StarCraft 2 Beta Will Include Map Editor

[Andy Chalk]

StarCraft 2 Beta Will Include Map Editor

Following the first-ever Blizzard fansite summit in China, StarCraft sites in the country are claiming that the upcoming StarCraft 2 [http://www.starcraft2.com/] beta test will include a "very powerful" map editor.

Battle.net [http://www.blizzard.com] will be required even to play against the AI. The beta version of the game will have its own Battle.net ladder.

StarCraft 2 will require "really good hardware" to run at the highest visual settings, according to the report, with a "mainstream dual core" CPU, two gigabytes of RAM and a 9800 GT [http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_9800gt.html] video card are recommended for medium settings.

But StarcraftWire.net [http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/chinese-blizzard-fansite-summit-update-map-editor-confirmed/] notes that while the Chinese sites say the map editor "is for sure," Blizzard's RTS Community Manager Stefanie "Xordiah" Gwinner said the software probably won't launch in conjunction with the beta and wouldn't guarantee its release at all. "Most likely not in the first phase of beta," she said. "Won't promise anything for later phases, since we generally don't promise anything," although she added it would probably come out some time later in the test.



Permalink

 

[Samman]

Very awesome. Both SC and WC3 had a huge custom game community and I'm sure SC2 will follow suit.

 

[calelogan]

Very awesome. Both SC and WC3 had a huge custom game community and I'm sure SC2 will follow suit.

No doubt about it. There's no way Blizzard is going to avoid the birth of a new "DOTA".

In fact "custom game communities" are an excellent way prolonging a product's life. I'm sure Bethesda, Bioware, Valve, and many other developers would agree on that.

 

[Sigenrecht]

StarCraft 2 will require "really good hardware" to run at the highest visual settings, according to the report, with a "mainstream dual core" CPU, two gigabytes of RAM and a 9800 GT video card are recommended for medium settings.

This is the point that I finally invite the entirety of Blizzard Entertainment to go fuck itself. I was really anticipating StarCraft II and Diablo III, but clearly the graphics were too good to be true, and I'm not buying a +100 video card just so I can watch those pigs take my money over the next few years on MEDIUM SETTING. Go burn in hell you executive dickheads.

 

[John Funk]

StarCraft 2 will require "really good hardware" to run at the highest visual settings, according to the report, with a "mainstream dual core" CPU, two gigabytes of RAM and a 9800 GT video card are recommended for medium settings.

This is the point that I finally invite the entirety of Blizzard Entertainment to go fuck itself. I was really anticipating StarCraft II and Diablo III, but clearly the graphics were too good to be true, and I'm not buying a +100 video card just so I can watch those pigs take my money over the next few years on MEDIUM SETTING. Go burn in hell you executive dickheads.

Oh dear, those are quite high system requirements. Everything is okay except the graphics, and that powerful card for medium settings? I'm sorry, but is Blizzard trying to alienate their consumers? Seriously, I can run Supreme Commander and it's expansion on a 512 megabyte graphics card on my laptop on high settings. There's no way I can play that game on medium settings with the chip I have.

I'm sorry. Blizzard, you've treated me fairly well over the years. I've always been happy with almost every product you've released over the years with no complaints but to this I must protest. Simply put, people are not ready for the graphical jump quite yet. I don't even have the money I want to build the PC of my dreams, let alone to pay off a college loan.

I'm sorry, but if those are really the most realistic minimum system requirements then I can simply put this down to poor coding in your product and that you've most likely lost a customer.

In the same StarCraftWire post, they say that a two-year-old laptop will probably be able to play SC2. So, there you go.

 

[Asehujiko]

Unless graphics get a MASSIVE overhaul or anything we've seen to far is on Lowest, i'd say that that they are effectively saying, with this card, the game will NEVER touch 59fps in any scenario not involving the map editor and 99999 nuclear blasts stacked ontop of eachother.

 

[Pendragon9]

aww. My crapper computer doesn't even run Starcraft without crashing. There goes my chances of playing this game.

 

[dochmbi]

Interesting. Perhaps Starcraft 2 will become the second game after Crysis that won't run smoothly at max settings on a e8400 + radeon 4870 + 4gb ram. I didn't expect Blizzard to be pushing the boundaries of computer graphics, but I think's its very cool that they are.

 

[herr.Didi]

My laptop has a GTX 7950 (or so) chip and it could just run Crysis in the lowest settings, which were awful. In saying that, being able to run it on those settings in a laptop isn't bad. I uninstalled the game though immediately, I find the game more as a benchmark test and graphical achievement rather then a fun game.

Yep, Crysis is a benchmark test.

Interesting. Perhaps Starcraft 2 will become the second game after Crysis that won't run smoothly at max settings on a e8400 + radeon 4870 + 4gb ram. I didn't expect Blizzard to be pushing the boundaries of computer graphics, but I think's its very cool that they are.

Nah, that's not really cool, Starcraft's graphics were amazing after all. Graphics are killing games lately, maybe not Blizzard's case, but still. Developers spend so much time on the engine, graphics and stuff, and they have little time for the gameplay and story

 

[Sigenrecht]

My laptop has a GTX 7950 (or so) chip and it could just run Crysis in the lowest settings, which were awful. In saying that, being able to run it on those settings in a laptop isn't bad. I uninstalled the game though immediately, I find the game more as a benchmark test and graphical achievement rather then a fun game.

Yep, Crysis is a benchmark test.

Interesting. Perhaps Starcraft 2 will become the second game after Crysis that won't run smoothly at max settings on a e8400 + radeon 4870 + 4gb ram. I didn't expect Blizzard to be pushing the boundaries of computer graphics, but I think's its very cool that they are.

Nah, that's not really cool, Starcraft's graphics were amazing after all. Graphics are killing games lately, maybe not Blizzard's case, but still. Developers spend so much time on the engine, graphics and stuff, and they have little time for the gameplay and story

Evident from their the StarCraft mythos as a whole; I always thought that when they referred to it as a "universe", it was some kind of tongue-in-cheek joke. Apparently, from all the other Blizzard Entertainment adds in the back of my ANCIENT Warcraft novels, they take themselves seriously. That, or they're just a bunch of terrible trolls, and terrible troll is terrible. I mean, sometimes, I want to imagine everything that's happened after WC III has been a bad dream.