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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. BShum
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    It's basically a tutorial for each othe new units. Every stage will have a new unit that specializes on that map. Mass that unit and win. If the game were a full game that would be ok, but since its so short its a terrible game. Sure it looks good, but is empty in game play. Everything else is (besides some corny dialog) was ok. Sometimes it felt like they borrowed too much from WC3.
  5. JackJ.
    Jul 29, 2010
    4
    WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and can pay off the reviewers. (I don't think Crackdown 2 is a great game either, I was using it as an example.)… Expand
  6. JasonC
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, single-player takes a huge backseat to multi. But it'll get rave reviews solely because it has "Blizzard" on the box, just like anything from Bioware or Nintendo.… Expand
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. SteveJ
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    Very disappointing, but not because of the core gameplay. The load times are ridiculous, the menu is confusing and messy, the newsflash cutscenes try to be 'funny' but end up like something that would be in a show for 7-year olds. Worst of all are the regional locks.... making online play with international friends nigh-on impossible. You can't even add people from other Very disappointing, but not because of the core gameplay. The load times are ridiculous, the menu is confusing and messy, the newsflash cutscenes try to be 'funny' but end up like something that would be in a show for 7-year olds. Worst of all are the regional locks.... making online play with international friends nigh-on impossible. You can't even add people from other regions to your Battle.NET friends list. The game itself, once started, is not so bad.... but woefully uninteresting. It's changed from StarCraft quite a bit, notably units won't just run around in a single file and get killed one by one when assaulting a base, which was never fun. However, some problems that were bad already in StarCraft still exist, such as SCVs getting stuck behind buildings if they are built too close to something else. There is less micromanagement, but in the end it's mostly just a graphical update with a few different units and few interesting features. Overall, the problems don't necessarily stem from the game itself but rather its presentation. The single-player campaign isn't bad, and it has a few attempts at original and good missions while still leaving in nods to the original game, but it doesn't really shine as an outstanding example of story-telling and originality. I got the collector's edition, which is quite impressively designed but beware; the art book has several pictures that are clearly just scaled up from a low resolution, and as a result they look pixelated in the final product. This is extremely poor work on their part. I cannot honestly give this a high score. With some luck, Blizzard will fix their menus and optimize the load times, while also removing the regional locks. That would go a long way to making the game more playable both offline and online. The lack of LAN play, the requirement to stay connected to Battle.NET and regional locks all contribute to making this game inferior to the set standards and expectations.… Expand
  23. AndyD
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire armies by a few cheap units, which is not only extremely unbalanced, it isn't fun. This coupled with the extremely competitive ladder system, in which people new to the game stay bad at the game because they aren't allowed to play with players who are good, and keeps highly skilled players playing solely against other highly skilled players, segregates the SC2 population into cutthroat pools of angry players. This makes player abuse not only something that creates negative and unhappy attitudes among the people on the "new" battle.net, it is something that players who are at a skill level any lower than that of the competitive Korean leagues of SC1 will encounter on a basis something on the order of nearly every match. I will say that the graphics are a major improvement over SC1, and that will make SC1 fans rejoice, including a system that allow a player to select an nearly unlimited number of units at a time, and a system which allows players to select buildings as if they were units, allowing players to queue up many units at a time without clicking on each individual building. These new features, which should have been included in the first game, aren't enough to redeem Starcraft II enough to live up to the name of its predecessor.… Expand
  24. Tylerwhat
    Jul 29, 2010
    3
    So 12 years and the only thing blizzard could come up with is a graphics update straight out of 2005? You've got to be kidding me. Only a sucker would pay 60 dollars for this boring RTS. Spending your money on Company of Heroes is a much better idea.
  25. JamesS.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Technically superb, but otherwise I don't feel like getting my money's worth with this one. The multiplayer is, as expected, just a horrible korean zergfest. Single player dishes out nothing new and is as dull as the first game back in the day. Even with the Blizzard logo on the game's cover, I just can't bring myself to like this game.
  26. CameronL
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be good, it's not great and it's far from being the greatest.… Expand
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. PunhaR
    Jul 27, 2010
    3
    Cliche history, short campaign, overpriced, 1/3 of a game for the price of a full game, graphics doesnt scale well (i have a radeon4870, playing int on max at 1920x1200 the game drops to 15 fps when there is 5 or more units doing shit on the screen), pathetic attempt to please the casual masses with a bullshit history line. i wish my money back.
  32. OdinB
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    Really? It does seem incomplete. Needs work done- and its released with core features not implemented. Release a game thats completed please. Blizzard has had plenty of experience making thease games, they should know better then to say 'wait for patches' Not to mention the resolution problems, give the users some more view of the battle, and give them more control over the UI.
  33. KennethG.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of the dated elements distract from gameplay. the dated Ui: the dated camera. (you cant even ROTATE the camera!) the very start of the campaign has a boring introduction ( a guy sitting in a bar? COME ON!) and i think the game relys too much on its flashy CGI scenes rather then the actual gameplay. The campaign might be fun.. but its nothing that hasnt been done before 10 times over in RTS...games. there is no deep strategist with the game its basically gather as much resources as you can and build your stuff as fast as you can and attack? I think they are just spending so much time on Catacyslm that they just half did Starcraft 2 ... the next wow addon will be in my opinion ten times better and then times more interesting then Starcraft 2 is. Starcraft 2 feels more like a dated title with improved graphics. Heck i bet Red Alert 3 will be more fun for me! (i should reinstall it!). Next!… Expand
  34. DylanC
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The fact that there really isn't anything new is disappointing. This is a rehash of Starcraft 1 for the new generation and those nostalgic ones who can't handle a little pixelation. If making a more polished remake of old games was all there was to it, we'd have a top 10 list populated by EA sports games they churn out every year. Doing the same thing with more gloss is just not good enough. Starcraft II doesn't deserve a spot among the likes of Half-Life at the top of the PC heap.… Expand
  35. MaximB
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    -not realy playable offline. -many crashes, battle net needed. -just remake of Starcraft 1 -comic graphics -end disappointing -no LAN modus -not playable worldwide Overall this game is pretty bad. I cant understand the scores from magazines. It is bad implementation of first part with better graphics. It can't reach Starcraft or WC3. There are also many better RTS. It is just hyped.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. OwenS
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    To me it feels like a kids game. I'm not seeing the depth that everyone else seems to notice. Also not seeing what is so great about it. I definitely wasted $60. I'll go back to playing SupCom and Company of Heroes (which are both much better).
  48. john
    Jul 29, 2010
    2
    Game is shit totally not worth the 60 usd hate the music the ui the gameplay is so bad controls are crap campaign is really bad (havent finished it and not planning to do so) bottom line is ill sell it on ebay and hope i get a good price on this shitty game my advice is dont buy it if u want something a littel new than the old game cuz this is almost the old one in 3d.
  49. AdeptusA
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* portrays a NAKED MUTANT in the arms of a Terrorist Rebel walking off together into the sunset. Utterly disgusting. Report all those who play this game to your local Imperial Youth Brigade leaders. Those who denounce their peers and siblings before the local Peoples Imperial Commisariat in writing shall be shown leniency and understanding in the form of extra bread rations. The first 300 registered Imperial Youths informing on a parent shall receive a Meat Ration. Remain true to the EMPEROR of MANr and the everlasting Revolution! Resist this foul, bland game!… Expand
  50. 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.
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. JohnD
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    No LAN play, only 1 campaign for the price of 3, already out-dated graphics, not much new from Brood War. Sadly, Blizzards army of mindless drones will think this is the greatest thing ever. This is what we get because of WoW... the dumbest game ever.
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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...
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. GökhanH
    Jul 27, 2010
    1
    The only reason that this game will get high scores will be a strong fan base. But in my opinion, this game just doesn't worth it. 60 Euros even for digital download, and I expect that we'll be charged at least another 80 (40+40) euros for the expansions. You won't be able to play with Zerg / Protoss campaign till they're out and you get them. Only Terran campaign is The only reason that this game will get high scores will be a strong fan base. But in my opinion, this game just doesn't worth it. 60 Euros even for digital download, and I expect that we'll be charged at least another 80 (40+40) euros for the expansions. You won't be able to play with Zerg / Protoss campaign till they're out and you get them. Only Terran campaign is available, and this is a big (-) for / from me. So far, it just looks like Starcraft 2010, with a graphic overhaul, removing/adding some units, and crippling the single-player, dividing it to 3 seperate games. Bad move in my opinion. Bad move Blizzard. Very bad move. It's a shame that 99% of the buyers will jump to the game blindfolded, and it's a shame that many of the reviewers give this game 85+ not considering the pricing of lack of the story.… Expand
  63. 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.
  64. PatrickH.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the '80s, not anymore. Same thing with StarCraft 2. Why it get so much high scores from reviewers? Maybe because they got a lot of money from Blizzard for the publicity of StarCraft 2. That can explain a lot of things. There's an expression in french that says: "Don't bite the hand that feed you!".… Expand
  65. 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
  66. BenjaminG
    Jul 29, 2010
    1
    This game is only for Starcraft pros and for people who played the beta. Never before have I been at such a disadvantage when player the multiplayer. This is not a RTS where everyone starts at the same level and some will become better than others, on it's release there were already starcraft 2 pros. I think There is something really wrong with this.
  67. JeremyL.
    Jul 29, 2010
    1
    This game is the biggest piece of overated crap ever to have tarnished the single player and storyline sc1 was so famous for. There is very little thought put into the story. Metzin, what were you thinking? From what I see here, you do not appear to write at all well! Pacing is abysmal. It seems they are trying to please everyone at once, focusing on flashy gameplay than the story that This game is the biggest piece of overated crap ever to have tarnished the single player and storyline sc1 was so famous for. There is very little thought put into the story. Metzin, what were you thinking? From what I see here, you do not appear to write at all well! Pacing is abysmal. It seems they are trying to please everyone at once, focusing on flashy gameplay than the story that creates it. They also killed all the old characters from the sc1 by putting them in situations that are not identical to the mood of sc1. Like choosing sides! The ending ought to leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.… Expand
  68. CJHenry
    Jul 30, 2010
    1
    Yet another rehash from the kings of rehashes themselves. Only this time it's not even a full rehash, but a third of it, stripped of tonnes of features like LAN support to appease gaming 2.0 business design models and pie graphs so Robert Kotick can renovate his kitchen. Almost a billion hours of CGI to distract neckbeards from their looming diabetes, an epic tale of cliche' Yet another rehash from the kings of rehashes themselves. Only this time it's not even a full rehash, but a third of it, stripped of tonnes of features like LAN support to appease gaming 2.0 business design models and pie graphs so Robert Kotick can renovate his kitchen. Almost a billion hours of CGI to distract neckbeards from their looming diabetes, an epic tale of cliche' revenge killing and redemption that has nothing to do with what is supposed to be a tournament game. Facebook integration so all your cousins and parents can see why your friends list hasn't reached double figures yet. A taste of things to come from Blizzbooktivision.… Expand
  69. RohokT.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire-- Games that share the same genre, but expande on it and create something deeper, more involving, and ultimately, more exciting than this cookie-cutter piece of junk. A true eyesore to anybody who appreciates true games, Starcraft 2, like any of other Blizzard's games, is a plague on the gaming industries, and the company will probably continue to contribute to the downfall of the gaming industries for years to come-- God help us all.… Expand
  70. 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.
  71. RogerB
    Jul 31, 2010
    1
    An utterly terrible game. The AI is atrocious even on the hardest setting. The graphics are very poor apart from the overused CGI cutscenes. Only one race has its own storyline... save your money and get another game. This is a terrible excuse for a "game" and an insult the StarCraft legacy.
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.
  75. 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
  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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.
  81. AlexW
    Jul 27, 2010
    0
    One word: Ugh. Once again blizzard shows us how far a franchise can fall. Stunningly beautiful cinematics that still fall short due to the poor story. The campaign is decidedly weak, and the multi is so micro-oriented it's painful. SC2 was the game I was most anticipating this year (perhaps this decade), and it falls so short of expectation that words can't express the magnitude One word: Ugh. Once again blizzard shows us how far a franchise can fall. Stunningly beautiful cinematics that still fall short due to the poor story. The campaign is decidedly weak, and the multi is so micro-oriented it's painful. SC2 was the game I was most anticipating this year (perhaps this decade), and it falls so short of expectation that words can't express the magnitude of it's failure.… Expand
  82. HenryP
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    It's rather sad to see how far this franchise has fallen. What you're getting is 1/3 a game with a 5 hour campaign and a buggy multilayer experience bloated with horrible DRM. You must be online 24/7 even for single player or you aren't awarded achievements. No LAN and No CGI Cutscenes are only some of the few of many things not in this game. And if you want to be able to It's rather sad to see how far this franchise has fallen. What you're getting is 1/3 a game with a 5 hour campaign and a buggy multilayer experience bloated with horrible DRM. You must be online 24/7 even for single player or you aren't awarded achievements. No LAN and No CGI Cutscenes are only some of the few of many things not in this game. And if you want to be able to play the protoss and zerg campaigns then you better get out your credit card! They're being sold separate at a later date. No doubt only about 3-5 hour campaigns as well.… Expand
  83. Zachary
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    A complete rehash of SC1. Single player is dull, multiplayer is even worse. There is no strategy involved. All you need to do to win is hoard one type of unit, select all, hit CTRL+A and click the other side of the map. It pales in comparison to RTS games released even 5 years ago. The only reason this game is receiving good reviews is because of Blizzards huge marketing campaign.
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. CyrusR
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    Compared to the original games, this is a mockery. Battle.net 2.0 is redundant and limited, the world editor has scripting limits and other non-useful things. And the campaign is cliched enough to seem like an old cowboy movie. This is not a good game. This is WoW in space.
  88. Chris
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    game is basically starcraft with updated graphics and missing 2 campaigns. 1 third the game for a very expensive price. rated good for 3d vision put performs poorly. after playing modern rts's starcraft's same old micromanagement gameplay just doesn't stack up.
  89. csonkab
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is regionlocked. You can only install this to ONE computer 3 times. That's it. It doesn't have any LAN either, which means you will never play this without lag. There is no excuse for buying this other than the hype machine behind it.… Expand
  90. JohnP
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player feels like questing in world of warcraft, and the campaign ending was uneventful. Not to mention that you need to pay another 120 bucks(?) to see the other 2 campaigns. Yay? Starcraft 1 was better. I'd rather play the eye rape that was cnc4 than this pile of blizzard ****.… Expand
  91. 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.
  92. 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
  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. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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.
  97. GaryK
    Jul 27, 2010
    0
    This is a horrible successor to the first game. The balancing is way off, and even at the lowest settings more than 30 on-screen enemies brings my computer to an absolute crawl. What a waste.
  98. DaveE
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    It's still an RTS, which means that if your idea of fun does not include herding a bunch of uncooperative cats around a virtual battlefield through the use of rapid-fire keyboard and mouse commands that make you appear to be having an epileptic seizure, then you should find another game to play.
  99. BobbyK
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about where it stops. Once you get online and have more than 20-30 units in a spot expect even the most heavy rigs to drop frames and begin to crawl. Not to mention the $10 price hike just cause they could get away with it, or the fact they've split up the game into 3 just to make more money. That's $180 if you'd like to see the entire story....rofl. Thanks Activision for making the gaming world just a bit more cynical place.… Expand
  100. SuarezP
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    -$60 for PC game no thanks, not about to feed this new trend of price jacking(CoD:MW2 I'm looking at you) when the cost to produce a game on PC hasn't gone up. -Original allowed you to play as all 3 factions. In this you have to wait for 2 more "expansions" that will cost a currently unknown price to play as other 2 factions. Don't get me wrong I liked the beta, but -$60 for PC game no thanks, not about to feed this new trend of price jacking(CoD:MW2 I'm looking at you) when the cost to produce a game on PC hasn't gone up. -Original allowed you to play as all 3 factions. In this you have to wait for 2 more "expansions" that will cost a currently unknown price to play as other 2 factions. Don't get me wrong I liked the beta, but I'm not paying $60 for an incomplete game. About 12 years between StarCraft and StarCraft 2 and you can't give me all 3 factions off the bat? I can wait until the other two factions are released as a combo, in the meantime I'll go back to playing the original while waiting.… 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 »