• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

StarCraft 2 System Reqs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
need you be reminded..that

A: this is an RTS. when you have a lot of stuff on the screen, the fps can dip down to zilch if you dont have a good pc...even warcraft 3 was hard to run for a while (no not in comparison to crysis)

B: the game employs a lot more gameplay elements than warcraft 3 ..such as physics..

it sort of blows me away that ANYONE is surprised that it would require a pentium 4..

exactly

the game looks great, the effects and weapons look great. u can have 300+ units on screen at once fighting, and all with realistic physics reactions, pathfinding, etc going on in the background. system requirements seem fine to me, maybe a tiny bit high.

and this game looks nothing like warcraft3 still dont get how people can make that comparison. is it cause its isometric?
 
Originally posted by: Sumguy
Considering its an RTS, that doesn't look too bad.

Now...are those zerg rush specs or what?

Thats what I was thinking, seems like a multiplayer spec more than a single player spec.
 
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
can't imagine that happening - blizzard's specs have ALWAYS been reasonable. i would not expect them to change the way they made their games as far as playability/scalability goes. it simply doesn't make sense given how many people play their current games and will want to get their hands on SC2
Yeah, a Blizzard hallmark has always been that their games will run on almost any hardware, no matter how ancient. Coupled with the screenshots I've seen, I just can't see this being real.
 
These specs are just speculation and I highly doubt they will be that high, like everyone else has said, Blizzard has always been great at making sweet games that can run fine with an average computer and I believe Starcraft 2 will be no different.
 
Originally posted by: Glitchny
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
need you be reminded..that

A: this is an RTS. when you have a lot of stuff on the screen, the fps can dip down to zilch if you dont have a good pc...even warcraft 3 was hard to run for a while (no not in comparison to crysis)

B: the game employs a lot more gameplay elements than warcraft 3 ..such as physics..

it sort of blows me away that ANYONE is surprised that it would require a pentium 4..

exactly

the game looks great, the effects and weapons look great. u can have 300+ units on screen at once fighting, and all with realistic physics reactions, pathfinding, etc going on in the background. system requirements seem fine to me, maybe a tiny bit high.

and this game looks nothing like warcraft3 still dont get how people can make that comparison. is it cause its isometric?

I agree, it doesnt look like WC3 very much..the first screenshots did more but i think they got the message that people didnt want that
 
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Starcraft ran full speed on a Pentium 133 and 32MB RAM. I doubt we will ever see a game just as optimized again.


Yeah, it was also sprite-based. We're a little more resource hungry these days in the three-dee world.
 
I'm pretty sure Blizzard wants to tap into the laptop market, since SC2 is the kind of game that works well on one (especially when you want to LAN it with friends).

These specs would completely rule them out unless SC2 was to be played @ 800x600 or something pathetic like that.
 
Even though system requirements are fake, they don't exactly represent a high end PC today. And they sure as hell won't represent a high end machine when SC2 is released.
 
Back
Top