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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. JacobG
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Sc2, same crap, different day with shinier graphics. Gameplay from last decade that is extremely boring. Where are the tactics from the RTS's we have come to love like Company of Heroes. SC2 SP campaign is only interesting because of the story, you dont play it because the missions are engrossing, you play it to get to the next cutscene.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Ophenix
    Aug 25, 2010
    0
    This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
    blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.
  15. Bob_H
    Aug 20, 2010
    0
    I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game'sI played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good.… Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. rareh
    Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations onThe game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

    And it's more expensive than other games on the market.    … Expand
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Ccx55
    Mar 20, 2012
    0
    Is this game made by experimental college students? This is just plain sad.
    Not a single improvement over Brood War - nothing worth noting atleast.
    This is just far behind our time.
  25. 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
  26. Arrecho
    Nov 3, 2010
    0
    This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so itThis is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people...… Expand
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Goa_uld
    Feb 20, 2011
    0
    The worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but theThe worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but the micromanagement is impossible at such speeds, so, the game become one arcade game, not a RTS. Idem on multiplayer, players just rush, so, we cannot see here great tactical and strategic abilities, only fast button push (the player who have a better computer, a more responsive keyboard and mouse is in great advantage from start) The designed by default hotkeys-based gameplay make the game experience more sluggish, and frustrating, not more smoothly. The mass cast abiltities lack entirely, also many players regrets the units from Starcraft I and Broodwar. For that causes, Starcraft II, despite the 3D graphic and other improvements, is very far from SC I and Broodwar at their time. Somebody from the game-stuff imposed with obstinacy a wrong personal vision about to way to play the game, and from that point are resulted all game failures and lack of game joy for many players. The game have good parts too, and other bad parts too, but even just for the reasons mentioned above the game deserve the score 0!… Expand
  30. IHaveaBiggerPen
    Feb 11, 2012
    0
    I'm dissapointed that zero is the minimum, because I would have given this game -19 out of 0.00001. I played the single player and completed it, but it didn't prepare me for the **** that is it's online, specifically, the Starjeweled official mod. I used to be part of the Starjeweled pro scene, before it got infested by people who don't know how to play seriously. Now, it's all roachI'm dissapointed that zero is the minimum, because I would have given this game -19 out of 0.00001. I played the single player and completed it, but it didn't prepare me for the **** that is it's online, specifically, the Starjeweled official mod. I used to be part of the Starjeweled pro scene, before it got infested by people who don't know how to play seriously. Now, it's all roach cheese tactics, and lucky combos. I keep waiting for a patch to fix this, but Blizzard seems to have forgotten all about the Starjeweled community. Giving a zero until they learn from their mistakes.… Expand
  31. DrBuzzKill
    Aug 5, 2012
    0
    Starcarft 2 WoL, has a good story. The always online DRM is a very bad idea and I hate it very much! The only good thing starcraft had going for it was the custom maps. And now even that has been killed off thanks to bean counters at Blizzard. Thanks you greed corporate AssHats! The only reason I am giving at a low score is because of the replay ability factor is low. This game gets veryStarcarft 2 WoL, has a good story. The always online DRM is a very bad idea and I hate it very much! The only good thing starcraft had going for it was the custom maps. And now even that has been killed off thanks to bean counters at Blizzard. Thanks you greed corporate AssHats! The only reason I am giving at a low score is because of the replay ability factor is low. This game gets very boring after you beat it a few times. I hate the online play and I hate the lack of good maps due to the fact that the Editor is very limited now compared to what it was ones before. So this piece of trash gets a very nice 0 out of 10 from me! You failed yet again Blizzard!… Expand
  32. moutsosr
    Dec 12, 2012
    0
    After so many years all, this company, has to offer is better grafics...? This games gentre is Not rts. Its probably fps just because the only the player has to have lighting reflexes. The strategy negligable and is repeat it again and again. Well the funs must be happy because in terms of gameplay nothing have changed. For old school strategists AVOID this game.
  33. Medran
    Dec 18, 2012
    0
    The game has several technical issues not related to the actual gameplay. The installer and updater are very complex and bug prone, after my first install off dvd, the game auto updates. However the auto update is huge and if it fails mid way your install may be broken to the point where you have to uninstall. The uninstall will fail as the updater is a background process that you willThe game has several technical issues not related to the actual gameplay. The installer and updater are very complex and bug prone, after my first install off dvd, the game auto updates. However the auto update is huge and if it fails mid way your install may be broken to the point where you have to uninstall. The uninstall will fail as the updater is a background process that you will have to quit using the task manager, this auto updater also installs to a location on your hard disk other than the one you tell starcraft to install to. Your best bet is to install from the weblink provided by Blizzard, however that requires several hours and a good internet connection as the game is quite big. Which brings me to my second point that since you are unable to play the game without internet you can forget about sitting in the yard with your laptop, or playing it in the summer cottage. This also has the implication that you can't borrow or trade your 60$ game to a friend after you are done playing it. The good news for all this is if you happen to loose your disk you can download the game from blizzard, however I can't say I've EVER lost a DVD I paid for. A good game wrapped in very brittle and overbearing installers and drms, in the end I spent just as much time installing as I did playing.

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

    I had high hopes for this game as the first Starcraft had groundbreaking game play and graphics for the time, so many other RTS's have come since then and made valuable additions to the genre, SC2 cannot hold a candle to them and I am very disappointing.    … Expand
  34. 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
  35. Broyax
    Apr 17, 2017
    0
    Un RTS qui a des années et des années de retard dans sa jouabilité totalement éculée (on dirait Warcraft, copié sur Dune 2), sans compter sa technique très faible, imite ringarde et insultante. Il n'a que ses belles cinématiques pour lui à dire vrai et ses voix VF, sympas les voix VF. La musique peut-être...?

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

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

    J'ai fait ce que j'avais à faire : j'ai cliqué sur "désinstaller". Pas de temps à perdre avec un éditeur qui fait n'importe quoi et surtout de la merde.    … Expand
  36. Nikolas_super
    Mar 5, 2022
    0
    Отличная игра, с хорошим сюжетом и графикой.
    Поставил плохую оценку, так как разработчики этой игры влезли в политику!
next
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 »