The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...

Page 4 - 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]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]


Agree,But I think it looks Great,I feel Supreme Commander Was Where PC Power was Pushed a Bit to Hard Since Nobody can Still play with all 7,000 AI units without it Slowing.

So I think Blizzard is Doing Good, Remember These are Recommended, Witch still doesn't mean if you play with 8 players your CPU wont Cry.

So, it's a Trade, Make it playable on most Systems and Play "NOW" or 5 years from now?

Not everyone has a 980X and 480's in 4 way SLI, They remembered the Little Guy, I respect that.

But Hopefully they have some Actual Video settings Now, Unlike SC1.

Overall, I Can't wait to Kill Me some Zerg!
 
[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]

Omg... why every one is crying about graphics, If almost half of the time are crying about how bad Game content is... Blizzard = Good Content+Acceptable graphics.
Who cares about graphics, half of the gamers in this world still pays DOTA (Warcraft3's modify Map)... And old starcraft.. so... who cares, no really who cares if graphics are not Crysis like? ha? how much time does Crysis can be enjoyable? 2 months tops? Lets see.... Warcraft.. since 2003(frozen throne).. 7 years.. and it's still a freaking good game. Can't beat good gameplay with your 4 way SLI 480..
 
I'm really quite happy that Blizzard opted for such modest system requirements for this game. I have BF:Bad Company 2, for example, but none of my friends are able to play that game with me since they are all running laptops from best buy (Mac and PC) these days. It is nice to have a modern game finally that most my friends can play, yet a game that if desired can still put my fast desktop system to the test.

Even my ancient Sempron and PentiumIV systems can run this game, which actually makes them valuable to me once again. sweet

 
Blizard probably won't charge $60 each for the starcraft trilogy. It will most likely be expansion pack price around $30. Eventually, there will be battlechests.

When talking about overpriced game, Blizard is farily resonable comparing to mega hit titles.I see people paying 60$ for every Modern Warfare titles, each giving you 8-10 hours single-player, and multiplayers with very limited modding potential. Blizzard on the other hand, offers a game that gives you endless hours of playing. Warcrft 3 gaved me 2 years of solid play time and custom map DOTA added another 3 years of fun. The starcaft 2 game engine is even more powerful then the one in War3. People are already able to recreate WOW experience out of it.Therefore, I believe SC2 is a very good investment.
 
[citation][nom]Sailer[/nom]I don't mind that it can play on a XP machine with DX9, but DX10 should have been there for those of us who have it. Then again, when Blizzard was first going to release this game, DX10 didn't exist. I can just see it, 10 years from now when Starcraft 3 is produced, Blizzard will still be making games in DX9.[/citation]

How much is there a need for DX10?
The biggest problem most people have had our performance issues, hence them probably taking so long to develop it and leave some lower end requirements open to many people. In terms of hardware issues these days, you gotta ask yourself, who is playing these games still and ten yrs from now who will be playing these games?
 
[citation][nom]joesayshello2[/nom]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]


It used to be when games wanted to be the game of the year, they used cutting edge tech to prove they were badass. Doom was a standard for gaming for years, Doom 3 was as well. Now it is Crysis and Crysis 2.

Blizzard and other moronic companies are letting tech idle. The reason 74% of computer still use XP is because Microsoft is afraid of windows 95. If Microsoft finally dropped support people would be forced to make their first real computer decision in years and microsoft is afraid (while not rationally so because Windows 7 is awesome and stable) that people won't choose them.

XP needs to Die. People that use XP need to upgrade badly and innovation needs to continue. XP is 2001... it is a vulnerability vector, it barely can barely handle 64-bit technology, and it is missing out on lots of the features in newer OS's.

LET XP DIE. Anyone that doesn't want XP to die can't consider themselves useful with REAL computers.
 
I work with someone who spent 1000s of hours playing Starcraft by himself. Is broadband a requirement even for single-player mode? If so, his only option (can't play at work) would be to get a dish... which isn't even a useful option.
 
[citation][nom]joesayshello2[/nom]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. [/citation]

Things that are optimized to run on DX9 will run (slightly) faster on DX9 than on DX10, duh! However, things that are written for DX10 could provide better graphics, and if you try to implement same things in DX9, then DX9 will run much much slower than DX10. So DX10 (and 10.1 and 11) do provide quite a lot in return, however, there are not very good for scaling back to DX9. And since Blizzard is very hot on scalability they decided to use DX9, even though I am sure they could do even better graphics with DX10.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]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]
RTS are not that demanding for latency. In the recent HDH invitational tourney, people were playing with each other from all over the world and did excellent micro. So I think if you are in the same country, you should be just fine, and the difference in 5ms or even 50ms is not that important in RTS game. FPS are just different beasts.
 
[citation][nom]MxM[/nom]RTS are not that demanding for latency. In the recent HDH invitational tourney, people were playing with each other from all over the world and did excellent micro. So I think if you are in the same country, you should be just fine, and the difference in 5ms or even 50ms is not that important in RTS game. FPS are just different beasts.[/citation]
True, but, even in the FPS world if you're playing online with a crappy net connection 200ms is closer to the norm. LAN would presumably be ~1ms.
 

The demo videos they are showing are surely at maximum detail settings. From the comments here it sounds like the game will scale from SC1-ish graphics all the way to the quality shown in the demos, and possibly beyond that.
 
yea but still most people who built thier computer them self's (myself included) can most likly run it at high/ultra so it would look just as good as the demo if not abit worse
 
[citation][nom]jordan009[/nom]would my computer be good for this 4 gigs DDR3 ram (3.20 avalible)windows XPamd athlon2 245 2.9ghzvideocard ati radeon 5770[/citation]

AMD/ATI has a site that does a simple scan of your system and compares it with the games requirements.
 
Would a quad 2.4 GHz / ATI Radeon HD 5650 / 4GB ram be able to max out the Graphics settings of this game...?
 
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...

Well, because South Korea runs on XP. They despise Vista so much that it was hard to find any computers running the system. Why care about South Korea? Star Craft is virtually a national sport, so they want to make sure their most rabid fans can have a chance to sample the new stuff.
 
[citation][nom]Vihl[/nom]Would a quad 2.4 GHz / ATI Radeon HD 5650 / 4GB ram be able to max out the Graphics settings of this game...?[/citation]
I'm running a C2D 2.66, and a 4850 and it defaults to max details for everything except textures, which it runs at the second highest setting (this is based on your amount of video memory). It runs great, I'm going to try bumping the textures up to see if it lags.

According to the graphics charts here on Toms, the 5650 is quite a bit slower, so I doubt it will be able to run at max settings.
 
"Why can't XP DIE"

Because not everyone is as rich as you to buy a whole new system genius. If you start buying everybody new computers, then it can die faster, so you better get on that!
 
question guys...
i have a
Pentium 4 3.06 GHz
2GB RAM
GeForce 7300GT 512MB

I know its a **** system... =)

can SC2 run on this 5-yr old rig?..
 
these system requirements are exaggerated, i am running starcraft 2 on my Pentium U4100 @ 1.30GHz, 3 gigs of RAM, and Intel integrated graphics(albeit on the lowest settings) .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom