Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void

I've got a single radeon 5770 and mine is running great on ultra. I've got an AMD quad core processor and 4 gigs of DDR2.

As an experiment, perhaps you should disable or reconfigure your Xfire.. have SC2 just use one card. It could very well be that SC2 doesn't place nicely with Xfire right now?

[quote name='jarvis307']i'm curious what kind of performance you guys are getting. i'm running two 4850s (1 gb) in xfire but i get quite a bit of slowdown with everything set to ultra on 1680x1050. other specs are: amd 965, 4 gb of ddr3 1600. i would have thought this machine could handle ultra. the graphics set to high run pretty smooth though.[/QUOTE]
 
So I have an 8800GT and a fairly decent computer that plays most other PC games fine, but I'm getting problems with starcraft 2. It was fine in the beta, but now in SP, the game will freeze pretty quickly and make some buzzing noise and have some blue/green artifacts. I have to hard reset as everything locks up. I seemed to be OK when I lowered the settings and also tried moving things back up slowly. I played for a while later and then it froze again at the end of mission 2 when Tychus talks to you.

I read up on Blizzard's forums that the 3d unit models might be an issue for me..but was curious if anyone else was having problems? I have the latest drivers and whatever else you can think of. I have 850W PSU, good case ventilation and ambient room temp, my temperatures (CPU+GPU) are ~60C in game...not really sure what's going on.

Any ideas? When I get home from work I'll check how it does with 2d unit portraits.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I've got a single radeon 5770 and mine is running great on ultra. I've got an AMD quad core processor and 4 gigs of DDR2.

As an experiment, perhaps you should disable or reconfigure your Xfire.. have SC2 just use one card. It could very well be that SC2 doesn't place nicely with Xfire right now?[/QUOTE]

thanks for the tip.. i've read that in the past regarding other games but i'll give it a shot for SC2.
 
I have a 8500GT, I'm using a mix of medium/high settings that SC2 set as default. It runs pretty well, but I want to upgrade my video card... but I kind of want to wait to see what the system requirements on Diablo III are going to be like though since those are the only PC games I have any interest in... oh and old point-and-click adventure games.
 
[quote name='jarvis307']thanks for the tip.. i've read that in the past regarding other games but i'll give it a shot for SC2.[/QUOTE]

Realistically speaking, even cheap GPUs are getting so high powered these days that I don't really see the point of Xfire/SLI for a normal gamer anymore. A single GPU can usually do the job, even on ultra settings for even very new games. the increased power consumption during non-gaming and increased cooling needs were the biggest reason I went with a single GPU when the fan on my radeon 4850 burned out.

Even if the drivers are mature enough to be reliable in most scenarios, some of the newest games are still coded in such a way that dual GPUs are actually slower than a single GPU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='battlechicken']realistically speaking, even cheap gpus are getting so high powered these days that i don't really see the point of xfire/sli for a normal gamer anymore. A single gpu can usually do the job, even on ultra settings for even very new games. The increased power consumption during non-gaming and increased cooling needs were the biggest reason i went with a single gpu when the fan on my radeon 4850 burned out.

Even if the drivers are mature enough to be reliable in most scenarios, some of the newest games are still coded in such a way that dual gpus are actually slower than a single gpu.[/quote]

qft!
 
this was my first xfire machine (i've built about 10 pcs for myself and others). i was considering either a 5850/5830 when i saw that two 4850s seem to slightly out perform it for a little less money. xfire/sli seems to be a fad anyways. i remember when 3dfx cards supported sli and then went away for a long time. i'll have to compare other games' performance before deciding if i'll go this route again.

thanks again!
 
[quote name='lordwow']Quick question, I haven't started setting up my friends on Battle.net, but do they have the ability to see your real name?[/QUOTE]

Real ID friends yes, Character friends no.

Real ID friends are added by the Battle.net username (email address), Character friends are added by a Character name and an identifier code.
 
[quote name='Inf^Shini']Finally get SC2 and my internet is down, so I can't even install it to enjoy SP :(

*weeping*[/QUOTE]

Did you send this message via mail to Cheapy?
 
[quote name='Inf^Shini']???[/QUOTE]

Probably some "DRM=BAD" business. Cheapy probably has some strong opinion of it one way or the other.
 
[quote name='kilm']Probably some "DRM=BAD" business. Cheapy probably has some strong opinion of it one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
Ahh I see. Well I think it sucks. I dropped almost $100 on a game I can't even install on my comp just because I don't have an internet connection :/
 
I had a fun time trying to install this I had to make a new account in vista be my account "wasn't"(it was) an admin account.after I did that i ran the game and it kept shutting off when the mission was trying to load so I had to switch back to my other account oh well it was worth it and all the extras was worth the extra $35 I paid.
 
[quote name='yukine']I have a 8500GT, I'm using a mix of medium/high settings that SC2 set as default. It runs pretty well, but I want to upgrade my video card... but I kind of want to wait to see what the system requirements on Diablo III are going to be like though since those are the only PC games I have any interest in... oh and old point-and-click adventure games.[/QUOTE]

Well I have the 9800GT 1gb and I run it every setting on the highest possible (ultra).
 
[quote name='SoulReaver']Well I have the 9800GT 1gb and I run it every setting on the highest possible (ultra).[/QUOTE]

Same, I'm running a 1GB 9800GTX+ and everything is on ultra.
 
I want to buy this game so much, but I might wait a bit to see if it goes down in price a bit from amazon or newegg or something. I have a feeling the game is selling real well though and it might not happen. But I'm in no rush.
 
My rig:

i7 920
6gb DDR3-1333
Visiontek 4870 512mb
Integrated Audio (part of the DX58SO board)

Runs the game at maximum everything at 1920x1200 with only the texture set to high instead of ultra, and it seems to run it at a flawless framerate. I'm sure with a lot of action on screen at once, which I haven't had yet, it'll dip, but the game seems to run just fine for a brand new release. I do regret the 1GB ASUS Dark Knight edition 4870 I'd MEANT to buy when assembling my system was out of stock at the time. I compromised with an MSI (also had a factory-installed pipe cooling system) that was DOA. Pissed, I went and got a Visiontek 4870 from Fry's, which cost a lot more, but was a brand I trusted.

Had ASUS been in stock at Newegg or my MSI (never will buy that brand again) worked, I would be running at Ultra everything. Heh, bummer.

Still, if anyone's rig is similar, know that you will be video card bottlenecked, but that even a single 4870 or 90 will get the job done. No need to upgrade yet unless you have some other game that demands DX11.
 
[quote name='Arkay Firestar']My rig:

i7 920
6gb DDR3-1333
Visiontek 4870 512mb
Integrated Audio (part of the DX58SO board)

Runs the game at maximum everything at 1920x1200 with only the texture set to high instead of ultra, and it seems to run it at a flawless framerate. I'm sure with a lot of action on screen at once, which I haven't had yet, it'll dip, but the game seems to run just fine for a brand new release.[/QUOTE]

You should be able to safely ultra the textures too. I run everything ultra'd/on with an e8400 and 9800GTX+ stock. Even in intense situations it's been butter, while having stuff running on my second display as well. Not the most resource intense game, but it delivers in the graphics department.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Wow, Amazon users are brutal. Giving this game 3 stars or less just cause of DRM? Bleh.[/QUOTE]
It's so immature and ridiculous. I understand having your principles about DRM and yes it is intrusive for some and should be done another way. But punishing everyone that worked on the title for probably the decision of a couple folks at Activision is embarrassing for the industry. The amount of talent and skill at Blizzard is insane and if they make a great game they should be commended.

Knocking down a chicks book because she thinks Mass Effect features hardcore sex is appropriate in context, but the "big almighty" internet does not need to do that with every selfish "cause" that comes up.

That's all I'm saying, I don't want this thread turning into Piracy vs DRM. That fight never gets anywhere.
 
[quote name='Monsta Mack']Wow, Amazon users are brutal. Giving this game 3 stars or less just cause of DRM? Bleh.[/QUOTE]

Look at Spore, So So game with bad DRM = 1 star..so SC2 is a great game so it gets 3 stars.

DRM really pissed me off with this one, after I installed and patched SC2 I could not connect to BNET for some reason. I just actually wanted to play campaign first, but in order to do that I had to login to BNET first..took me 10 hours to figure that by disabling IPV6 would fix the problem.. I have never had problems with STEAM and EA games online first time I had problems with DRM and it was with a Blizzard game..there are just so many problems with SC2 just by looking at the forums, DRM is probably 1 of the major causes. Glad I had that fixed before D3.
 
Wow didn't think I'd get the game today but sure enough a big UPS box was setting at my spot at the table. Haha yeah it does suck you have to have a battle.net account connected and all. However with using Xbox Live for so long I'm just used to always being connected to the internet but I can understand people's concerns. I have satellite internet so I can't really use that to do any local matches that is if I have friends/family over with their laptops as well.

I think I did 3 or 4 missions and well my computer crashed on me two times. Well it's a laptop and not really meant for gaming but it's got decent specs at least. My error said out of virtual memory.
Specs:
Windows Vista
Core Duo 1.66 GHz
2 GB Ram
Nvidia Geforce 8400M GT

I passed the minimum system requirements but once you get a bunch of Zerg on the screen haha I am susceptible to crashes. Yeah every RTS game I've ever played needed more on CPU for all those units!:bomb:
 
You don't need to be constantly connected. If you activate the game, you can play offline. I did have some annoying long pauses a couple times during menus when the game had lost it's internet connection and was stopping things until it could reconnect, but if you're having net issues you can bypass that by telling it to go into offline mode. Sure, you don't get achievements that way, and they took out LAN (which I don't mind), but you can still play the single-player game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
 
I'm enjoying the game a lot. The total lack of zerg and Protoss campaign feels like a bit of a rip, but if the story detail and character development is as good for the Zerg and Protoss campaigns and the price is right then I'll be all over the expansions.

The initital price tag is also a bit of a burn. Activision is the only fucking company that charges 60 dollars for new PC games. Assholes.

Not using hero characters is also kind of disappointing.

Also, can anyone give me some links to some multiplayer guides for this game or throw me some beginner tips? I'll end up trying too hard to build an ideal base and shit when I get online, even though I know I'll get owned. :whistle2:/
 
[quote name='Oktoberfest']Warcraft III was $60 at release (in 2003) so it's nothing new for Blizzard

I really do hope the expansions are at most $40[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking the expansions will be $40 for a couple reasons. One, WoW expansions all launch at $40 including Cataclysm which is supposed to release later this year, and two, they're not releasing a full multiplayer component, just adding a bit to what's already there, so, they're not releasing the same amount of game as Wings of Liberty.
 
[quote name='RichMeisterMan']I'm enjoying the game a lot. The total lack of zerg and Protoss campaign feels like a bit of a rip, but if the story detail and character development is as good for the Zerg and Protoss campaigns and the price is right then I'll be all over the expansions.[/QUOTE]

There are a few protosss missions actually.


[quote name='RichMeisterMan']Not using hero characters is also kind of disappointing.[/QUOTE]

You will get the chance to use a hero character at some point or another.
 
[quote name='suko_32']I'm trying to to get decent in the multiplayer aspect in SCII and used this http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Main_Page. Any other recommendations of where to go?[/QUOTE]

Definitely recommend these youtube channels:
HDStarcraft http://www.youtube.com/user/HDstarcraft?blend=2&ob=1
HuskyStarcraft http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskyStarcraft

and the amateur hour series at starcraft.org is amusing.

Watching a ton of games has helped me a lot, though I still get rolled a lot. Make sure to learn from your losses.
 
Any advantage to buying a physical copy as opposed to a digital download? I've got a guest version right now and I guess I could just purchase a license.
 
Not really. In fact only reason I did was to play earlier (midnight instead of 10 AM). You get the CD in a sleeve, 2 SC2 guest passes, 2 WoW Guest Passes, Manual, and a meh looking Raynor note pad thing.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']It's so immature and ridiculous. I understand having your principles about DRM and yes it is intrusive for some and should be done another way. But punishing everyone that worked on the title for probably the decision of a couple folks at Activision is embarrassing for the industry. The amount of talent and skill at Blizzard is insane and if they make a great game they should be commended.

Knocking down a chicks book because she thinks Mass Effect features hardcore sex is appropriate in context, but the "big almighty" internet does not need to do that with every selfish "cause" that comes up.

That's all I'm saying, I don't want this thread turning into Piracy vs DRM. That fight never gets anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I don't see it as immature and ridiculous. It brings attention to an issue that some might not have known about. A low star rating will make somebody think "why?" and they'd read the reviews and find something out that will help them make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase the product, or incite them to do further research on the issue.

It's a way of the consumer making their voice heard. I like it.
 
[quote name='Lawyers Guns N Money']I don't see it as immature and ridiculous. It brings attention to an issue that some might not have known about. A low star rating will make somebody think "why?" and they'd read the reviews and find something out that will help them make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase the product, or incite them to do further research on the issue.

It's a way of the consumer making their voice heard. I like it.[/QUOTE]

You could do the same with a 5 star rating, or a 4, or 3, or 2. They all ask "why this particular rating?" and they're all ways of making their voices heard.

Putting a one star rating with very weak reasons is really just for the sake of being petty, trolling, and expressing internet nerd rage.
 
[quote name='jarvis307']confirmed that this game runs much smoother w/ xfire disabled :p guess i might have wasted $120 or so..[/QUOTE]

Yeah.. I poked around on the net a little bit last night, and because the game isn't multithreaded, multi core CPUs don't help performance either.

I've done maybe 6 or 7 missions in the single player so far. I just finished the first one with the lava.

Anyone who complains that SC2 is one third of a game hasn't played it - The quality of the missions is just phenomenal.. and the size of the single player campaign is larger than the combined campaigns for many other RTSes.

As Rock, Paper, Shotgun said.. Starcraft was like the Hobbit. Wings of Liberty is like The fellowship of the ring - one part if a larger narrative, but complete on its own.
 
[quote name='Draekon']There are a few protosss missions actually.

You will get the chance to use a hero character at some point or another.[/QUOTE]

Every now and then you get to control them, but not like you did in War Craft III.

[quote name='Brownjohn']I'm thinking the expansions will be $40 for a couple reasons. One, WoW expansions all launch at $40 including Cataclysm which is supposed to release later this year, and two, they're not releasing a full multiplayer component, just adding a bit to what's already there, so, they're not releasing the same amount of game as Wings of Liberty.[/QUOTE]

Pshhh! 40 bucks is too much. I'll pay 30 for the expansions on a good day. I think calling them expansions isn't even the right word seeing as how they are more or less completing the game as opposed to expanding it.
 
Dang another day of playing Starcraft II and another day it crashed on me.

What's something in the graphics options I can tone down. Most everything is on medium or low but 3D models are on High. Turn that down perhaps?
 
If they had crammed all 3 races in the single player, it probably would have made each part shorter. This way each race is getting a title dedicated to it, should be more fleshed out.
 
We should get an official sc2 thread where we can get a list of all our names and character ids to create some form of community in the game since they refuse to give one to us. Thorgouge is my name, character code is 833.
 
[quote name='RichMeisterMan']I think calling them expansions isn't even the right word seeing as how they are more or less completing the game as opposed to expanding it.[/QUOTE]

No one owes you anything. The sooner you realize this the happier you will be. This extends far beyond video games.
 
[quote name='RichMeisterMan']
Pshhh! 40 bucks is too much. I'll pay 30 for the expansions on a good day. I think calling them expansions isn't even the right word seeing as how they are more or less completing the game as opposed to expanding it.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Comparing SC1 to SC2, without brood war in consideration, you get about the same number of missions. SC1 had 10 missions for each race, totaling 30 missions. SC2 has 29 missions. The SC2 missions, though, are way more intricate, engaging, and complex. I replayed all the SC1 missions not all that long ago, and I think I powered through them in something like 5 or 6 hours. I understand that SC2 takes 15-20 hours to complete.

Thats just talking about missions.. SC2 also has 9 challenge maps (i think it was), more in-depth tutorials, and a far more fleshed out game world. SC1 had the mission briefing screen and the missions - that was it. SC2 blows away SC1 in terms of scope.

The reality is that SC2 provides much more content than SC1, and If you account for inflation, SC2 cost about the same as SC1 did - $60 in 2010 has the same buying power as $44.83 in 1998.

If the expansions hold to the same level of polish and quality as Wings of Liberty, complaining about a $30 or $40 price tag is downright absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top