Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed

StarCraft II Beta: Game Performance Analyzed
By

StarCraft was released for the PC more than 10 years ago, at the end of March 1998. One of the Terran tutorial levels involved a simple survival objective of staying alive for several minutes against endless swarms of Zergling attackers. The first time I played the game, it drew inevitable comparisons to Starship Troopers, a movie that had been released a few months earlier. It sounds ridiculous today, but watching all of those Zerglings onscreen in the mandatory 640x480 glory looked fantastic. Despite its graphical limitations, StarCraft has endured as a staple of the real-time strategy (RTS), genre and is arguably the most important RTS of all time. The game has sold about 10 million copies and has been outsold only by World of Warcraft and The Sims.

Can you even imagine spending serious time with any other game made over 10 years ago? Indeed, StarCraft endures. The title spits in the face of the normal PC game life-cycle. It has become a professional spectator sport in South Korea, with top players pulling in well over six figure annual earnings.

Somehow, this classic has transcended what a game is expected to be, and its developer (Blizzard Entertainment) has paid homage to the title with many updates over the years. What makes StarCraft so popular? Is it the perfect balance of three incredibly different factions? Is the game some freak of nature, just complex enough to engage your interest, but not so involved that it turns off the masses? Can the game's success even be duplicated in a sequel? There are too many variables for us to guess at this point, but there's no doubt that StarCraft II has some very big shoes to fill.

Frankly, I'd be happy with a graphical update of the old game and maybe some new single-player missions. I'm not even sure I'd add new units, at the risk of messing with the magic. But I'm not Blizzard Entertainment, and Blizzard Entertainment is not content to merely duplicate the original. StarCraft II is a very different game from its progenitor, and despite the similarities in the basics, you better scrap your old strategies because they're probably not going to work. For example, Terran Wraiths are gone and there are no more Terran air-to-air units that can cloak. Protoss Dragoons are gone as well, and Zerg creep no longer grows out of most buildings and must be constantly replenished by overlords. Also, an overlord is no longer able to see cloaked units. There are a ton of new units with unique strengths and weaknesses. Strategically, there are probably more differences compared to the original than there are similarities, and play styles will be affected to the core.

Nevertheless, the interface is the same and the title is unmistakably StarCraft. If you walk into a room and glance at someone playing StarCraft II at the lowest resolution, you will probably assume they are playing the original and won't look twice. However, as different as it is, StarCraft II feels so very comfortable.

The basics remain the same. Terran players need supply depots and barracks, Zerg live in creep and spawn their units, and Protoss warp in their structures with drones. Yes, there are some updates to the interface, but they serve only to make life easier and do not change the game. StarCraft II shows you idle workers so you can direct them, and hallelujah, you can select much larger groups of units than the original game allowed you to select.

What about the graphics? Well, the game can handle 4:3 to 16:9 monitor aspect ratios. Playing it at 2560x1600 is surreal if you have spent countless hours with the original at 640x480. Heck, the minimum available resolution is 1024x768 now. Just don't plan on zooming out to see massive sections of the map, because that's not allowed.

The resolution has increased, but the size of the player's view has not. One window fits all, but players with a wide-screen monitor will see a little bit more of the periphery than someone playing on an older 4:3 screen. You can zoom in to see the new units closer in glorious 3D, but you can't zoom out to have a look at the map as a whole. The fidelity is beautiful and there are a lot of attractive effects. Like the interface, though, the art direction was preserved intact. Anyone who's played the original is going to immediately know what a Terran, Zerg, or Protoss unit looks like, even if they've never seen that unit before.

To summarize, you can expect StarCraft II to deliver a near-identical interface and art style compared to the original, with updated graphics. On the other hand, the strategy has changed far more than I ever assumed it would. Instead of adding a couple of new units to each faction, the developers have really changed the way StarCraft II is played compared to its predecessor. Is that good or is that bad? As a player who relied on the simplicity of the original, I admit I'm a little frightened of change. But the game is undeniably fun, even in its beta form, and Blizzard Entertainment is treating the game with the respect and reverence it deserves.

What about performance--that's what you're here for, isn't it? Blizzard Entertainment's games are famous for their ability to work on older hardware. Let's see if StarCraft II fits in the same category. I think you might find the results surprising.

Display 131 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 18 Hide
    LLJones , April 26, 2010 6:28 AM
    Nice review, never played the original, will have to give this a try. I'm tired of run and gun.

    A small request. Would you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90. I know that my CF/OC 4770's give me 4890ish performance, but have no idea where this is in 5 series.

    As you used older Nv cards, I will guess that the game is DX11 but DX10(.1) playable.

    With a little luck, a few months from now, I will only need to look at the 5 series charts.
  • 17 Hide
    JonnyDough , April 26, 2010 8:31 AM
    lljonesNice review, never played the original...


    ...and....STOP. Are you serious? Git out!
Other Comments
  • 18 Hide
    LLJones , April 26, 2010 6:28 AM
    Nice review, never played the original, will have to give this a try. I'm tired of run and gun.

    A small request. Would you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90. I know that my CF/OC 4770's give me 4890ish performance, but have no idea where this is in 5 series.

    As you used older Nv cards, I will guess that the game is DX11 but DX10(.1) playable.

    With a little luck, a few months from now, I will only need to look at the 5 series charts.
  • 4 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , April 26, 2010 6:36 AM
    unnn. I wanna play this game, now I feel like your teasing me Tom's.
  • 7 Hide
    IzzyCraft , April 26, 2010 6:36 AM
    "For example, Terran Wraiths are gone and there are no more Terran air units that can cloak"
    banshees yo...
  • 7 Hide
    patdohere , April 26, 2010 6:40 AM
    Cool, so one question. When does starcraft 2 come out?
  • 9 Hide
    Ragnar-Kon , April 26, 2010 6:43 AM
    lljonesWould you be so kind as to include a 4 series Radeon in your next review? Maybe a 4870 or 90.


    I have a Radeon HD 4870, and my performance on the Starcraft 2 beta is about the same (usually better) as my roommate, who has 5770. When I'm looking at the FPS it usually sits around the 78fps mark. I couldn't tell you during an intense battle because... well... I'm not looking at the FPS meter. In general, our cards performs about the same in most games we play. The rest of our systems are also comparable, with the exception that he has a significantly faster hard drive than me, which usually only comes into effect on load times (he can load a Bad Company 2 map about 15 seconds before I can load mine).

    Of course our little benchmarking isn't as precise and Tom's is, but maybe that'll give you a starting point.
  • 1 Hide
    Ragnar-Kon , April 26, 2010 6:44 AM
    ragnar-konWhen I'm looking at the FPS it usually sits around the 78fps mark..


    This should be 48 fps, not 78. Damn lack of edit.
  • 0 Hide
    drutort , April 26, 2010 6:57 AM
    i would have hopped to see more scaling and not so much cpu dependent oh well... also the multi core code hope that will improve cause everyone will soon have 3-6 cores... and if only 2 cores are giving you any advantage i hope they optimize it at least down the road
  • -2 Hide
    Lessqqmorepewpew , April 26, 2010 6:59 AM
    why does fps cap seem so low?
  • -1 Hide
    deividast , April 26, 2010 7:05 AM
    I was dissapointed that there were no GTX470/480, since i'm planning on buying them :) 
    Other thing that bothers me is a CPU :(  i have Phenom x4 at 2,3ghz and as i see this game runs better on faster CPU's :( 
    and man, i can't wait to get my hands on this game :D 
  • 4 Hide
    fragkrag , April 26, 2010 7:05 AM
    Wow, I did not expect this. I actually made a thread on TeamLiquid.net about preparing computers for this game, but a 3.06GHz i7 and an ATi 5870 getting a lowly 46FPS @ 1920x1200? That's surprising to say the least. People on TL were reporting 50ish FPS at Ultra with ATi HD 5770s..

    It also conflicts (imo) with the LegionHardware benches from about 2 months ago..
    http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/starcraft_ii_wings_of_liberty_beta_performance,1.html
  • -4 Hide
    haplo602 , April 26, 2010 7:07 AM
    hmm ... so clearly widescreen is an advantage in the game ...

    anyway I do not like the ground detail in the higher (med+) graphics settings. it looks very plastic and unnatural to me ... I guess for all the eye-candy, my most used setting will be low ...
  • 8 Hide
    fragkrag , April 26, 2010 7:10 AM
    If the game is truly as CPU bound as these benchmarks suggest, what the hell is blizzard doing not making it multithreaded...
  • 8 Hide
    cangelini , April 26, 2010 7:23 AM
    bmaddno GTX480/470??


    I'd go so far as to suggest a 470 or 480 would be overkill for this, just as they'd be overkill for WoW.
  • 0 Hide
    sinny1 , April 26, 2010 7:26 AM
    920 i7 @ 3.9 with 5870 @ ultra setting and 1080 res, i get around 150-200+fps even in crazy battles (from frap)

    p.s pre-order starcraft 2 at amazon or gamestop and get a beta keys (for those who want to play NOW!)
  • 0 Hide
    CTPAHHIK , April 26, 2010 7:57 AM
    Works fine with Agena 9600 + 9600GT (197.45) on ultra preset @ 1680x1050. Latest v10 patch (one with editor). Have not noticed any slowdowns during battles.

    Offline version is limited to 1 player and 3 AIs. Not sure how online game play would be - don't have a key. Maybe playing against 7 AIs will lag.
  • 0 Hide
    amnotanoobie , April 26, 2010 8:10 AM
    Lovely to see a title with proper level of detail at the medium setting. The lastest crop of games from the past years, usually looked like crud when you even get to medium settings.
  • 9 Hide
    blacksci , April 26, 2010 8:25 AM
    Im gonna agree with these other folks up above. Sure the 5770 is a lower newer card, but most of us are rockin older cards like the 4870. Why not review with some of those, instead of just givin a review with a new card that just came out a few months ago ? No offense inteded to Toms, i read the page everyday, but lets be more realistic here. Those cards just came out,a greater majority of your reader arent even using them yet.
  • 17 Hide
    JonnyDough , April 26, 2010 8:31 AM
    lljonesNice review, never played the original...


    ...and....STOP. Are you serious? Git out!
  • 0 Hide
    listerd , April 26, 2010 8:40 AM
    Hopefully they've gotten around to fixing that nastiness in Win7 so I don't have to leave my display settings window open in order to get the colors to display correctly like I have to do when playing the original StarCraft.

    Oh... and thank goodness for the widescreen options now!
Display more comments