Wow. That's impressive given how good this game looks. If it will run good on an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ paired with Geforce 250, I will be excited to play it.

Yeah, what Yifes said, my rig is MUCH worse off than yours in almost every regard and medium settings runs near perfectly on it.

Awesome. Thanks man.

djrxmx wrote on Jul 30, 2010, 18:40:
Partly OFF TOPIC:

Will Starcraft 2 be enjoyably playable on MEDIUM graphics setting on my system?

AMD dual-core 2.4 GHz
3 Gigs RAM
nVidia GeForce 250 1GB video
WinXP SP3

Thank you!

You'll be able to run it on high/very high at least. I'm playing on a 2 year old rig, w/ a radeon 4850, 4 gigs of ram, and a core 2 duo 8500. Only when I set everything on max do large battles get choppy. getting a solid ~50fps on high.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of AA, even considering the fact that Blizzard games have never been graphical powerhouses. Diablo 2 shipped at an eye-gouging 640x480 and was bumped up to a measly 800x600 with the expansion if you'll recall.

The biggest problem with no AA is, with the flexibility of the editor, the lack of it can become far more readily apparent. A quick look on moddb for SC2 shows more than one 3rd Person game under construction for example.

Assuming that the AA patch will be out long before any of these mods ship, it'll probably end up being a non-issue.

Partly OFF TOPIC:

Will Starcraft 2 be enjoyably playable on MEDIUM graphics setting on my system?

AMD dual-core 2.4 GHz
3 Gigs RAM
nVidia GeForce 250 1GB video
WinXP SP3

Thank you!

Ray Ban wrote on Jul 29, 2010, 03:15:
Hilter?

You must not be a Monty Python fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg

Hilter?

Okay I'm ready to push this thread off a cliff.



Hilter.



It is done.

Krovven wrote on Jul 28, 2010, 14:16:
I said "I CALL BULLSHIT". I didn't say you were bullshit. Learn the difference. Maybe try not being so defensive over the matter. It's hard to take your argument seriously when you contradict yourself.

Maybe its hard to take the argument seriously because I'm not actually arguing. I know what I see and I am comfortable with my opinions. I listened to what you said, I respect your opinion but I don't share it. I'm sorry if you can't reconcile that but that's not my problem friend. Now I've been polite and decent about the situation despite your curt replies, tried to explain my end of things so please stop treating me with the negative attitude and condescension.

Good luck and hope to catch a game with everybody.

In the future when you say someone else is bullshit though

I said "I CALL BULLSHIT". I didn't say you were bullshit. Learn the difference. Maybe try not being so defensive over the matter. It's hard to take your argument seriously when you contradict yourself.

As I already said, It's preferable to have AA as an in-game option...my opinion is that it's not needed for Starcraft 2, especially at high resolutions and the change would be inconsequential. If you need AA for lower resolutions, then that person would be better off upping their resolution rather than applying AA. Your response to this was "I can see the difference and I agree its not mind blowing but its noticeable.". Basically it seems you are agreeing with me, but being argumentative about it for the sake of doing so, simply because you think Blizzard dropped the ball not providing the option in-game.

Regardless, the option IS there for nVidia users in the control panel if you must have it. If you are an ATI user, tough shit, bitch to ATI about it.

In the future when you say someone else is bullshit though, thats being confrontational. I'm an older fella and I play at lower zoom levels but I'm not zoomed into the ground or playing at low resolutions so I'm surprised you can't see the difference. I would offer to take screenshots but then we would probably just disagree about the results. I'm not interested in a big argument with you buddy so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm very happy with Starcraft 2 either way but I'd prefer to have native AA all things considered. Hope to seeya in game!

Dades wrote on Jul 28, 2010, 10:31:
I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational with me

Oh god, I disagree with you and Im being confrontational...right.

You were the one being confrontational starting with post #32 and again at #35. The person you were replying to wasn't even posting directly at you, just at the people being overly dramatic regarding the AA feature, by being overly dramatic himself...apparently you missed the irony.

There are comparative screenshots linked in the headline that do show a difference if you don't want to listen to me

If someone is having to run the game at a resolution that low, they shouldn't be running AA, so their example is ridiculous to say the least. They would be better off using their vid card power to up the resolution, not enabling AA which isn't even a supported feature. So the screenshot in the linked story I found rather humorous as an example of jaggies at ultra low resolutions. Every game is gonna have bad jaggies accentuated by large pixels at low res, that AA simply cannot fix.

I havent been able to find any high res AA comparison screenshots...likely because as I say, it's inconsequential. What I do find though is plenty of people saying that at decent to high resolutions AA is simply not needed.

To sum up what I'm reading here is that you a) agree it's not a big deal, b) think it's a big enough deal to argue about it's impact on graphics, c) think its a big deal enough to blame Blizzard on it, without actually having first-hand tech knowledge as to why it isn't an option. d) ignore the facts regarding the tech limitation when it was posted.

So yes, when you contradict yourself by saying "it's not a big deal" but continue to argue that it is very noticeable and Blizzard should be blamed for it...I call bullshit on exactly how noticeable you claim it to be @ 1920x1080.

Krovven wrote on Jul 28, 2010, 04:45:

To Dades that says he can see a big difference enabling and disabling AA...I call bullshit. Pretty sure he is just saying that because there is no way for anyone to argue what he claims to see.

I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational with me, I didn't kick your dog or something. I said I saw a difference, I said its noticeable but not game defining and that I didn't think it was a big deal. There is no way to prove that you are telling the truth either. You also seem misinformed about how AA works with lower and higher resolutions. There are comparative screenshots linked in the headline that do show a difference if you don't want to listen to me, I don't really care. I'm not the only person here to claim that or something. I can see the difference between 30 and 60fps, if you can't does that make you a liar? Me? Maybe people just see things differently because we all have different levels of perception, eye sight and different hardware.

There are spots in the game where I couldn't notice it at all and there are times when its very noticeable. I do think Starcraft 2 is a fantastic game and decent looking without AA, this was never a deal breaker for me

While I agree that the aliasing is less noticeable during gameplay, they are very noticeable during cinematics.

I guess I just don't understand the issue if AA can be forced through drivers.

ATI isn't allowing it to be enabled in the Control Panel either...hence the issue for some.

People expect it as an option within the game itself. I can understand that, just not in Starcraft 2. I still stand behind...this game does not need AA, at all. I played tonight for awhile, and unless I stop moving the camera, zoom in and look really hard for it, I don't see jaggies because the straight edges are tiny and inconsequential.

To Dades that says he can see a big difference enabling and disabling AA...I call bullshit. Pretty sure he is just saying that because there is no way for anyone to argue what he claims to see.

I guess I just don't understand the issue if AA can be forced through drivers.

Eh? I can use AA in UE3 engine games just fine. I have to force it through the drivers but it still works and makes the games look much better.

It is NOT possible to support AA natively in a defered renderer using DX9 (which SC2 is). the only real option is control panel AA or moving to DX10/11.

Eh? I can use AA in UE3 engine games just fine. I have to force it through the drivers but it still works and makes the games look much better.

Great for you, but just because you don't use a graphics feature that's been around for almost ten years doesn't mean nobody else does.

You know, I thought "I'll reserve commentary..." would prevent people from saying things like this. I thought it would make it clear that I'm not saying it's not useful, just not useful for me.

But sure enough, someone has to completely not understand that and state the obvious in an angry way.

Also, if you hate everything UE3 has spawned you've missed some fantastic games. At the very least go play Batman.