All Channels
Popular
190°

Starcraft 2 Beta maxed out

The Beta of Starcraft 2 is running and PC Games hardware took high-res screenshots of the game. The pictures that have been taken at 2560 x 1600 show the maximal details of the game. PCGH also mentions that you can force anti-aliasing in the graphics drivers or with Nhancer although the game doesn't offer the option natively.

If you log in at PCGH (free registration required) you can download the screenshots, too.

Read Full Story >>
pcgameshardware.com
Raf1k15925d ago

That's just what I was thinking.

I'd like some screenshots without the HUD for wallpaper.

Major_Tom5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

By the time this is going to be released it's gonna look mediocre, it's just how Blizz operates.

Let's hope they give the SDK(probably will never happen) so we can mod skins and such make it higher resolution, it's pretty proven if you give the community the tools the longevity is extended.

The Great Melon5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

I don't think Blizzard NEEDS to give the community the SDK. Just look at the original Starcraft, people still play it.

ThanatosDMC5925d ago

I wonder why it's taking Blizzard so long to release the game...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5925d ago
JonnyBigBoss5925d ago

I'm loving the beta so far. I'm playing on high and able to record with Fraps with 50+ FPS!

da305kratos5925d ago

what do you think performance would be like on mine?

AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core 3.0 Ghz
Sapphire HD5750 1GB
4 gigs of Ram @ 800

looking foward to this one

Panthers5925d ago

Looks a lot better than it does on my PC. Oh well, its still fun as hell

mittwaffen5925d ago

Blizzard should learn to be a real PC dev and use some of the power we have.

They got the game play, but they NEVER had the graphics down.

moe845925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

By doing what Blizzard does, they have a broader player base. Gamers from the low end, to the high end can play. Focus on one or the other, and you alienate group(s) of people.

It's all about the revenue. Make your game available to more people, and you have a better chance at making more money.

*The console market is a perfect example. Look at the PS3 and the 360. Devs have to cut content, and dumb down a game to (try to)give people the same experience because the 360 can't keep up with the PS3. 1080p vs upscale 720p. Blue Ray storage vs HD storage. The numbers don't lie.*

Overmars5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

Yeah, but look how well that turned out for them. I mean, only PC exclusives and still their games sell better than most multiplats. Proves that although graphics is important, it's not the top priority for a successful game.

mittwaffen5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

But thats why you have different levels of settings. People who cant run it run a low setting, and heres where the eye candy is strapped on (High/Ultra settings).

Company of heros looks amazing on max, and crap on low so you can have the best of both worlds in the PC world.
Watch this (HD) - http://www.youtube.com/watc...
That game came out in 2006.

Blizzard always have this low end look to their games, and lets face it most of the hardcore gamers dont have a crappy rig. They need to push the Ultra settings on their titles, they hang around for years! And they age quickly!

Graphics dont matter, sure.
But its more iceing on the cake, and we all like iceing!

Letros5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

Personally, these graphics are perfect for an RTS(on par with DoW2), SC2 is merely an updated/improved version of SC1, you try to reinvent the wheel and you ruin what made it good. Also Diablo 3 looks amazing as well, you cannot change the viewpoint of these games, so not sure what you're expecting.

Blizzard excels at details, no other developer can even come close.

mittwaffen5925d ago

Look at my post again.

I can show you what Other RTS's can do an amazing look.
Sorry, im disappointed when SC2 looks very similar to WC3.
I believe it is the same engine as well.

Its my only complaint, as a PC only dev, they need to push the abilities a little more of our systems.

Letros5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

What else do you want? Something like World in Conflict? Then its not StarCraft...Do you want Diablo 3 to be like a God of War game too?

And this game does utilize latest hardware, you need a 1 gig GPU to max out textures.

I understand what you mean by utilizing our PC's power, but I think Blizzard games are played on a broader range of PCs than any other games.

mittwaffen5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

I want it to look better than games that came out a half decade ago.

Get off my nuts, tons of people have said the same crap. Waiting a decade for a game i'd expect a little more woomph in the high end settings.

The game is great, because the graphics are 'meh' doesn't mean the game blows. They should just make a more well rounded product, and they can still cater to the masses due to graphic settings and the flexibility that gives them.

Letros5925d ago

No need to get hostile, grow up, I'm trying to explain to you, at this viewpoint which is the ONLY they can use for a to be called StarCraft the graphics really cannot get that much better. Have you not played another Blizzard game, they are all cartoonish, its their art style.

I believe you are in the minority here as well, how do you think the millions of people playing StarCraft on crap PC's would feel if Blizzard said, "Hey scrub upgrade your PC"

I have a beast DX11 PC which can max any game at 1080p, I could care less about these graphics being better, they work well.

moe845925d ago

"Sorry, im disappointed when SC2 looks very similar to WC3. "

Yeah, if you think SC2 looks anything like WC3, you're blind as a bat. They look nothing alike. And I'm not just talking in terms of sci vs fantasy. Graphically they are very, very different. Same engine or not is irrelevant. The games are nothing alike visually.

moe845925d ago

Also, keep in mind SC2 is just in Beta. The settings on Blizzards end could change before the ship date. Blizz could be holding back a little because it's beta. SC2 has a highly scalable engine, part of the reason there is not uber high(aka I'm better than you so nyah!) setting. It's meant to give everyone the same experience regardless of the computers build.

But like every other game, it's not perfect and won't please everyone. The game is fine..

conker1215925d ago

Your comparing two totally different games. First off Starcraft is going to have 8 players possible on a map each with a possible count of 200 units. They have to make it possible to have all 1600 units running around + buildings. Not to mention custom maps have to support just as many if not more + triggers doodads etc. The game looks on par to most RTS games even taking all that into account.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 5925d ago
mittwaffen5925d ago (Edited 5925d ago )

The game still looks like crap.
The game play is good though, was checking it out at my brothers.
Still, games a half decade look a hell of alot better.

Being in the minority here isnt a representation of much.
As a D of W2 player you know what graphics are, SC2 is recycling a crappy engine; its upgraded somewhat however.

Its bullsh.t though when were running i7's and 285's its wasted on this game..which is a shame. People are running Maxed with dual cores and 8800 GS's they dont even have 1GB Vram, more like <400MB and sub 100 dollar.

conker1215925d ago

I guarantee your computer will be pushed to the max on some of the custom maps that will be made for SC2. A couple thousand units and im sure it will be crawling.

moe845925d ago

All I'm reading is whaaa whaaa whaaa. Look, if you have an i7 and 285s, good for you. The problem with that is there isn't a game out there that will push that system, especially in the RTS genre. Your whole argument is invalid.. it's still beta. When launch hits, cry all you want. No game is ever perfect. If you want really bad ass graphics, you're playing the wrong developers' games. Period. Blizz has never been the graphical leader, their games focus on more than that. If you don't get it, then maybe you shouldn't buy SC2.

80°

'StarCraft: Remastered', 'StarCraft II' Now Available on PC Game Pass

This week, Blizzard Entertainment dropped both 'StarCraft: Remastered' and 'StarCraft II Campaign Collection' into PC Game Pass.

meganick549d ago

Hopefully these get released on Switch and Playstation, along with Age of Empires. There’s a severe lack of good RTS games on both those platforms.

waytoobad548d ago

if only they didn't raise the price 500% last year.

250°

Coming to Game Pass: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6, StarCraft & StarCraft II, and More

Happy spooky season to those who celebrate! We have a collection of scary games for you to enjoy with Game Pass, while hiding under the blankets (or maybe that’s just how I play). And if you want to do something slightly less scary, we have a whole list of games for you to start pre-installing including more day one additions like Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 and more! Let’s get to the games.

• South Park: The Fractured but Whole (Cloud, Console, and PC) – October 16
• Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 (Cloud, Console, and PC) – October 25
• Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (Cloud) – October 25
Game Pass Ultimate
• Call of Duty: Warzone (Cloud) – October 25
Game Pass Ultimate
• Ashen (Cloud, Console, and PC) – October 29
• Dead Island 2 (PC) – October 31
• StarCraft: Remastered (PC) – November 5
• StarCraft II: Campaign Collection (PC) – November 5

Read Full Story >>
news.xbox.com
573d ago
crazyCoconuts573d ago

Let the COD on GamePass experiment begin!
I would think their quarterly revenue will take a hit compared to a year ago, but will maybe make up for it throughout the year as the monthly GP subs keep coming in

pwnmaster3000573d ago

Was up with call of duty man?
I downloaded cod on gamepass and for some reason I cannot access the game.

darthv72573d ago

just curious what version? There are some that you can pre-load, but they wont work until their release date later this month.

pwnmaster3000573d ago

I have to redownload it again for the 3rd time to check.
I ended up just deleting it to make room for other games after the second time.

It was on Xbox game pass, I didn’t know there was other versions. I just downloaded everything, but sadly I couldn’t even access the game. Maybe 3rd time the charm. I’ll download it again.

SPEAKxTHExTRUTH573d ago

It’s not out yet man unless you’re talking about MW3.

pwnmaster3000573d ago

I’m talking about mw3. For some reason I could not get it to work.

just_looken573d ago

On xbox there is the last gen/current gen versions pc though you could also get a xbox version.

When that new forza first came out for one day they had the xbox version on the pc store i was like ? what it was odd.

On xbox you can easily download the one version of a game instead of the series version so you run into issues on your series console.

pwnmaster3000572d ago

Because a game won’t run after I download it??
Man your kids must hate your @ss if that’s how you think.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 572d ago
dveio573d ago

It's going to be very interesting to follow up on how the new entry of CoD will perform at the box office, player numbers and distribution of Xbox, PC and PS versions this year.

573d ago
DivineHand125573d ago

I got excited thinking they ported StarCraft to consoles but it's just the PC version. Also, I thought Starcraft 2 was already free to play.

TheColbertinator573d ago

I'm certain it is going to be the Campaign Collection version.

Show all comments (25)
170°

$15 horse for WoW made more money than StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty

Jason Hall, currently an indie developer and former Blizzard employee, has been sharing some really interesting stories from his long career in the industry for a while now. Some of them are truly insightful, while others may seem depressing.

Read Full Story >>
gameworldobserver.com
Sciurus_vulgaris909d ago

I’m a little shocked that StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty sold only around 6 million copies. The original StarCraft did over 11 million. Maybe Blizzard was too leisurely in releasing StarCraft 2? Starcraft 2 came out 12 years after it’s predecessor.

Plague-Doctor27908d ago (Edited 908d ago )

Im surprised too. Starcraft was still a huge name in 2010. It was kinda the only new RTS around and other genres like MOBAs hadn't really kicked off yet. I do remember at the time sentiment around the game was
pretty angry the game was being split into 3 but I doubt that would have impacted sales to that degree

Sciurus_vulgaris908d ago

For a long time I believed StarCraft II sold on par or better than its predecessor. There was so much hype for the game. Plus it had a pretty strong E-Sports scene for a few years.

Myself and half a dozen friends all bought StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and played it religiously for a full year. While I bought the expansions, most of my friends did not. RPGs seem to be a generally low selling genre.

Nerdmaster908d ago

I'm not shocked at all. This was an early example of Blizzard being greedy. Instead of releasing a complete experience, splitting Starcraft 2 in 3 parts so it could make us purchase it 3 times if we wanted to know the whole story and play story mode with the other races.

Sciurus_vulgaris908d ago

I originally had that stance. However, Wings of Liberty, was just as long, if not longer than StarCraft 1. The expansions were of decent length too and added a good amount of additional content.

il-JumperMT908d ago

and people wonder why we are having mtx in everything. i blame the people who actual buy them.

Nerdmaster908d ago

It's interesting he used Brazil as an example of the importance of regional pricing. Nowadays many companies on Steam are setting their prices in Brazil as high as, if not more than, their price in USA. I simply refused to buy a few games when I noticed that's the case.

Extermin8or3_908d ago

This right here is the fucking problem.

907d ago