Supreme Commander PC

User Score
8.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 267 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 25 out of 267
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ManlioM.
    Feb 20, 2007
    4
    brand new engine, very old gameplay concept. build massive units and toss'em into the fray... what a big yaaaaawn!
  2. JamesA.
    Feb 9, 2007
    4
    Supreme Commander had everything. a monster graphics engine, a cool idea, spiffy races, and everything in between. but believe you me, after playing around with the demo, and putzing around with the beta, this game started to wilt like a geriatric male in bed. supreme commander did not live up to expectations. after playing the demo, i found that basebuilding took over then entire game.Supreme Commander had everything. a monster graphics engine, a cool idea, spiffy races, and everything in between. but believe you me, after playing around with the demo, and putzing around with the beta, this game started to wilt like a geriatric male in bed. supreme commander did not live up to expectations. after playing the demo, i found that basebuilding took over then entire game. this left no room for micromanagemant of forces, because your too busy building your next power generator. this makes the game as boring as watching paint dry. can a map be too large? yes, it can. supreme commander is another example of a cool idea that will never work out (like communism). because the fighting area is so huge, your restricted to using the tactical overview map just to be able to keep a degree of control over all of your forces. if you want a grand scale game, go for medieval II:total war, not supreme commander. if you want a tactical game, get company of heroes. if you just want a satellite view of 20 000 square kilometres, go play with google earth, its free, and more exciting than this game. Expand
  3. WillL.
    Apr 10, 2007
    4
    This game blows. In response to a previous post about performance, its not our fault the code sucks and is totally inefficient. Can't play a game on a large map with two AI's when i have a dual core opteron @2.6GHz?? Gimme a break. I'd be willing to sacrifice performance if there was any sort of intelligence invested into the AI or your unit movement. I honestly believe This game blows. In response to a previous post about performance, its not our fault the code sucks and is totally inefficient. Can't play a game on a large map with two AI's when i have a dual core opteron @2.6GHz?? Gimme a break. I'd be willing to sacrifice performance if there was any sort of intelligence invested into the AI or your unit movement. I honestly believe this game has the worst AI and pathfinding of any RTS game EVER released. yeah the waypoints are nifty and all, but the rest of the game is same old same old. Avoid this game if you ever want to play offline, or have fun. Expand
  4. Bangell
    Mar 25, 2008
    4
    As an RTS gamer, I was seriously hyped about Supcom. But it let me down, big time. It is stupidly boring. There were some good features, like the zoom, but overall, it's terrible. You want epic? Go Total War. SupCom has hundreds of little, badly detailed blobs running around. It's just BAD. But, you owe it to yourself to try it.
  5. VirtualInsanity
    May 22, 2007
    4
    Interested to know, does this game actually support multi threading properly? I was under the impression that it did, however not much of my second core sees much use in my rig. Athlon 64 x2 3800 @ 2.4GHz 2gig Mushkin DDR400 @ 200MHz Lanparty nF4 Ultra-D XFX 7600 GT @ 620/750 300gig 7200.9 System drive 80 gig WD800JB Data drive (Swap) I have the AMD dual core patch installed. Fast andInterested to know, does this game actually support multi threading properly? I was under the impression that it did, however not much of my second core sees much use in my rig. Athlon 64 x2 3800 @ 2.4GHz 2gig Mushkin DDR400 @ 200MHz Lanparty nF4 Ultra-D XFX 7600 GT @ 620/750 300gig 7200.9 System drive 80 gig WD800JB Data drive (Swap) I have the AMD dual core patch installed. Fast and stable, yet struggles mid - late mission during most missions, typically when there are many units on the map. There really is no excuse for this, i reckon its just bad coding. High time devs started coding for multiple cores and 64 bit. I've heard plenty of excuses why not, but none of them stick. Multiple cores and 64 bit has been around for more than 10 years, and readily available on the desktop for at least the past 3 years. You struggle to find a single core 32bit Dell these days. Time to unleash the power and advantages laying dormant in our CPU's /me climbs off high horse. Adjusting graphics doesn't seem to help much. So... any ideas on how to get rid of the late game slowdown? Expand
  6. MadhaX
    Feb 25, 2007
    3
    Yeah, this game blows. Most of the people here have already covered why -- crappy graphics, no strategy, poor models, cheap sound, overly large maps that take the fun out of watching your units and the battles since you have to zoom out, the constant need to build more power generators rather than, you know, actually play the game. Waste of time; you want something fun, try Company of Yeah, this game blows. Most of the people here have already covered why -- crappy graphics, no strategy, poor models, cheap sound, overly large maps that take the fun out of watching your units and the battles since you have to zoom out, the constant need to build more power generators rather than, you know, actually play the game. Waste of time; you want something fun, try Company of Heroes -- awesome game. Expand
  7. jb
    Jun 19, 2007
    3
    Wanted: new and interesting game concepts. What we got was just another rock paper scissors RTS that has been done countless times before. Lame.
  8. SolitoN
    Feb 25, 2007
    3
    I can't say I enjoyed this in the least bit -- I wasn't even able to play past the tutorial before being overwhelmed by disappointment, an urge to fall asleep, and even a little disgust. I don't see anything in this game that hasn't been done better in RTS games that came out before it -- the tutorial isn't very friendly (no scripted, guided scenarios, just a I can't say I enjoyed this in the least bit -- I wasn't even able to play past the tutorial before being overwhelmed by disappointment, an urge to fall asleep, and even a little disgust. I don't see anything in this game that hasn't been done better in RTS games that came out before it -- the tutorial isn't very friendly (no scripted, guided scenarios, just a bunch of disjointed videos), the graphics are terrible -- poor, tiny unit models with no detail whatsoever, and dull, lifeless textures that aren't engaging. The unit sounds and music lose their novelty fast, as units only make one sound when selected. The interface is uninteresting -- wow, little pictures in colored boxes. Gee, thanks. I can't say much about the maps or the gameplay -- I didn't play past the tutorial and I see no reason to. Games like Command and Conquer and Company of Heroes provide everything at it' best -- gameplay, graphics, music, sound, the interface, it's all there and it's all AMAZING. Some might argue that the gameplay is worth it. and that the extra large maps add an interesting dimension, but I still don't find that it's enough to make this game worth any serious attention. Expand
  9. SharbazR.
    Feb 13, 2007
    1
    Utterly Appalling! This game is HORRIBLE. Way too confusing, too much to manage, dull, poor graphics. Words of wisdom, SAVE YOUR MONEY!
  10. RandallS.
    Mar 12, 2007
    0
    They call this a game? I have no idea what all the hype is about, myself, I was horrified when I played this sorry excuse for an rpg. And here's why. 1. The maps are ridiculously large it takes many minutes to walk half way across the map, no exaggeration. 2. You rarely get to actually watch your guys duke it out with the enemy, you have to go to the tactical overlay every 5 seconds. They call this a game? I have no idea what all the hype is about, myself, I was horrified when I played this sorry excuse for an rpg. And here's why. 1. The maps are ridiculously large it takes many minutes to walk half way across the map, no exaggeration. 2. You rarely get to actually watch your guys duke it out with the enemy, you have to go to the tactical overlay every 5 seconds. 3. You spend all your time building powerplants. The resource system is horribly weak. You just build certain buildings and they give you resources, or tell your guys to go eat rocks or trees. 4. He who gets a larger army wins. Pretty much all you do is build many bases, and many soldiers and send them to the fray. This game did not interest me at all from the moment I started, however I forced myself to finish for the sake of this article. Bottom line, calling this game a strategy came is ignorant. Get a real game, one from the ages series preferably, Medieval 2 is a great one too if you like a mix of strategy and rts. Expand
  11. JMha'ma
    Mar 4, 2007
    0
    This game sucks. Period
Metascore
86

Generally favorable reviews - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. PC Gamer UK
    90
    A remarkable piece of work, and a worthy successor to "Total Annihilation." Strategy games don't come this big, and this ambitious, and they never demand this much from you. Take command - if you think you can handle it. [Feb 2007, p.62]
  2. PC Gamer
    91
    This is all-out war on a scale we've never seen before, and it is glorious. [Mar 2007, p.23]
  3. Sup Com is very much a PC gamer's beast, and the supernova-sized war games may prove a little too demanding for anyone other than accomplished RTS players (our heads still hurt from the last LAN skirmish). If only for its sheer scale and battle mechanics, this should be sampled by every RTS fan with a graphics card - and indeed, mental powers - that are up to the task.