Starcraft 2 Factual Game Requirements

I just gave an example of the two different versions to show that 512 MB of memory isn't necessary for optimum performance. Memory is important at higher resolutions, and 256 MB is more than enough for optimum performance assuming the GPU is powerful enough. An X1950XT offers an excellent price/performance ratio, even though it only has 256 MB of memory.

 

You have to remember though, this is Blizzard. This is the company that let me play WoW on a desktop with 256 mb ram and a chipset for a video card that Microsoft stopped servivcing years ago. Sure, it wasnt spectacular graphics, and lag was an issue. But it still played at an acceptable level. I mean things looked blocky and SW and IF were off limits, but to those who care about playing, and not how it looks, it was great. I think that if you have Recomeneded for WoW you should definitly meet the Required for SCII

 

Jewels, I'm sorry. You seem to have lost me in your examples.

The two examples you cited were enormously expensive. The ones in the previous post, that is. Upward of $400.

Also, you'd be fine with a 256MB card, and MAYBE a 128. But for gameplay experience at the top level, you should have a 512. And they're not that much more expensive anymore.

Here's the thing. When SC1 came out it wasn't really the "top" of graphics. I think we can all agree on that. Back then, though, it was still a struggle to meet the requirements well enough that you didn't experience lag.

Let's remember this was in the age where it wasn't uncommon to have a processor speed of 633 MhZ. Unheard of today. Now that is a little above the SC requirements, but it didn't exactly run perfectly, although it did run.

I'm not really comparing the two games here so much as showing that minimum isn't always adequate.

@ Shadow Templar , I would DEFINITELY, DEFINITELY not recommend that ANYONE try to use a chipset with this game. Eventually video cards will be eliminated, and I hope soon. But for now, if you plan on buying SC2. Please make sure you have a graphics card.

 

Lol...my new computer has a GeForce 8400 something. I'm just saying my old comp had the chip set and it ran WoW. I was just making a reference that we should trust Blizzard to make a game available to the masses. Seriously, if a chipset and 1/4 G of Ram can run WoW, i think a current computer can run SC2 in a year.

 

If by "top level" you mean maximum resolution along with every effect enabled, then I agree, but unless you play at a high resolution (among other factors), you won't need that much memory. I'll use the X1950XT as an example again, because it's still a powerful card yet also cheap. The 7900GTX has 512 MB yet is inferior to the X1950XT 256 MB in quite a few benchmarks, even at 1920 x 1200 resolution, and depending on the game and its settings you may notice the difference in actual gameplay too. Basically, despite one card having double the memory of the other, they perform at similar levels. There are also gamers out there who already own an 8800GTS 320 MB, and while it may not have 512 MB of memory, I'm sure it would easily max out SC2 at 1680 x 1050.

It's a little misleading to say that one should have a 512 MB card in order to experience SC2 gameplay at the top level, because you have to take into account screen resolution and GPU power.

 

Dude. That 8800GTS card is INSANE EXPENSIVE!

Hopefully the price will drop. But I'm only suggesting that you have a 512MB card so that people know what to buy. The cheapest card will pretty much let you run this game in any way you like.

You also need to follow my other recommendations to experience this.

You make my life complicated lol :'(

but owerup: anyway.

EDIT: Damn, 72 hours. Remind me that I owe you one.

 

Dude, I have two 8800 GTX's. One costs almost twice as much as a GTS. But then, maybe I should have saved up for a car.

 

Hello, I saw this thread and I thought I'd join in. I was present at Blizzcon and there were some technical art panels where they gave some of the information being speculated here. I also happen to work as a videogame developer so I was able to understand what was being said pretty well.

First, the triangle counts that you are guessing at are very conservative. They mentioned that at peak they were using about a million triangles on the screen (with the screen covered in zerglings) so I think saying the whole level is going to fit in 50,000 is a bit extreme. I know a million sounds like a lot but the fact of the matter is even old videocards can today deliver that kind of throughput. So you can't really extrapolate that this million triangles would require a very beefy videocard.

They mentioned that their units ranged from about 800 triangles for small units to 10000 for the biggest ones. For the cinematics they had characters with millions of triangles for each character, and they used special technique (normal maps) to reduce those down in the game. They mentioned they were looking at ways to make it so the better videocard would use the higher triangle count models.

Here is some coverage from IGN from that event http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790185p1.html. They mention the zealot is 1500 triangles.

I don't think anyone needs to worry too much about being able to run the game. A geForce FX (geforce 5) was mentioned as a possible baseline for running the game on lowest detail. But they did mention they were going to scale it as much as possible; they said they would make it look as good as possible with advanced effects that may require the latest videocards but make these effects optional. So you won't need a very powerful PC to run it, but if you have the greatest and latest, they'll use it. So I would extpect that for the "max" setting, you'll need a recent PC.

 

Thanks for the input Muzie, and welcome to the forums.

The "triangles" you are referring to are called "polygons."

Even the most exaggerated estimates I could find placed the polycount of an individual map at less than 200,000 polygons. I think even that number is a little outrageous.

But your source about the Zealot is correct. I've read that article. Thanks for posting it

owerup:

Welcome.

 

I think saying "just a couple notches about War3" is a bit of an understatement isn't it? I invite you to look at the Blizcon presentation of the "story mode" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfLVACmCCg. Just as a reminder, these are rendered within the in-game engine. I just don't see how I could take a screenshot of this and compare it side by side with a warcraft 3 screenshot and say "ya this is just a couple notches better". In warcraft 3 the in-game cinematics looked exactly the same quality as the game, but here the in-game cinematics look drastically better.

I think they are pushing the graphics envelope. Gameplay is king, so they won't let it hinder gameplay, but for story driven moments I think they will push as much as they can.

 

Well... think about it... the Cinematics in WC3 WERE in game. They were pretty much just recordings of unit movement. Nothing special. StarCraft is known for its awesome Cinematics. None of this fake crap... well... relatively fake anyway.

When I say a couple notches above WC3 I certainly mean the graphics will be worlds better, but not exactly blow WC3 out of the water. The graphics are still similar except that SC2 will be rendered in 3D. Awesome!

 

Hi Joneagle_X! Thanks fpr the welcome!

*puts on nerdy software engineer hat*
Triangles are 3-sided polygons. Polygons can have arbitrary sides. Retail 3D graphics hardware can only render triangles.
*hat off*

Well what was the largest map size in warcraft 3? 256x256? can't remember... Either way, if the maps in Star2 go up that size, that's about 65,000 cells on a map, and you need 2 triangles to make a square cell, so that's 130,000. I think 200,000 is plausible, and much higher is also likely. It's not how many polygons are on the map that is important, but how many are on screen at once.

 

Well I guess it's a matter of opinion although my little finger tells me you haven't looked at the youtube link I sent. Just scroll at the 2 minute mark on the video. That shot of Zeratul is a "fake" in-game cinematic, it's not a pre-recorded video. I don't think there's any equivalent to this in Warcraft 3.

 

I'm sorry, what YouTube link? I didn't even see one on this thread....

But I assume I know what you're talking about, when the units move and talk while on your screen? That's more of a UMS thing rather than an actual Cinematic. The Cinematics are when there's actually a video of some sort, usually from the First Person point of view and it involves a "movie-like" reel.

Warcraft 3 was often this feel but it was more like it was still in the graphic style of the game. I.E. you were close up to the units on the ground, but it was close to the same quality. They were still the "units" and were just hopping around to the voices in the Cinematic.

 

This is the youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZfLVACmCCg - just jump to the 2 minute mark.

This is as you described: a video of some sort, usually from the First Person point of view and it involves a "movie-like" reel.


Except it's not a video. This is done with the engine itself. And this is where I think we may be underestimating the engine/specs because to me the SC2 models in the cinematic totally blow any in-game War3 models by a mile.

 

Yeah. I see what you mean. It's pretty much the same as WC3 except taken to a completely new level.

The engine is still at work, but this is more to make the transition from the user interface smoother into the actual cinematics.

There will still be separately rendered cinematics. And you are right. The SC2 engine is much more powerful. I don't think I contradicted this point.

 

You are talking a bit a bout RAM, Joneangle_X, but you say nothing about the mhz. When you say 1GB RAM do you then take 800mhz as standard? Because there is a great diffeence in a 800mhz and a 1066mhz 1GB RAM.

 

What is RAM actually for?

 

Well.... 1066 MhZ RAM Cards aren't really all that much bang for your buck. They're rather expensive for what they do.

If you have a faster processor it counterbalances needing the faster RAM. It's just supposed to be faster access. So if you want to upgrade your computer's SPEED without getting a new processor, this might be a cost effective way to go, but it isn't really worth the extra cost in my opinion.

I suggest 800 MhZ, that's the industry standard anyway, you have to specifically look for 1066 MhZ.

 

Yes we agree on that.

I guess my only point was making references to the Warcraft 3 engine was inappropriate since the level of detail found in those cinematics has no parallel within War3 (and perhaps even within any RTS so far). Thus my reasoning was that some people (not specifically you) who say "you'll need just a silghtly better pc than what what you used for war3 to play at max settings" are just playing a wishing game.