Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty

 PC
User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 3772 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2,975 out of 3772
  2. Mixed: 410 out of 3772
  3. Negative: 387 out of 3772
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. retztu
    Aug 22, 2022
    0
    still a good game, very enjoyable to play and to watch. also great story which is definetly worth playing.
  2. MutinyMan
    Jun 8, 2022
    0
    Best game ever still playing in 2022, too bad Blizzard doesnt make games like they use to anymore if we should even still call them Blizzard.
  3. Nepen1he
    Mar 10, 2022
    0
    games out of politics, juegos fuera de la politica, jogos fora da política
  4. Nikolas_super
    Mar 5, 2022
    0
    Отличная игра, с хорошим сюжетом и графикой.
    Поставил плохую оценку, так как разработчики этой игры влезли в политику!
  5. TimMaxShift
    Dec 24, 2021
    0
    It's a shame they didn't take the script as seriously as they did the technical part. I played both parts already 10 times. The first part was much more serious and more mature, I would call it category R, ​​and the second part is PG-13. It feels like the story of the first part is not ideal, but it was written by people with a level of knowledge comparable to university students .. ItIt's a shame they didn't take the script as seriously as they did the technical part. I played both parts already 10 times. The first part was much more serious and more mature, I would call it category R, ​​and the second part is PG-13. It feels like the story of the first part is not ideal, but it was written by people with a level of knowledge comparable to university students .. It would seem that we have grown, they have too... Many naive works of art from our childhood grew up with us and began to acquire adult materialistic features or even rethought, without ceasing to be themselves, without losing the spirit of the original source. But not StarCraft. He not only remained in the same place, but also took a step back. Feels like the second part was written by schoolchildren. The game itself became brighter, the feeling of stuffiness disappeared, a large amount of children's humor appeared.
    An evil villain who is evil because he is evil, Prophecies, chosen ones, cosmic magic, abstract gods devouring worlds to which it is difficult to experience any kind of emotion, just as a person is not able to feel the distance in light years (since our biology was formed in conditions where this was not necessary), pink queen of blades, with a healthy complexion, neat eyebrows, hair styling and lip gloss with stilettos from a modeling agency called "swarm" ... if stilettos are her evolutionary advantage, then what does the world in which she exist look like? The world of strip clubs? Queen of our ... "blades". She is no longer a ruthless sociopath and manipulator, but a campy hysterical model from high society in Zerg.
    The first part is materialism, realism, and the second part is idealism and romanticism / classicism. The first SC is Terminator 1, 2, Alien 1, 2, Bladerunner and SC2 is Terminator 3, 5. This was the first time the game hurt me, the second time was BL3. In the opening videos Wol, Hots, LotV there is the spirit of the first part of the game, but in the game itself and in the rest of the videos, everything is much and much worse. And it's not the high cost of the videos, watch the SC: BroodWar videos. They are outdated, but they have a sense of danger, war, impending threat. The videos in the second part seem to be made by Hollywood. Secondary techniques, only proven methods. They seemed to come off the assembly line, as a result of the work of a raw neural network, and not of people.    … Expand
  6. Dr_Danik
    May 17, 2021
    0
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game This is the best game This is    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game    … Expand
  7. SailorSonic
    Oct 23, 2019
    4
    Incredibly short game. Just when you are starting to get into it, it's over! Cannot understand why it is praised so highly.
  8. Hannibaal
    Aug 3, 2018
    1
    No es un mal juego si lo comparamos con la mayoría de los AAA que desde hace mas de una década están en un claro declive de calidad, en ese sentido SC2 tiene una profundidad en su apartado jugable bastante superior a la media. Pero objetivamente Starcraft 2 es un juego mediocre, casi todos sus puntos fuertes proceden de su antecesor, al que se parece muy poco en lo buenoNo es un mal juego si lo comparamos con la mayoría de los AAA que desde hace mas de una década están en un claro declive de calidad, en ese sentido SC2 tiene una profundidad en su apartado jugable bastante superior a la media. Pero objetivamente Starcraft 2 es un juego mediocre, casi todos sus puntos fuertes proceden de su antecesor, al que se parece muy poco en lo bueno (desgraciadamente). Por partes, primero la campaña, a nivel jugable es superior a la del primer Starcraft, eso es todo, sin ser sobresaliente es mas que aceptable aunque poco rejugable y con excesivas escenas de video (ambas cosas típicas de los juegos modernos) por otro lado es una verguenza que solo se maneja a una facción. En cuanto a la historia de la campaña, es una autentica basura en comparación con la del Starcraft original y su expansión Brood War, se centra demasiado en los personajes (la absurda historia de amor de Reynor y Kerrigan) y olvida lo importante, las facciones. Por culpa de la historia, las decisiones narrativas, la banda sonora, el apartado sonoro (voces y sonidos de las unidades) y el estilo artístico del apartado gráfico se ha perdido la ambientación oscura de ciencia ficción del primer Starcraft y SC2 en cambio parece mas bien una pelicula moderna de Disney, un enorme destrozo en comparación con su antecesor.

    Y en lo que atañe al modo multijugador, en muchos aspectos no es ya que no haya innovado es que es un paso atrás respecto al primer Starcraft ¿dónde están las grandes batallas entre ejército? ¿dónde quedaron las batallas de micreo intensivo entre los jugadores? ¿dónde están esos juegos que se van ganando poco a poco y en el que se ven muchas expansiones y pequeñas refriegas por todo el mapa? Nada de eso queda, este juego perdió todo eso y parece mas bien un piedra papel o tijera, se resume en elegir un orden de construcción para ganar la partida, matar recolectores y batallas entre bolas de la muerte, si, las unidades se apelotonan de una forma ridícula y además se pueden meter todas en un solo grupo de control, esto favorece especialmente a Protoss ya que tiene unidades fortísimas y un ejercito protoss junto con unidades vergonzosas como el Colosos es casi invencible. En cuanto a diseño del gameplay SC2 es una vergüenza, las deathballs son una vergüenza y es una vergüienza que a partir de recolectar de tres bases las adicionales no te proporcionen un aumento de recursos ni ventaja sobre el rival, mas bien es un problema por la extrema dificultad para defender la expansión, por cierto ¿he hablado de las macromecánicas? Terran puede lanzar un recolector mecanico gratis que le aumenta brutalmente el ritmo de recolección de minerales, Zerg ya no necesita muchas bases le basta una reina que injecta larvas y que además pone unos tumores que expande el creep (un maphack legalizado), protoss invoca las unidades de los portales en cualquier pylon (te puede colocar un pylon al lado de tus bases) y tiene un acelerador que le permite sacar mas rápido recolectores o unidades de ataque.

    En fin, SC2 es una basura, un juego sin alma, puro humo, y con un multijugador que es PEOR que el de su antecesor que salió 12 años antes. Esta mediocridad de juego siendo generosos no merecería mas de un 6/10, pero como está extremadamente sobrevalorado le voy a dar un 1/10.    … Expand
  9. TomCat86
    Dec 4, 2017
    0
    The same way blizzard messed up diablo 3, and world of warcraft, they messed up starcraft 2. They take a great franchise and change it so it doesnt resemble the former games and most of the similarity comes only from name. It is sad to see blizzard trash such great concepts with their SAME artwork styles carrying over from WORLD OF WARCRAFT, into different games entirely. Blizzard, wtfThe same way blizzard messed up diablo 3, and world of warcraft, they messed up starcraft 2. They take a great franchise and change it so it doesnt resemble the former games and most of the similarity comes only from name. It is sad to see blizzard trash such great concepts with their SAME artwork styles carrying over from WORLD OF WARCRAFT, into different games entirely. Blizzard, wtf stop dropping the ball... Hire some new artists or rehire the artists you had for diablo 1-2, and starcraft 1. Stop using the same artwork styles from world of warcraft and putting them into entirely different games.... This isnt even the biggest pet peeve here. The story, the gameplay, the balancing, everything about the games lacks creativity, its like blizzard thought they could ride the glory of the former blizzard north and hope the fans would eat it all up. No thanks. There is a reason blizzard is HAVING to go to free to play and its not because of good product.… Expand
  10. Broyax
    Apr 17, 2017
    0
    Un RTS qui a des années et des années de retard dans sa jouabilité totalement éculée (on dirait Warcraft, copié sur Dune 2), sans compter sa technique très faible, imite ringarde et insultante. Il n'a que ses belles cinématiques pour lui à dire vrai et ses voix VF, sympas les voix VF. La musique peut-être...?

    Mais le pompon, c'est le pire DRM qui soit : le DRM Blizzard. Parfois on peut    Un RTS qui a des années et des années de retard dans sa jouabilité totalement éculée (on dirait Warcraft, copié sur Dune 2), sans compter sa technique très faible, imite ringarde et insultante. Il n'a que ses belles cinématiques pour lui à dire vrai et ses voix VF, sympas les voix VF. La musique peut-être...?

    Mais le pompon, c'est le pire DRM qui soit : le DRM Blizzard. Parfois on peut jouer hors ligne, parfois on ne peut tout simplement pas. Il faut se taper une superchiée de patches et ensuite attendre que l'installeur Blizzard réorganise et réoptimise le Starcraft II pour gagner soit-disant de la place (!) sur le disque dur (sic!), ce qui prend entre 15 et 60 (!) minutes. Mais de qui se moque-t'on ?...

    J'ai fait ce que j'avais à faire : j'ai cliqué sur "désinstaller". Pas de temps à perdre avec un éditeur qui fait n'importe quoi et surtout de la merde.    … Expand
  11. ShinsFortress
    Apr 8, 2017
    4
    The game is not good enough to overcome the bad feeling of renting something that I should own. Blizzard even intellectually insult me by telling me I own it after I registered their game code that locks StarCraft to me.
  12. onedada
    Dec 29, 2016
    1
    Such a huge downgrade from brood war. Yes the graphics are better but the gameplay is terrible and encourages "cheese." Terran always drops because of medi vacs. Marines run around the map "kiting" and shooting things as they run. Last I checked running around decreases accuracy and gets you killed in the back. The tank o vac is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw. All you do is spend theSuch a huge downgrade from brood war. Yes the graphics are better but the gameplay is terrible and encourages "cheese." Terran always drops because of medi vacs. Marines run around the map "kiting" and shooting things as they run. Last I checked running around decreases accuracy and gets you killed in the back. The tank o vac is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw. All you do is spend the game trying to keep drops out of your mineral line and there is little time for big battles. Where are the goons? Really?… Expand
  13. charlesischuck
    Jul 20, 2016
    0
    People who think this is a good strategy game are those who have never played strategy games. There is no climax to matches, your are 100% completely upgraded by around 10 mins of gameplay. There is no battle between upgrading and speed it has very short and numb games. A good strategy game is something like supreme commander even though it's old it is far superior to this.

    If anything    People who think this is a good strategy game are those who have never played strategy games. There is no climax to matches, your are 100% completely upgraded by around 10 mins of gameplay. There is no battle between upgrading and speed it has very short and numb games. A good strategy game is something like supreme commander even though it's old it is far superior to this.

    If anything download the free try version and nothing else, it's worth nothing but not 20$.    … Expand
  14. Ih8games
    Mar 27, 2016
    0
    This is crap do not buy this stupid game
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Multiplayer sucks dicks
  15. Neddy
    Jan 16, 2015
    0
    Without a doubt the worst game I ever bought. The game itself is ok-ish, but the effort you have to go through to play is ****ing insulting.

    Currently I can't even play it because it wants me to connect but the connect button is greyed out. I can't play. Anyway the story goes like this. Installed it from the DVD copy. Wanted to install Battlenet, which I though no I only want offline    Without a doubt the worst game I ever bought. The game itself is ok-ish, but the effort you have to go through to play is ****ing insulting.

    Currently I can't even play it because it wants me to connect but the connect button is greyed out. I can't play.

    Anyway the story goes like this. Installed it from the DVD copy. Wanted to install Battlenet, which I though no I only want offline mode, because I don't play online. No choice, either install Battlenet of don't play. Then it makes me click lots of conditions I don't want like its anti-cheat software must be installed or I can't play offline single player.

    Then it updates about 3GB. Then when I try to launch it won't but sends me to an online Battlenet account page. It says I have no games to play. WHAT! After lots of stress I think I work out here I must put in the key-code from the game DVD case, ie the licence key. I do it thinking I have used my only code and attached it to another copy and not the one I bought. I then click on the link in the Battlenet online account page hoping that will now launch game.

    Then it gives me a link to download the whole game, but I have it all installed on my PC. Anyway I close this page, but I keep getting sent back to it. This is after I have installed it and updated it, which it won't even attempt to launch if you don't update.

    After lots of screaming I get rid of that page. and worked something else out, and launched it from the Battlenet installation on my PC. Then it wants to do a 15GB update. 15 ****ing gigabytes.

    After that I can't log in by the connect screen. I close that and reload it and this time it works and lets me log in. I load the game. It's slow, not very good and talks to you far far too much. Cut-scene waffle and waffle and then in game every time you click an unit it speaks to you. Service bots even say, "Oh you scared me."

    Then after all this of the couple of hours I have played it has crashed four times. I gave up and came back to play again and I can't log in by the connect coz it's greyed out. 24 hours to get it going, and was it worth it, NO! 2 hours play, four crashes and I have to fight with it again to try to launch it now.    … Expand
  16. CorbanDallas2
    Sep 4, 2014
    0
    *sad face*
    Oh Blizzard what have you done!
    Starcraft: Broodwars, one of the classic, most played and most loved games ever made. This remake is nothing short of awful, the usual Blizzard cartoon graphics, (Blizzard seems to have only 1 art style) I always feel one should judge a game on it's own terms, so, what was Starcraft:Broodwars most renowned for? Multiplayer battles where the    *sad face*
    Oh Blizzard what have you done!
    Starcraft: Broodwars, one of the classic, most played and most loved games ever made.
    This remake is nothing short of awful, the usual Blizzard cartoon graphics, (Blizzard seems to have only 1 art style)
    I always feel one should judge a game on it's own terms, so, what was Starcraft:Broodwars most renowned for? Multiplayer battles where the balance between the three races were unparalleled. Hours watching the pro's go at each other and seeing different races win with equal regularity. and most Importantly LAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Starcraft II, wings of liberty does none of these. absolutely none. Later patches may have fixed the balance problems since I played this, but after buying the game and wading into the multiplayer community I was greeted by the most unbalanced RTS system since Command and Conquer Red Alert. At least i could LAN it with my friends I thought.. I was sorely mistaken. THE SINGLE most important feature of Broodwars was removed... and you are forced to play online online through Blizzard servers.. (a$$holes)

    To make matters worse, the storyline was atrocious,lame in the extreme. The nice characters from the originals reappear here but only now they are generic blizzard clones, the 6ft wide unshaven, bad attitude characters that may have appealed to me when i was 10. The terrible romance that makes even the Twilight movies feel authentic. With all of the funds at their disposal you would imagine that Blizzard could have made the single player campaign story truly epic, great dialogue and voice acting etc.. they did none of these. The story feels like it was written by a boy in puberty.
    I could continue to run off criticism of this game all day but I will sum it up like this.... Blizzard spend as little money as they could on this and produced a smelly turd of a game that filled the desire of their fanboys ONLY. Blizzard have become the greedy slovenly giants of the PC gaming industry.
    After a few weeks of trying to squeeze at least some enjoyment out of this, I relented and uninstalled this game and continued to have incredible amounts of fun lanning Broodwars with my friends, and swore that I would not be spending a single cent on any of the overpriced sequels that were promised to follow.    … Expand
  17. ComBrandon
    Feb 6, 2014
    3
    Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however,Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however, in my opinion outweigh this. My list of negatives are as follows. The game lacks varieties of units, even with the expansion pack the game has a depressing selection of bio units, tanks, and aircraft. The game has only 3 factions, as opposed to nearly all other strategy games having 4 or more. The game has replay value to an extent, and major replay value if you want to become professional, and set yourself a goal, however for casual gamers this has little replay value due to its uninspired map design, lack of units and factions as stated above, and slightly repetitive gameplay (If you play custom maps on arcade mode this can hold your attention longer than regular gameplay at times). Another con to this game is the matchmaking, early on you will be facing incredibly strong opponents, this will not be so much of a problem as you progress and increase in rank, however for early SC2 players this can be troublesome.

    If you want a good strategy game, try Age of Empires 2, Supreme Commander 1, or Battlezone 2.
    If you want a strategy game that has more fighting, and commanding than base building and factional differences, then you want Starcraft 2.    … Expand
  18. Xelluse
    Dec 22, 2013
    0
    WTF was dat O_o How people calling RTS game that even don't have any strategy mechanics inside, it's more third person shooter then RTS, Blizz what you did with Starcraft, where are freedom, hard game, unit uniq systems Just good visual game, with quite boring gameplay system, and too way EASY, still can't get how Blizaard making so easy game started from Diablo II... Warcraft andWTF was dat O_o How people calling RTS game that even don't have any strategy mechanics inside, it's more third person shooter then RTS, Blizz what you did with Starcraft, where are freedom, hard game, unit uniq systems Just good visual game, with quite boring gameplay system, and too way EASY, still can't get how Blizaard making so easy game started from Diablo II... Warcraft and Starcraft waws so amazing games so what happened with them nowdays... Great graphics will never hide boring gameplay, and more: Good Graohics all the time stealing place from in game freedom and flexible gameplay...
    Sorry to all of you, but more people who like SC 2 didn't play SC in original so for me it's big fail after so many years of wating, more when you pay so much for it...
    sry for bad english.    … Expand
  19. vortex10
    Oct 30, 2013
    3
    A stupidly fast paced over hyped mediocre RTS with no real creative flair or potential. Unless your a die hard fan of Starcraft don't waste your time or money. Play CoH 1 Instead.
  20. Woundheir
    Oct 24, 2013
    0
    Their hardest mode is called "Brutal" mode. It is EASY. Not even what you would expect from a normal mode. The story isn't as bad as I expected, but nowhere near as good as SC1. My biggest issue is multi-player. It rewards spamming single units with no real strategy or mixed unit combat. The very little strategy it has is rock-paper-scissors type stuff. They also cut down on units so thatTheir hardest mode is called "Brutal" mode. It is EASY. Not even what you would expect from a normal mode. The story isn't as bad as I expected, but nowhere near as good as SC1. My biggest issue is multi-player. It rewards spamming single units with no real strategy or mixed unit combat. The very little strategy it has is rock-paper-scissors type stuff. They also cut down on units so that they can add them back in expansions. Half the units in single player aren't even in multi-player... In addition to that half of the units you are given are just useless because they are too weak or too expensive in any situation. This game is terrible. Why does it have so many good reviews on here?… Expand
  21. genericreviewer
    Jun 30, 2013
    4
    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it. Game itself is not bad, it's that the single    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it.
    Game itself is not bad, it's that the single campaign is so bad it hurts physically.    … Expand
  22. torstein88
    Jun 29, 2013
    1
    Starcraft 2 was a geat game at the beginning, could run max graphic, then the updates started, cant play it anymore now at lowest graphic. So at start i would give this game a solid 8, now i give it 1
  23. MaxGayLord
    May 16, 2013
    0
    I often hear people say, "Hitler was a good guy, he built a lot of roads." I also have heard people say, "Starcraft II is amazing, the gameplay is fun and very balanced".
  24. Malandrin
    Mar 25, 2013
    1
    This game is beautiful. And that's it. If that's enough for you, I'm fine with it. I for one can't believe one can actually give credits for the story. It defiled the legacy of the previous games, period. Shallow characters, meaningless battles, nightmare-ish story, and so forth. Blizzard can't care less.
  25. Medran
    Dec 18, 2012
    0
    The game has several technical issues not related to the actual gameplay. The installer and updater are very complex and bug prone, after my first install off dvd, the game auto updates. However the auto update is huge and if it fails mid way your install may be broken to the point where you have to uninstall. The uninstall will fail as the updater is a background process that you willThe game has several technical issues not related to the actual gameplay. The installer and updater are very complex and bug prone, after my first install off dvd, the game auto updates. However the auto update is huge and if it fails mid way your install may be broken to the point where you have to uninstall. The uninstall will fail as the updater is a background process that you will have to quit using the task manager, this auto updater also installs to a location on your hard disk other than the one you tell starcraft to install to. Your best bet is to install from the weblink provided by Blizzard, however that requires several hours and a good internet connection as the game is quite big. Which brings me to my second point that since you are unable to play the game without internet you can forget about sitting in the yard with your laptop, or playing it in the summer cottage. This also has the implication that you can't borrow or trade your 60$ game to a friend after you are done playing it. The good news for all this is if you happen to loose your disk you can download the game from blizzard, however I can't say I've EVER lost a DVD I paid for. A good game wrapped in very brittle and overbearing installers and drms, in the end I spent just as much time installing as I did playing.

    Lets talk a bit more about the game, it really feels like starcraft 1 with slightly improved graphics. SC2 completely misses all the great game play advances other RTS's have made in the last 15 years. Graphically you need at minimum the recommended graphics card to play the game, I have something slightly below the recommended and it looks terrible. This is due to the shadows, I can have all settings maxed out, but as soon as shadows go from low to medium the game is choppy(20-30fps). The low shadow quality runs fast but has horrendously poor quality. Rise of Nations looks better on an old computer than Starcraft does on my much newer computer.

    I had high hopes for this game as the first Starcraft had groundbreaking game play and graphics for the time, so many other RTS's have come since then and made valuable additions to the genre, SC2 cannot hold a candle to them and I am very disappointing.    … Expand
  26. moutsosr
    Dec 12, 2012
    0
    After so many years all, this company, has to offer is better grafics...? This games gentre is Not rts. Its probably fps just because the only the player has to have lighting reflexes. The strategy negligable and is repeat it again and again. Well the funs must be happy because in terms of gameplay nothing have changed. For old school strategists AVOID this game.
  27. Foam
    Dec 9, 2012
    0
    Story: Huge letdown. Terribly cliched. You could tell the writers were too used to working on Warcraft fantasy when they started work on SC2. Too many things come down to space magic. Storyline is not engaging whatsoever and lack of CGI cutscenes made the game less enjoyable as it had in SC1 & Broodwar. All the characters from Raynor to Mengsk are extremely boring. Lorewise lots of thingsStory: Huge letdown. Terribly cliched. You could tell the writers were too used to working on Warcraft fantasy when they started work on SC2. Too many things come down to space magic. Storyline is not engaging whatsoever and lack of CGI cutscenes made the game less enjoyable as it had in SC1 & Broodwar. All the characters from Raynor to Mengsk are extremely boring. Lorewise lots of things don't make sense such as: What the hell happened to the UED? They are never mentioned whatsoever.----------------------------------------------------------------------Multiplayer: Worst ever. One of the greatest things I loved about SC1's replayability was UMS maps. Players would design some extremely fun & popular maps you could download ingame by joining. In SC2 there is a terrible quasi-matchmaking system ranked by popularity that just doesn't work. Games autolaunch when they have a certain amount players & there is just no feeling of community anymore. Its a good example of "Do not attempt to fix what isn't broken". The games created by players coming up in a server list worked perfectly and there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Somewhere someone decided they knew better. They didn't.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: Ripoff. Played for a few weeks after launch, have never touched it since which is a telltale sign something is wrong considering I played SC1+BR for countless years.… Expand
  28. theNILE
    Dec 9, 2012
    3
    Where should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematicsWhere should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematics unlike BW. So... you have to pay for another account in a different region...if you're playing on a foreign region then your ping is terrible even though the ping was perfectly fine in the beta. The lack of social interaction is a big issue which they are only now coming to address. They removed units from the game itself from BW and changed the meta to encourage turtling. That being said, it is more balanced than BW and it is better spectator-wise which was the main problem with BW. Now the single-player...is the single-player, with a bad story and less memorable characters than in SC1/BW. All in all, Blizzard tried to capitalize on old franchise (as they did with Diablo 3) and it was just a waste of space.… Expand
  29. jackel79
    Oct 26, 2012
    4
    This game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on BroodThis game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on Brood Wars, rarely had a time limits and I could take my own pace in completing a mission. The new one is no fun at all, you are too much in a hurry to finish the mission to enjoy any part of the game and the extra units that are playable are a waste, because I never get enough time to use a new unit to their full Potential. It seems the new units were only created to be used for multi-player and were just added to single player for their introduction. I never did like multi-player because I die to fast and I never have enough units to defend my base. The first game will alway be my favorite because you do have to be online to get the ok from Blizzard that I can play my game on my PC. Furthermore, the units on the first game had more uniqueness that they don't look out of place and actually help the player in winning a game. This will be my last starcraft game until blizzard makes a more compelling game that is fun to play like their old games were. Very disappointed about this game.… Expand
  30. hootis
    Aug 21, 2012
    0
    So my account just got blocked because of suspicious activity, because blizzard wants me to buy their authenticator. This is mainly because if you join a public game in D3 it gives people your ip etc so its really easy to hack your only numbers and character password..Not to mention the fact the blizzard has completely destroyed so much game play at the expense of balance when notSo my account just got blocked because of suspicious activity, because blizzard wants me to buy their authenticator. This is mainly because if you join a public game in D3 it gives people your ip etc so its really easy to hack your only numbers and character password..Not to mention the fact the blizzard has completely destroyed so much game play at the expense of balance when not necessary ghost/reaper/the list goes on and on hellion as a result of the queen and on and on. Then they have this huge update for custom games that people who play the game don't even care about. All we want is land and other gaming ladders stuff that was supported way back in 1998 but by all means they can't do it now because that would be too difficult. Also They start updating units to bring them back from when they were destroy because of balance in WOL for 40$ and they're going to add other types of competitive match making to fix problems that were created by themselves with battle.net 2.0, They still haven't realized how seriously they are **** up or they just don't care because they are getting infinity money from wow and daiblo and people are just going to buy their games regardless how much the customer is getting **** over.… Expand
  31. DrBuzzKill
    Aug 5, 2012
    0
    Starcarft 2 WoL, has a good story. The always online DRM is a very bad idea and I hate it very much! The only good thing starcraft had going for it was the custom maps. And now even that has been killed off thanks to bean counters at Blizzard. Thanks you greed corporate AssHats! The only reason I am giving at a low score is because of the replay ability factor is low. This game gets veryStarcarft 2 WoL, has a good story. The always online DRM is a very bad idea and I hate it very much! The only good thing starcraft had going for it was the custom maps. And now even that has been killed off thanks to bean counters at Blizzard. Thanks you greed corporate AssHats! The only reason I am giving at a low score is because of the replay ability factor is low. This game gets very boring after you beat it a few times. I hate the online play and I hate the lack of good maps due to the fact that the Editor is very limited now compared to what it was ones before. So this piece of trash gets a very nice 0 out of 10 from me! You failed yet again Blizzard!… Expand
  32. jamvaru
    Jun 16, 2012
    0
    if you can get past the blizzard fanboy lovefest that people have who are blinded by their brand of bull...
    ...then maybe you made it here where the reviews are a bit more critical
    I am happy to see the 3/5 rating on Amazon.com, as that is what I gave it on ebay, where it has a 4.5/5 rating, of course (they think they are reviewing the seller, generally, lol this game is the same as    if you can get past the blizzard fanboy lovefest that people have who are blinded by their brand of bull...
    ...then maybe you made it here where the reviews are a bit more critical
    I am happy to see the 3/5 rating on Amazon.com, as that is what I gave it on ebay, where it has a 4.5/5 rating, of course (they think they are reviewing the seller, generally, lol

    this game is the same as the 1999 game, except for better graphics, and a few interface improvements, like being able to control more than 8 units at a time
    the gameplay boils down to a sort of machine like formula that takes about 5 minutes to pull off; so for 5 minutes you are basically jerking off, then you shoot your load at the 'enemy' and hope they don't shoot you first, or whatever... possibly the game goes beyond 10 minutes, but basically it is the loser refusing to quit while the winner has to chase them down to kill their last building;

    if you don't win in the first 5 minutes, you lose

    that is all

    lol, stupid blizzard, stick to wow, quit milking your oldschool bs (have you SEEN the new diablo? lol)

    ;}    … Expand
  33. MagicHAT
    May 20, 2012
    0
    This "story" of Starcraft 2 is butcher with hollywood-cowboys in space- kind of feel I can use up all 5000 characters and I did on my native language but in english I will just say that this game hurt my feelings I loved StarCraft 1 and Broodwar but this "Starcraft II Rednecks in Space" is huge dissapoitment, Multiplayer is somewhat fun to watch on youtube but to play its just to muchThis "story" of Starcraft 2 is butcher with hollywood-cowboys in space- kind of feel I can use up all 5000 characters and I did on my native language but in english I will just say that this game hurt my feelings I loved StarCraft 1 and Broodwar but this "Starcraft II Rednecks in Space" is huge dissapoitment, Multiplayer is somewhat fun to watch on youtube but to play its just to much hollywood for me big downgrade Fun - 1/10
    Gameplay - 7/10
    Controls - 9/10
    Graphics Design - 1/10
    Story - 0/10
    All Time Graphics - 9/10
    Sound - 3/10
    Music - 0/10
    Replayability - 0/10
    Graphics for its time - 9/10
    39/100    … Expand
  34. LordOFdestructN
    May 15, 2012
    0
    Huge disappointment, bad graphics, boring gameplay. activision blizzard killed developer we all knew and loved. go to hell bob kotick. The game is cheap, the game story is abomination to original.
  35. NGResonanceFan
    May 12, 2012
    3
    Lo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the storyLo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the story was. It was like some cheesy action-adventure movie, and inventing that whole Tychus Findlay backstory was incredibly lame. It's very sad really. Back in the day when Blizzard was small they were innovative and seemed to respect their fans. The fame and success obviously went to their heads though, and big money translated into big egos and accountants, and as a result SC2 was nothing more than a sop for the masses.… Expand
  36. Coeco
    Apr 11, 2012
    4
    Outdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and otherOutdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and other re-re-replayed junk) and you'll get Starcraft II. It's like eating a really tasty looking eye-appeal pie that has no filling besides the bread crusts for anyone that isn't Korean along with the beautiful cinematics accompanied by some silly storyline.… Expand
  37. Ccx55
    Mar 20, 2012
    0
    Is this game made by experimental college students? This is just plain sad.
    Not a single improvement over Brood War - nothing worth noting atleast.
    This is just far behind our time.
  38. IHaveaBiggerPen
    Feb 11, 2012
    0
    I'm dissapointed that zero is the minimum, because I would have given this game -19 out of 0.00001. I played the single player and completed it, but it didn't prepare me for the **** that is it's online, specifically, the Starjeweled official mod. I used to be part of the Starjeweled pro scene, before it got infested by people who don't know how to play seriously. Now, it's all roachI'm dissapointed that zero is the minimum, because I would have given this game -19 out of 0.00001. I played the single player and completed it, but it didn't prepare me for the **** that is it's online, specifically, the Starjeweled official mod. I used to be part of the Starjeweled pro scene, before it got infested by people who don't know how to play seriously. Now, it's all roach cheese tactics, and lucky combos. I keep waiting for a patch to fix this, but Blizzard seems to have forgotten all about the Starjeweled community. Giving a zero until they learn from their mistakes.… Expand
  39. dc42
    Feb 10, 2012
    4
    After hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics areAfter hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics are lacking. Still a decent game and worth checking out if your a RTS fan but don't fall into the "hype trap" generated by overzealous fans.… Expand
  40. Pahn
    Jan 20, 2012
    2
    Corporate Greed 101. Take a beloved franchise and table it for a decade. Then, spread the sequel across 4 years (2010 - 2013) and charge full price for each "episode." This game should be titled Starcrap II: Part 1. This is part multi-player fiasco, part 3 episode single-player campaign that for some reason will take 4 years to release in full NOT counting any expansion packs. I callCorporate Greed 101. Take a beloved franchise and table it for a decade. Then, spread the sequel across 4 years (2010 - 2013) and charge full price for each "episode." This game should be titled Starcrap II: Part 1. This is part multi-player fiasco, part 3 episode single-player campaign that for some reason will take 4 years to release in full NOT counting any expansion packs. I call shenanigans on Activision. And there's no way I'm buying parts 2 or 3 simply out of principal.… Expand
  41. Avadon
    Oct 13, 2011
    4
    A little over a year after SC2's release, Blizzard have yet not added clan support, LAN (which leads to massive problems during tournaments) or Gateway selection. You are also still limited to one account per cd key, which means that if you step away from the game for a couple of months or want to try a different race you will have to get stomped for many, many games until your rankingA little over a year after SC2's release, Blizzard have yet not added clan support, LAN (which leads to massive problems during tournaments) or Gateway selection. You are also still limited to one account per cd key, which means that if you step away from the game for a couple of months or want to try a different race you will have to get stomped for many, many games until your ranking plummets to where it's supposed to be. They are also reacting in a tragically slow manner to balance concerns, and usually in the wrong direction, as if they are incapable of fixing the game or don't really care about WoL's balance, since they have two more games on the horizon.

    As for the single player, it's widely viewed as terrible. The story, characters and dialogues were absolute rubbish, and its only saving grace was the relative variety of the mission objectives. Even so, I know many people who have played SC1 and Brood War's campaigns >10 times, but never bothered with SC2's campaign again after they were done with the achievements, which is not a good sign.

    Its graphics are still bad and not much effort has been done to improve them or optimize them. Even 5 year old games like SupCom and C&C3 look much better than SC2, but you still need a **** quad core CPU and a good GPU to run SC2 with everything maxed, for disappointing results, and still have it lag when maxed armies collide. Unacceptable for an e-sport, every professional player out there plays on low settings to avoid graphical lag that could cost him the game.

    Still, even though it doesn't offer much to the casual player, SC2 is a rapidly growing e-sport with hundreds of shiny tournaments going on. It is also amazing to watch, unfortunately much more enjoyable to watch than to actually play. I do enjoy watching SC2 tournaments, even though, like everyone else, I often get bummed out by imbalances that Blizzard timidly attempt to address once every 6 months, but always end up short.

    If you would like an e-sport to watch and be entertained, I would recommend buying SC2, it does have potential and maybe 2 years after Legacy of the Void it will actually be balanced. I can't however recommend it to casual players who don't play a lot, or people who expect a unique and immersive single player experience like Brood War had.    … Expand
  42. vXxo0oxXv
    Sep 30, 2011
    3
    To be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are underTo be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are under attack is not fun, and you can lose them all in a matter of seconds, which completely ruins your chance of winning the game. Also not fun. Scouting is near impossible in this game. You will find yourself most of the time simply trying to make educated guesses on what your opponent is building. An incorrect guess can lead you to a loss. This is especially irritating when one or two stealth units kills your entire army and base. The early tier units completely overpower anything late tier. It is not surprising to see even a top level player build 10-15 barracks or gateways and just pump mass garbage units. Stategic element is lacking. The most strategic thing you will do in this game is drop units on an enemy mineral patch. It's all about speed. You see the same build orders game after game. No real variants on the ladder. Some units just aren't worth building. The SC2 battle.net forum is catered for little kids and Christians. Perhaps the worst part of the game however, is the fact that you spend most of the game staring at your base. Active engagements seldomly take place, and the god awful ramp mechanics make penetration into the enemy base more irritating and frustrating than anything else, and also highly favor the defender. Save the money. Buy new brake pads or something.… Expand
  43. grok70
    Sep 18, 2011
    3
    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped playing. Starcraft 2 is Starcraft. It didn't feel any different. I still ended up setting up with siege tanks and marines, slowly grinding my way through all opposition while my base sat pretty. The goliaths were still worthless, and the bigger version of the Goliath...still worthless. It was easier to keep the base defended - my supply depots didn't have to be blown up in order to leave. The computer was the same AI I had dealt with in Broodwars. What does this game offer really? The whole campaign, except the cut scenes/ SS-pointless, could have been done using the old map editor. The campaign was trite, the character development non-existent, the plot movement utterly unsurprising. The animations weren't particularly good. The buildings looked cool - in 1996. The artwork was inappropriate for the quality of graphics that were possible. The economy was uninspired.

    Truthfully I knew this would be the case walking in. I watched the e-sport videos during beta. I kept thinking....there is nothing new here. NOTHING. What was improved upon in Starcraft 2? What was really innovation? Units that move up cliffs. That's it. Otherwise it's just an expansion. A boring one. Maybe it's the Korean gaming scene, or the just the outrageous nerdrage inherent in the fetishistic fandom that follows blizzard, but it seems like all innovation was squashed. I paid $60 dollars, and I don't think I will ever play the game again after getting through the trite storyline. Wikipedia is free, I could have just gone and read it. I will not be buying expansions.

    If you liked Starcraft 1 and already matured and move on from its gameplay, this game is not worth it. PS: Blizzard, Hire some professional writers who have credits in literature and cinema that have won awards. Whoever you have doing it needs to be sent to get their MFA or something, this $#!7 is bad.    … Expand
  44. Renge
    Sep 15, 2011
    0
    This game doesn't make me to play it for a long time. Played SP once, play ladder once. And that's it. Nothing new. Story-wise it is very very so-so, the gap is closed a little with hollywood style angle. And the region-lock is very annoying. I play at SEA region, and the custom map here is very little.
  45. brand_eins
    Sep 2, 2011
    1
    Bad, bad, bad. Rehashed game, just graphics have been improved. Less features (e.g. LAN). Boring gameplay, no tactical usage of the enviroment such as cover, etc. Dull missions. There are better RTS out. Don't buy this one.
  46. stinky
    Aug 19, 2011
    1
    the most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not eventhe most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not even three dimensional gameplay (no heights, just "land" or "air" a ranged unit can attack from the base of one side of a hill to the opposite side, firing THROUGH the hill). still massively restrictive unit caps. No LAN play, which even starcraft one had.. at most it is an expansion to the original, 10 years late and twice the price. all polished up but bland, repetitive gameplay.… Expand
  47. Atomics
    Jun 23, 2011
    4
    I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities,I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

    It's a shame that exceedingly average games like Starcraft II steal all the press and attention, when truly excellent and forward-thinking RTS games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander get pushed to the side and hardly noticed. Do gamers really want the same thing, over and over again? Starcraft II seems to suggest they do. (Rhyme!)

    There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!    … Expand
  48. syrik
    Apr 26, 2011
    4
    I was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's reallyI was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's really the only good thing there is though. The single player campaign is just a small part of a larger marketing campaign that was really a huge let down. The maps are boring and the storytelling is disjointed. They attempt to make it nonlinear but if you do the missions in different orders some parts of the story don't make sense. There is definitely the "right" order, though you're not forced to do it that way. Multiplayer is not my bag personally, but there is nothing new and exciting here. You will play on a map with fewer units than in the campaign against other people in exactly the same way I did 12 years ago against my friends. Except now, you can't spawn a copy to their machine, everyone has to pay $60 or you don't play. Blizzard has become the same as the other major game companies like Activision and EA and is only about the almighty dollar now. Skip this unless you absolutely have got to have more Starcraft multiplayer like it used to be, because that hasn't changed.… Expand
  49. ngh2b
    Apr 7, 2011
    4
    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

    The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

    The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were doing. People try to make the excuse that 'so what if it's 1/3 of a game, you still get 29 missions for race, that's more than the original or brood war". Well, the main storyline is really only made up about ten missions or so, the rest are filler. The entire storyline including the other races could have been done for 30 to 40 missions.

    The gameplay itself is also quite disappointing after an extended play through. So much more could have been done with the technology that so many other games have taken advantage of, such as cover. The developers even admitted that they kept the game the way it was in order to preserve the e-sports leagues surrounding it. Talk about the greed factor :/

    It's strange that age of empires 3 and command and conquer 3 were criticism and their game scores lowered for being behind the times, Starcraft 2 is being praised for it for the most part. If this wasn't called STARCRAFT 2, say Space Wars, it'd be getting alot more criticism for being behind the times.

    It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not worth $60, and is the most overrated game of 2010, and my biggest gaming disappointment.    … Expand
  50. sudoscientist
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess.StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original.… Expand
  51. Goa_uld
    Feb 20, 2011
    0
    The worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but theThe worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but the micromanagement is impossible at such speeds, so, the game become one arcade game, not a RTS. Idem on multiplayer, players just rush, so, we cannot see here great tactical and strategic abilities, only fast button push (the player who have a better computer, a more responsive keyboard and mouse is in great advantage from start) The designed by default hotkeys-based gameplay make the game experience more sluggish, and frustrating, not more smoothly. The mass cast abiltities lack entirely, also many players regrets the units from Starcraft I and Broodwar. For that causes, Starcraft II, despite the 3D graphic and other improvements, is very far from SC I and Broodwar at their time. Somebody from the game-stuff imposed with obstinacy a wrong personal vision about to way to play the game, and from that point are resulted all game failures and lack of game joy for many players. The game have good parts too, and other bad parts too, but even just for the reasons mentioned above the game deserve the score 0!… Expand
  52. stimmedmarine
    Dec 22, 2010
    2
    No direct B-Chat.... When you enter this game you feel alone... It has northing to do with Online Gaming. You got not real direct contact to your enemies or friends
  53. 12dan4
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scatteredWhile a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly.… Expand
  54. Arrecho
    Nov 3, 2010
    0
    This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so itThis is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people...… Expand
  55. Nanu
    Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure thereI'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues.… Expand
  56. Rexus
    Oct 14, 2010
    4
    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
    Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

    Graphics... pretty good. Considering it`s an obsolete engine and all other jazz. No physics effects or changing the morphology of the terrain with hellish artillery barrages the likes of which we`ve seen in CoH (4 years ago, mind you). So no innovation, but still looks good. Is it demanding? Pretty much, which is ridiculous, really. Graphics IS NOT that good, nor are there that many units in the game at any given time for the game to drag its heels on a mainstream rig, 3 years old. And no physics, which usually taxes the computer to some extent. But still, you could say that designers achieved a lot with very little, using that old engine and somewhat cartoonish visual style in the game, because, to me, it was pleasing. Even unrealistic size comparisons between units (talking about realism in 26th century, heh...) are usually overseen, and that kind of stuff used to bother me even when Red Alert 2 came out some 10 years ago. Gameplay, mechanics, balance, and all that jazz... pretty good too. It`s the good `ol SC gameplay formula, refurbished with new units and some minor features. It works pretty good too, since you can find some use for all new and old units, even ones you are not used to, well, using. Balance... is fine. I will berate, the game`s insistence (especially in singleplayer), to force its own tempo upon you. There is barely a handful of missions where you can build your base and get things done at your own pace. I can understand the need for a bit of dynamic in the game, but in SC2 it feels a bit rushed, imposed upon you. True, I might be oldschool, laidback strategist, forged in the fires of old Steel Panthers and early C&C games, but I prefer not to be forced to act ALL THE TIME. They could at least mask it better, like, for example, Sins of Solar Empire does. You can build up slowly and not fight at all for hours. But then something happens and suddenly you have an epic clash of massive fleets, where distance of nearest shipyard and attrition often decides battles. Management. Control. Trying to be at dozen places at the same time and prevent things from falling apart. An ultimate strategic experience. Does SC2 with its small, skirmish-like battles and smartly conceived, albeit simple economy, feel like one?
    Or Company of Heroes. I admit, there you have to do something ALL the time, or you wind up FUBAR. But its immersive, addictive. Attacking and counterattacking, cutting off supply lines, retreating to shorten your defenses and build up... And all that strategy comes wrapped up with brutal, visceral, and near-realistic display of WWII warfare. SC2? The fact that I detected how the game forces its tempo on me speaks plainly of how exactly... cheap the methods for achieving this are. Summing it up, gameplay has its ups and downs, but it`s good.

    Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
    And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
    you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!    … Expand
  57. Ubermac
    Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed.    … Expand
  58. rareh
    Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations onThe game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

    And it's more expensive than other games on the market.    … Expand
  59. Falling_Hammer
    Sep 14, 2010
    2
    When I heard that the new Starcraft II was coming I was so happy, but when I bought the game I realized that this game is just a copy of a Starcraft I. I was very disappointed because the only new things are some abilities and a few new units. For me this is the Disappointment of the decade. I used to love games coming from Blizzard games factory but now I get the real picture...
  60. Dracongo
    Sep 13, 2010
    3
    You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly,You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though.… Expand
  61. Bud5252
    Sep 9, 2010
    2
    Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences"Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences" which would be the point of a "Defence" because they have more hitpoints and cost ratio is better, then yes someone screwed up. as far as balancing... well its not. the old starcraft the old war horses of blizzard knew. protoss; high power low output on units. terran medium power, medium output on units, zerg; low power high output of units.... pretty simple. the game is not balanced when a good protoss player can take a probe into the enemys base and set up photon cannons and win the game in 5 mins before a half decent player can get any units up. sry blizzard but i think your failing. and this aside, no LAN? not only that but there were SOOO many more options in the old starcraft in multiplay that allowed for cooperative play on the same team why cant the A.I. have an option to build defences and turtle the game. and the campaign story line that was.. ehh.... Two words for me sums this all up, extreme disappointment. as a hardcore gamer i loved the long played out matches i played 12 years ago. well this makes no difference to blizzard im sure. but this long time SC2 fan will not be buying those expansions… Expand
  62. Heroine4Life
    Sep 6, 2010
    3
    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and that is a bad comparison. But if we compare this game to other RTS games graphically (Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Dawn of War 2) we see it falls short and has the quality of Majesty 2. It is very pretty but not what I would expect form a game published in 2010, after a long production time, or a $60 release price.

    Gameplay: So yes there are new units that adds new strategy. I would hope in a brand new game this was doable. If I had bought an entirely different new game there would be a ton of new strategies. So this for me feels more like an expansion then worthy of a stand alone. The 'S' of RTS also seems to be missing in this. For a long time Starcraft has been about min/maxing and playing the spread sheet game, not about paper, rock, scissors, flanking, and general out maneuvering. Mass single units are still popular in high ranked matches, general disorganized rushes still work.

    Sound: It's good...I didn't know people really still cared about this or worried about it.

    The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.    … Expand
  63. rremmy72
    Aug 27, 2010
    3
    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races. Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race?    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races.

    Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race? Or the Hybrid toss/zerg? We get tantalizing glimpes of these characters yet we're not able to play as them? Maybe they're saving those for an expansion pack...either way, it's inexcusable for such a highly-anticipated sequel.

    Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.    … Expand
  64. eduedu87
    Aug 25, 2010
    1
    The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions ofThe game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them.… Expand
  65. Ophenix
    Aug 25, 2010
    0
    This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
    blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.
  66. Bob_H
    Aug 20, 2010
    0
    I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game'sI played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good.… Expand
  67. paketep
    Aug 18, 2010
    0
    12 years and all we get is the same game, with better but not current graphics, and a lot of features removed: fundamentally LAN support and spawn CD, which are what made StarCraft and Blizzard what they are today. Thanks, Blizz, but I won't buy the game when all you're interested in is me signing in into your facebook clone and giving you my RL details. Shame on you.
  68. franny2k
    Aug 14, 2010
    0
    Tried to enjoy it but it's still a bad bad game. A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  69. BrotherLaz
    Aug 13, 2010
    2
    A disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite havingA disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite having the same number of races and units as SC1, it's highly imbalanced - try and use a mothership for a serious purpose.

    This is not Company of Heroes, a much superior RTS that failed because it wasn't by Blizzard so it wasn't supported or advertised well.

    And you can't play with people in other continents. Why not?

    The promised map editor/game creator fails to deliver due to the terribad custom game system. Basically maps are sorted by popularity and the interface makes it nearly impossible to play 'less popular' maps. New maps, with popularity 0, are doomed to languish on page 54 where nobody plays them; search and filter options are nonexistent. You can't publish maps across the pond. Also, you can't differentiate game types (like Dota's -ap) in the list, the hyped keyboard and mouse controls are either extremely laggy or simply nonexistent; and there is an irritating design flaw where if you are the last player to join a lobby the game will auto start and you can no longer quit even if you're on the wrong team or clicked the wrong map.

    Warcraft 3 survives to this date by virtue of DotA. But custom games in SC2 - an important reason to buy War3 or SC1 for many people - are completely useless.    … Expand
  70. KSHARPE
    Aug 13, 2010
    1
    First off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn'tFirst off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn't expect a product that can run on a system I could find at my 92 year old grandmother's house or my local junkyard. I could probably run this on my Gameboy Color, by honestly, I would rather play Pokemon Red/Blue than SC2. When I started to play this game, I thought I had been pranked. When I found out I was indeed playing Starcraft 2, I was pretty disappointed. I honestly thought I was playing some kind of BW patch. Pretty much everything about SP was bad. Even on hard-mode you just need to build 10-15 depots, max your favorite unit, bind to '1' and attack. A few levels were clever; the lava, day/night, fire, etc. But for 12 years of development, it is a struggle to see where all that time went. The graphics, if anything, feel nostalgic and take me back to 2005. All these critics must have been bought out or work for Blizzard. MP is flawed. I used to think Battenet 1.0 needed to be tweaked a little, but 2.0 makes me wish on every 4 leaf clover I see for good ole 1.0. No LAN support and restriction to regions really makes MP pretty worthless. I have no idea where my $60 went. Mediocre SP (at best) and a watered down and 2 step backwards version of Battlenet really ruin both aspects of the game. All this WoW fanboy Blizzard worship is pretty sickening. All Blizzard accomplished was making me want to go down to the nearest bargain bin and buying a SC1 Battlechest for $9.99 because the $50 difference (+ another $80 for the next "expansions") can be spent much wiser. For an eventual $130 you will get 2005 graphics (at best), a couple new units, SLIGHTLY better AI, NO LAN, REGION ONLY, Facebook support (by far the most sellout thing I have ever seen), having to log in to **** ass Battlnet 2.0 (even for SP), and 1/3 proven **** lazy campaign, and the other 2/3 of the campaign will be called "expansions" even though you will be getting the same 2005 graphics and **** ass Battlenet 2.0.

    I already wasted my $60 and can only hope the time I spent writing this will save at least 1 poor soul from the emotional letdown that is: Starcraft 2, "Universally Acclaimed" based on critic reviews. They get +1 point from me because they at least spelled the name of the game correctly (the only thing they did right unfortunately).    … Expand
  71. kenstarkun
    Aug 13, 2010
    0
    If I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. SayIf I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. Say Goodbye to tournaments outside of Blizzard's authorization; if you read the EULA you'd realize how many things you simply can't do. Just like how Activison screwed the multi-player on Modern Warfare 2 by porting XBox live to the PC now they've ruined one of the greatest games of the PC gaming Golden Ages by removing the very things that made the game great.… Expand
  72. ThomasM
    Aug 12, 2010
    0
    First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

    9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really    First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

    9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really shouldn't: MP - various cheats are already in use, very little is done against them. Balancing is a joke at best in every other playmode than 1v1.

    The SP part is OK, but nothing you haven't seen so far. Story? Eric Cartman would say: lame!

    If I take all of this I can only say I am very dissappointed, a game made for money and not for the gamers - 1 pts for greed and lack of inspiration.    … Expand
  73. Nitroz
    Aug 12, 2010
    2
    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard.    … Expand
  74. xixixixi
    Aug 6, 2010
    0
    A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  75. JCT
    Aug 5, 2010
    4
    Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved graphics. If this game is released with all three campaigns with at least as much missions and lasted as long as Grand Theft Auto IV and the acquired features I am looking for, I would own this game for $100. Therefore this game isn't by far unique and worth the price on features from what Relic's Company of Heroes had.… Expand
  76. AlexeyM
    Aug 5, 2010
    3
    A 12 year old game with a new engine. Nothing new nothing interesting 3 points are for pretty CGI the rest is just the same **** all over again. Also COST. Also cliche'd story. Also lack of 2 more stories. Basically time to play SC:BW some more.
  77. michealq
    Aug 5, 2010
    0
    Game will melt down your PC will also cause intrusive DRM ttat will require you to log in to play the game. Match making system is flawed. You always get matched with inexperienced players if you are inexperienced like me. Various features removed from blizzard.
  78. ColinY
    Aug 4, 2010
    1
    A one for expenditure, but no points for effort. They took all the points that made SC 1 good, and removed them, and tried to cover for it with some prettied up graphics, and then split the game into three to make an even more obscene profit by releasing the same game engine again and again and call them new games rather then expansion packs. Activision is the devil.
  79. Brian
    Aug 4, 2010
    2
    Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have already returned it. Definitely not going to waste my time on the next two.… Expand
  80. JerremyB.
    Aug 3, 2010
    3
    Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been introduced to the game. + Storyline is very linear. + Blizzard gauging its fans by providing 3 installments of the same game but to access the 3 different campaigns. + No LAN support means the local gaming community takes a big hit. + Graphics is dated (5 years behind the curve). + B.Net gameplay is localized, which is disappointing (cannot play with my european and asian friends).… Expand
  81. noop
    Aug 3, 2010
    1
    Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Choices you make don't really do much. Too much "magical" fantasy stuff for a sci-fi game. Still too much micromanagement for 2010 game. And price is really to high for a one chapter of a game you basically don't even own. I believe this game deserves 7 or 8 but something has to be done to offset fake fanboy ratings.… Expand
  82. ChrisJ
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by infantry with grenades and an anti-tank gun - against 4 assault tanks and 4 teams of mechanized infantry if you are smart about where and how you fight (and im not talking subversive warfare or hit and run tactics). At the very bottom of the RTS pile you have your Starcraft, Warhammer, and all the EA C&C's - games tarnished with plain bordem, uselessly complicated oversized maps, rock paper scissors gameplay, unit spamming, and rushing.… Expand
  83. ChristosK
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the specific unit each mission provides. Gameplay is pretty much the same with the original. Same or slightly different units, same buildings, same techs, same controls, same stats. Providing an existing game with just an updated graphics engine shouldn't take so long... Company of heroes is way better... We only get 1 campaign, which no matter how the fanbois justify it is short and boring, we get no lan, and the price is higher than usual. Blizzard is milking players because it can... Stop supporting this company!… Expand
  84. TropicanaJ
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, and put it back where they pulled it out from.… Expand
  85. JimB
    Aug 2, 2010
    1
    It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of the reviewers are saying it is the best game of all time but none of them explain what elements actually make it good and why.… Expand
  86. markm
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going to get that $15/mo they do from other sub-par graphic games that people spend money on. People will buy it, they'll keep releasing it. I imagine Diablo 3 will be of a similar fate. Welcome to the Wii "Meh, as long as people buy it, we'll put it out there" generation of mediocrity.… Expand
  87. JohnC
    Aug 2, 2010
    4
    I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely offline so it also rubs I have to log into battle net every time I start my computer to verify my game account; I verified my game by paying for it!! If Diablo 3 follows a similar pattern I won't by buying.… Expand
  88. JohnK
    Aug 2, 2010
    4
    I'm very dissapointed with this game. WC3 made several improvements over SC, notably adding heroes and a 4th race. Many SC fans weren't enamored with the hero concept, but SC3 easily could have improved on WC3 by going up to 5 races and making individual units gain xp. Blizzard did neither, they cut back to 3 races, added/changed a few units, and "upgraded" to a 3D engine. Big I'm very dissapointed with this game. WC3 made several improvements over SC, notably adding heroes and a 4th race. Many SC fans weren't enamored with the hero concept, but SC3 easily could have improved on WC3 by going up to 5 races and making individual units gain xp. Blizzard did neither, they cut back to 3 races, added/changed a few units, and "upgraded" to a 3D engine. Big whoop. I am honesty not even sure if other than the bnet upgrades this game is even better than the original SC.… Expand
  89. JamesG
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I loved the first Starcraft. The problem is, I haven't been on a desert island for the last 12 years.… Expand
  90. marko
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to any die-hard Blizzard fan. It's kind of like what Valve did to Counterstrike: Source; they just took the original game, tweaked it with the Source engine, and slapped a price tag on it. As I am playing Starcraft 2, I keep asking the same question: So what? What does this game actually prove that the first one didn't prove? That Blizzard made a new (and now very dated) engine. That Blizzard added some extra units. That Blizzard made one "cool" campaign (the original had all three, by the way . . .). C'mon people. The answer quite simply is: there is nothing special. The game is just "okay." After seeing marines shooting at a bunch of incoming hydralisks without taking cover, I said to myself: "you've got to be serious." The fact that marines can't shoot while running is also pathetic. The game feels very mechanical and static, which is acceptable for the first-- not the second. The fact that warcraft 3 added two extra races and Starcraft 2 added none also pissed me off. I already uninstalled the game and will not waste $120 on two expansions that will add a handful of zerg and protoss missions. I refuse to get cheated by Blizzard. I am back to playing Starcraft and the other fine RTS games that were made in the past few years like Company of Heroes and dawn of war to name a few. It's like Blizzard has lost all of its creative juice-- as if Starcraft 2 was taken over by a bunch of guys with marketing majors, wanting to make billions of dollars rather than make an interesting game. Starcraft was (and still is) a superb game, simply because there was nothing like it back in 1998. I can go play plenty of other games like Starcraft 2.… Expand
  91. BrendanM.
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 years ago. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this game a 10/10. Perhaps they should be disclosing some sort of compensation they are receiving from Blizzard.… Expand
  92. EddieZ.
    Aug 2, 2010
    2
    Great game. But horrible-and I do mean HORRIBLE-online features. The new Battle.net 2.0 is so restrictive, so backwards, so lacking in even the most basic features like chat and a coherent map publishing system that it truly dampens the whole experience. What a disappointment. A wonderfully fun and fast-paced game ruined by online features that could have so easily been remedied.
  93. JamesJ
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Although this game was decent, it was sorely overpriced for a third of a game and no LAN. Story wasn't good and multiplayer is imbalanced. Quite frankly, this was the most over-hyped game of the decade.
  94. DaveL
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    Anyone giving this game a 10 needs to take a look at this game without buying into hype. Pretend it's called Blarghraft and re-assess it. It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc. There is nothing about this game that feels fresh or intriguing. It's an SC expansion that could've been released a decade ago and been Anyone giving this game a 10 needs to take a look at this game without buying into hype. Pretend it's called Blarghraft and re-assess it. It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc. There is nothing about this game that feels fresh or intriguing. It's an SC expansion that could've been released a decade ago and been decent at the time. Now it's just an average generic RTS with nothing that stands out from the myriad of RTS clones devoted to its own namesake. Except for a cliched story with middling voice acting there's nothing to rate SC2 on. It feels like Activision just put an old title through the assembly line to churn out something to put on the store shelves with the only innovation coming in ways to milk money off the title.… Expand
  95. RobV
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game doesn't even deserve a 1. It's starcraft with a higher resolution and 100 times the requirements.… Expand
  96. BrianN.
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Looks and feels exactly like the first game, resources are still a pain to gather and the cinematic are long and unnecessary. Blizzard must've spent the years of development on this game counting their WoW cash cause SC2 feels 14 years old.
  97. MockB.
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    The RTS aspect has been handled as expected almost flawlessly, extremely polished and already fairly balanced. However, after 12 years to think up a story and to go with this idiocy as the best they could think of was shameful. A 12 year old after smoking a pound of skunk would've done better. Shame on you blizz.
  98. ValnakK.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    Thoroughly dissapointed. They literally just remade Starcraft 1 with new, shiny graphics and a couple new units. This is more befitting of an expansion than a whole new game.
  99. JayS
    Aug 1, 2010
    3
    A bit disappointed in this price gouging product from Blizzard. No LAN support is a huge turn-off as this has been in the past one of the single-most played LAN games. Single player is good, multiplayer still needs some tweaking.
  100. JDS
    Aug 1, 2010
    3
    This game is nothing but a cash cow. Here is my review: Pros: --Runs pretty well --Decent art on the static screens in the ship --Resembles old Starcraft somewhat Cons: --Boring, trite story that is less interesting than your average Saturday morning cartoon, with even worse dialog: (things like: "the end of all things is nigh!!" "It is your destiny!!" and "Your efforts are futile!"...) 9 This game is nothing but a cash cow. Here is my review: Pros: --Runs pretty well --Decent art on the static screens in the ship --Resembles old Starcraft somewhat Cons: --Boring, trite story that is less interesting than your average Saturday morning cartoon, with even worse dialog: (things like: "the end of all things is nigh!!" "It is your destiny!!" and "Your efforts are futile!"...) 9 year olds will eat it up, and so will the legions of mouth breathers and diabetics who will spend time with this game. --No LAN play...seriously?!? --Facebook and Realname? Wow I can smell the corporate parties already as their bank accounts fill. Glad I got the collector's edition and sold off the pieces to pay for the game, as it wasn't worth it.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

2
#2 Best PC Game of 2010
2
#2 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 82 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 82 out of 82
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 82
  3. Negative: 0 out of 82
  1. PC Zone UK
    Jan 18, 2011
    95
    "Quotation Forthcoming"
  2. Video Game Talk
    Jan 18, 2011
    90
    If you are into real time strategy in any form, it's hard to ignore Starcraft II.
    Read full review
  3. PC Format
    Dec 24, 2010
    93
    Perfectly balanced multiplayer with old school elements intact, and rich and dynamic single player campaigns. [Issue#244, p.102]
See all critic reviews »