Supreme Commander 2

 PC
User Score
6.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 834 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 423 out of 834
  2. Mixed: 111 out of 834
  3. Negative: 300 out of 834
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. Giero
    Jan 4, 2023
    8
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2. aecsuter
    Oct 11, 2022
    6
    I found this game a little better than 1 and forged alliance in its gameplay, graphics and story, but after a little while it starts to get tired.
    There was some evolution in the graphics, with a little more detail in the models, scenarios and shots / explosions, but they are the same units.
    The story of the campaign follows the events of the previous games and despite the good    I found this game a little better than 1 and forged alliance in its gameplay, graphics and story, but after a little while it starts to get tired.
    There was some evolution in the graphics, with a little more detail in the models, scenarios and shots / explosions, but they are the same units.
    The story of the campaign follows the events of the previous games and despite the good characters , much better than being a mute like the previous games, the plot is weak, and doesn't go very far.
    The gameplay had a good improvement in fluidity, but I felt that it missed out on the evolution of new powerful units. But with the new mechanics it became much faster and more fun to do things.
    Overall I think it's worth knowing because it's very cheap on sale, but don't get your hopes up too high.    … Expand
  3. Dco326
    Jul 30, 2022
    7
    Okej je igrica ali mi grafika nije nesto, prica je razbacana svuda zivo i iskreno zanimljiviji mi je i bolji bio prvi deo ovaj mi je i spor iskreno ista prica non stop kad gradis jedinice gradjevine itd.
  4. DOge123demon
    Jun 3, 2022
    10
    beautiful graphics, good sound, beautiful characters, good plot, long gameplay duration
  5. Godspeedthunder
    Feb 25, 2020
    5
    If you have never played supreme commander 1 then this game is probably a 7. If you have then this game is probably a 3. It's a shame that follow up games usually take all of the things that made the first game good out, and usually replace them with poor alternatives. This game on the other hand just took them out and didn't bother replacing them. And the sound effects and graphics don'tIf you have never played supreme commander 1 then this game is probably a 7. If you have then this game is probably a 3. It's a shame that follow up games usually take all of the things that made the first game good out, and usually replace them with poor alternatives. This game on the other hand just took them out and didn't bother replacing them. And the sound effects and graphics don't even seem as good either imo.… Expand
  6. OOa007
    Jan 13, 2020
    7
    Made supreme commander 1 run a little better but made the game as a whole WORSE WHY????
  7. theirrelephants
    Sep 20, 2016
    5
    A very dumbed down sequel. They stripped out features instead of adding them, there's way less unit variety and they did away with proper tech research entirely. Instead they added a childlike simple 'research' resource that you can use to upgrade existing units.

    Just play Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. This is not a proper sequel and never will be.
  8. Nautiloidor
    Aug 11, 2016
    4
    Oh dear. I expected big things from this game, but I don't think I've ever been disappointed more by a game.
    It's dumbed down in every way: less units types, less progression, less tactics, less cool, less scope, less complexity, smaller maps. And it's ugly (the graphics are somehow worse that the previous game...?)! It lost pretty much everything that make SC-TA great.
    I imagine this    Oh dear. I expected big things from this game, but I don't think I've ever been disappointed more by a game.
    It's dumbed down in every way: less units types, less progression, less tactics, less cool, less scope, less complexity, smaller maps. And it's ugly (the graphics are somehow worse that the previous game...?)! It lost pretty much everything that make SC-TA great.
    I imagine this game is ok if you haven't played SC-TA. However, if you have, this game is just unplayable.    … Expand
  9. Captain_Chaos
    Jun 22, 2016
    8
    2/13/2012: While most argue that SubCom 2 doesn't measure up to it's predecessor and certainly not to Total Annihilation, I try to judge games on their own merits when I can and on it's own, SubCom 2 is a competent RTS. The story is far smaller in scale then the first game, following the stories of three childhood friends on different sides of a three-faction war. It's nothing to write2/13/2012: While most argue that SubCom 2 doesn't measure up to it's predecessor and certainly not to Total Annihilation, I try to judge games on their own merits when I can and on it's own, SubCom 2 is a competent RTS. The story is far smaller in scale then the first game, following the stories of three childhood friends on different sides of a three-faction war. It's nothing to write home about, but it ties the missions together well and features a few good twists. More importantly, the game itself is very fun to play. It harkens back to an age where battles in RTS were more about sheer size and broad strategy instead of tactical rock-paper-scissors with everything being a hard counter to something else. If an RTS can keep me playing instant action modes because the actual gameplay was just that fun, I judge it a good game. I don't generally play against anyone in RTSes, but I'm sure it has value as a competitive game, again, probably not on the level of the first but nonetheless fun to play.… Expand
  10. Chaotic-Entropy
    Mar 21, 2016
    3
    It feels, to me, like Sup Com 2 should have preceded Sup Com, it's a giant step back from what made the original a success and a waste of all the best parts of the licence.
  11. anggadaz
    Oct 27, 2015
    8
    The game is strategy that can build base and army. The futuristic concept is great. The graphic is great. The game rule and story is not bad. The game is good for real time strategy game.
  12. CaptMescaline
    Jun 19, 2015
    3
    Lacks the depth of the original and simplifies everything by cutting out features that made the original so great. Go and buy Forged Alliance instead.
  13. darkassassin408
    Oct 16, 2014
    10
    this game is the best real time strategy for xbox 360 that i have played so far. this game has non stop action. i love that there are more than one way to defeat an opponent. plus you can use land, naval, and air units. this is the first RTS game that i have played that has naval units, which is great. keep up the good work guys. i really hope that there will be a 3rd one, looking forward to it.
  14. SevenThunders
    Jul 7, 2014
    8
    I've owned all of these titles starting with total annihilation. Yes forged alliance is a more complex game, that requires a lot of strategy, but this is still a darn good game and it has a couple of improvements over forged alliance.

    In particular the game doesn't crash or slow to crawl when there are a thousand units on the map. A lot of the strategy has shifted to how you manage    I've owned all of these titles starting with total annihilation. Yes forged alliance is a more complex game, that requires a lot of strategy, but this is still a darn good game and it has a couple of improvements over forged alliance.

    In particular the game doesn't crash or slow to crawl when there are a thousand units on the map. A lot of the strategy has shifted to how you manage your tech. tree, which is different from forged alliance, where an upgrade required a new building.

    After playing it quite a bit, I find I rather like the simplification, and I can still deploy some of my favorite strategies, like turtling or "towering" with long range artillery.

    There are still some flaws though. The balance isn't always right. Some experimentals are not worth building because they are either too weak or too expensive. I am not entirely convinced that the races are balanced either. Nevertheless the game should be enjoyable for any real time strategy fan.    … Expand
  15. wraith10
    Jun 24, 2014
    2
    The original game (with or without the expansion pack) is way better than this one. In SC2 there's hardly any difference between factions in terms of strategy and game-play. Graphics is crappier too. The only thing that is better is the research tree.
  16. Buckedpeach9
    Jun 9, 2014
    10
    I've been playing this game for a year now and i still am not bored of it, it like hmmm will my nuke hit there base or be blasted out of the sky or is there a army of planes hiding in that area i can't see always makes me want to play again
  17. Iracundus
    Feb 2, 2014
    0
    Rating this a 0 because this broke with its predecessor Supreme Commander and its spiritual predecessor Total Annihilation in favor of dumbed down simplicity. The storyline is laughable tripe but given other RTS's, that is not a huge flaw. What is more fatal is the removal of the unique resource and tech model and large scale for something more in keeping with other RTS games.
  18. brenodobbin
    Oct 30, 2013
    0
    Sou fã do Supreme commander1, mas com esse artificio de ganhar Xp, ficou horrível o game, agora em poucos minutos de jogo vc já consegue ter armas nucleares.
  19. cookieclicker
    Oct 9, 2013
    10
    this game is awesome but I only played the first mission before my step father took it back he got it the day it came out. we loved forged alliance. this game is still awesome from what I read even if it is a "shell of the original" that's right i'm quoting u bjj8383
  20. Invader-Nik
    Oct 8, 2013
    5
    This game is not as good as the first two, but it does have some pros and it has some cons.
    Pros:
    >The graphics are less dull than the ones in SC1 and FA >When destroying aircraft over water, the wreckage of the planes sink to the bottom and leave wreckage on the sea floor. Same with boats. In SC1 and FA, too much bullets hitting a plane midair makes it disappear while if they hit the    This game is not as good as the first two, but it does have some pros and it has some cons.
    Pros:
    >The graphics are less dull than the ones in SC1 and FA
    >When destroying aircraft over water, the wreckage of the planes sink to the bottom and leave wreckage on the sea floor. Same with boats. In SC1 and FA, too much bullets hitting a plane midair makes it disappear while if they hit the water they just generally disappear. Boats in FA and SC1 sink straight through the floor (Which I found really annoying).
    Now to the cons.
    >Experimentals are absolutely pathetic. In the original games, building an experimental was something to be celebrated. The Megalith II and Soul Ripper II are absolutely weak compared to their stronger ancestors.
    >Nukes are also pathetic. In the original games, they were game changers, being able to end an entire army with the launching of a bunch of nukes at a base. In SC2, they are generally pea bombs.
    >The maps are far tinier than the originals. For example, Seton's Clutch was a big map in FA and SC1, but has become incredibly tiny in SC2.
    >In the originals, you had the ability to create MASSIVE armies and spam them. In SC2, that has been taken away from you since they lowered the max unit capacity from 1000 to 500.

    In all, SC2 is a good game for beginners, but if it is a challenge you want, get Forged Alliance, that is much more complex and strategic than this.    … Expand
  21. Sneetches
    Aug 22, 2013
    4
    TL;DR Very disappointing sequel that chose to streamline gameplay rather than add even more depth to an awesome RTS. This game is "Supreme Commander" in name only.

    So basically, SC: FA was something different from the rest of the pack, I knew this when I first played SC. It had an amazing amount of depth for an RTS and things like Tiers, the Economy system, and the huge amount of    TL;DR Very disappointing sequel that chose to streamline gameplay rather than add even more depth to an awesome RTS. This game is "Supreme Commander" in name only.

    So basically, SC: FA was something different from the rest of the pack, I knew this when I first played SC. It had an amazing amount of depth for an RTS and things like Tiers, the Economy system, and the huge amount of gameplay styles always had me coming back. SC2 is like being taken from an Olympic sized pool and being thrown in the 1" Kiddy pool. No more tier upgrades, no more GIGANTIC maps, and no more economy management. Experimental units really don't feel like they have that same "awe" because they can literally die within 3 seconds of meeting a fully upgraded commander.

    Overall, just take all the good out of SupCom and leave it with an incredibly basic shell that resembles every generic RTS out there. Supreme Commander 2 is a very disappointing wait that could have easily fixed some of the flaws with the original and FA while adding even more depth, but they chose to fixate on the word "streamline" instead.    … Expand
  22. Jantu
    Aug 8, 2013
    5
    This game is disappointing as a 3 installment of the supreme commander series, and from that stand point I wasted some money. However, the game, if viewed as a different game, unconnected from supreme commander, is decent. This game would have done much better if it had a different title, in my opinion
  23. MSCowboy
    Jul 25, 2013
    2
    Let me tell you a story.

    Imagine for a moment that Valve released Half Life 3. A long stretch of the imagination, I know, but do your best. Now imagine that Half Life 3 were a cover based shooter with two weapon slots and regenerating health, pitting you against faceless nameless human enemies in droves with meager justification for killing them. Now, it might be a perfectly good    Let me tell you a story.

    Imagine for a moment that Valve released Half Life 3. A long stretch of the imagination, I know, but do your best. Now imagine that Half Life 3 were a cover based shooter with two weapon slots and regenerating health, pitting you against faceless nameless human enemies in droves with meager justification for killing them.

    Now, it might be a perfectly good generic modern military shooter. Knowing Valve it most certainly is. But that's not going to do much to slow the march of the lynch mob out for Valve. A few people who didn't play or didn't particularly understand what made the previous Half Life games great might give it some fairly positive reviews. But the people who did play and understand the games that came before do not care how well made it may be. Because that's not what Half Life is. You don't get to destroy a franchise by forsaking what it is built on to deliver a generic, money grabbing, 'for wider audiences' game and then walk away with positive press. If you want to do that, you give it a new name.

    That's essentially what Supreme Commander 2 is. Judged on its own merits alone, it's a decent RTS, forgotten within the year but good enough to say nice things about as it passes. But Supreme Commander 2 does not have the luxury of being judged on its own merits. What it is, is a systematic destruction of an IP that delivered something literally no other game in existence could match. Supreme Commander 2 scaled down, dumbed down, made itself generic to broaden appeal.

    Supreme Commander 2 is a decent game. It also marks the dead end of a franchise that had done what none other did, one that carried infinitely more potential than this, potential which is now thrown to the wind. When a game is both of these things, you do not focus on the former, as that will not benefit anyone. Do not support this game. Give your money to Forged Alliance.    … Expand
  24. Red-Rocket
    Jun 23, 2013
    10
    it oozes production value and has good gameplay. The campaign story was bland but mostly makes up for it with mostly good missions. Multiplayer is still alive and intense.
  25. Mbdelta
    Jun 14, 2013
    10
    A must have. Supreme Commander 2 is a masterpiece of futuristic strategy gaming. This game has a enjoyable campaign and an even better multiplayer experience.
  26. smk123
    May 27, 2013
    10
    I have no idea what all the fuss is about with the game scores I played the original quite a lot, and I liked it, but personally I find the sequel to be more fun. Yes it's simplified and the scale isn't as vast, but if that isn't to your taste just play the first game, this game is much easier to just pick up and play without having to devote a lot of time to learning its intricacies.I have no idea what all the fuss is about with the game scores I played the original quite a lot, and I liked it, but personally I find the sequel to be more fun. Yes it's simplified and the scale isn't as vast, but if that isn't to your taste just play the first game, this game is much easier to just pick up and play without having to devote a lot of time to learning its intricacies. Even if you prefer the original there is no denying the battles in SupCom2 are immensely satisfying to watch, the graphics are very nice and the sounds are awesome. If you like a faster paced RTS this game is definitely for you, unlike the first… Expand
  27. RebCom1807
    Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Personally, I'm one of those that is a bit.. All over the place when it comes to playing games. I played, and enjoyed, the original Supreme Commander and the Forged Alliance standalone expansion pack. That was how I was introduced to the series. That is how I know it, that is how I love it. And I still have yet to really master it.

    When I first saw SC2, I was rather interested. I    Personally, I'm one of those that is a bit.. All over the place when it comes to playing games. I played, and enjoyed, the original Supreme Commander and the Forged Alliance standalone expansion pack. That was how I was introduced to the series. That is how I know it, that is how I love it. And I still have yet to really master it.

    When I first saw SC2, I was rather interested. I thought it was going to be a proper sequel, like now Forged Alliance was, only bigger. I played the demo, and my hopes fell a bit. Instead of the drain-based economy that really made the first game (Lumping SC and FA in together here) unique, it had the much more typical cost-based system, where it only costs 'x' to make something. I can look beyond that, and I played more of it.

    I saw the planes not landing or having fuel. I can deal with that.
    I saw the 1-tier factory. I could kinda deal with that (If only because it offers some defensive options built-in).
    I saw the scale of the units. Was kinda bleh about it, but I kept going on.

    I saw the Fatboy 2. I thought it was going to be somewhat interesting. It wasn't all that special (And lacked AA.. Which, if you're making a supposedly improved version, why take that out? Just from a logic perspective..).

    Then I went and actually got it and played through the campaign. First thing people who played the first game (With or without mods) probably would notice that is off, even without seeing the horribly scrunched scale, is the unit cap. In the previous game, the cap went up to 1000 easily, 2000+ with mods. In this, it was about 250, I think maybe 500 max.

    I had a bit of fun with the fully upgraded tanks. I could accept the research tree thing for upgrading units (Even on the spot). I could accept the feel of it a bit.
    I liked the fact that Cybrans can have all sea units walk on land.
    I adored the unit cannon. And still do.
    I like the idea of transporting sea units. It works.
    I liked some of the ideas for the experimentals (The teleporter thing, the UEF Galactic Colossus, a Czar that is a bit more awesome).

    The fact that experimentals can be mass-produced without a massive Mass/Energy complex (In this case, a good number of powergens and energy->mass converters) and can be readily stopped by the basic defensive structures? I'm sorry, but no. You cannot, feasibly, march two or three Universal Colossi onto a decently-defended base and win like you could with the Galactic Colossi in the previous game.

    I sorely miss setting up a queue with a group of engineers and seeing them all work together on a structure.
    The maps that they brought back from the previous games just make the scale changes more obvious.
    It's a lot harder to tell where the map boundaries are when zoomed out all the way (And I kinda liked how, in the original, it looked like you were actually looking over a map of the battlefield rather than the battlefield itself).
    There are no SCUs anymore.
    The nukes feel a bit underwhelming (And there are no strategic missile submarines).
    The concept of experimental units is, I feel, tossed around lightheartedly. Some of the earlier experimental units are on the same scale as the units you can make in a normal factory.. And, in a lot of cases, are only slightly more effective.

    In the original, if someone were to be able to send experimentals somewhere repeatedly as soon as you destroyed one, then you were way too far behind the times. In this, there is a mission in the campaign where that kinda happens with the Aeon flying saucer experimental.. And especially so with the UEF experimental gunship. The latter of which being taken down easily enough by a few AA guns behind shields.

    You can't build add-ons to your commander like you could in the first game (Cybran ACU chest microwave laser, anyone?), and any expansion you make, factory-wise, is too easy to get fully set up, production-wise.

    At this point, this review is just a bullet-point ramble.. But, overall, if you are looking for a Supreme Commander game, play the original and Forged Alliance. If you're looking for a half-decent scifi strategy game, either get this or one of the Starcraft games. This, to me, feels like just more of the same. Especially when compared to the original Supreme Commander.

    There are some good ideas in here, and interesting expansions on things from the first game (the Cybran navy being a prime example). But it, in my eyes, simply does not live up to its name. You can't get the same kind of epic battles that you could in the original, and the units don't feel all that diverse.. If only because of the lack of variety in terms of what you have available.

    If you want to play a good sequel with the initials SC2, go to Blizzard.    … Expand
  28. jsmithbeer
    Apr 2, 2013
    2
    For a sequel, this is a major disappointment. The first game was fantastic. In this sequel they made it playable on consoles. As such it's dumbed down. It's pretty much Command & Conqueror. Something which Supreme Commander 2 shouldn't have gone for. It is the reason why I liked the first game.

    I was really looking forward to this game. I suppose if you just want a C&C style game this    For a sequel, this is a major disappointment. The first game was fantastic. In this sequel they made it playable on consoles. As such it's dumbed down. It's pretty much Command & Conqueror. Something which Supreme Commander 2 shouldn't have gone for. It is the reason why I liked the first game.

    I was really looking forward to this game. I suppose if you just want a C&C style game this will do. But if you want something which is taxing (but not like Total War where you have civilisation planning) the first one with the expansion pack is in another league. 10/10 for the first game, 2/10 for Supreme Commander 2.    … Expand
  29. NiteOfDoom
    Mar 6, 2013
    10
    HE HE, im a huge fan of RTS and this is certainly my favorite, at least until PA. It does get boring when you become one of the best in the world at it, but until then the game is amazing. Maybe if ididnt play it as much as i did i would give it a 9, but this game is simply too epic on many levels!
  30. awesomekid06
    Feb 24, 2013
    9
    other than the campaign, I honestly think this is the best strategy 'futuristic' game besides XCOM, and the multiplayer is great!
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

59
#59 Best PC Game of 2010
26
#26 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
56
#56 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 54 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 54
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 54
  3. Negative: 1 out of 54
  1. games(TM)
    70
    This is a purist RTS with old-school communists values, where there's power in numbers. [Issue#95, p.122]
  2. Eurogamer Italy
    80
    Supreme Commander 2 is a hybrid between Total Annihilation and the first Supreme Commander: it has the accessibility of the former and the immensity of the latter. Probably the best “classic” RTS until today, though it has nothing special to grant it a long future.
    Read full review
  3. SpazioGames
    85
    Supreme Commander 2 is the result of how, through prudent choices it's possible to convert a title suited almost exclusively to a niche of fans of the genre into a game for everyone. With the recent release of strategic games such as Napoleon: Total War and the imminent arrival of Starcraft II and Command & Conquer 4, all the fans of strategy games have something to have fun with and we are confident that the new creation from Chris Taylor can succeed in carve out its space, thanks to this new dynamic and intuitive formula .
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »