The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]You can play on a LAN - get an internet connection, learn port forwarding, log into Battle.net. Done.[/citation]
If you have to use an internet connection what's the point of going to a LAN when you can just stay at home?
 
I lost interest in this when they announced they're making 3 separate games. I lost any remaining interest when I saw it was going to cost at least $60. I moved on from RTSes 10 years ago. Maybe I'll get the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battle Chest when it comes out.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]If you have to use an internet connection what's the point of going to a LAN when you can just stay at home?[/citation]

And in that case, what's the point of going to a LAN if you can just stay at home? Is it because people want to have a social gathering? I don't see the difference really...do you?
 
[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]I lost interest in this when they announced they're making 3 separate games. I lost any remaining interest when I saw it was going to cost at least $60. I moved on from RTSes 10 years ago. Maybe I'll get the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battle Chest when it comes out.[/citation]

Do you lose interest in other games when you find out there will be expansions? The first game has more content than Starcraft or Warcraft III, after all. If $60 breaks the bank compared to $50, don't know what to tell you. And if you moved on from RTS this is exactly the type of game to bring you back - it's not trying to be "different" like so many RTS have lately, straying so far from a great formula that they have become more of a game of capture the flag than anything else.
 
[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]You can play on a LAN - get an internet connection, learn port forwarding, log into Battle.net. Done.[/citation]
So now if we have say 8 people playing, they all have to share 1 internet connection. Depending on the connection, I could see that being a bottleneck. Not to mention that LAN games have no lag (not noticable), but 8 people playing over a single slow internet connection could get pretty laggy.

For me personally, the main problem is that my friend's house that we normally play LAN games at has 3 people living there sharing one internet connection. Only one of the people living there will be playing the game (along with 3-4 other people) while the other 2 are going to want to be able to use the internet while we're playing (watching video clips, etc, heaven forbid actually downloading anything). This is when major lag happens. we've tried playing through an online service when one of my other friends wants to play from home. It gets horribly laggy and people either cut out for 10-20 seconds randomly or disconnect completely.

So it all depends on the particular situation. For some people no LAN support probably isn't a big deal, but for others (myself included), it will limit the ability to play the game how I want.
 
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]So now if we have say 8 people playing, they all have to share 1 internet connection. Depending on the connection, I could see that being a bottleneck. Not to mention that LAN games have no lag (not noticable), but 8 people playing over a single slow internet connection could get pretty laggy.For me personally, the main problem is that my friend's house that we normally play LAN games at has 3 people living there sharing one internet connection. Only one of the people living there will be playing the game (along with 3-4 other people) while the other 2 are going to want to be able to use the internet while we're playing (watching video clips, etc, heaven forbid actually downloading anything). This is when major lag happens. we've tried playing through an online service when one of my other friends wants to play from home. It gets horribly laggy and people either cut out for 10-20 seconds randomly or disconnect completely.So it all depends on the particular situation. For some people no LAN support probably isn't a big deal, but for others (myself included), it will limit the ability to play the game how I want.[/citation]

I understand what you're concerned about but I think you should see how the new battle.net client traffic behaves before you count it out.
 
[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]I understand what you're concerned about but I think you should see how the new battle.net client traffic behaves before you count it out.[/citation]
Well I am going to buy the game and make the best of it. I'm hoping it will be playable, even if not quite as good as full LAN.
 
I have a laptop with an AMD Dual-Core 1.6Ghz, 3GB RAM and an HD3200 IGP and Win7 HP. The Beta plays fine on the lowest settings. I usually play it at one step up and it's pretty choppy, but I can live with it. There is just a huge difference making that change. Leaving the settings all the way down and it looks a lot like the original. Moving it up makes it feel much more modern. Just to give anyone interested an idea in requirements.
 
I'm still a bit underwhelmed. The graphics are better, but it doesn't have the same "wow" factor that I would expect from a Q3 2010 game. Especially given the length of time between the first and second game.
 
fatedtodie: Your reasoning is totally backwards. It is like you are saying "Dammit! I need to justify the money I spent! I don't care if it is reasonable or not!!".

The sad truth is, if you knew about hardware, operating systems and directX and have been watching the evolution, you would realize that Blizzard did not require anything beyond XP and DX9 to implement every last bit of features they wanted in SC2, and run them at their absolute peak efficiency. These features are all forward-compatible with Vista, Win 7, DX10, DX11 .. if you like watching them run slower feel free to use Win7 and DX11, because the sad truth is it simply runs slower and provides little to nothing in return.

So please, don't ask Blizzard to cut out systems which have no problem running the game in order to help you justify your insatiable need to waste money on always having the latest hardware and software.





 
[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]I understand what you're concerned about but I think you should see how the new battle.net client traffic behaves before you count it out.[/citation]
I am willing to bet the cost of my rig that it is slower, laggier and has a massively worse ping than a gigabit switch and whoever's PC is fastest acting as a server.
 
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]I'm still a bit underwhelmed. The graphics are better, but it doesn't have the same "wow" factor that I would expect from a Q3 2010 game. Especially given the length of time between the first and second game.[/citation]

Honestly, I haven't had a game give me a "wow" factor, graphically, in years. StarCraft II definitely has a wow factor but it's not the graphics, and that's the best part of it all.

As far as the length of time, what's that supposed to mean? The game itself has only been in development for a few years and does take advantage of most modern graphics features. There's really not much more to say, Blizzard's games go for gameplay and graphics are contingent on their art, not the effects involved. I'm not sure what you were expecting but when I look at those FPS mods made with the engine, I'm more than satisfied with the models and textures.

Regardless, if you were expecting some graphically amazing game from Blizzard, you must not be very familiar with their design philosophy...and probably weren't around to play the original game in its heyday, where it wasn't exactly great in the graphics department for the time either.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I am willing to bet the cost of my rig that it is slower, laggier and has a massively worse ping than a gigabit switch and whoever's PC is fastest acting as a server.[/citation]

All of those are factors but are they actually as important or as bad as you're making them out to be? Most likely not. As I already said, wait to see how the new battle.net client behaves, we've already seen that it's very different...

Or better yet, get the beta and find out right now.
 
[citation][nom]Godfail[/nom]All of those are factors but are they actually as important or as bad as you're making them out to be? Most likely not. As I already said, wait to see how the new battle.net client behaves, we've already seen that it's very different...Or better yet, get the beta and find out right now.[/citation]
In a LAN, surrounded by uber-geeks with an itchy trigger finger and wired mice that cost over $100 playing Couter-Strike the differance between 5ms and 10ms pings are the differance between a bullet in the head or not. Ask any hardcore gamer and he will say the same.
 
[citation][nom]supertrek32[/nom]And this is why Blizzard is so successful. They've realized that, at the end of the day, it's the gameplay, not the graphics, that keeps people playing. A lot of developers have forgotten that in recent years.[/citation]

Blizzard is just redoing the old game with new graphics. Don't kid yourself. They also dropped LAN support, and are selling THREE installments of ONE game to milk customers. Not to mention that they're selling add-ons. I'm going to pass on this one. I STILL play StarCraft like a champ too. 🙁
 
[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]Blizzard is just redoing the old game with new graphics. Don't kid yourself. They also dropped LAN support, and are selling THREE installments of ONE game to milk customers. Not to mention that they're selling add-ons. I'm going to pass on this one. I STILL play StarCraft like a champ too.[/citation]
Except that the first installment is (supposedly) larger than the entire SC1 game. And you only need the first to play the game online, I can't believe people are complaining about expansion packs.
 
I am sure the game is great...but man, graphically it doesn't seem like a big leap. And yes I did play the beta in sand box mode (hehe)...I am sure the story will be good like the original Starcraft so I will still get it 😀/
 
[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]

I disagreee with this mentality, while pushing the limits is cute and all, games shjould be MORE about the game play and LESS about the graphics even pc games. we are not all born with silver spoons up our anal cavities, and not every pc gamer can afford a blazing monster rig every 2 years. I for one , am enjoying the current 3-5 years stagnation of graphics , it means i can worry more about rather i like a game and actually palying it, and worry less about rather or not my system can even run said game. Not to forget instead of runing out and spending all my money on system upgrades i can actually afford to buy games.
Last but not elast , the old history of "pushing the limits" is why the PC game market is so much smaller than the console game market , most NORMAL human beings , are not techys , and don't want to learn about upgrading thier comp past buying a new one ,and those folks don't want to do so every 2 years, So they don'tbother playign gmaes on comp when thier old ssytem wont run the latest games but a console will.the slow down of graphical advancment has been a boon to the PC game industry and will continue to be a boon as long as companies don't decide it'stime to "push the limits " in mass.

now vefore you start thumbs downign me , adn calliugn me a "console jockey" ,I am a hardcore PC gamer, i build my own systems i do all my tech work myself if i have an issue , what i don't do is make so much money that i can afford a new 5000 dollar comp every 2 years. I'm a student majoring in game art design.

so again while pushing the lkimits is always pretty , it is not practical for most consumers and it is the NUMBER 1 reason why the pc game industry hasn't surpassed the console industry in sales.
 
In the "Recommended Specs" section it says '512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX', but the GTX is 768 MB... hmmm
 
Wow that is some low requirements. A 9800 Pro really?! I had that exact video-card when it was brand news and top of the lines many years ago.
I would never have expected such a card to be able to play a modern game today. Blizzard must have done one hell of a job optimizing SC2 if only
others would do the same.
 
lool well would i be able to play it on ultra with

4 gigs DDR3 ram (3.20 avalible)
windows XP
amd athlon2 245 2.9ghz
videocard ati radeon 5770
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom