StarCraft 2
Page 28 of 179 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 177, 178, 179  Next
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 19:29    Post subject:
Nothing terribly unexpected, but I thought they'd be a tad higher. At least the recommended ones.
Back to top
lolozaur




Posts: 26310

PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 19:36    Post subject:
are u kidding? 7600 gt recomended hahaha
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 19:40    Post subject:
Well that is what happens when you cater to as many as possible. Remember that a huge part of their market share uses puny laptops.
Back to top
Sin317
Banned



Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 19:55    Post subject:
i was expecting low rec specs but THATS just silly ...
Back to top
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 20:04    Post subject:
Recommended specs are always a lie, though, so it's gonna need more horsepower than that to run the game smoothly at the highest settings.
Back to top
Sin317
Banned



Posts: 24322
Location: Geneva
PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 20:06    Post subject:
recommended usually means "to play in med-high settings". sure it needs higher specs for all high/highest but even then ... recommended for highest would be what ? a C2D 2180 with a 8600GT ?
Back to top
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 20:22    Post subject:
My guess is around an 8800GT. For full smoothness, maybe something a tad stronger.

As for CPU, I'm not sure. You've to remember SC2 will handle tons of units, and maybe varying levels of physics.
Back to top
madmax17




Posts: 19554
Location: Croatia
PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 20:32    Post subject:
Of course they are low, look at the graphics.

99% of specs are bullshit, I can still play every game on highest with no AA but with vsync on ati 3870.
Back to top
lolozaur




Posts: 26310

PostPosted: Fri, 29th Jan 2010 22:22    Post subject:
Back to top
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 00:08    Post subject:
Dude, can you read? They're the same.

I just noticed the 15-gig hard drive space requirement. That's quite a lot for 1/3 of a game. Will it be like 45-50 GB for the 'full' Starcraft 2? Might be if they other two parts are stand-alone.
Back to top
FISKER_Q




Posts: 1040

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 00:14    Post subject:
ShadowB wrote:
Dude, can you read? They're the same.

I just noticed the 15-gig hard drive space requirement. That's quite a lot for 1/3 of a game. Will it be like 45-50 GB for the 'full' Starcraft 2? Might be if they other two parts are stand-alone.


"Dude, can you read? The update states that it was placeholder system requirements from World of Warcraft"
Back to top
BruceWayne17




Posts: 151

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 00:37    Post subject: Requirements...
Blizzard's Bob Colayco sent us a mean email Sad


These system requirements are not accurate – the page went up with some placeholder information. We will have more information about beta system requirements once the beta starts. We’d appreciate it if you could amend the story and/or pull the listed numbers.
Thanks, and please feel free to contact me in the future for fact checking before posting StarCraft II stories.
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 00:45    Post subject:
Didn't that Bob guy use to work at Gamespot? He is with Blizzard now?
Back to top
metatron83




Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 01:39    Post subject:
Still, A DirectX7 era GPU as minimum? They tried to cater a BROAD market... as in every shitty ancient Intel IGP Desktop or Notebook...
Back to top
Smikis.




Posts: 1994

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 04:32    Post subject:
metatron83 wrote:
Still, A DirectX7 era GPU as minimum? They tried to cater a BROAD market... as in every shitty ancient Intel IGP Desktop or Notebook...


wana bet it end up looking and running better than new sup com 2, which will require quad 295 to run.. probably Very Happy
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 04:34    Post subject:
Can't compare the huge scale of SupCom2 (even if dumbed down a lot) with Starcraft 2. Do they even have squads in this game, or is still individual unit controls? Laughing Edit: Nope, no squads. Welcome back to 1998.
I think comparing this to, say, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War 2 is more appropriate, and from what I've seen, Dawn of War 2 blows it out of the water. Smile
Back to top
FISKER_Q




Posts: 1040

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 10:10    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Can't compare the huge scale of SupCom2 (even if dumbed down a lot) with Starcraft 2. Do they even have squads in this game, or is still individual unit controls? Laughing Edit: Nope, no squads. Welcome back to 1998.
I think comparing this to, say, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War 2 is more appropriate, and from what I've seen, Dawn of War 2 blows it out of the water. Smile


Yeah Starcraft is an RTS, and not an RPG.
Back to top
trucane




Posts: 1300

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 11:09    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Can't compare the huge scale of SupCom2 (even if dumbed down a lot) with Starcraft 2. Do they even have squads in this game, or is still individual unit controls? Laughing Edit: Nope, no squads. Welcome back to 1998.
I think comparing this to, say, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War 2 is more appropriate, and from what I've seen, Dawn of War 2 blows it out of the water. Smile


Are you saying supcom2 and DoW2 is supposed to be better than Starcraft 2? Somehow i highly doubt that. DoW2 was fun in campaign but MP was a extremely unbalanced lagfest. While Supcom2 obviously isn't out we can only presume the worst considering that it will most likely be nothing more than a dumbed down port.
Back to top
Smikis.




Posts: 1994

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 15:19    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Can't compare the huge scale of SupCom2 (even if dumbed down a lot) with Starcraft 2. Do they even have squads in this game, or is still individual unit controls? Laughing Edit: Nope, no squads. Welcome back to 1998.
I think comparing this to, say, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War 2 is more appropriate, and from what I've seen, Dawn of War 2 blows it out of the water. Smile


squads? only rts to have real squads are dow2 , supcom didnt had any squads.. and they didnt show or said anything that supcom2 will have squads..

both games are close to same.. while supcom is on higher map higher unit count. ( supposedly )

i somewhat doubt that there will be any pc that will handle 1600 units in supcom2..

and im sure most will in sc2 .. considering 8 players game with 200 unit limit.. and endless tower defenses and similar.. where unit count goes beyond thousands..

your comparison is silly.. dow2 cant be compared to sc2 or either supcom , as its tottally different

as for control groups it been improved a lot in sc2.. so if you saying that in supcom you can select 100 units and control as one.. you can so same in sc2..
Back to top
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 15:55    Post subject:
Company of Heroes and its expansions use a squad system as well.

However, don't be ridiculous, iNatan: the use of squads doesn't necessarily mean a game's more 'advanced'. The first Supreme Commander, for instance, was also fairly traditional, and used individual unit controls. The control method is simply a design choice.

I do hope, however, that Starcraft 2 doesn't feel like a simple remake of its predecessor. Warcraft III improved a lot on II, but will SC2 on SC1? That's my concern.
Back to top
Surray




Posts: 5409
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 16:08    Post subject:
squads are a design choice and don't make a game superior.
personally I don't like squads because I hate not beeing able to tell individual units what to do.

I want my micro, and sc2 will give it to me!!


Likot Mosuskekim, Woodcutter cancels Sleep: Interrupted by Elephant.
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 16:40    Post subject:
Of course it's a design choice. Not having a jump and crouch in an FPS can also be seen as a design choice, it doesn't mean it's better. Per unit control is a design of the 90s; no thanks.

ShadowB wrote:
I do hope, however, that Starcraft 2 doesn't feel like a simple remake of its predecessor.

Have you seen any of the gameplay videos? Sad

Smikis. wrote:
your comparison is silly.. dow2 cant be compared to sc2 or either supcom , as its tottally different

Perhaps you misunderstood; I meant from visual stand point - number of units on screen, not gameplay.
Back to top
ShadowB




Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 17:11    Post subject:
Doesn't mean it's worse, either, in this case.

If you want to go to extremes, if anything, squad control is simplification and a step closer towards your dreaded Future of Video Gaming. Twisted Evil

But in all honesty, I find both options equivalent, and I like them both.
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 17:23    Post subject:
ShadowB wrote:
if anything, squad control is simplification and a step closer towards your dreaded Future of Video Gaming. Twisted Evil
Unless you increase the number of units proportional to the number of squads and you could have squads replace a single unit.

I for one laugh at those "epic" warcraft 3 battlefields, where there's at max 16 creatures on the screen...
Back to top
FriendlyBus




Posts: 228

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:00    Post subject:
It may true that squads are a step up, but to ever expect blizzard to use it in the beginning is just naive. They would never endanger the e-sport/korean market that would cry bloody murder at such a huge change like that. It is - like the name suggests - starcraft 1 with more.
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:10    Post subject:
What Nui said.

A squad is one unit anyway, especially when it comes to the simplest of soldiers, which are never a single "unit" in a real battlefield. From gameplay videos, it looks anything buy epic.



Feels so dates. They just stand there and shoot. "Nuclear launch detected" -> *PUF* -> everyone disappears. Someone said requirements are low? Laughing

FriendlyBus wrote:
It may true that squads are a step up, but to ever expect blizzard to use it in the beginning is just naive. They would never endanger the e-sport/korean market that would cry bloody murder at such a huge change like that. It is - like the name suggests - starcraft 1 with more.

So true. Laughing
Back to top
FISKER_Q




Posts: 1040

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:19    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Of course it's a design choice. Not having a jump and crouch in an FPS can also be seen as a design choice, it doesn't mean it's better. Per unit control is a design of the 90s; no thanks.


So since Jumping and Crouching both are design choices of the 90s, i can assume you'd like that out of games as well?

Quote:

What Nui said.

A squad is one unit anyway, especially when it comes to the simplest of soldiers, which are never a single "unit" in a real battlefield. From gameplay videos, it looks anything buy epic.


I'd rather have 16(though the reality is far from that) units engage in combat than 16 squads of indistinguishable blobs shooting at each other slowly becoming smaller and smaller.

As it's more of a visual effect i prefer readability over realism and the small amount of change in gameplay i'd rather have the micro of Starcraft, rather than some AI RNG sizing down numbers.
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:28    Post subject:
Interestingly enough, none of the soldiers in Dawn of War 1 & 2, Company of Heroes, Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 look like blobs to me. Then again, I don't play on 1024x768 and don't like each unit taking 1/32 of my screen.
Back to top
FISKER_Q




Posts: 1040

PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:43    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Interestingly enough, none of the soldiers in Dawn of War 1 & 2, Company of Heroes, Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 look like blobs to me. Then again, I don't play on 1024x768 and don't like each unit taking 1/32 of my screen.


They're still harder to distinguish, you actually have to look at them to know what they are, that is not really the case with SC2.
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73242
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sat, 30th Jan 2010 18:52    Post subject:
Why did you remove the pic? Smile

As for units appearing similar, that is up to the art design. You can have squads of units that look completely different. (BTW, I'd take a Warhammer 40K art design over SC any day. Smile).
Back to top
Page 28 of 179 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - PC Games Arena Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 ... 177, 178, 179  Next
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group