As one of the 2010 releases mentioned officially by ATI as having Eyefinity support, it's not looking bad. HUD fix to centre would be nice though.
Separate from TH support, the graphics look rather dated to me, certainly not what you'd expect from a 2010 release. I wonder if the XBox had something to do with it :roll:.
I don't think it's the Xbox, they said in the PC Gamer article that this game was aimed at 10 year old PCs and casual gamers. It looks like crap and removes all the awesome parts of SC1, so it will likely fail with the hardcore crowd. Will they get enough casual sales to make up for that? I doubt it, personally, but who knows.
SC1 was a success, God knows why they messed with it. All these companies aim at the casuals but only 1 in 10 can reach that market, making for a lot of dissapointments.
Hmm, the dumbing down of PC games continues then :evil:. I guess these developers are going where the money is. Well I was quite excited about this game, not any more. At least the Battlefield franchise still appears to be taking us seriously.
Looks like crap, but I'll give the demo a shot. I hated Supreme Commander (never could quite work out why, it ticks all the right boxes but just fails to even draw my interest, let alone hold it...) it's a shame they decided to try for the casual route - the only companies that seem to have that perfectly are Popcap and iWin...
It's not PopCap level casual, mind you, it is more just a simple RTS. Like CnC I guess, but without the epic storyline. The original SupCom was much more intense and deep as a system of game mechanics, and the zoom out was tremendous, and the economy focus was unique. This game removes ALL of that.
I liked Dawn of War 2 because of the RPG elements, this game is still a flat RTS but with nothing special anymore. That's why I find it dissapointing.
Plus it needs to be said the game looks freaking TERRIBLE for 2010. Really, really bad.
Oddly, I never get bored with the C&C game mechanics. :) I get bored with the complex mechanics in some other RTS games as it means too much micromanagement and not enough actual playing. ;)
Gentlemen, whenever you post comparison screenies, please consider posting a full-fledged Confirmed Solution, too ;)
Oh wow. I thought SC2 would be a resource-hungry, deep, unforgiving micro-niche game worthy of its predecessor... but seeing how it looks like plastic toys on the beach, I might give it a try after all !
Played the demo.. there is dual head support (I am guessing its like in SupCom1 but I couldn't get it to work, the game crashed on launch when I set that setting).
So I tried the EF resolution, well its pretty disappointing. Everything is zoomed in Vert-, sure you can zoom out with the camera but everything is "bigger" than normal. You zoom out a little bit and start seeing the grid almost immediately, basically you can't really enjoy the good graphics since it turns everything into icons very fast.
Looks like I won't be playing this game till tomorrow even thought I have the DVD now, the reason being, after installing 2GB off the DVD it wants to waste another 2GB of my bandwidth to download the other half of the game that could of fitted on the fracking DVD. 2GB, that's 10% of my monthly peek time bandwidth, I'm not wasting my bandwidth on something they could of put on the DVD in the first place, more over it'll take 5 times longer to install now that it would if they just included it on the DVD in the first place.
*sigh* so I'll just setting it running from midnight onwards when I have unlimited bandwidth and while I'm asleep so I don't need my computer or connection for anything else.
I've uploaded a movie and 13 screen shots of the full game to the user content forum, http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18668
I've uploaded a movie and 13 screen shots of the full game to the user content forum, http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18668
Wow how did u manage to get such nice 1080p videos?
I record the game at 1920x400 (48:10) or I resize it to that when I'm forced to use fraps, I then encoded that version with a double pass 3500 bit rate, I also encode with a file size = 100MB per minute if the first encoded isn't good enough but that one was. I was expecting youtube to reduce the quality more then it did but it turned out alright.