StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bsanborn

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
"As a player who relied on the simplicity of the original, I admit I'm a little frightened of change."

Doesn't sound like the reviewer played the original either.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]bsanborn[/nom]"As a player who relied on the simplicity of the original, I admit I'm a little frightened of change."

Doesn't sound like the reviewer played the original either.[/citation]

Why, do you find StarCraft complicated?

Pretty straightforward game to me. As far as RTS games go, I consider stuff like Supreme Commander to be a bit more complex... StarCraft is pretty basic stuff.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
Whoever is saying SC1 was NOT complicated never tried to have 350 APM and/or tried to execute a korea pro build order down to the T. There has not yet been a game as complicated as SC1.

Watch some First Person VODS of korean pro gamers on youtube and see what complicated RTS is really about.

Bottom line, StarCraft 1 played at the current high level requires the user to enter hundreds of inputs every minute in reaction to your enemy. It requires thought out plans and a deep understanding of build orders for every race. The amount of mechanical skill + strategic thinking is unrivaled in any other RTS.



This is very far from true imo, and in many many others.

Pllllease go check out some high level starcraft. Search youtube for players like Jeadong, Bisu, Stork, Savior, Boxer, Hogil, Luxury, or many others. The korean pro gamer scene that has raised SC to what is today has made SC into probably the single hardest to get into game simply because it is so complex.
 

Rahbot

Distinguished
Dec 12, 2008
231
0
18,710
15
Might you test Starcraft 2 with lower end systems too for benchmarks. Like running a 3+Ghz SC, 2+ - 3+Ghz DualCore's, also a Triple Core. You could also try benchmarking older GPU's and Onboard Low/High End GPU's. Also could benchmark the network lat for the most part. I don't know why you don't include those benchmarks to the BNet servers. Also if you could benchmark using sound and disabling sound/music, and animatied units gifs. Because I know some games give you more FPS because you disable other options.

Thanks Toms your the greatest.

I hope you guys have a contest on winning a Custom PC with the works, plus a Copy of Starcraft 2 in the future.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]vaderseven[/nom]Whoever is saying SC1 was NOT complicated never tried to have 350 APM and/or tried to execute a korea pro build order down to the T. There has not yet been a game as complicated as SC1.[/citation]

It looks like you're mistaking a complicated strategy for a complicated game.

Starcraft is about as uncomplicated as the RTS genre gets as far as the game mechanics. Strategies, well, that's as complex as the players make it in any game.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
The mechanics of SC1 are extremely complicated? You must send every worker you make to go harvest. There is no automated production. You must constantly expand.

The mechanics of SC1 are the very thing that keeps the game newbie not friendly. To even get to the point where strat comes into play takes months and months if not years of practice getting the mechanics down. No game approaches the combination of macro and micro like SC1 does.



If you mean the mechanics dont have much flash to them then well, we are talking about different things. When someone says complicated RTS Sc1 comes to mind first. When people say flashy, then games like Supreme Commander come to mind.
 

sinny1

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2008
35
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]LORD_ORION[/nom]Total Annihilation is arguably the most important RTS game. StarCraft is nothing special.[/citation]

Oh really? Where have u been? have u play starcraft? if u have, when? i respect your opinion, but maybe if u can back it up with some facts or reason why?
 

cleeve

Illustrious



*sigh* You need to keep track of your arguments. Originally, I was the one who said that the original was simple. You responded by saying that it was complicated. Now you're saying it's simple?




No, I'm not talking about flash, I'm talking about simplicity. The original StarCraft has simple mechanics for an RTS - a relatively small number of types of units, two resources. A game like SupCom has more complex mechanics, more types of units, air-land-and sea- and a more complex tech tree.

Strategies on the other hand, there can be complex strategies for any game regardless how simple the game mechanics are. There can be complex strategies for RISK. In the original StarCraft, there are many complex strategies, despite the fact that the game itself is relatively simple for an RTS.
 

CaptainBib

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2010
62
0
18,640
1
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]I'd go so far as to suggest a 470 or 480 would be overkill for this, just as they'd be overkill for WoW.[/citation]

And xfired 5850s aren't overkill? :p
 

jonyah

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2009
43
0
18,530
0
I've got an older athlon 64 5200+ with radeon 4850 512mb card. I keep all settings maxed out at 1920x1200 and never experience any hiccups. I'm not tracking framerate or anything, but the game plays very smooth for me.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]*sigh* You need to keep track of your arguments. Originally, I was the one who said that the original was simple. You responded by saying that it was complicated. Now you're saying it's simple?No, I'm not talking about flash, I'm talking about simplicity. The original StarCraft has simple mechanics for an RTS - a relatively small number of types of units, two resources. A game like SupCom has more complex mechanics, more types of units, air-land-and sea- and a more complex tech tree.Strategies on the other hand, there can be complex strategies for any game regardless how simple the game mechanics are. There can be complex strategies for RISK. In the original StarCraft, there are many complex strategies, despite the fact that the game itself is relatively simple for an RTS.[/citation]

The mechanics of SC1 seem simple till you line up the number of things you need to keep track of. That first part where you quote me, I AM saying doing all this is complicated.

For those of you that think building workers and units is "simple" in SC1. Do this. Open up SC:BW and start a game vs the computer. Choose Terran. Never once stop building workers until at least 100 food. Never let your money get above 500 mins or 500 gs (to do so is BAD and WASTEFUL and it is part of the game to spend money as fast as possible).

Try it. The most basic of actions in SC1 require a mastery of hugely complicated system. The only thing simple about SC1 is the theorycrafting of the uneducated player.

Now watch the replay and click on your command center. I bet you that the constant building of workers was way to complicated to master in one go.

I think I agree in part with you that the beauty of SC1 was in the complexity of the simply ideas. The idea of 2 resources sounds simple enough. Strange that Age of Empire pros that come over to SC2/SC1 claim that the economy of SC1/2 is the hardest part for them to grasp.

Something like supreme commander... I was able to install the game and take the basic APM and Macro skills of SC1 and rise to top level playing within a few hours. I do not exaggerate.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]vaderseven[/nom] That first part where you quote me, I AM saying doing all this is complicated.[/citation]

Hmmm. Fair enough, I thought that was sarcasm. Those things are staples of the RTS genre, and I don't see StarCraft being any more complex than any other RTS in that sense.

To me, the complexity of an RTS lies in how you counteract what the opponent can do. To me games like SupCom are more involved in this respect, granted that's a subjective observation entirely and your opinion doesn't have to line up with mine. Just calling it like I see it.
 

vaderseven

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2009
21
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Hmmm. Fair enough, I thought that was sarcasm. Those things are staples of the RTS genre, and I don't see StarCraft being any more complex than any other RTS in that sense.To me, the complexity of an RTS lies in how you counteract what the opponent can do. To me games like SupCom are more involved in this respect, granted that's a subjective observation entirely and your opinion doesn't have to line up with mine. Just calling it like I see it.[/citation]

>=]

I encourage you to try to scout in Terran vs Protoss and decide if you need to counter fast reaver drops vs Dark Templar vs Carriers vs Dragoon Zealot High Templar. They all need a huge variety of counters and the like.

The thing that keeps people coming back to starcraft is the complex UI and mechanics, the extremely deep metagame, the diverse strats, amazing balance, and edge of your seat speed.

Take a look at http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/ and just browse some of it. The move and counter move system is as complex as everything else is in SC.

>=] Can you tell I play SC to this day?

TBH it sounds like you were an extremely casual player of SC that never deleved into the low money maps of standard play. At the same time it sounds like you did really get into the true meta game of games like SupCom.

The argument I will fall back on is when pros of SC switch to other RTS they claim its easy to pick up because it just isnt as complex, and the reverse is true when Pro non-sc RTS players pick up SC.

Wether complex is GOOD or BAD is up to the user! Some people hate the complexity of SC and simply refuse to play SC except on maps desgined to remove complexity from the game. Others refuse to play at all. The people that play SC play it BECAUSE its so complex.

Its hard to say all of this without sounding elitist. I do not know how to say it really, complex != good but sc = complex. I will leave it at that.
 

drowned

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2010
108
0
18,680
0
I was really hoping to see an article that was more like "what's the bare minimum you actually need to play SC II?" I'm highly doubtful my Ge-Go 7150m can play it even on lowest settings.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]vaderseven[/nom]>=]TBH it sounds like you were an extremely casual player of SC that never deleved into the low money maps of standard play. At the same time it sounds like you did really get into the true meta game of games like SupCom.[/citation]

More like an extremely frequent casual player. I've put my hours into StarCraft but I'm not a strategy fanatic nor have I ever taken it to the extremes seriously enough to personally consider it a sport -- I consider it a game, and a very good game, but that's all it is to me. I don't hang out on StarCraft forums and discuss strategies or study other players' moves.

It looks like you're coming at this from the perspective of someone who takes StarCraft a hell of a lot more seriously than I do, and that's cool and valid but I'm not sure your POV is in sync with most North American players.

I'm not really into SupCom either--frankly I was put off by the large numbers of units and complex tech tree of the game, and that's what I'm talking about when I say StarCraft was a lot simpler to grasp for me. Based on the amount of sales I would argue that a lot of other people might also feel that way about the game.
 

ct001

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2010
29
0
18,530
0
Played the beta, graphics are sweet, but the PvP is bad.

The asian's will like it because its nothing more than a click fest, but there is zero strategy (and no I wasn't a noob, I hit 3rd in my platinum division, and was top 10 platinum in both 2v2 and 1v1 through multiple ladder resets). Combine that with a ridiculous amount of cheese (void ray rushes, reaper rushes, proxy gateways/barracks, ect...) and some ridiculously OP units and you've got some of the worst RTS PvP u've ever seen. Those awesome matches you see on youtube that go back and forth are 1 in a million. They play thousands of games just to show you the 1 or 2 that were mildly entertaining. The rest that are discarded are so bad its a joke.

This is one RTS nut (since the DUNE2 days) that was hugely disappointed with SC2.
 

bsanborn

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]More like an extremely frequent casual player. I've put my hours into StarCraft but I'm not a strategy fanatic nor have I ever taken it to the extremes seriously enough to personally consider it a sport -- I consider it a game, and a very good game, but that's all it is to me. I don't hang out on StarCraft forums and discuss strategies or study other players' moves. It looks like you're coming at this from the perspective of someone who takes StarCraft a hell of a lot more seriously than I do, and that's cool and valid but I'm not sure your POV is in sync with most North American players.I'm not really into SupCom either--frankly I was put off by the large numbers of units and complex tech tree of the game, and that's what I'm talking about when I say StarCraft was a lot simpler to grasp for me. Based on the amount of sales I would argue that a lot of other people might also feel that way about the game.[/citation]

Pretty sure SC1 is the hardest game ever made. As you said, it's easy enough for the casual gamer, yet COMPLICATED and hard enough for the die hard. The meta game of SC1 is by far the most complex of any RTS to date. I've played them all (Dune, War 2, SC, War 3, AOE, Total Annilhitation, Red Alert, need I keep going?) and felt like I had mastered all EXCEPT SC1. Watch some professional replays or something. Or get on ICCUP and play some, I bet you wouldn't win a game for your first 3 months on there.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
[citation][nom]bsanborn[/nom]Pretty sure SC1 is the hardest game ever made. As you said, it's easy enough for the casual gamer, yet COMPLICATED and hard enough for the die hard. [/citation]

Yeah, I think we are all agreeing for the most part here but we're bickering over semantics of the words complex, hard, simple, etc.

I think we can all agree that the game has a lot of depth to the strategies you can employ and can be brutally difficult against experienced players. At the same time we can probably agree that compared to many RTS games out there, the original StarCraft has relatively few types of units to keep track of, and the game is accessible to many beginners.

Perhaps that's the magic of StarCraft.


 

flyinfinni

Distinguished
May 29, 2009
2,043
0
19,960
74
I've played the original SC 1 since it was released (though I rarely played online) and absolutely loved it- mostly LAN party or single player campaigns, custom games etc. I just got the SC2 Beta a week ago (pre-ordered SC2 from Amazon back in January and got a nice little present when they started giving Beta Key's last week). Its truly got the feel and work of SC1, while changing the strategies etc. I felt right at home once I got into a game and started playing. I've been really impressed that the strategies and things can change so much but still feel so much the same. Personally, I think they really caught the essence of the original while still making it fresh and new. I love it, even though I've been getting absolutely WRECKED. It takes a little time, but I'm getting better. :)
 

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
1,150
0
19,280
0
good to see it has some respectable system requirements. also good to see that it doesn't seem to have any hard framerate limits in it. and better still to see that it is taxing on the CPU as well!
 

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
1,869
0
19,960
63
I assumed after Supreme Commander Forged Alliance all RTS games would use a similar interface, but alas no, not even the zoom out. After playing Forged Alliance for so long it feel claustrophobic playing anything else.
 
G

Guest

Guest
i have a laptop a lenovo x60s. and it doesnt starcraft II run that well. please need your help guys. if anybody knows how to upgrade the video card of a laptop like mine i will really appreciate your help. since i guess the video card is the only thing that is holding me up. i do not want to play in ultra definition i just want to be able to play with out lagging. doesnt matter to me even if its in super low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY