dur, its the same warcraft franchise, lore ring a bell?

Actually, I must agree with you. I apologize for not defining what I meant by "disaster". I meant disaster in relevance to the effect that Blizzard tried to create for WC3 (which is to continue on the success that SC brough to them).

Ok I've exaggerated. WC3 is a nice game.

Actually WC3 is a nice game, released back in 2002 IRC, but it was ruined by Dota. There's hardly anyone playing melee game eversince.

Btw, SC2 will be released next year (hopefully) and I wonder will it be a big hit to CnC3 which will also release an expansion.

its kewl, dotards tend to drive people crazy anyways. as proven in this thread. even the fake dotard trolls managed to stir up so much shit lol

---

Added on August 20, 2007, 11:58 am/offtopic
nah theres still a lot of melee'ers and i doubt its really ruined by dota

in fact, i just played 4 melees on sunday, as a lvl0 scrub ROFL!
first game fought a lvl7, 2nd game a lvl20, 3rd game lvl28 and last game, lvl30... this one in particular, called me a hacker cuz i was a lvl4? beating a lvl30 lmao.

all 4 games i won despite the lvl difference and the fact that ive never played war3 melee ladder for a LONG LONG time since ive moved on to world of warcraft. after checking their win ratios, i guess its no surprise, im a 59-60% win ratio player bullying a 40-50% win ratio player

best thing ive gotten from the ladder matches is that i somehow managed to random ALL 4 races in a shot /happyface

then later on! i moved on to custom games and found a new 300 game... omg epic spartan battle



/endofftopic

but enough offtopics, back to sc2

This post has been edited by Quazacolt: Aug 20 2007, 11:58 AM

... Just wanna ask from the look of the Game. Do you thing we need an uber rig to play. I dont think we need such a poweful rig to play.

The graphics isnt as great as COH. nor they isnt extreme massing of troops.

With low physics = less processing.

they did mention that it will be using a very scalable engine to cope with a wide range of machine specs, so chances are even if you have a low end spec machine (not too low of course ) then it should be ok. and of course with better machine you get better effects.

Who cares about the people with low-end spec machine (besides blizzard's finance dept.). If this game is gonna be released mid of 2008, with WC3-esque graphics, its an embarresment to blizzard (too lazy to make new engine AH?!)

blizzard will care, especially when it comes to their money.

compatibility with lower end spec machines would mean more people get to play and that means more revenues (as if they arent making enough money from WoW alone already lmao)

=edit=
on a side note, its a new engine, not the wc3 engine. the graphic styles etc just look similiar but by no means its the same engine (AFAIK anyways)
not to mention it also intergrated havok physics engine for lol physics

This post has been edited by Quazacolt: Aug 20 2007, 04:01 PM

They'll be using Cryengine2 to build the game. min spec is Q6800 and 2x8800 Ultra SLI. with 4GB ram and 250GB free harddisk space.

mind to ask this coming sc2 support directx 9 graphic card??

most likely yes. they mentioned that it will support dx10, but also stated it wont be dx-10 exclusive, so it should be safe to confirm that dx9 cards will operate fine.

Blizzard's games always aim for maximum compatibility for wide range of PCs.
Wide range of PC=Profit.

Unlike stupid FPS creators who purposely raise up min requirements to promote latest graphic cards.

my 8600 gts should be ok then with my windows xp.

Do you have any idea how much extra work is required to make games scalable for lower end computers? Its not as easy as just flipping a switch for a particular graphic setting.

Every time you go down a detail level, you MUST have an extra set of art assets to go with it. So, if a game has 7 texture detail settings, you need 7 textures for ALL your assets. Ditto for all the extra special effects and models.

All this extra content requires more work, money, etc. Try making a game and see if you can so easily scale your game with top notch graphics AND make it work on low end computers before you continue spouting drivel like this.

was gonna reply with something similiar but ill leave it as it is
well said btw

bear in mind though, the extra revenue would only be logical from the extra work needed for the different level of details.

i think a lot of us fail to realize, is that, despite how much blizzard earn, one of the main reason that makes them stand out, is that they actually care for their players. true, making sc2 scalable for the lower end players does mean extra income, but on another perspective, it also means that they get to actually play the game. as opposed to situations where their pc isnt up to spec and couldnt play the game at all, or play it in under extreme conditions (lag) where it isnt fun anymore.

It pretty much goes without saying that only the big companies can pull off stuff like this.

I mean, in the original Half-Life, the game was virtually unscalable. The only way you could milk performance out of it was to either reduce the screen resolution or reduce the audio quality (You could also disable textures but that sorta makes the game unplayable) and considering how it was really pretty at the time, didn't do much for you if you had a middle-range PC...

That was when Valve was still a fledgling company.

Then with Half-Life 2, it was so scalable that even 4 year old computers could handle the game rather well. Same goes for other big name FPS' like Doom 3, Farcry, Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament.

Hmmm, now when I think about it, Starcraft wasn't that scalable at all. I mean, it had rather low requirements at the time of its release, but if you had a really, really old machine and the game ran like crap... You're outta luck since the only performance settings you could tweak were the audio and useless aesthetic stuff (Like animated portraits) to help you out.

I'd like to add something to your facts. It depends on the genre of the game also. In the FPS arena, level of detail directly contributes to its immersiveness, and graphics play a much bigger role in FPS than in any other games of comparable production quality. This is because when you are looking out from a person's eye into a world you get up close to many things, and thus the direct impact of graphics have on the game itself.

Compared to say, company of heroes, FPS do have a higher focus on providing excellent graphics, with scalability on a secondary issue. Take Doom 3 for an example. The dynamic shadows and per-pixel lighting is intergral to its atmosphere, and without them the game would suffer. For company of heroes however, you can pretty much live without the eye candies with horrid textures but the gameplay still remains the same. Of course, this is taking things to the extremes, but in the case of starcraft, playability becomes a higher priority than its visuals.

That said, I do think SC2 has reasonable graphics. Sure, it doesn't have all the candies that we are pampered with in other games like company of heroes and DoW, but I believe for SC2 it is more subtle. Animations, blood spray, physics, they are well polished, and even on first glance or through the screenshots the graphics might seem dated (WC3 era), I believe Blizzard will make up with excellent optimizations and gameplay.

Besides, the campaign screens are all rendered from the same rendering engine, and they look good - even better than say... Oblivion.

hehe pretty much, though then again, back in the days almost any computer can play sc >_<

i played it with my beloved 200mhz pc XD

Honestly speaking, Warcraft 3 wasn't exactly the prettiest RTS out there when it came out. Far from it really. I mean, it looked pretty good for the performance you were getting, but it certainly wasn't the best looking RTS at the time.

What Blizzard does instead is focus on the overall creative outlook of the game rather than making it the best looking graphics from a technical standpoint (Same reason why some ppl say WoW is the best looking MMO despite not being as cutting edge as Everquest 2). So, like I said earlier, don't bash the game for looking a little dated... Bash it if it begins to lose its artistic style.

I played it on a 133 mhz PC , the performance was ok for the most part and it only became unplayable in the last level. It was only when I upgraded my PC that I realized the game was actually running slower on my PC since the animations were MUCH smoother on the new PC

I think I actually tried it on a 486... Lagfest

damn 486... you still got it?
can donate to muzeum negara