I saw a quote from Rob either here or on IMG where he stated that they started development shortly after Frozen Throne, so late 2003 if my memory serves me correctly.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
starcraft II on PPC systems
- Thread starter otis123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I saw a quote from Rob either here or on IMG where he stated that they started development shortly after Frozen Throne, so late 2003 if my memory serves me correctly.
Q4 '09? I highly, highly doubt that they've announced the game 2 years in advance of release. that would also put the total development time at 7 years.
I think early '08 is more like it.your laptop was released in 2003, and the processor is about 3 generations old (G5, core duo, core2duo). You can't seriously expect 4 year old (and probably more like 5 by the time this comes out) laptops to play the newest games.
knowing blizzard SCII is years away. I remember WW3 was announced several years before it came out.
If SCII is out in the next 18 months I would be very very surprised and honestly I expect 2+ years before we will see it.
I going to say it will be a safe bet no PPC computer will be able to run it.
If SCII is out in the next 18 months I would be very very surprised and honestly I expect 2+ years before we will see it.
I going to say it will be a safe bet no PPC computer will be able to run it.
There are some peripheral issues that we have to weigh as well, for example let's say the coding and testing was all done and we had it running on a dual-G5 system with Leopard - the added effort of keeping it tested and working on PowerPC is then multiplied by all of the subsequent updates to the title.
This effort is one we're happy to bear on WoW because we still have a significant number of players on WoW running PowerPC systems all the way down to G4 territory. However, a large percentage of that PowerPC demographic might not be able to run SC2 playably due to CPU, OS, RAM, VRAM, or GPU limits, so a similar argument is more difficult to make for that game.
Another effect that factors in - there aren't any faster PowerPC systems coming. In contrast the percentage and absolute number of Intel Macs continues to rise as does their speed and graphic capabilities, same way the Windows PC installed base does.
It's something we have to put a lot of thought into, I hope this illustrates the tradeoffs we have to consider.
This effort is one we're happy to bear on WoW because we still have a significant number of players on WoW running PowerPC systems all the way down to G4 territory. However, a large percentage of that PowerPC demographic might not be able to run SC2 playably due to CPU, OS, RAM, VRAM, or GPU limits, so a similar argument is more difficult to make for that game.
Another effect that factors in - there aren't any faster PowerPC systems coming. In contrast the percentage and absolute number of Intel Macs continues to rise as does their speed and graphic capabilities, same way the Windows PC installed base does.
It's something we have to put a lot of thought into, I hope this illustrates the tradeoffs we have to consider.
I understand your delema and just hope if possible to continue support for PPC macs. It is a pretty sticky delema but i would hope in bliizard fashion the final product will be a beautiful game (which we know it will be) that is able to be run on 2-3 year old systems as well. Granted maybe not at full resolution but definately playable... just a wish. rbarris PM sent.
While I'd rather not buy on a new box either, Blizzard should drop PPC support if the SCII could really only run well on Dual G5s (with a high end card option?). I suspect it's a relatively small percentage user base.
Besides, Blue finally announced StarCraft II (!!!). The least we could do is buy an Intel.
2.5 Dual G5, 3.5 GB Ram, 6800U
Q4 '09? I highly, highly doubt that they've announced the game 2 years in advance of release. that would also put the total development time at 7 years.
And people said I couldn't compare Blizzard to Microsoft ;-)
Talk about bending your arguments to make a point. Above you said that you "highly, highly doubt [they would]...announce the game two years in advance". Than say in your next paragraph to me that "Probably more like 5 by the time this comes out", putting it at two years out.
I don't expect my computer to play the latest games, especially not in its original spec. But it's not at its original spec.
And after watching the game play video I see nothing really graphically specially compared to games that have been out for some time. Don't get me wrong, it's very pretty and cool looking, and what I hope to see in SC2 isn't great graphics as much as a revolutionary game.
Also, having the camera over head limits the amount of drawing (polygons/information) the computer has to do in a single frame (unlike an outdoor FPS). Also, a lot of the "graphics" appear to be special effects, which can be toned down for older systems.
Yes, it would be more work. But I don't see it as "impossible", or even near it. Blizzard could do it if they wanted, the question is whether they will. And if we were talking about a starving gaming company just trying to break even, I'd be all for doing what's best for the company. However, let's be honest, Blizzard isn't broke, not even close...
And on another note, very few games released out of the industry rely on top of the line hardware to run. Even fewer games would need top of the line hardware if they weren't rushed/had shoddy programing.
If Blizzard wants to make a top of the line game that requires computers made by Apple in the last year (and we must ignore half of they line up, due to graphics cards), than I better see a helluva lot better graphics and game dynamics that just a flying camera and some pretty paint that casts shadows.
Again, a lot of this is up in the air. As I said, G3 and G4 are not going to happen. G5 might happen, but likely only on dual core or dual proc systems with Leopard.
Intel systems with integrated graphics is also very much up in the air, we have a lot of work left to do on the game and we will just have to see how that goes.
Intel systems with integrated graphics is also very much up in the air, we have a lot of work left to do on the game and we will just have to see how that goes.
Well I guess since I am 90% sure I'll be building a rig once this game comes out anyway none of this is *too* bothersome to me... I will just feel bad for my friend who really wants this game (who doesn't?) running his dual 2.5 G5 w/ a 6800 in it and 4 gigs of RAM if there's no PPC support - not that I blame you guys for dropping PPC, it's bound to happen.
I know it's been said a lot before, but thank you, rbarris. Being able to talk to a Blizz employee directly is sooooo nice. Keep us in the loop.
I know it's been said a lot before, but thank you, rbarris. Being able to talk to a Blizz employee directly is sooooo nice. Keep us in the loop.
Not really. The limited view distance is offset by frequently having a lot more on-screen objects in an RTS, and each object has a cost beyond the number of polygons it uses. i.e., it's usually slower to have 10 objects with 1000 polygons each than it is to have 1 object with 10000 polyons.
--Eric
I'm not sure if that's true, but it's very plausible. However, Unit detail seems like one of the easiest things to "tone down" as a preference. If you're looking down a valley with a few different hills in the distance, water effects, sky effects, and 10 baddies coming at you all firing weapons, this appears "harder" to tone down because you have a number of separate objects to render, some of which today (sky and water for exmp) use random generators, not pre defined 3D models. Throw in the rapid panning and movement that happens in FPSs and you have the reason why they are the most system intensive, on average, of the gaming genres.
Now, I'm no expert on game dev, so please don't think I'm claiming to be
But I'm in CS, and have read a lot about game Dev, and it just seems to me that toning down a game's graphics draw isn't *that* hard. So far I haven't seen anything from SC2, outside of graphics, that inherently cost more proc/3Dcard time that say SC or WC3. What you have appears to be higher detailed models. On second thought, haven't a true physics engine will eat more proc, but again, that has been done in games that are now a decade old, so it's not new for todays heavy lifters...
I just hope that Blizzard isn't taking the quick and easy dev path and being sloppy with their optimization of the game, and calling it "acceptable" because computers are fast enough to handle it. Program bloat isn't acceptable, see Microsoft Word for an example of this...
In any case, I won't be able to afford a new system for a long while now, and my computer still handles *everything* else I need it for (aside from fun video editing) very snappy.
~Tyler
Ultimately if the system requirements do come in heavier than expected, my desire would be to communicate that information to the users as quickly as possible - well before the product gets to alpha or beta, and definitely long before it goes to retail.
In the meantime I do appreciate the feedback and we will definitely keep it in mind.
In the meantime I do appreciate the feedback and we will definitely keep it in mind.
Great to have you as a part of this thread rbarris.
So I'm curious, how difficult is it to attain a balance between adding new units, augmenting old units, introducing new abilities, etc. yet keeping micro-management and balance under control? I remember in the last levels of each campaign in Starcraft and Brood War, when the computer could build everything, you almost needed one of everything just to combat them, and micromanagement, especially with the Terrans always was fairly intense! Not that I minded, but it's just an observation. So, with the added complexity of Starcraft 2, I'm curious how hard it is to work on the balance and micromanagement issues, let alone the other aspects of the game.
So I'm curious, how difficult is it to attain a balance between adding new units, augmenting old units, introducing new abilities, etc. yet keeping micro-management and balance under control? I remember in the last levels of each campaign in Starcraft and Brood War, when the computer could build everything, you almost needed one of everything just to combat them, and micromanagement, especially with the Terrans always was fairly intense! Not that I minded, but it's just an observation. So, with the added complexity of Starcraft 2, I'm curious how hard it is to work on the balance and micromanagement issues, let alone the other aspects of the game.
Seeing that how serious players invested a lot of time analyzing the game mechanics and calculating even the smallest of details. I think balancing the game is a very tough job and would go on even through the beta testing. If it is anything like SC, they would be expecting it to be played in league tournaments.
Check your math. Your laptop is 4 years old right now. I said 1 year for the game to come out. That means the game comes out when your laptop is 5 years old, if my estimate of 1 year is right. If the game were still two years out your laptop would then be 6 years old.
Made in the last year? Not even close. If the game is released in spring '08 and would run on core duos then we're talking support for 2.5 year old machines. If it will run on dual G5s then we're adding another 2.5 years on to that. As far as not running on half of Apple's line up, you can't blame Blizzard for Apple choosing to put integrated crap in macbooks and minis.
In case you forgot, Blizzard is a business. They do a hell of a lot for the mac community that they do not have to do (see: multi threaded open GL in WoW, UB of War3, and simultaneous mac/PC releases) so that we have better gaming experiences. But asking them to make a game compatible with 4-5 year old hardware or the worst freakin' GPU out there is not realistic or fair.
And you guys do a damn fine job about it. Mac gaming without blizzard would be hard to imagine.
It's quite true, which I know from first-hand experience.
You can't just send vertex data to the graphics card, you have to tell it what shaders to use and so on for every object. That's why toning down unit detail isn't quite as helpful as you'd think, because you still have X dozen objects on-screen at once, regardless of the number of polygons. Graphics cards these days are really fast at drawing polygons (well, except for things like the GMA950, which is not very fast at that), so typically other factors cause slow-down. (Number of lights, pixel-shaders, number of objects....)Certainly I'm not about to replace my dual G5 + X800 anytime soon, which seems like it ought to handle SC2 reasonably well. The question is whether Blizzard ends up deciding that's enough of a market to support. If not, well, unfortunately that means I'll probably have to wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battle Chest, which will no doubt be available by the time I get an Intel Mac.
--Eric