Conclusion
True to Blizzard Entertainment form, StarCraft II doesn't need a lot of horsepower to deliver attractive visuals. And this is the beta we're talking about--who knows what performance enhancements the developers may make to the game before it releases. In any case, based on this early release, we think it's safe to say that most gamers will find playable performance accessible without worrying about a PC upgrade. It's just not that kind of game.
If there are any surprises, it's the CPU dependence this game demonstrates. While even the lowest-end graphics card we tested (a Radeon HD 5570) could handle attractive medium graphics settings at 2560x1600, there is a definite reliance on processor speed. The good news is that any modern dual-core CPU over 2.0 GHz should be able to run the game acceptably, and more megahertz will only help. Folks with legacy single-core CPUs below 3.0 GHz are going to have to sacrifice a lot of visual fidelity for playable performance, though, regardless of the graphics card they use.
If you're looking for a comprehensive review of the gameplay, I think it's too early for that. Blizzard Entertainment is still tweaking the title with regular patches and there will likely be a lot more patching and changes before the game is released.
All I can say for now is that the units (and therefore strategies) have been dramatically altered compared to the original, but the interface and art direction have been translated as closely as humanly possible from the original StarCraft we all know and love. With no single-player campaign to try at this early stage and no AI intelligence above “very easy,” the game itself isn't ready for review. What I can do is let you know that it's a heck of a lot of fun and it feels exactly like StarCraft should. When you think about it, those are probably the two best things we could have hoped for from StarCraft II.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Graphics Cards News
- 20/05 – Qualcomm Hires Former AMD CTO Demers
- 18/05 – Nvidia Responds to GeForce 600 Series V-Sync Stuttering Issue
- 18/05 – Behold: Here Are The First Unreal Engine 4 Screens
- 17/05 – Nvidia Debuts GK110-based 7.1 Billion Transistor Super GPU
- 17/05 – GE Announces Kepler Graphics Card for Military and Aviation
Latest Graphics Cards reviews
- 18/05 – Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – Best Graphics Cards For The Money: May 2012
- 10/05 – GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX...
- 09/05 – Video Teaser: Radeon HD 7800 Series Remains A Solid Value
- 08/05 – Benchmarking AMD's 768-Shader Pitcairn: Not For Public...
bashees can cloak
So yeah, unless your machine is from the stone age, it will run Starcraft 2.
But that's exactly what the article says, or am I missing something? Sorry excuse indeed..
What a sorry excuse for an article. You actually haven't said anything. But since I'm in the beta I can tell you this: the game requires at least 2 GB of RAM, or it crashes. I played it on a AMD/Ati powered Toshiba laptop with everything on low and is very playable. Don't know the exact configuration, but it had 2GB of RAM, Windows Vista and the only other game that runs on it is WoW at the lowest graphic settings. So yeah, unless your machine is from the stone age, it will run Starcraft 2.
Not so, I have this running on my old Athlon X2 4200+ with an ATi 9600XT 256MB with 1GB of system RAM and it runs fine (at 1920x1080, Low settings of course).
dont forgeth the option to play in 2D
btw, the 2D option dosen't seem to be available at the beta version because you can still rotate the image when you select that option, maybe with the final version more older computers will also be able to run the game
I play SC I until today. It is the oldest game I own I still play regularly. Second place comes Diablo II. No more needs to be said.
On the strategy side, I sure miss "moving in formation" option from Warcraft III. I hate micro-managing a large battlegroup because the Aerial units rush ahead their ground cover (and vice-versa), which doesn´t happen in Warcraft III. Ohhh, the SC I medics are such suicidal girls, aren´t they? Try not to micro them, see what happens.
Pentium III 700MHz, 512mb system RAM, Radeon 9000, 1280x1024, ran pretty well on Low. Gotta love Blizzard
free ati 5830 giveaway at battleempire.com
This is a terrible preview. The writers lack of knowledge of cloaked Banshees sums it up. It's a great game but nothing like even the leap from Warcraft 2 to 3. It's more like Starcraft 1.5, I don't know why he is calling it such a drastic change. A few new units and mechanics. Identical controls and interface. What is the drastic change you are talking about?
This is a terrible preview. The writers lack of knowledge of cloaked Banshees sums it up. It's a great game but nothing like even the leap from Warcraft 2 to 3. It's more like Starcraft 1.5, I don't know why he is calling it such a drastic change. A few new units and mechanics. Identical controls and interface. What is the drastic change you are talking about?
The article is about the graphical performance of the game, not the game itself. Read before you rant.
Read before you rant.
erghh! that will messeses up teh internet. Never read TFA. Neever proof a post.
erghh! that will messeses up teh internet. Never read TFA. Neever proof a post.
I lolz at yre postz... ;-)
Well, I tried Beta Version of Starcraft II on my laptop, Turion X2 2,1 Ghz, ATI RADEON HD2600 512 MB and operating on 4GB DDR 2 667 Mhz. The game works fine, MEDIUM settings, 1280 x 1024. I haven't played that on-line but I doubt it can influence hardware demands.
Once again Tom's Hardware fails to benchmark in the native resolution of almost every consumer pc monitor sold in Australia! 1920 x 1080 Epic Fail!
Once again Tom's Hardware fails to benchmark in the native resolution of almost every consumer pc monitor sold in Australia! 1920 x 1080 Epic Fail!
This is the UK site...
@ Herr_Koos: Der mate they dont have an Australian site.... Do you happen to work in retail sales for computers & monitors?
Nope. Why do you ask?
@ Herr_Koos I was just curious
Once again the max AA used in the entire review is 4x, SINCE THE ATI CARDS FRAMERATES CRUMBLE AT ANYTHING ABOVE 4X AA !
When will the massive bias END ! ?
( don't think gaming fans, suddenly on the super expensive high end cards, 8xaa and 16xaa and 32xmsaa DON'T EXIST AND ARE NOT TO BE MENTIONED! JUST PLAY ALONG LIKE WE NEVER HAD 8X OR 16X FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND PRETEND IT DOESN'T EXIST ALONG WITH EVERY REVIEW ON THIS SITE!)
Play along, for the sake of ATI and their CRAPPY framerates EXCEPT in 0xaa and 4xaa, the ONLY THINGS SHOWN ANYMORE !
@ Silicondoc: is there really any need for more than 4 x given the super high resolutions that we use now? ie 1920 x 1080 or higher?