Supreme Cmdr

Which server were you guys on? If on SERVER1, was that the (G)graphics or ©onsole server?

I don't have to show them - or anyone else for that matter - anything. I develop these games because I want to; not because I have anything to prove. There's no democracy involved in that decision. Besides, anyone who buys a game based on the personal review of a single entity - win or lose - only have themselves to blame. IMO, the media - and gamers - are primarily responsible for the derivative nature of the industry. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I don't know why anyone expected UCAWA - which went into development right after UC - to be anything other than what it is. Especially given that it is based on UC and was barely a year in development and its product info and dev VCF were widely publicized from the get-go. I am going to watch the sales numbers of UCAWA and if they don't meet or exceed the UC figures, then there won't be another. And before you go cheering about BCNG, you need to go back and read up on it. It is NOWHERE near ANYTHING that the previous BC/UC games were and doesn't even come close in scope. And since we're now focused on our XBox360 game, KnightBlade, and UCO (which is based off UCAWA), I don't expect BCNG to appear anytime before 2008. In fact, I removed it from the products page already, since it is longer term.

I went to the movie not knowing what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised TBH. It was well written, well acted and full of more plot twists than a stick of cotton candy. Classic Tony Scott mayhem. Loved it! But I'm docking it one point because it gets confusing in more than one place. If you look into your popcorn bag, you'll miss something that will make the next scene totally confusing. 9/10

I saw it and didn't think it was that bad. It is watchable - especially if you never saw the original. 5/10

Got my copy yesterday. 58% (compared to the 75% of UC). Basically, it is a half page review that doesn't say much actually. From the reviewer's comments (see below), he was expecting a huge leap from UC. Not sure why that would be, considering that its a series. Oh well. Some choice excerpts: However, many of these destinations - flux fields, planets, moons and so on - are lifeless, vacant bits of real estate with zero tourism value. And while that emptiness might capsize a traditional, mass-appear space shooter, it remains a significant part of Universal Combat's raison d'etre. With its wealth of role-playing and micromanagement options, the simn's freeform Roam mode can literally keep you going for months as you navigate from system to system exploring planets, trading goods, mining minerals and blasting enemy ships into space dust. The integrated first-person shooter game is a stilted, clunky, mess, and the supplementary "planetary fighter" mode isn't much better. Toss in some vapid scripted campaigns - 16 missions with minimal direction, action or rewards - and you wind up with a game that only a space nerd could love. But its the nerd element that's kept this franchise alive for a decade. A World Apart's AI tweaks and DirectX 9 enhancements are marginal upgrades at best, but for Smart's legion of dedicated fans, that's reason enough to plunk down $30 for another kick at the sandbox. The rest of us will keep hoping Smart is able to "up" his game and deliver something a bit more evolved next time [ 10-16-2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

The manual is 100% accurate.

I'm not hosting Gold servers and don't plan on it.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Too bad. IMO he was the best next gen Bond. Lets see if they sign up Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) to be the next Bond or not. I KNEW IT!!! Daniel Craig is the next Bond!! Damn fine choice if you ask me.

oh? Lemme go fix that. I must've forgotten to enable it when the game was released.

quote: Originally posted by Darkling: Umm.. you still have this area set for only authorized Users to post new topics. Wrong again. This is a first impressions thread. quote: Originally posted by Darkling: Hopefully next edition, Usable Subs, and Underwater Bases! That was the plan but I never did get around to finishing up their dynamics model. Oh well; can't have everything.

*moved from tech support* Wrong. Thats how it works. When you beam them down, they have SAD orders. You can only order personnel who are escorting you. It has been this way since the first UC and remains unchanged. And if you were actually - READING - the manual, then you should know that you didn't have to use Tacops to give them order. There are NO new features in UCG. Only minor cleanups, optimizations, revisions to certain aspects (e.g. the ACM now supports careers other than CMDR) etc. In fact, the only feature that I can think of in UCG, is the ability to eject a cargo pod from Logistix. In the UC, the items are destroyed.

quote: Originally posted by $iLk: Good lord I'm agreeing with Ann... I love Ann. She reminds me of...well, me. $ilk, please post the URL to the original article. You should know the rules around here by now. quote: Originally posted by Grizzle: LOL. Although, academic acheivement isn't everything. Einstein wasn't exactly the best student or a shining star in academia either. Not that I'm saying Miers could be an Einstein. But yeah, Bush probably screwed the pooch on this one. (ech, I guess that means I kind of agree with Ms. Coulter too...) Considering that my IQ is higher than Einstein's and given that all I've got to show for it is this board (not some Earth shattering fancy equation) I'd say that the IQ tests are probably rigged and that someone should sue and take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Please refrain from taking the thread off-topic - and posting about issues discussed elsewhere, as well as issues that are - largely - irrelevant within the scope of this thread.

quote: Originally posted by Darkling: Is this how it's supposed to work or is this a glitch. Yes; since they can't enter vehicles with you.

I couldn't have said that better myself. And yeah, shipping games on multiple CD-ROMs is just insane. I have NO idea why they do that. I guess they assume that there are more CD-ROMs out there than there are DVDs. Which - of course - is rubbish.

Not yet!!

PC Gaming is DOOMED!1!1! Make for the console hills!!!

Below is my letter to Tim Stone (reviewer) and Ross Atherton (EIC) at PC Gamer UK. quote: Tim, I just got my November issue and saw the review. I almost choked when I read that. Scores are irrelevant, so that didn't bother me much. Though the fact that 56 is the reverse of 65 (the UC score), I can only imagine that the score was just another take on this ludicrous review. What did bother me particular were the following excerpts which clearly show that this was nothing more than a rush job. You basically assumed that UCAWA was 'just like UC' and didn't invest the time to actually delve into ALL the revisions and new additions to the game. ...besides fractionally more fetching visuals, Thats just wrong. I'm not sure if you were running on a sub-standard rig or what, but so far we've had no complaints about the visuals. Not from our gamers nor the media. In fact, the visuals when compared to the previous UC game, are worlds apart. Literally. better multiplayer facilities and a new campaign playable as either a commander or a fighter ace, erm, wot?!? Did you miss the 16 Instant Action scenarios? progress is depressingly insubstantial. No point in even pondering on this. I'll just attach the game's dev VCF which we updated religiously throughout its development. All the stuff that really needed work - the accessibility, the planetside action, the FP mode, the shipboard ambience - those elements are as ropey as ever. OK, why does the 'accessibility' need work? You guys consistently give the X series higher scores without a single peep about how insane its interface and accessibility are. Yet, its the same old song and dance when it comes to the BC/UC games. If the people buying these games don't find anything wrong with the accessibility, why is it an issue? Why should sequels go back and re-invent the wheel and fix was was - clearly - not broken? Seriously. In fact, at the IGDA hosted launch party for the game, I spoke about this very aspect and why sequels sometimes fail. The FP mode is one of the most revised aspects of the game. I fail to see what exactly you found wrong with it. Then again, you failed to say why it needed work. Its not a dedicated FPS - and was never billed as that. The FP mode is just another aspect that gives the gamer total immersion. As for shipboard ambience; I have no idea what you're going on about there. ...there are still no self-contained tutorial missions. Why are they needed? They tutorials are just like anything game's tutorial. Are there ANY self-contained tutorials in Falcon 4.0: Allied Force? A game you - foolishly - listed as an alternative to a space sim?!? The acronym-peppered interface is as unhelpful as ever. The interface remains unchanged. Why? Because it is a sequel. It wasn't broken before and there was no need to change it and alienate gamers who were already used to it. Heck, you don't even get a printed manual unless you stump-up an extra $10. Thats funny. Really funny. How many triple-A games are released with piss-poor 'printed' manuals. The game's manuals are on PDF format on disk. Those who want a printed manual, can pony up for one if they don't already have the printed manual from Universal Combat. In fact, we only did a limited run of printed manuals and they all sold out in the first week. I never thought that anyone who already had the UC printed manual would want the UCAWA version. I was wrong. Anyway, I am sorely disappointed by this review. There is nothing that I can do about it, but I felt that I must send this email to voice my disappointment and displeasure. I think that somewhere along the way, you've lost sight of the goal. Yet, we wonder why more and more gamers are taking PC Gamer reviews with lesser and lesser grains of salt. This review was just wrong and categorically unfair. cheers DS

C|Net hands-on review of XBox360

Oh man, I'm so getting one of these!!!

I dunno what to say really. I got my copy of the mag yesterday and I'm still astonished. Especially considering that the same person reviewed the original UC and ought to know that sequels are not about re-inventing the wheel. Oh well. It is a one page review with a 56% score (compared to the 65% of the original UC). Basically, he says... ....besides fractionally more fetching visuals, better multiplayer facilities and a new campaign playable as either a commander or a fighter ace, progress is depressingly insubstantial. All the stuff that really needed work - the accessibility, the planetside action, the FP mode, the shipboard ambience - those elements are as ropey as ever. And... ...there are still no self-contained tutorial missions. The acronym-peppered interface is as unhelpful as ever. Heck, you don't even get a printed manual unless you stump-up an extra $10. And... It's: Ambitious. A lousy shooter. A decent space sim. Its Not: Expensive. Restrictive. Very different from UC.

*moved quote: Originally posted by Darkling: OK got the game, First thing I tried was the FPS aspect of the game and at first, I thought, "this is the same as UCAWA, response times seemed the same, graphics all look about the same, except some of the building models are different. But then I remembered that I've been running UCAWA in Win95 Compatibility Mode, so I set UC Gold to run the same way. Wow, Zero sluggishness on the controls, this is the best that I've seen the FPS part of the game work. Next I did a Naval Support Job, Again, Flying with a Joystick feels like I'm there. After this did one of the Commander Scenarios, went up agaist about 15 Ships, didn't last long, but the Explosions were great, and the game ran absolutely smooth as silk. My rig runs UCAWA OK, but when I'm down on the planet the FPS part of it still feels a bit sluggish, even with Win95 Compatibility Mode set. However, with UC Gold, It's got all the great new models of UCAWA, but nice "Twitch" response times. All in all it's some excellent work.

Seems perfectly normal to me.

quote: Originally posted by Darkling: Allrighty then, I'll give it a shot. The graphics engine is entirely different (since it is based on the original UC version) etc. Because of this, it has much less system requirements than UCAWA. The new scenarios are all different from those in UCAWA. I was actually originally going to just port the UCAWA scenarios for use in UCG thereby saving myself some work. But I decided against it in order to avoid confusion. The good thing about this is that since there won't be a UCAWA Gold product, I might do a Special Edition which will contain ALL the scenarios from every BC/UC game ever developed. If I end up doing this, it could be a Q2/06 release.

They are two different games entirely. One has nothing to do with the other. Please read the product description.