Help me Decide which RTS!!!! and get a cookie!

Pick

  • C@C3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Supreme commander

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.

hmammen

Self Proclaimed Immortal
Messages
2,679
Location
lounge 146 (Euless TX)
I say C&C3. I loved the demo. Can't wait to play the full game. I can't really give a good reason other than I had more fun with the demo of C&C3 than I did with the retail version of Supreme Commander.
Now wheres my cookie :D
 
I will agree with Command and Conquere 3, it builds a bit fast, it also has some of the fun style that origanated the series, I am biased with supreme commander, I did not play the previous game; I don't like the controle and grafics, I have only played the demo for each one though.
 
supreme commander FTW

because i like its hud?, layout, and gameply style better than C&C3 also i have not really like the &C games.

I prefer rts games like supreme commander and ROL, EE, EE2.
even though the gfx arent the best its still better considering the huge scope of supreme commander.

now give me my cookie(not a tracking cookie please)
 
C&C 3 because, well, the C&C universe is my favorite RTS series hands down. But also because Supreme Commander will bring even high end systems to their knees. When the units build more and more, especially when you playing against 8 factions, there is so much going on the fps drop dramatically.

I'm not saying Supreme Commander isn't good, just the opposite. But beware of how this game demands some serious hardware.
 
OK, after playing both demos, i have decided Supreme commander, for some reason i am hooked to this game, and i love how you can scope.
I like the C@C3 but i just cant stand the storyline, its annoying lol.
Thanks for the replies.
 
Of the two I woulod definately say supreme command so I thing you've made the right choice.

Does anyone know how Supreme commander performs on an e6600 with the big maps and tons of units? is there any slowdown?

Also does anyone know if using 2 monitors impacts performance?
 
well, I bought the game 3 days ago and have played it alot since. Its really good, i think GAS did a great job. The functionality of the game is amazing. In an interview with the lead designer he said it was the Ultimate War Fun Tool, and its just that. With the awesome scoping its like having unlimited satellite imagery access.

Mr. coffee,
With my rig, i am getting anywhere between 20-45 fps on average and 70 fps max. Its actually very playable and enjoyable. The graphics of course, are amazing, and it makes me love RTS games now, and i cant wait to see what future RTS games have in store. Its not quite as graphically intensive as C@C 3, but nevertheless, the open battlefields are amazing. My settings are all on high except for shadow detail, which is on medium. There really isnt all that much of a slow down. It all comes down to your CPU and ram. I reccomend 2 gigs minimum, My 1 gig is why i have slow fps. My CPU seems to handle it fine but i think it would be all that much better with an E6600.
Dual monitor support is actually what the game is made for, although you will want to have even more RAM and an even better CPU as this feature eats RAM and gozzles your CPU. I wouldnt reccomend playing this game on a single core CPU. You can even have one monitor as your zoomed in screen with all your units and the other screen as the whole battlefield map, or both as the same. But The lead developer actually said the game was meant for two monitors. I wish i had two to try it out, but like i said, the game plays great on my rig, but if i had two montiors i think it would slow down tremendously due to my ram.
Hope this helps, i can get screenshots if you need.
 
I have two 19" LCDs and i've tried out the demo and I must say its pretty cool using both but I think the advantge will really be on the big maps... Sadly my CPU is no where near powerful enough for the game so i'm in the process of designing a new system based around a e6600.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom