So in short, it will put your system to its nees craving for more resources but it wont offer you anything more than other lighter titles of this genre. The game comes with a map editor but frankly I already got bored playing the title altogether. That sucks and 50% of my interest for it drops right there. I used to make LAN parties with the previous iteration, and I have fond memories of it (we skipped university classes for it and played nearly 24h straight, peeing on bottles, eating pizzas etc) :Dīut StarCraftII has no LAN play, only internet. It is the same as Starcraft I but with some more units and special abilities. In Starcraft II the maps can easly get filled with units the size of your fist.
Appalling considering its been more than 3 years in the making. StarcraftII also has less gaming modes than StarCraft I, both in solo and multiplayer. So I just spent frustrating several hours trying to get into a large war without seeing any action myself. building a second base for the minerals takes too long. In StarCraftII either the enemy kills you first or any of your AI alies will destroy the other side way before you even had time to gather 1/10th of the needed troops. You can make the fights so that the enemy wont cheat its production rate and attack you while your still building your first structures. Sup com is also tactically much more diverse and rich than StarcraftII.įor Solo Play I have to say Supreme commander is light years ahead of it. Supreme commander supports many many more units and much bigger maps (albeit with a crash bug when the 2 are true). And not much an evolution ever since Dune RTS back in 1989. You either loose or win by making as many units as possible in the shortest time then your adversary (the game concept and gameplay features makes this a requirement and you even get awarded for being fast, which is kinda dumb). And this is a 3 year gap between the games launch. If you ask me the graphics are on the same level. The game is DX9, just like Supreme Commander. My CPU usage is about 40%, during multi AI races large fights. So this is for triple core, dual core minimum. If your wondering how many cores it uses, they are 4 threads, but 2 of them might just squeeze onto 1 core.
You need to tune up your PC to avoid crashes and system freezes, even overheating your graphics card (happened with me when engaged 32XAA, first time it did) I have it maxed out and it will eat my RAM, all 4GB of it. I have been playing Starcraft II and I leave here my personal review comparing it to Supreme commander.įirst of all, those who are considering purchasing this game beware that it WILL tax your system resources heavily. Maybe I've missed a thread somewhere stating that it's impossible (for some unbeknownst reason) and if that's the case then please let me know.Well this is not a SIM but I had nowhere else to put this thread so: I simply want to know why they've not allowed for custom hotkeys yet? It was supposed to be something they would fix years back. Not the case and I just can not bear to use these controls. I decided to buy it today thinking that SC2 would SURELY have the hotkeys issue resolved by now. It's also something that is vital in a game such as this where the number of units are vast, so it bewilders me that it's not one of their main issues to resolve. To everyone who will reply simply with "HerpDerp yuse yor mowse too panz" go elsewhere, you people have clearly never heard of the term "micro-management" within an RTS, something that's painstaking to do when your hotkeys are all askew. I don't know what the dev's were smoking when they placed the arrow keys as default panning. With Spacebar to rotate, the WASD keys would be perfect for panning in this game. I can not use the arrow keys to pan my screen, it's ridiculous, my right hand is on my mouse. I bought SC2 on Xbox (I know, forgive me) but was always planning on getting it on PC once they fixed the hotkeys issue. So, this is something we were promised YEARS ago.
0 kommentar(er)
