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.
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 »