Starcraft 2 Specs For A Laptop

I need to play this game...


Im thinking about buying a G1S or a C90S for this laptop. Do u guys think that the 8600 GT GDDR 2 version or the DDR3 has enough power to play it on high settings.

No offical annoucnemtn for specs are out yet, but from the demo, what do ya'll think???

Do i have to get a 17 incher if i wanna play a high settings???

 

1. No one here is able to predict the future... For all we know it could take a graphics card 3 generations away to run SC 2 on high...

2. Generally speaking, the higher the resolution the harder the graphics card has to work. So.... The higher the resolution the worst your gaming experience (unless you run cards generally not released in laptops or go with laptops so expensive you might as well not buy them)...

 

Its strategy, although it really look great on previews I don't think it will have huge requirements. Unless you will have very high resolution screen

 

just think of it as a more advanced version of warcraft III.
alot of people will be able to handle SC2, but if you want the smoothest settings, with max everything, you want to get a decent video card.

when i ordered my thinkpad T61, i went with the nvidia 140M instead of the integrated X3100, because i didnt want to risk low framerate with SC2.

the 8600 should be more than adequate.

 

well most strategy games are more cpu intensive than gpu (g1s=better gpu / c90s=better cpu). also most blizzard games arent so demanding on the gpu and dont have that many video settings as say AA or shadows/reflections, etc.

i would say that either of those two will be able to play starcraft with all settings maxed (remember that im just speculating based on my experience... i own diablo, diablo II, warcraft II, warcraft III, starcraft and all expasion set including sierra's expasion for diablo)

its more of a question of budget if you can afford the g1s then go for it... its the safer bet. i personally think that c90 will end up surpassing the g1s if gpu upgrades become a reality.

 

i agree with Cancer about the C90 surpassing the G1s. I guess i'll camp out until next year summer and see whats out there. Maybe that is the safer choice since not even the Gurus can predict in the future.

Im just crossing fingers that it wouldnt take SC 2 that long to be released after next summer.

 

Blizzard always makes games optimized for the lowest common denominator. Their forte is making a quality game with a good story, graphics are secondary to them. Look at the Warcraft RTS's, Starcraft, Diablo 1 & 2, and WoW. None of them were every demanding when they were released, and even a lower end mid-range card could run with everything maxed.

Unless they hold off on release for another three years, It's a safe bet 8400m or faster GPU will run SC2 flawlessly. But again, as frazell said, we can't predict the future. Considering the graphics and game engine are done, and they are just play balancing, I'm hoping they'll release the system requirements soon. Chances are that if C&C 3 can run on your machine SC2 probably will too.

 

If you need a notebook now, then get one now. Whatever you buy now will be able to run SC2 unless for some odd reason the game is released years from now and we just need a completely different card to run those games. As a few people have stated, Blizzard doesn't make graphic intensive games, so don't worry about the graphics being too much.

 

thanks everyone, but this brings up another question, it just occured to me so bare with me...


WHY WASNT THERE ANY INTRODUCTION ON MORE ZERG UNITS...

I was a zerg fanatic. **** Protoss and Terran, im rushing the **** outta u!!!!!!!

 

They're saving the best for last?

 

Yeah. I wish they'd show some Zerg units. I was kinda disappointed when they didn't announce the Protoss/Zerg hybrid race - maybe they'll show up during the campaign...?

 

Protoss/Zerg Hybrid race?
You mean the race that the Xel'Naga's were maing in the bonus mission? That'll probably show up in the compaign (since it's part of the story). Besides that I don't see why they'd get their own race since they don't even play a big part in the game (yet). Unless I'm not thinking of the right thing.

 

I assumed that they'd have their own race because you hear the guy saying that he planted so many in all over different planets that even if Zeratul tried to destroy them, he'd be too late to stop the hybrids from hatching...

 

Yeah but the hybrids haven't done anything yet.
We don't even know if they hatched yet. I don't see how they'd have a full grown race in the new game if they didn't even play a role in the story yet. It's possible that they'll play an important part of the StarCraft II story and by the end of it, they might have enough units and story to become a race of its own.

Besides, Blizzard said themselves that they plan to limit StarCraft to the three original races (I think it's even said in the FAQ for SCII).

 

Yeah, as soon as Blizzard announced that there would be only 3 races, I was disappointed. The only reason why (before SC2 was officially announced) I thought that there would be 4 races is because Duran comes in the expansion set and he says that he had been serving some master - so it implied that even before he joined the terrans, he was already on different planets making hybrids, so when Zeratul destroyed the tank with the hybrid, Duran said that Zeratul wouldn't be able to find them all. Plus, when the hybrids hatch, I just assumed they'd automatically become a race because in the bonus mission, the tanks have different types of Zergs and Protoss units in them so if they hatched, you'd end up with different hybrids.

Yeah, I'm like a Starcraft freak - that's like the only game I play.

Edit: The reason why I thought they'd pop up was because when WCIII came out, we suddenly had 2 additional races: Night Elves and the Undead even though they didn't play huge roles in the previous versions; the WCIII storyline then explains that both sides existed for like ever.

 

The Xel'naga have returned in SC2.

 

He said he was serving a higher being, probably the Xel'Naga's. So if anything the Xel'Naga's would be in the game.
Again, I know what the bonus mission said. And having a 4th race in the game was the last thing that went through my mind when I was playing through it. I figured that they would play an important part of the story in the next StarCraft game but I didn't expect them to be a full race.

I guess this all depends on how much time has passed in between SC and SC2... Does anyone know (did Blizzard say)? (Can't check the website right now I'm at work).

 

isnt it like 10 years or something?

 

Almost 10 years. Well, when WCIII was released we suddenly had 2 additional races - so I guess that's why I'd hoped that there would be a new race. As for the Xel'Naga, weren't they killed off by the Overmind, so that's how he found the Protoss?

 

Most were killed when the Zerg attacked them but some escaped.

 

I still play the original.

 

You guys are confusing me. Tiby is really confusing me.

 

I kinda wanna know why the Xel'Naga would bother to create the hybrid; what if they screw up again and become completely extinct...? We'll just have to wait and see...

 

World in Conflict is releasing and that's an RTS...I hear that has some nice requirements. Well, at least high requirements for running on full. I hear even an 8800 GTS got a lot of work to do according to one review.

 

The biggest problem with 95% of current PC games or more is that they have a bad engine or bad programing or a combination of both.

All these consol port games usually have horribly shabby programing. You can find a game with identical or better graphics that will run 3x better at the same visual settings.

I am seeing all time lows in the poor quality of coding, even "games for windows" like Shadowrun is a HUGE joke (runs like crap on lowest settings with a 2.8ghz cpu and a 7800GTX) however lucky for us Blizzard is probably one of the few companies that I can say I have not seen a poorly coded game yet and they have been pc focused for a long time so I dont think they will quit now.

I am willing to bet this game will run great on a current high end notebook like a G1S or a C90, also I am sure they will have the game set to run in lower powered machines and still look great.

 

Blizzards engines are as optimized as the Source engine - nearly all games have CRAP engines, because developers want to save money. In fact I only know of two games with good engines lol, Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, and Half-Life 2. (Both are HDR/Bumpmapped and run max on my VAIO (sig)) Watch the campaign alpha vid - the Xel-Naga do come back. (btw read the SC manual to see why a zerg/toss would be perfect in their eyes)

 

By the way:

 

I read somwhere (I know, that doesn't sound official) that Blizzard would try to make the game playable with all different types of machines. Since Blizzard also caters to Apple computers, that would meen trying to make it run on Macbook's GMA 950. Blizzard is already a solid company, and I can definately see them modifying the game to run well on low end systems.

 

Not to mention, this kind of game is really all about the gameplay and balance not the eye candy.

I really wish game makers would go back to the old days when games were about gameplay and performance not about looks.


A good current example I can think of is Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess on my game cube. I just got it off ebay last week and I love the game so much I have not put it down and its the first game to make me turn on a console in like a year. Graphics wise it looks like crap.... (esp because its a SD signal on a HD TV)

 

I heard that they don't even know if they'll force players to use DX10. This means that they aren't planning to make SC 2 an uber-graphics game. It's even possible that the 7300 can play it.

 

Why would they force players to use DX10? That would basically automatically make the game a flop since the percentage of computers that have both Vista and DX10 GPUs is what 5%? What they were considering was whether the DX10 codepath will have extra graphics features. Given Blizzard targets the widest possible market, any special DX10 features will probably come last depending on how much time they have left before they want to launch. I believe when WoW was released, the 6xxx series of DX9 GPUs was already out, yet WoW supports all the way back to GeForce2 generation DX7 GPUs. There is little doubt that a 7300 will be supported by SC2, but it would probably be limited to 1280x800 at low-med settings. Like all previous Blizzard games they have said that it is "very scalable" running on a "wide range" of systems, which is in there interest so they can target the largest possible market. And as someone mentioned, given they are targetting the Mac for simultaneous release, SC2 will have to support the GMA950 which is in the Mac Mini and MacBook, which is a large portion of the MacIntel users.

 

Well I agree they shouldn't "force" anything, this game could be out 1 or 2 years from now for all we know. For a game that far down the line to not utilize any DX 10 effects, well, that might be a bit disappointing for some.

Crysis is out in 2 months and should have plenty of DX10 power, a game coming out that far after Crysis should be able to do at least a minimal job with it.

Why let them off the hook? Games can have good graphics AND good gameplay. Thanks Bioshock!!!

 

DX10 just makes the processing more efficient, there are no extra FX, in fact it's encouraging developers to be lazy... I want to add the Rogue Leader series for the GameCube to the list of well programmed games (HL2, WC3, Nexus The Jupiter Incident, WoW), I'm willing to bet that DX9 SC2 would look and perform as well as any DX10 game at its release.

 

But you've seen screenshots showing what DX10 can do compared to DX9? I think there are certainly added effects bonuses just by looking at those screenshots, without being scientific about it even...haha.

I think they are new to DX10 but they'll get good at it.

 

There are added features to DirectX 10, most importantly is Shader Model 4.0.

There are definitely other efficiencies added in, which in the long run is a good thing. Especially considering it does away with legacy code, they were able to make it much more efficient.

Keep in mind that the XBOX 360 is essentially a DX9 machine, not to mention DirectX9 is over five years old, so programmers are used to it. Microsoft should have made XBOX 360 a DX10 machine, that way it would have encouraged development with that platform. But who said Microsoft is that bright?

 

@Undsputed
They crippled the DX9 version (think of the costs of making two game engines), honestly - no rain and smoke effects? I've seen a DX9 engine "fly" from orbit around a planet and enter the atmorphere and fly across the surface in real time (altho thats less of a graphical feat and a wonder of loading times) Ill find the google video version...
btw which openGL is the PS3?

 

I'm pretty sure that the XBox360 was positioned where it was supposed to be. It's API is somewhere between that of DX9.0c and DX10 and the ATI R500 GPU uses a unified shader architecture so programming for XBox360 was a pretty decent preview of DX10, which given it's earlier release is very reasonable. Also give note that when the XBox360 was in development, ATI had yet to develop a DX9.0c/SM3.0 GPU, since the X8xx series only supported DX9.0b/SM2.0b. It would be kind of unreasonable to expect ATI to just skip over DX9.0c and produce a DX10 GPU and I'm not even sure DX10 was finalized when the XBox360 was in development.

EDIT: And I believe the PS3 uses a form of OpenGL ES with some console specific extensions for the cell and the nVidia GPU for instance.

 

Agreed. To me, I'm beginning to enjoy games less and less. What happened to innovation and gameplay? I'm sick of all this DX 10, extreme graphics bull. Give me a game that looks fine, but plays better. That's why I have a Nintendo Wii. It's innovative and has fun gameplay. Even though most games don't look like Crysis or whathaveyou, they look great to me. (Props to Zelda Twilight Princess!)

 

I really, really doubt Blizzard would do a DX10 only game. They are very keen on having as wide of an audience as possible... I mean, look at how scalable WoW is. I am expecting that I should be able to play SC2 at fairly decent settings on my current laptop, I don't see why you shouldn't as well. Get something that runs current games well, and StarCraft 2 shouldn't be much further along the curve than that.