Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Starcraft II Beta Has Begun!

chacabuco said:
Come on people! Is it playable on a late 2009 macbook? if yes, at medium, high, or ultra settings?:(
Click to expand...

2009 Macbook? Which one? White polycarbonate? Unibody? My 2007 MBP runs the game on high settings. I'd guess atleast medium settings would work. Probably not ultra, but there is a chance.
 
Sambo110 said:
There's keys on eBay, selling for up to $200. Wish I had gotten one :p
Click to expand...

I sold three WoW Beta Keys on ebay for $300 each (a week before the end of the beta). Then when WoW came out, I happened to work across the street from a big computer store and was buying WoW 10 copies at a time and selling the keys on eBay for $100 each. Totally paid for my WoW account for several years.
 
bloody hell, the suspense is killing me, will this run or not on the macbook white :eek:

There is a video of a guy running it on the X3100 card so that's good news (I mean, at least it doesn't get auto-rejected)! I would think Blizzard wants it to run on the macbook, as it represents a large base of mac users, no (totally just guessing, please don't get scientific about it)?

Is there anyone who is able to run the beta (for watching replays) on his macbook and wants to report some info about how it runs?

Like a user posted above, it runs WoW just fine, so shouldn't be a big deal then to run sc2?
 
I love Blizzard's games, think I'll wait until the main release though. Can't believe people will pay that much for betas. Never give a sucker an even break.
 
Sceneshifter said:
bloody hell, the suspense is killing me, will this run or not on the macbook white :eek:

There is a video of a guy running it on the X3100 card so that's good news (I mean, at least it doesn't get auto-rejected)! I would think Blizzard wants it to run on the macbook, as it represents a large base of mac users, no (totally just guessing, please don't get scientific about it)?

Is there anyone who is able to run the beta (for watching replays) on his macbook and wants to report some info about how it runs?

Like a user posted above, it runs WoW just fine, so shouldn't be a big deal then to run sc2?
Click to expand...

It will run. The minimum specs are a Radeon 9800, which is like a 5 year old card. My 5 year old PB has a radeon 9700!
 
It may well turn out to not run very well on any macs other than Mac Pro's or iMacs with fairly good video cards. But I may be wrong, it depends how much multi-threading is going on in the release.

From what I can see on Video card rankings the Geforce 9600M GT in my 2009 17" MBP is actually rated less than a Radeon 9800 :eek:, and rated less than my Geforce 7600 GT AGP card in my old P4 2.4ghz box. (Which feels much slower to use than my MBP)

I won't be happy if my £1700 MBP can't run a game that has been in development far longer than it has been on the market, but if it does turn out not to run well I can stick £300 worth of bits and chips in a box and play.

This is the only game I've been looking forward too in a long time, I still play brood war every now and then, what a classic :cool:
 
donbadman said:
I won't be happy if my £1700 MBP can't run a game that has been in development far longer than it has been on the market, but if it does turn out not to run well I can stick £300 worth of bits and chips in a box and play.

This is the only game I've been looking forward too in a long time, I still play brood war every now and then, what a classic :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm with you. This might be the game that finally gets me to build that hackintosh I've been thinking about for a while.

As for the beta goes, I've reconsidered. If I get a key, I'm selling that ****. A few hundred bucks is worth way more than playing a buggy game a little bit early.
 
I read on the beta forums that someone had run Starcraft 2 via bootcamp at high, but not ultra.

The 9600 in the MBP can run Red Alert 3 at semi-ultra perfectly, so draw your conclusions from that.
 
As I said in a previous post, Macs within 3 years from now should run the game fine. Even on low settings the game doesn't look terrible and my friend's Intel 945 Core 2 Duo 2 GHz can run it on low.

My 8600 GT 256 MB runs the game fine in all circumstances on HIGH (not ultra - ultra is a little laggy) and runs great. This is also running it on an external 24" display @ 1600x1200


Edit: Also, the game is not multi-threaded. It only uses 1 core. Your biggest requirement is your graphics card and RAM I think. Depending on the card, your mileage may vary.
 
haiggy said:
Yeah this is true. I've read from blizzard employees the next "wave" will occur two weeks from the first one. Currently I have my bootcamp specs uploaded but I will be switching over to my OS X ones when an OS X client is available.

To reply to the other guy with the 9400m and other people, I downloaded the beta client (*cough* I don't have a beta key *cough*) and people have figured out a way to kinda mod the game so that you can view replays. I just downloaded over 100 SC2 replays and have been watching them on my 3 year old 2.6 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 8600 GT 256 MB MBP. I am pretty pleased to say that in bootcamp I have no stuttering, no lag and no slow downs (even in big battles) with all settings on high. This is on my 24" monitor @ 1600x1200 32-bit. A new MBP should be more than enough to run the game on Ultra (which looks pretty bad@$$ btw).

I'm thinking that I might get a performance gain by running the game in OS X as Blizzard typically does a great job with the games for OS X. My WC3 game runs better and faster it seems under OS X as compared to under bootcamp. I'm hoping this may be the case for SC2 as well.

At any rate, a 9400m should definitely be able to play the game on atleast LOW settings (which don't look all that bad). My buddy has a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo, 1 GB RAM and an Intel 945M graphics card running WinXP and it plays the game fine all settings on low.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks, that worked! :)

Ok just reporting that I am also running it on a 2007 MPB with bootcamp on but on lower resolution and 2GB of RAM. The recommended settings put almost everything on medium and it runs smooth until there are big battles then the frame rate drops down a bit. I haven't tried changing the settings yet to high, will try later.
 
I helped beta test the mac version of WoW, so hopefully I'll get a beta key eventually. What's the easiest way to re-submit sys specs and do you think that'll have an effect?

I've got my MacBook pro with a GeForce 8600M, but I want to try it also on my new MacPro Quadcore. It's too bad multicore doesn't help.
 
Just wanted to chime in with my results.

I have a 2008 iMac 2.66 Core 2 Duo w/ 256MB 2600 HD (Mobility, XT, whatever you wanna call it... that's a whole 'nother debate).

I am running at 1680x1050 and typically have well over 60fps and only in very large battles does that drop down into the 40s-50s. I haven't seen it drop into the 30s with these settings.

I have my game set at mostly medium and high, with the exception of shaders, which are low. I don't know why, but the shaders kill my performance. The game definitely looks better with them, but it takes a good 30% or so off my performance even at Medium setting.

Also, it should be noted that I'm not running my GPU at stock speeds. I've overclocked it roughly 20%, where it runs stably.

Anyhow, the game is certainly very playable on this machine, even without the overclocking. I am picky about performance and don't like to see my FPS drop below 40 in an RTS. If you aren't so concerned, you could definitely crank up the details and only see slowdown during large battles.
 
My two cents...

After playing the Beta and participating in the Starcraft 2 Beta forums, I can shed light on a few things here.

In terms of playability, literally almost any modern computer within the last 5-6 years that doesn't run on Intel Graphics can play it. For those that do, only the horrible old 64 MB integrated memory graphical cards would probably stutter. Otherwise, the X3100 should definitely be fine. Of course, you may need to play on completely low settings if you're using the lowest of the lowest specs, but it's PLAYABLE. Starcraft 2 comp. engineers definitely came through in making the game quite resource friendly.

In terms of Beta signups, Blizzard is inviting in Waves based on choices that they make up. Mac players will definitely eventually get invited as well. When? I don't know, but Blizzard will definitely end up choosing mac players before the Beta ends. Don't worry about your specifications too much, Blizzard is choosing almost indiscriminately, higher specs does not guarantee selection.

Finally, in terms of the game, it's definitely amazingly polished. Any ordinary developer would probably have launched years ago, but Blizzard is probably focused on making it perfect. The social system needs working though, it's still clumsy compared to something like steam, so count on Beta being around for a while.
 
maplestar said:
The social system needs working though, it's still clumsy compared to something like steam, so count on Beta being around for a while.
Click to expand...

That......sucks.

Can you say anything about the game itself? I see the zerg always getting slaughtered, are they underpowered or do people just not know how to play with them yet?
 
Ja Di ksw said:
That......sucks.

Can you say anything about the game itself? I see the zerg always getting slaughtered, are they underpowered or do people just not know how to play with them yet?
Click to expand...

Yeah, judging from the top-tier replays I've been watching, all three races seem to hold their own quite well.

Roaches and hydras feel like a good combination, with mutas for some crazy harassment.

Zerg plays vastly differently to the other races, so naturally they take some getting used to. Queens must be used effectively in order to maximise larva output to keep troop numbers high.

Oh and in other news: I GOT A KEY TODAY YESSSSS, WHY THE HELL AM I AT WORK!? I CANT STOP FEELING EXCITED! ^^
 
Interesting, thanks for the info (and, btw, congrats on the key ;))

Where do you find these top tier replays? I've only looked for replays on youtube, no real way to know what the level is until you start watching them.
 
teamliquid.net is where most pro Starcraft (and now SC2) players hang out.

Navigating the site is a bit of a nightmare, but they do now have a SC2 section.

And thanks :) I go home in 4 minutes ^^
 
Cougarcat said:
IMO you'd have better luck if you just stuck with the mac specs. It might not be until a later phase, but the pool of mac users will be a lot smaller.
Click to expand...

Thats my theory.


Sorry for digging up the other thread, only just found this one.
 
hum,

many people here speak of all the technique details of the game, but what about the game itself, is it good ?

I've never played starcraft, but i'm a huge fan of warcraft 3, and I am not sure wether im gona like starcraft 2 or not.
For two main reasons, one is that there are no heroes, so the game play is very different on that side, and second, it seems to be a very fast gameplay, with lidle room for Micromanagment if you are not epileptic/PGM.

So for the people who actualy played it, do you think that starcraft 2 still can be enjoyable for people who like wc3 even if both game are not identical on the way they are played
 
Dify said:
hum,

many people here speak of all the technique details of the game, but what about the game itself, is it good ?

I've never played starcraft, but i'm a huge fan of warcraft 3, and I am not sure wether im gona like starcraft 2 or not.
For two main reasons, one is that there are no heroes, so the game play is very different on that side, and second, it seems to be a very fast gameplay, with lidle room for Micromanagment if you are not epileptic/PGM.

So for the people who actualy played it, do you think that starcraft 2 still can be enjoyable for people who like wc3 even if both game are not identical on the way they are played
Click to expand...

Of course the game itself is good. It sure is difficult and feels faster than the original, but it's still loads of fun. Each race is radically different from the other, each unit filling different roles.

After the slower 'novice' matches, it chucks you in at a higher pace, but between the frantic action, there's still plenty of room for micromanagement, especially at the earlier game.

It is a different game to WC3, but then it's not WC3.

Other than that, it looks amazing and sounds amazing.
 
thank you for the reply :)

I guess I'll see when it comes out, after all it is still a blizzard game wich for me at least means a very good quality and effort put in the making. Until now I've never been decieved by blizzard, but I had some doubts because this one would be in competition with my nummber one RTS game,
 
3

1) I can't get majority of the playback on that teamliquid site to work, what program do you use to watch them?

2) Does anyone know of a good site for viewing information about the units in SC2? Most of the sites are either outdated and/or set up horribly, which is a shame considering the beta is out and people have access to all the units now.

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joNPrnY4K_4

Holy hell. This changes the game from SC2 into SC2 + almost anything. I can't wait to play a 3rd person shooter in the SC2 universe! Been waiting for that about as long as SC2 itself :). This looks AWESOME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back