Starcraft 2 Factual Game Requirements

Yea, I'm no pro at this either. I'm basing it PURELY on my experience with making some low poly models, and even that is very limited, but I would say it that it seemed like a damn chore for that last siege tank model of mine to get below 2000 polys. I admit that there are probably really effective tricks of the trade that experienced low poly modelers at Blizzard have that cut it down much more. But again, this is a siege tank we're talking about, a fairly boxy unit that can have most of its visual appeal delivered through some good textures.

While I think 10,000 is too high of an estimation (just my opinion), I really truly can't see how the Tempest/Carrier could get away with anything less than about 4-5000 polys. And that's REALLY pushing it. The Tempest looks smooth as all hell in those screen shots. I mean, all the conservation of polygons from a thoughtful cut down method can't do anything about a curved surface. 1 side of the siege tank, given all its details 'n what not, might have an additional 10-20 polys sticking out of it. For a total of say, 25 polygons. That's a WHOLE side. But once you get a curved surface in there, especially at the smoothness displayed in the screen shots, there's no going around dividing up those polygonal planes, and "1-side" of the tempest gets chopped up into a ton of smaller polygons to facilitate the smooth look.

So I dunno, it's ballparkin' it but I would have to say that the Carrier/Tempest model we saw so far nets out at about 4500 polys at least.

 

Thank you for your expetise, ArchLimit. I never said that I was a graphic designer, but I understand the hardware and software aspects that go into building and running a video game. I deal with it all the time.

Paragon, your poly counts on the thread were inaccurate. I understand you're a graphic designer of some merit but I don't know if you truly understand the mechanics behind it. Some of the posters on the thread you linked had a problem with that. Now, those posters weren't exactly the most credible, but some of them were.

He's right about the WC3 engine there. :-\
Otherwise I don't really agree with his accusation because you don't need to work with Blizzard to understand how this stuff works.

But I will say that although some units have very low poly counts, most will have high ones. SC2 is going to be a high quality game. Also, wouldn't you rather me OVERESTIMATE than underestimate and suggest that people buy a computer that doesn't match up?

Finally, to address Remy's post (sorry I didn't get to it before) you have your estimations absolutely correct. In fact, your wife's computer is going to run it just fine. I'm glad you know what you're doing with your desktop because I'm actually less experienced with them, though my knowledge transfers there quite well, but my knowledge of video cards is less up-to-date as I don't use their products very often.

I disagree with you about laptops, though. I'm a college student. My computer has to be portable or I'm in deep sh*t. And they can be just as power if you spend your money well.

But thanks for including that advice about not buying just yet. Good advice.

 

The whole laptop thing is just a personal pet peeve Jon, sorry if it sounded like I said they sucked, that wasn't what I meant. But it seems that most of the time you're paying more money for an overall less powerful system because a lot of your cash goes into the mobility and sleek/light weight/compact design.

The mobility and convenience of a laptop is a HUGE factor for many people, that's something that just can not be negotiated. And I respect that, but it's just not something I need personally. That's not to say that reasonably priced laptops out there can't play modern games at blazingly fast speeds and high FPS, but for anyone that's deciding between a sexy notebook and a big fat box, I suggest go with the ugly box if you don't really need to carry it around.

How do laptop people play on the laptop keyboard for hotkey-heavy games though? USB keyboard?

 

I usually just use the keyboard. It's not bad at all. In fact, I find it's more sensitive than a regular keyboard, unless you get something like logitech. Just have to remember to disable your touchpad .

But if it's an FPS game that really requires quick movement, I use a wireless numpad.

Yea, laptops are more expensive simply because of size. But if you look at HP you can usually find a decent laptop for around the same price. You'll pay $300 more for the same specs :'(.

 

Lots of people have processors that will work fine and won't have to upgrade at all but don't have dual core. For instance, I have a Pentium 4 2.8ghz. I am positive that it will run StarCraft 2 flawlessly. So, saying that the minimum req is dual core is wrong.

You have played starcraft right? You move around to different places on the map quite frequently. Back and forth to your base and your army/armies and to the enemy base/army. This isn't warcraft 3 where you usually just have your screen on your army and sometimes bring it back to your base. So yes, while it's on the screen it's only rendered once but it's going to be put on and off the screen over and over. Your argument that it is only rendered once does not take into account how people play the game.

Hahaha at least 2500 thats hilarious. I can promise you that 2000 will be the max that units will have with a few possible exceptions. Sure, ArchLimit struggles to get units below this but his experience is basically just scratching the surface compared to that of someone who works at Blizzard. Additionally they use normal maps which, if done well enough, can trick people into thinking that it is using more polygons than it actually is.

No, actually he is woefully wrong about be being wrong. Did you read what he was referring to?

I'd rather you not advertise it as fact (Starcraft 2 Factual Game Requirements) and instead say what it really is, a guess. An estimated guess but still only a guess. Higher end stuff costs more money. If someone has a tight budget they should not look at this thread as truth. Maybe we're both wrong in our guesses and the actual requirements will be less. Maybe someone will have a computer that will run it fine but they see that you think it will need a dual core processor. This usually involves also buying a new motherboard if they just want to upgrade and not get something entirely new.

What people should do is just wait for Blizzard to release the system requirements before they buy any upgrades just for this game.

I have:
Pentium 4 - 2.8 GHz processor
X1600 Pro - 512 MB video card
1024 MB RAM

I don't have a dual core. It WILL run StarCraft 2 fine. I am certain of this. I also know my next upgrade will involve me getting a new motherboard because my video card is AGP which has basically gone out of use.

 

You're right. Paragon. You're always right. No one else could ever possibly be correct.

I know this is futile, but there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that SC2 was originally designed in the WC3 engine. There is no way they would have tried that. Take Project Revolution for example. They've had a damned hard time getting units from SC to work correctly in the WC3 engine. You show me a link that ISN'T rumor and maybe I'll believe you. I'm talking a Blizzard press release.

Secondly, you, my friend, did not read my response to your post. I never said a Dual Core processor is a requirement. I simply did my scale relative to the new processors which are the only ones you can buy with a new computer now.

2.0 Dual Core would ROUGHLY be about a 3.4-3.6 GhZ processor in the old terms. They're on two completely different scales.

You're good with words, Paragon, I'll admit that. But that doesn't mean you can use them to pull an argument out of thin air. Before you continue to comment on the techniques used to render characters in games, please do some more research. And NEVER compare my research to yours again. Apparently it's vastly different.

So, as you have decided to twist my words around so it sounds like you were initially correct about the rendering process in game, let me reiterate what I said.

A unit is rendered ONCE. As it does actions on your screen it is not being re-rendered every frame. That means it is a permanent rendering (so long as its within your vision). Therefore it's irrelevant whether you move around the screen a lot or not. This was another factor in what video cards I suggested because Nvidia is notorious for having software that actually stores your renders from one screen for a time in case you come back to the same units.

Your computer will run SC2, but you're not going to exactly be "smooth." You'll experience some choppiness due to your processor (and probably your Hard Drive). You may be able to rectify the situation somewhat by getting a faster RPM Hard Drive. I have a 3.0 GhZ and I'm planning on getting a new laptop for the release. Your video card will do fine. Your RAM will be okay, but not optimum.

Notice how I cover all the fields related to graphics rendering? Once again, don't compare your "guess" to my "as close to the actual rendering requirements and therefore the hardware necessary to run this game as it is possible to get without being a Blizzard employee and having the numbers right in front of me." Just because I made some assumptions (as few as possible) doesn't mean my numbers are going to be way off. At most I'm going to be off by +/- .3 GhZ. I'm absolutely correct about RAM. You won't NEED more than 2 GB. And I would highly suggest a 512MB video card.

EDIT: To anyone out there who knows they need a computer for this game: Don't buy it based solely on my numbers. I simply wrote this article so you'll have a general idea of how much this game is going to burrow into your pocket. I would wait for the actual release of the system requirements, as Paragon suggested (oh wait, Remy suggested this first).

 

I have a question about all this... are these posts intelligent guesses based on what you know from other blizzard games, or do you guys have some hidden knowledge from the blizz crew from interviews and what not?

It's still pre-alpha so it still might end up pretty different graphically.

 

There was an interview that had some info about the sys reqs, but not much. I doubt the final product will look dramatically different. They would possibly be forced to recreate the engine, which would set it back at least a year.

 

I run Company of Heroes on the highest settings with no choppiness and it graphically beats the **** out of SC2. My computer will be perfectly fine.

 

incorrect, they never did anything on the war3 engine, however they discussed using it.

 

thats what I said

 

Surely having such amounts of memory would only be recommended for play on higher resolutions. A 256MB X1950XT at 1024 x 768 should handle SC2 with absolute ease.

 

Blizzard can optimize its games very nicely so I'm hoping to run it with my 2800+ with 1GB memory and a 7300GT at say 800x600 with low-medium settings. I don't intend to upgrade my PC any time soon even though I know it's quite old...
I find/hope those minimum specifications are way off.

 

Sorry guys, apparently I need to clarify my suggestions again.

My MINIMUM requirements should be fine. If you meet those, you'll be playing smoothly, you'll enjoy the graphics, etc. That will only require a 256 MB video card and 1-2GB of RAM, along with a decent processor (1.8 GhZ Dual Core, 3.2 GhZ+ Pentium 4).

My RECOMMENDED requirements are simply if you want to be playing this game in style while still staying economical. If you're a serious gamer, you should be going with my RECOMMENDED settings, but that's only if you want this game on the highest resolution and NEVER experience lag because of your computer. Also, if you go with this, make sure you have at LEAST some good cable, if not T1.

Again, you WILL be able to play this game with less than my minimum requirements. That is my minimum for playing the game smoothly. I wouldn't care to guess at the actual minimum requirements recommended by Blizzard. It depends way too much on how much they dumb the graphics down for computers.

I would venture to guess that my MINIMUM requirements are similar to their recommended.

EDIT: Also, my suggestions in my original post are based on research done on other PC games relative to their hardware setup. I also did research regarding common polycounts and then made a few assumptions about the quality of the graphics in SC2.

 

I bet I'll be able to play at the highest res and never lag or get any choppiness

 

Ok, have fun. But I do remember you saying you got "the same thing" in your previous guess. So I guess you both agree and disagree with me?

 

the same thing with the exception of dual core but i have yours and my recommended for vid card and half the ram.

 

Well then I guess we're spot on.

Do you not read the posts where I say that you don't have to have a Dual Core processor? This thread is supposed to be for someone who is buying a new computer. I never, ever, ever said that the Dual Core was a requirement, and I reiterated that in responses.

You can run SC2 with a 256 MB video card well. You can PROBABLY run it OKAY with a 128MB card, but for optimum performance I am suggesting a 512 MB card (OPTIMUM!!).

Also, while you can argue about the other points, like the processor and video card, I will not compromise on the RAM. You can run the game with 1-1.5GB. But for the best performance for your money I would suggest 2 DIMMs of 1 GB totaling 2GB.

The video game tests I linked showed that they provided significantly better performance than 1 GB of RAM.

2GB is the rule for graphics right now. It works well with the processor speed. Anything more and you're spending extra money. So 2GB is the perfect balance between performance and cost.

 

I'll go back to resolutions: currently the 8800 GTS is a very popular card and comes in both 320 MB and 640 MB versions, and at lower resolutions, there is no noticeable difference in performance. Unless one is planning on buying a new monitor, they'd be able to reach optimum performance with a 256 MB card. If by "optimum" you mean playing at the maximum resolution (which I assume would be 2560 x 1600), surely the more memory the better, cranking it up to 768 MB and 1 GB.

 

Yes. But to tell you the truth, SC2 isn't going to be THAT advanced. It's going to be a couple notches above WC3, of course, but not out-of-this-world. Remember, the gameplay is still the most important aspect of the game. That's why we're all buying it.

As for the video card you're talking about, you really won't need that much power. It's overpriced and won't do you that much good. I would opt for something more like the GeForce 6800 Ultra. That's the most you'll need. The memory is what is important.

If you're going to be playing other games, like FPSs with astronomical requirements, then you might need a card like that. But why pay $600 for something you don't need?

My approach is aimed at being economical, not necessarily the best gamer out there. I'm also trying to help those with laptops especially, and getting anything larger than 256 MB on a video card is a challenge enough. Let alone finding one of those insane cards that haven't been perfected yet anyway.