LOW, MEDIUM, ULTRA SETTINGS Comparison

I hope it was not posted already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1B0LksxzQ&feature=related

 

After looking at this, I'm positive my comp can play on low setting, and probably even on medium without any problems. However, I'm willing to bet my laptop wouldn't be able to handle ultra settings.

It's amazing how different everything looks in each setting.

 

This is a waste of time and effort on the creator's part. It's nice to see SC2 footage, but the whole point of a comparison is to look at the same thing(s) on different settings so the differences are easier to spot.

 

On low setting, it kind of reminds me of TF2 for some reason, haha.

W/e it takes to play though!

 

Well, it's looks OK even on low settings imo. My 8600GT should easily handle this at least on medium.

 

yeah, however I really do hope I can play on normal settings. Low has hardly any battle or building animation and the buildings look terrible, almost like the clay creations I would make as a kid. Low graphics look worse than AoE2 quality.

Seems the deciding factor will be if my computer can handle the 3-D aspect of the game, which having a laptop chip set from a few years ago, I'm really not sure how it will handle.

 

I can see where you're coming from, but generally speaking the video still gives us a good idea of the differences between graphical settings. It makes me wish I had the beta all the more so I could see what it looks like with more mixed settings.

 

well you can play on a lowest graphic possible

 

By the looks of this i can handle low settings and maybe medium. Definitely not ultra...

 

By the look of that video, low and medium will be accessable by most machines. But fully ultra light stretch some of the lower end machines. But I think you'll be surprised at how low a machine can actually have a playable ultra game. Sure ultra to me tooks really fancy. But it does not look anywhere as graphic intensive as something like bioshock 2 on max settings.

Kudos to Blizzard for making a game that looks good on all settings + having rather low requirements for the game.

 

nice. no wonder the minimum requirements are so low. the lowest settings are... well, pretty crappy.

 

Each persons definition of crappy is different.
For me lowest settings are not that bad for a current generation game. Lowest settings are certainly playable.

 

According to some internet benchmarks, a GTS 250 / HD 4850 can run StarCraft 2 maxed at 2560x1600 with about 35 fps. That's pretty damn good considering the hardware.

Of course, it'll be different for large maps especially UMS

 

Since when did the standard lower from 60 to 35 fps? Must've missed something there. :/

 

Isn't SC2 more of a processor game? I'm running it on high w/o any problems with a 9800 GTS and a Core 2 duo @ 2.4. I'm averaging 60+ a second at least. I haven't tried ultra yet simply because I haven't thought to do so. My eyes are so used to SC1 and Wc3 I'm not missing much lol.