SC2 Beta activated for some Battle.net accounts

[warz]

The graphics are better than WC3's, but they do look similar to the artistic cartoony style of WC3. I've got graphics on it at max and it looks good. I still cannot figure out why it took so long to be released. It honestly looks like WC3, with higher resolution models. I've heard many complaints about it feeling too zoomed in, but I didn't get that feeling personally.

For me, this game is going to be one that I opt to not purchase. And, if I ever do decide to it will most likely not be for the gameplay, but more so for checking out the new Battle.net stuff.

[wires]

On another note, starcraft 2 can run a wide range of computer specs.  I've seen people talk about playing it on netbooks at 20fps.

I call bs. Even Blizzard's own website says that shouldn't be possible. And at any rate, my desktop is god-awful..
1.15GHz/1GB RAM/64mb GeForce 3 Ti200.

Obviously if you run it on a netbook you'd have to run everything on low.  Seriously though, I've seen some people that opted in with terrible computers and they can play it fine on low.  You can run World of Warcraft on netbooks at 20fps.

[Sidoh]

My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.

[deadly7]

My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.

My impression has always been that, in the developers' eyes, to have a completely fulfilling experience playing their game, your computer should meet X requirements. And, seeing as how I probably have one of [if not the] worst desktop PC out of everyone here, let me safely tell you that playing games on their absolute lowest settings is *not* how they intended you to do it, nor is it as fun.

[iago]

My impression of system requirements is that they are more like an excuse to say "your computer sucks, get a new one" when you call support.

My impression has always been that, in the developers' eyes, to have a completely fulfilling experience playing their game, your computer should meet X requirements. And, seeing as how I probably have one of [if not the] worst desktop PC out of everyone here, let me safely tell you that playing games on their absolute lowest settings is *not* how they intended you to do it, nor is it as fun.

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does. :)

[Joe]

Well, with Blizzard games it seems that they go to an OEM website, find the specs of their lowest computer, divide them in half, and print them on the box.

[warz]

You're all being sarcastic, right?

[deadly7]

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does. :)

I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

[iago]

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does. :)

I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

I'm sure they do. Then they give those numbers to marketing, who ignore them. :)

[Joe]

I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them. :)

[iago]

I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them. :)

Your modified quote says the same thing as my original quote.

[Sidoh]

I don't think the programmers have any say in the requirements.. though I'm not really sure who does. :)

I don't think they have a say in deciding from the planning stages what the requirements are, but the programmers will know throughout the course of programming/testing what runs the software optimally. I could very easily be wrong, though. Just my take on it.

You're speculating... the fact remains that you can run a lot of games on computers that are much worse than the ones described in the "minimum requirements".

[Blaze]

I'm sure [..] marketing [..] ignore[s] them. :)

Your modified quote says the same thing as my original quote.

You should probably ignore it like everyone else.  :P

[deadly7]

You're speculating... the fact remains that you can run a lot of games on computers that are much worse than the ones described in the "minimum requirements".

I guess that depends on what you mean by "run" a game. Sure you could play SC2 on a netbook at 20fps, but I'm betting it would be *awful* gameplay. I don't disagree that minimum requirements are inflated, but there is a certain quality that the company wants you to play with their game. As a personal anecdote, I played Max Payne which had specs that just slightly beat my own specs. And my experience wasn't that great. I have some more, better examples, but I'm saying playing a game when the developers did not intend you to play it at that low a level does not qualify as "running" a game.

[Sidoh]

lol... you're kind of funny.