Starcraft remastered

...

Jesus Christ. I remember playing Starcraft on a machine with 32mb of ram and no gpu.

Fucking hell

Worse, we could've had a remastered game with remastered UMS where the map editor is almost as powerful as Starcraft 2's (limited by it being a 2D game).

We were at the cusp of a new golden age, and a Mexican shat it away. This is why they all have to go back.

It probably requires some version of OpenGL or Direct3D that older cards don't have drivers for on Windows.
You might get it working with mesa drivers for a really old card.
I haven't seen the game but I'm guessing it's high polygon 3D instead of 2D, plus it has to calculate lighting and particles for hundreds of units at once.

Artistry is dead.

There's some logic to the statement, but it's missing half of itself. The full statement is "Premature optimisation is the root of all evil" aka get it working then get it working well.

Seems hardware optimization isn't the only lost art here

Quit your bitching about the system requirements. In this day and age who isn't running a computer who can run this shit? I mean if I was a dev who was tasked with remastering a game as old as this I would put as little effort into worrying about optimization unless there were some serious memory leak tier shit going on.

No reason for it anymore. You can blame the consumer for not having high enough hardware.

Degradation of a fanbase

Its pretty absurd what they've done, yeah.
You really got to feel for the people from poorer countries who loved SC1 for being a fantastic game that ran on potatoes
Now the new one, it can run on a potato but the difference in requirements is absurd compared to the original, plus there's some real poorfags on Holla Forums.

What are you smoking OP? Those minimum specs are pitiful. Your average Brazilian Tibia player has had better hardware than that for a decade. I have four Athlon 64 X2s and an X1650 Pro sitting around collecting dust. I even have one of those Athlons inside a PC with a 4850 that I haven't turned on in years.

Should I mail this shit to you OP so you can play it and stop whining?

Shut up retard, OP is right

Yeah because those specs could totally play a game in 4K. God forbid Blizzard should suggest – nay, DEMAND – decade old hardware to play their game.

Let's just ignore the fact that the original game still works on your "muh 90s" hardware, still works on modern operating systems, and still works in online play including against remastered players. But OH NO, MY 90MHZ PENTIUM SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY ON MY ASUS REPUBLIC OF FAGGOTS 4K GAYMAN MONITOR TOO, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BLIZZARD WHY ARE YOU SO MEAN?

reminder it's an ugly travesty

The minimum requirements of the remaster recommend a 1024x768 resolution, try harder retard.

Software dev here (not vidya, shitty business VB shit):
Because there is no time for optimization when a team of five is given six months to do something. From my experiences, I can almost guarantee you that that is what happened. When everyone is completely dedicated to make something that runs at all, no one is thinking about making it run well. When it originally came out, it needed to run with because that's what people owned. Those were the requirements for it to run at all. Today, they can be expected to have your picture related.

When you take the computer architecture class, you'll find out why this is so. To try to shorten it: you have a fuckton of different hardware that has its own optimizations; most hardware tries to optimize certain aspects of industry programming practice (yes, the hardware looks at "common practice" in code and tries to make that run faster, giving you Tom chasing Jerry chasing Tom); as a result of these two, the compiler is probably a better at optimizing the code for the current hardware (or generic hardware) than you.
The closest thing in the curriculum you get to optimization is Analysis of Algorithms: learning why some algorithms are slow no matter how well they're optimized.

Minimum requirements would imply minimum graphics level as well, so yeah 1024x768 sounds right, but whatever lighting features they threw in would also be turned off. So your 2GB of VRAM requirement also goes out the window.

Their recommended requirements are clearly to target 4K, and there are 2GB models of the 4850 floating around out there if for some reason it really is that necessary.

This still doesn't change the fact that it is completely unreasonable to expect a CPU running at 90 fucking megahertz and 16MB of RAM to be able to play this game with redone high resolution assets (hell, even stuff you take for granted these days like 32-bit color has an impact too). And if you really are the poorest of the poorfags and can't spend $45-55 on ebay for an AM2+ motherboard ($20), Athlon 64 X2 processor ($5), HD4850 ($10), and 2-4GB of DDR2 800mhz RAM ($10-20), then stick to playing the original release.

Come to think of it, this likely isn't even a question of the minimum specs of the game. These are the minimum specs of Windows 7 itself. If you can't run Windows 7 on your hardware, then what the hell are you doing trying to run a Windows 7 game for?

So the SCV in 1 is definitely a black guy? In SC2 they made it a white dude.

And am I the ONLY ONE who thought Jim Raynor was supposed to be a somewhat light skinned black dude in SC 1?
Am I the ONLY ONE who was surprised when he was a white guy in SC2?

Yeah SCV dude is clearly black, but SCV dude in 2 doesn't have to be the same person. Jim always looked white to me.

He looks pretty white to me.

Yeah, probably.

Maybe its because where I live but that skull shape, beard style, hair (or lack of) style, and nose always reminded me of some light-skinned black guy. Maybe had a latin mother.
I would have considered him maybe a hispanic outright if not for the Jim Raynor name.

Sounds like you lex luthor syndrome, just because he's bald doesn't mean he's black.

Yeah I also thought Justice League Lex Luthor was a black dude.
But to be fair…his voice is pretty much a black dude's voice too.

Also, I miss these comfy briefing screens.

What pisses me off the most (beyond changing the designs in the portraits to the shittier, streamlined versions) about SC:Remastered is that they didn't even fucking bothered to remake the cinematics. It shows how fucking lazy they are, having shit tons of money and the technology to do it. But no, that would've taken effort. Can't have that while
REMAKING ONE OF YOUR MOST BELOVED IPs

Yeah, that was a pretty cool way to set the mood and contextualize the mission. But they just haaad to do it in a boring way in 2.

it would probably take longer to re-do all the cinematics than it did to remaster the entire game

All the cinematics? There aren't that many compared to SC2 and such. And they don't run very long either.

Ok then i raise you AoE2 HD.
MINIMUM:
OS:Windows Vista, 7, 8 Pro+
Processor:1.2GHZ CPU
Memory:1 GB RAM
Graphics:Direct X 9.0c Capable GPU
DirectX®:9.0c
Hard Drive:2 GB HD space
RECOMMENDED:
Additional:900x600 minimum display resolution

Clearly they didn't need 4 gigs of ram even if their system requirements jumped as well.

AoE2 HD didn't remaster jack shit. They just slapped on a mod that already existed that let you play in widescreen. All of the game assets are exactly the same size they've always been, your screen just has more pixels and thus can see more of the map at once now. Microsoft apparently plans to do a real remake of AoE2 after AoE1, so you can expect them to want 4GB of RAM minimum when that rolls around.

I have to admit you have a point on Windows 7 (Someone should take a screenshot of memory usage in battles). Still lower requirements might allow you to play the game on portables without draining the battery too much, or have some multitasking going on, you know browsers, video encoding etc.
I know it sounds grasping, but it feels lazy to me, it's not like they don't have the means to do better.
The processor requirements are probably because of being 64 bit exclusive though, I shall also admit.

Keep in mind normalfags have malware and spyware and a thousand internet explorer toolbars slowing their PCs down, it's normal to just put some generically mid-ground requirements just because you don't want to deal with the bullshit of diagnosing why some guy whose PC takes 20 mins to boot windows can't play SCRM without lag.

dude my smartphone has better specs than that, where do you come from? 2008?

You missed one OP:

I don't give two shits about their remastered game but they can burn in fucking hell for doing this.

Whoops, misleading screencap. The original game was made for Win 98/2000/XP (and maybe 95). Now network play works on none of them.

...