The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...

[Marcus Yam]

The rather low system requirements means that nearly everyone with a modern computer should be able to play Starcraft 2.

The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are... : Read more

 

[Tamz_msc]

Its good to see that I can run it.Great!

 

[stevesauce]

The beta is incredible. I could only imagine the finished version will compliment the core of the experience. CANT WAIT!

 

[vectorm12]

Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.

 

[Guest]

Separate desktop/laptop requirements would be nice.

 

[toxxel]

Funny how the mac version requires more hardware than the pc equivalent.

 

[gho3t]

Not really, OpenGL vs DirectX, differant graphics APIs, different optimizations. Also, Microsoft have invested a lot into building a games friendly OS, Apple.. not so much.

 

[aznguy0028]

[citation][nom]vectorm12[/nom]Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.[/citation]
Yea, i agree with the PC pushing gaming limits, but this is blizzard here. They made all their games run on very modest hardware to ensure the largest possible player base to get the most sales. It's always been that way, I wished that blizzard would push the envelopes on visuals as well, but it'll prolly never be the case 🙁

Sc2 doesnt even have AA atm, which is so sad imo...i do hope they add it in later!

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]vectorm12[/nom]Well it's great that they made the game run on such modest hardware but I can't help but feel Blizzard have somehow decided that it's "good enough" at this point. After all PC gaming is where limits should be pushed, if I want modest visuals and across the board compatibility I'll just stick with a console.[/citation]

Stop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.

 

[sliem]

So will it be $60*3 for all three?

 

[Kelavarus]

[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]Stop worrying about the visuals. Rather, focus on the gameplay which is where its strength lies.[/citation]

Meh, I'm not really impressed with visuals OR gameplay. Rather, I'd say its strength lies in the modding capability, as well as hopefully the story.

 

[bk641]

um, you can turn up the visuals if you have a nice rig? these are the minimum reqs

 

[rza]

Would it be fair to assume that Diablo 3 will have similar system requirements?

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]aznguy0028[/nom]Yea, i agree with the PC pushing gaming limits, but this is blizzard here. They made all their games run on very modest hardware to ensure the largest possible player base to get the most sales. It's always been that way, I wished that blizzard would push the envelopes on visuals as well, but it'll prolly never be the case Sc2 doesnt even have AA atm, which is so sad imo...i do hope they add it in later![/citation]

Blizzard stated that AA was going to be included in the final release - just not the beta.

 

[Guest]

WinXP SP3 is kinda buggy...Will this run on an SP2?

 

[Guest]

Does this pretty much count out all netbook models not running a dedicated graphics chip?

 

[rantoc]

SC II Beta had a huge range of settings, everything from making it look ok to make it look very nice!

The gfx scaling of this title is big, so anything from their minimum to insane rigs will still be properly used. (got 480 SLI rig and it worked quite hard with everything cranked up)

 

[poorya_user]

Thanks God ... I can run it in my pc

 

[opmopadop]

[citation]2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor
[/citation]
Agreed, What the hell are you CPU manufacturers doing with your product names! What the hell is AMD's version of a 2.6Ghz Pentium IV equiv?

 

[fatedtodie]

Why can't XP DIE so stupid horribly lame specs like that finally disappear. I wanted starcraft 2 to require a dual core processor and at minimum a 9800 or 4800. These lowball specs are retarded. Also no directx 11? DIE XP DIE. Directx 9.0c is what 2005? Blizzard is stupid. It will be a fun game, but it could have been so much more...

 

[Guest]

I hate this pic of the terran with a cigar in his mouth IN the giant suit! like not to mention that it's not very healthy, how the heck does he get the cigar out of his mouth with his hands when it's in the space suit - and don't say he can open the glass thingi coz the whole point of the suit is to give him oxygen in a space/toxic environment!

 

[zodiacfml]

it's because they don't want a possibility of commotion from the intel and amd fanboys.

[citation][nom]opmopadop[/nom][citation]2.6 GHz Pentium IV or equivalent AMD Athlon processor[/citation]Agreed, What the hell are you CPU manufacturers doing with your product names! What the hell is AMD's version of a 2.6Ghz Pentium IV equiv?[/citation]

 

[shizen]

nice.. even my 4 years old computers can run it..

 

[Lutfij]

plenty of headroom for my rig!

 

[welshmousepk]

wonder if my athlon II/5770 HTPC will be able to max it?