are the minimum requirements accurate for low graphics settings?

[dotquack]

i play on a really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ laptop but can run sc2 in 90 fps with low graphics perfectly fine. do i really need 16gb of ram and a 1060 to run it, or does it run way better with low graphics and low res?

[Patronomo]

Apoyo la verdad, en mi caso el juego tambien me genera sobrecalentamiento de mi pc, por la gran cantidad de ram que consume, por favor arreglen pronto esto, tengo muchas ganas de jugar el juego

[CeLLXeNo]

The real bottleneck in this game is the CPU for decent systems, so it really depends on the age and model of the CPU. However, If your laptop has worse stats than a 1060 with 16 gb ram i wouldn't hold out much hope since the 1060 is a decade old obsolete entry level GPU and 8 gigs of ram would bottleneck you into a slideshow at higher supply counts.

[dotquack]

Originally posted by CeLLXeNo:

The real bottleneck in this game is the CPU for decent systems, so it really depends on the age and model of the CPU. However, If your laptop has worse stats than a 1060 with 16 gb ram i wouldn't hold out much hope since the 1060 is a decade old obsolete entry level GPU and 8 gigs of ram would bottleneck you into a slideshow at higher supply counts.

i have 8gb ram, i5 1135G7, and an intel iris xe (unfortunately) but i was able to run it with a somewhat stable 30 fps in 720p on lowest graphics (though it seems i can lower some more settings if they fix some of the settings menu bugs) i don't really mind since i've been used to worse graphics for a while now and dont need the best fps for an rts, but i really do hope they add a ultra-low mode like aoe4 has. i can run that game perfectly fine in 60fps with those settings.

it just baffles me how intensive this game is to run considering how simple the graphics are.

[dotquack]

Originally posted by Patronomo:

Apoyo la verdad, en mi caso el juego tambien me genera sobrecalentamiento de mi pc, por la gran cantidad de ram que consume, por favor arreglen pronto esto, tengo muchas ganas de jugar el juego

i agree. ultra-low graphics settings don't really affect gameplay balance in games like this, so if they added them, it would allow for a bigger playerbase.

[Santanico ♀]

Furthermore if you should select option ( no rollback) when starting up the game, it will help if you play on weak pc/laptop

[Weltan]

so the game looks worse ,plays worse and is overall worse and still doesnt run on modern systems when sc2 runs on most potatoes

[Santanico ♀]

Originally posted by Weltan:

so the game looks worse ,plays worse and is overall worse and still doesnt run on modern systems when sc2 runs on most potatoes

Its in early access, everything is placeholder and subject to change, game is in active development ( yes including optimization )

[Kern]

Originally posted by dotquack:

it just baffles me how intensive this game is to run considering how simple the graphics are.

UE5
The engine is brilliant, but it was designed for photorealism, global illumination and real-time LOD, therfore almost unlimited triangle in the scene, and therefore allows for state-of-the-art graphics at between 30 and 60 FPS. UE5 wasn't designed to create old-fashioned games, i.e. with numerous assets moving at low polygon counts.
I'm not sure that this choice of graphics engine was a wise one, given that they don't even exploit its capabilities, given the style of graphics they've chosen.

I think that Unity URP would have been a much better choice, as the extremely lightweight engine has already demonstrated its ability to handle a large number of lightweight assets, as well as graphics of this kind, while running on cell phones (and therefore, of course, small computers).

You can't expect the minimum configuration to drop much even with optimization, as UE5 already eats up a lot even on very simple scenes. In any case, the minimum configuration won't go down as much as SC2's. It's impossible.

Originally posted by dotquack:

Its in early access, everything is placeholder and subject to change, game is in active development ( yes including optimization )

I've been reading this for 2 years: “it's a prototype, it won't be ugly like this, they'll replace it”.
A year and a half ago, “it's an alpha, it won't look like that, they'll replace it”.
A year ago: “they're placeholders, they'll replace them, it won't be ugly like that”.
6 months ago... today

Always the same thing. No, it won't change much, stop the illusions, you're just proving you don't know how game dev is working today. As it stands, the game won't change much, there's only a year to go before the final release. That's how creating a game on UE5 works today, you can't change everything in a year, what you create, you create it definitively, you can't ask the 3D artists to redo everything every morning.
The roadMap is done, they're going to finish the campaign, release the full T3 for the game, balance, fix 2 or 3 placeholders (yes there are actually very few) and iron out a few bugs. It's enough job for a complete year.
No, it won't really change much between now and release, just as it hasn't changed in 2 years. The graphic style is decided and definitive, the gameplay chosen for the game is decided and definitive, the story told in the first 6 missions is decided and definitive, most of the game's sounds and music are definitive, most of the visual assets already present are definitive (yes, not all, but most). The game's optimization will be a little better, but don't expect anything crazy, it's UE5 behind it.