosure: I am still playing the game.

Will I be playing the game in a week? Probably.
In a month? Maybe.
In a year? Very doubtful.

Will I be shelling out any more money in DLC for the game?
Beyond DLC the rewrites the dumb out of the game, not a chance.

[trojanrabbit.gg]

I don't mean to turn this into a flame war by posting this. But isn't it about time Microsoft redesigned the xbox? Its been out now for longer than the gap between the xbox and the xbox 360. And in that time, pc's have gone far and beyond what a 360 will ever be able to do. My laptop has more power and push than a 360 does, and thats pretty sad. Yet people are still calling these consoles "next generation".

The reason why SupCom 2 did not go as far as it should have, is because it was built for the xbox 360, and then squished into a little tube and sucked over to the pc. The outcome is that the game often feels like it doesn't belong on pc. And thats because sadly it does not.

As for StarCraft 2, I have pretty much boycotted blizzard games from now on. And thats because of a disturbing little interview I read. In the interview one of the owners of Blizzard was asked if they would ever make a 4th Warcraft rts game. And the response was that they would only make a game that would make a high profit. And they pretty much said that if they could make more wow expansions that make them tons of money, they will never consider making a game that wouldn't make that much.

Now compare that type of an attitude, that "I want more money and dont care about my gamers" to what a guy like Chris Taylor is. Chris Taylor is not chasing bucks like blizzard is. He is trying to make a game that is widely accessible and fun to play.

And no matter how bad supcom2 did not live up to supcom 1, it is still a "fun" game to play.

Currently Chris is working on a game called Kings and Castles. And he actually is making a developers weekly blog of how the game is coming along. He shows us what it is the game is shaping up to be. Name ONE developer that cares enough about the people that play their games that does the same.

So in the end, Chris Taylor can have my money. But Blizzard is not going to see another nickel of my money. Not even with Diablo 3.

[LA Snow]

I agree. I remember seeing Blizzard make the same remarks. Sure, it's a free country and capitalist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore pride in work.

[GamingGodX6]

That being said, there was almost NO online following for SupCom and Forged Alliance. The online lobby was absolutely vacant. If people continue to play online, I think GPG will continue to support.

That's because Supcom was broken and unfinished on release, GPG net was bug infested crapware that had to be patched like 10 times to get it working. By the time Forged alliance rolled around everyone who had checked out supcom and didn't care for the stale multiplayer didn't care.

Supcom was great for LAN play and AI skirmish once AI mods were released, but everything was just so unfinished and broken on release of Supcom 1, it's a bloody miracle it got a high ratings as it did. Problem was everything Supcom 1 should have been was not fixed in Forged alliance, they spent way too much money on graphics and not enough ensuring the gameplay was fun to begin with.

Supcom 1 was "good on paper" but the execution was bad and a lot of bad design decisions ruined the game. As a singleplayer game, it was pretty bland and the camera/strategic zoom made the single player kinda ♥♥♥♥ty since you spend all that money on graphics then the camera is way zoomed out most of the time and units are so small kinda makes it pointless.

Supcom 1 was lots of ideas executed half-assedly. Supcom was an "almost but not quite" kind of game. It's kinda sad because if Supcom 1 had more money and a better designer (I think taylor has lost it a bit) it could have been a game that was greater then all the other RTS games combined.

[LA Snow]

That's because Supcom was broken and unfinished on release, GPG net was bug infested crapware that had to be patched like 10 times to get it working. By the time Forged alliance rolled around everyone who had checked out supcom and didn't care for the stale multiplayer didn't care.

Supcom was great for LAN play and AI skirmish once AI mods were released, but everything was just so unfinished and broken on release of Supcom 1, it's a bloody miracle it got a high ratings as it did. Problem was everything Supcom 1 should have been was not fixed in Forged alliance, they spent way too much money on graphics and not enough ensuring the gameplay was fun to begin with.

Supcom 1 was "good on paper" but the execution was bad and a lot of bad design decisions ruined the game. As a singleplayer game, it was pretty bland and the camera/strategic zoom made the single player kinda ♥♥♥♥ty since you spend all that money on graphics then the camera is way zoomed out most of the time and units are so small kinda makes it pointless.

Supcom 1 was lots of ideas executed half-assedly. Supcom was an "almost but not quite" kind of game. It's kinda sad because if Supcom 1 had more money and a better designer (I think taylor has lost it a bit) it could have been a game that was greater then all the other RTS games combined.

The online setup was buggy, but without getting in to the reason why the online following was no good, the fact that it wasn't good was the reason the project got abandoned when it did.

I've never seen a game with a huge online following that continues to sell copies get abandoned by the dev or the publisher. Look at Company of Heroes. Still huge online presence to this day. The game's been out, what 3 years? There are still expansions and patches coming out. THQ and Relic will abandon that game when the online audience goes to play something else. I don't know when that will happen, but devs don't shut down a project that has a huge online following.

The more people that play SupCom 2 online will determine how long it's supported by GPG and Square. I do like how the patches seem to be coming out quickly with another patch scheduled for the 24th. The longevity of online games depends on the community's interest in them.

[Aesir Rising]

Name ONE developer that cares enough about the people that play their games that does the same.


Brad Wardell and the gang, at Stardock.

Though, ironically, I sense friction between that company and GPG - or perhaps just between their respective fanbase.

CCP (Eve) puts out, when it comes to fan relations.

Turbine, or at least based on my experiences with them during the release of LotRO.

Maybe some others. But this doesn't weaken your point. Just wanted to give some credit where I thought credit was due.

[LA Snow]

Brad Wardell and the gang, at Stardock.

Though, ironically, I sense friction between that company and GPG - or perhaps just between their respective fanbase.

CCP (Eve) puts out, when it comes to fan relations.

Maybe some others. But this doesn't weaken your point. Just wanted to give some credit where I thought credit was due.

I second the CCP thing. Very responsive to the community. Also look at Relic. Fantastic job with support, constant improvements, patches, etc.

When Relic makes another RTS game that isn't something like DOW II, watch out. It's gonna be hot ♥♥♥♥♥.

[Aesir Rising]

If DoW 3 was DoW 2 with updated visuals and proper support for widescreen resolutions, I would buy it. I'm a creature of habit. I have DoW2 and expansion - it looks great, but I really did like DoW better.

P.S. So I bought that expansion... and realize now I've not launched it. I should probably do that at some point. lol

[LA Snow]

I got turned off by DOW II because the lack of any kind of base building and an emphasis on unit special abilities and levels like Warcraft 3. There's nothing wrong with this formula, and doesn't make it a bad game, but I just prefer to keep the RPG formula with the RPGs and try not to mix it in too much.

[Buttons]

Perhaps it has to do with this game being focused on multiplayer? I mean there isn't much to the campaign, and with a few cheesy tactics ruling the multiplayer there are a lot of negative feelings.

[LA Snow]

Perhaps it has to do with this game being focused on multiplayer? I mean there isn't much to the campaign, and with a few cheesy tactics ruling the multiplayer there are a lot of negative feelings.

Cheesy tactics? Please elaborate.

[SapientWolf]

I don't mean to turn this into a flame war by posting this. But isn't it about time Microsoft redesigned the xbox? Its been out now for longer than the gap between the xbox and the xbox 360. And in that time, pc's have gone far and beyond what a 360 will ever be able to do. My laptop has more power and push than a 360 does, and thats pretty sad. Yet people are still calling these consoles "next generation".

The reason why SupCom 2 did not go as far as it should have, is because it was built for the xbox 360, and then squished into a little tube and sucked over to the pc. The outcome is that the game often feels like it doesn't belong on pc. And thats because sadly it does not.

As for StarCraft 2, I have pretty much boycotted blizzard games from now on. And thats because of a disturbing little interview I read. In the interview one of the owners of Blizzard was asked if they would ever make a 4th Warcraft rts game. And the response was that they would only make a game that would make a high profit. And they pretty much said that if they could make more wow expansions that make them tons of money, they will never consider making a game that wouldn't make that much.

Now compare that type of an attitude, that "I want more money and dont care about my gamers" to what a guy like Chris Taylor is. Chris Taylor is not chasing bucks like blizzard is. He is trying to make a game that is widely accessible and fun to play.

And no matter how bad supcom2 did not live up to supcom 1, it is still a "fun" game to play.

Currently Chris is working on a game called Kings and Castles. And he actually is making a developers weekly blog of how the game is coming along. He shows us what it is the game is shaping up to be. Name ONE developer that cares enough about the people that play their games that does the same.

So in the end, Chris Taylor can have my money. But Blizzard is not going to see another nickel of my money. Not even with Diablo 3.
I have to disagree with that statement. I think they wanted to deliver a game that could be played by as many people as possible.

The biggest complaint about SupCom 1 was the high system requirements and they clearly addressed that issue in the sequel. They optimized the game to the point where it can even run well on single core machines.

They've also streamlined the game so a new player can jump in and have fun without studying a FAQ first. Adding more complexity on top of an already complex game would have limited its potential audience, so it's no surprise that they went in the other direction.

I've played a lot of console->PC ports and SupCom 2 isn't one of them. The PC is clearly the lead SKU.

[Palmerific]

Cheesy tactics? Please elaborate.

ACU rush. Gunship rush. Air blob. You know the spiel. Can we skip past this argument though? Its been beaten into the ground at this point.

[Blackvenom01]

I don't understand why they ruined SC2 so much, I didnt find SC/FA complicated at all, and very rewarding because of the many units, many strategies awsome unit scaling etc.

SC2 feels like an RTS that borrows the SC name to gain money, but all that SC was, is gone in SC2. Units, scaling, *bit* more balance, graphics, economy, building cool bases etc

It's to bad there is barely any Online gaming for SC/FA or that would be a RTS that I would play for a long time.

[LA Snow]

ACU rush. Gunship rush. Air blob. You know the spiel. Can we skip past this argument though? Its been beaten into the ground at this point.

If that's how you set the bar for "cheesy" tactics, then every single game has its fair share of them and it's not SupCom 2's fault.

[LA Snow]

I don't understand why they ruined SC2 so much, I didnt find SC/FA complicated at all, and very rewarding because of the many units, many strategies awsome unit scaling etc.

SC2 feels like an RTS that borrows the SC name to gain money, but all that SC was, is gone in SC2. Units, scaling, *bit* more balance, graphics, economy, building cool bases etc

It's to bad there is barely any Online gaming for SC/FA or that would be a RTS that I would play for a long time.

I checked the online community all the time. I like both games. Fact is, SupCom 2 online is way more populated than SC:FA ever was. That could be for a variety of reasons that could be debated, but everyone remembers hosting a game and waiting 20 minutes for 1 person to join. In SupCom 2 I get an opponent in less than 15 seconds.

[GamingGodX6]

The online setup was buggy, but without getting in to the reason why the online following was no good, the fact that it wasn't good was the reason the project got abandoned when it did.

GPG net was broken for so long, I remember buying Supcom 1 and being banned with my legit key because the guys at GPG were just so braindead, thekey issue STILL was not sorted out. I got FA and was insta-banned AGAIN and the issue is STILL there as we speak right now. Supcom 1 + FA both suffered from a half-finished game design, no tools on release (no official map editor that worked like say blizzards).

Really dumb design decsiions (i.e. no automap downloading on game join like in Strcraft 1). There was just so much unfinished and broken stuff on release, you have to get the game for release day right or else you will ♥♥♥♥ over the online community forever.

The designer and development issues of supcom 1+fa was the problem. The core elements to build a great game existed in both Supcom and FA, GPG just wasn't up to the task. They just do not have the talent nor the funds to do a proper game, they wouldn't have so many problems if they'd just finish the games they make instead of releasing half-finished ♥♥♥♥.

Supcom 2 is also suffering from "didn't finish it!" syndrome of the game industry - a plethora of bugs and just stupid mind bogglingly simple ♥♥♥♥ was not caught.

[GamingGodX6]

I checked the online community all the time. I like both games. Fact is, SupCom 2 online is way more populated than SC:FA ever was. That could be for a variety of reasons that could be debated, but everyone remembers hosting a game and waiting 20 minutes for 1 person to join. In SupCom 2 I get an opponent in less than 15 seconds.

The online matchmaking portion is 50 million times better in supcom 2 and this is due to steam. If Supcom FA had steam probably would have had a more community.

[GamingGodX6]

I've played a lot of console->PC ports and SupCom 2 isn't one of them. The PC is clearly the lead SKU.

You're so wrong on so many levels, the PC version of Supcom 2 is the same as the xbox version. If the PC version was the "lead" it would not be the same game, they would have CUT IT DOWN for the xbox version but the two versions outside of control scheme and DRM are IDENTICAL, that means it was designed for the xbox from the get go and they didn't spend any money differentiating the games.

Supcom 2 suffers from console design syndrome there is no denying it.

[Xenesis]

Supcom 2 suffers from console design syndrome there is no denying it.

So uh, what the heck IS 'console design syndrome'?

[SapientWolf]

You're so wrong on so many levels, the PC version of Supcom 2 is the same as the xbox version. If the PC version was the "lead" it would not be the same game, they would have CUT IT DOWN for the xbox version but the two versions outside of control scheme and DRM are IDENTICAL, that means it was designed for the xbox from the get go and they didn't spend any money differentiating the games.

Supcom 2 suffers from console design syndrome there is no denying it.
I still think the best way to play SupCom 2 is on the PC. They lowered the unit cap in the 360 version to 250 so the two versions are not identical. It isn't like Stormrise or End War, which were clearly designed with console controls in mind and then backported to the PC. SupCom 2 is best played with a mouse and keyboard, preferably on a dual monitor setup.

A true console strategy game would be easier to play on a gamepad than the m/kb. The closest thing to that is Darwinia+.

[GamingGodX6]

I still think the best way to play SupCom 2 is on the PC. They lowered the unit cap in the 360 version to 250 so the two versions are not identical.

Unit caps are not making the game fundamentally different, the games in their fundamental aspects are exactly the same.

You're making the same flawed argument First person shooter players were making when all first person shooter games stopped being PC exclusive and they dumbed them down for console-tards. they'd say "FPS games are still better played on PC", which of course is true but look at all the first person shooter console games now 8-9 years after Halo. Halo and Halo 2 were some of the worst ported games to PC and Halo 3 has yet to even get a PC version. Funny thing was Halo was taken by microsoft and released as console exclusive and only porting to PC looong after the fact.

Every game is becoming infected with console-itis.

[thePyro_13]

A true console strategy game would be easier to play on a gamepad than the m/kb. The closest thing to that is Darwinia+.

Not even, gamepads are terribad for strat games. Even a terribly ported console RTS will be easier to use with a kb/m than a gamepad.

And since this thread has already gone way off topic:
Would anyone else like to see someone try and make a strat game for the Wii? It's the only console with a controller that wouldn't be a pain in the ♥♥♥ to play RTS with.

Could be a good use for Wii's.

[aleksanderstorm]

So many people here seem to keep repeating about 'unit variety' in SupCom and SupCom:FA... What variety? The same unit three times over is variety? I've played SupCom, FA, Total Annihilation, Core Contingency... I love them to death, but I realize that a decent amount of the unit cast was absolutely REDUNDANT. SupCom2 watered it down to the pure roles and gave access to unit upgrades to improve those pure role-based units. That's not dumbed-down, that really is weeding out the repetitive elements and streamlining.

EDIT: I will admit they perhaps 'weeded out' a few too many units, but the factions are also more unique because of some of those choices.

[GamingGodX6]

EDIT: I will admit they perhaps 'weeded out' a few too many units, but the factions are also more unique because of some of those choices.

And with this you just conceded their point. Everyone knows there were "redundant" units in Supcom and FA but they weren't so redundant as some units were just badly designed, the bomber effects between a Tier 2 carpet bomber and a strategic bomber were different and added some uniqueness to the units. This could have been exploited further if they had better imaginations + design team working on units. Supcom 2 proved to me that GPG has no clue how to work and design units around gameplay which are useful and don't die too quickly (experimentals). You should always be thinking about gameplay 1st.

The IDEAS were sound, they didn't spend enough time making diverse amount of units useful (too much work) so they consolidated it in Supcom 2, instead of fixing Supcom + FA's weakpoints. Everyone was expecting them to have large # of units + better unit design, instead they cut down the # of units and did research in the most horrendous way possible. Even the research tree's are not well thought out, i.e. upgrades for standard units, but no upgrades for useless experimentals? As it is now experimental are too costly to be used in games, nukes are better from an RP and devestation perspective.

[aleksanderstorm]

Well, the 'Training' research still affects Experimentals, at least as far as I can tell with the tooltips for the tech tree when in Skirmish/Multiplayer modes (I may have confirmed this through observation, but memory often seems randomly selective). That's a universal +10 to health and damage for "All Land Units" or Air, or Naval. In the Campaign, those same techs are specifically given the modifier 'except experimentals', but it is clearly dropped from the current Skirmish/Multiplayer balancing rules. Still, these are universal upgrades and thus don't actually give the Experimentals any improvements over the more generic units... But it still gives them an edge over units without 'Training' research investment. A player specifically focusing on experimentals can both aim towards unlocking them as well as teching up the 'Training' to get the full potential, and perhaps be effective. I know I'm still quite pleased with the Soul Ripper performance.

[SapientWolf]

Not even, gamepads are terribad for strat games. Even a terribly ported console RTS will be easier to use with a kb/m than a gamepad.

And since this thread has already gone way off topic:
Would anyone else like to see someone try and make a strat game for the Wii? It's the only console with a controller that wouldn't be a pain in the ♥♥♥ to play RTS with.

Could be a good use for Wii's.
Uprising is an exception to that rule. Fat Princess and Team Buddies are also great console action-strategy games.

I believe there was a 2D RTS on the Wii called Swords and Soldiers.

Unit caps are not making the game fundamentally different, the games in their fundamental aspects are exactly the same.

You're making the same flawed argument First person shooter players were making when all first person shooter games stopped being PC exclusive and they dumbed them down for console-tards. they'd say "FPS games are still better played on PC", which of course is true but look at all the first person shooter console games now 8-9 years after Halo. Halo and Halo 2 were some of the worst ported games to PC and Halo 3 has yet to even get a PC version. Funny thing was Halo was taken by microsoft and released as console exclusive and only porting to PC looong after the fact.

Every game is becoming infected with console-itis.
Halo was originally a PC title, until MS bought Bungie. So I think your argument is backwards. PC style gaming is invading the consoles.

[GamingGodX6]

Halo was originally a PC title, until MS bought Bungie. So I think your argument is backwards. PC style gaming is invading the consoles.

Except you're wrong, FPS games were not exclusive to PC's, N64 had goldeneye. Halo was originally for the PC but it was not even in full production. Halo was originally meant to be an RTS, they instead were bought out and they made it into an FPS for consoles. That's a HUGE design change. Of course if you knew anything at all about Halo's development you know they radically changed direction after they got bought out, and all the halo games were mediocre FPS games compared to prior PC FPS games because they had to make it for crap Xbox hardware. Halo could have been umpteen a million times better if it had just been made it for PC. Halo 1's texturing and level design was bland to fit it in the ♥♥♥♥ty memory of Xbox 1. Halo 2 was one of the most mediocre FPS games ever made.

[aleksanderstorm]

Golden Eye, Turok... hey, I remember a game called P'Oed on my Playstation 1 that was a shooter...

As for Halo... Yeah. Kinda lame game. I personally preferred the Tribes series for multiplayer. Halo at least offered some sort of story but that's all I saw of any interest from it. Basically, after I finished the campaign, never touched it again.

[Kardinal]

Starcraft probably has had a cumalitive budget over the years of 70 - 80 million, and C&C probably has had a budget of $30 million. (Halo Wars had a 40 - 60 million dollar budget)
Do you have a source for that? You may be sorta making numbers up.

Either way, if SupCom is an epic great game, it will get the recognition. While TA and SupCom were better games than StarCraft, they did not appeal in the same way to as broad a market as SC. The value in SC is in its exquisite three-way balance and low barrier to entry. TA and SC eschews these in favor of bigger is better. Different philosophies, and you can see which is more popular.

[Xenesis]

Halo was originally a PC title, until MS bought Bungie. So I think your argument is backwards. PC style gaming is invading the consoles.

It was likely even going to be a Apple Mac title, considering that Bungie was typically a mac developer until that point with their Marathon Series.