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. PLib
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft is a fun game, if you're into Starcraft. That's about it. This game feels like a rehash of the Starcraft the first, just with updated graphics and interface. Quite frankly, that's not enough to compel me to buy this when their are other great RTS's still out there, like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
  2. JamesE
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. Lowest common denominator anyone? The business model is pure greed. Won't be too long before MW is integrated into Battlenet and we'll all have to pay subs for the privilege of using the service. The graphics could pretty much be sprites and viewing angle (especially compared to Total War, SupCom, CoH and the Dawn of War series) only allows for a small amount of the pretty small maps to be seen at once. Online is completely unbalanced (even if the units are fairly well-balanced), seeing as Blizz decided who was going to be good at it months/years ago and gave them alpha + beta access while the rest of us will have to play SC1 or dry as dust skirmish maps against the PC to even learn the names of Zerg or Protoss units. Of course the potential reviewers were included in the beta as well. So glad they all had a good time.… Expand
  3. meh
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    Meh. 10 years. Blizzard spent the better part of a decade working on the next installment of the Starcraft franchise and this is all they came up with? A boost to the graphics, fancy CG cutscenes, no apparent change in gameplay, and a total reliance on micro-management. Whoop-dee-do.
  4. DavidS
    Jul 28, 2010
    6
    Highly overrated. Almost exactly the same as SC1 with only updated graphics and an expansion's pack worth of content and tweaks. Plus Blizzard is being extremely greedy forcing you to buy 3 separate full price games instead of just one. Would not buy again.
  5. MIkeM.
    Jul 27, 2010
    6
    If this game was released 5 years ago, it would have been wonderful. Oh wait, it was basically release 5 years ago with all the beta testing that was happening year after year... I don't know, feels kind of anticlimactic now.
  6. bobg
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    I just don't get it. The story is boring and doesn't grab you, the graphics are nothing amazing and the game is lacking a number of important features, e.g. LAN play. Sure this is a decent game if you want the same gameplay you had 12 years ago, but no way does it deserve the kind of perfect scores it's getting.
  7. SilentHightimes
    Sep 12, 2014
    7
    Decent campaign mode good multiplayer lackin Graphics and material for how long fans have bin waiting for this game, and how long it was in development, it lacks a lot of anything new. A pretty big disappointment for a fan waiting years for it to finally come out.

    Worth $50 Bucks only if your multiplayer fan if not than i think the games only worth $17 max.
  8. Archimedesx
    Sep 12, 2014
    7
    I really like this game. RTS is my favorite genre, and Starcraft has always been a really cool universe with nice diverse selection of units to play with. Starcraft II is really a rehash of the original game with a major graphics upgrade. There have been some changes to the way you command and use units, but only to uniquely identify itself from the original game I feel. For something thatI really like this game. RTS is my favorite genre, and Starcraft has always been a really cool universe with nice diverse selection of units to play with. Starcraft II is really a rehash of the original game with a major graphics upgrade. There have been some changes to the way you command and use units, but only to uniquely identify itself from the original game I feel. For something that looks and feels like a remake, it's done very well though and deserves the high if not optimal marks I give it. The combat is fun and engaging, the race, unit, and upgrade choices make for many interesting games and possible situations, and the always online play system isn't as encumbering as some people make it out to be.
    The main reason I don't give this higher marks is because it is more of a rehash than a sequel, though if you just play single player mode maybe you might interpret it more like a sequel. I would have really liked to see some innovation though, RTS desperately needs it. Especially on the scale or diversity of the maps. The maps in this game are very plain for the most part. I also think the editor and the way custom games are listed in multiplayer is a step back from the way it was organized before. There's a lot less appeal to keep playing this game.    … Expand
  9. Mogul
    Apr 22, 2012
    6
    This game is good, and kind of fun, but it didn't really seem special to me. It felt very outdated and required way too much micromanaging for my taste, and everything was a bit more stressful than fun. I can see why people enjoy this game, but for my part, I actual like watching Starcraft II competitive matches on youtube much more than I like playing the game myself.
  10. whitespider999
    Feb 16, 2012
    7
    Blizzard is quite good at getting something that worked, and then tweaking it into something slightly evolved in the best way possible. You either like this incremental approach, or you don't. I don't. However me simply saying I don't like this games approach to evolution and then slapping a 0 on it, is exactly the kind of critic I don't want to be. Besides, I am a huge fan of diablo 2 -Blizzard is quite good at getting something that worked, and then tweaking it into something slightly evolved in the best way possible. You either like this incremental approach, or you don't. I don't. However me simply saying I don't like this games approach to evolution and then slapping a 0 on it, is exactly the kind of critic I don't want to be. Besides, I am a huge fan of diablo 2 - and while I know that they will do the same thing they did with starcraft II - for diablo 3. I am fine with that. So it would be a double standard to simply dismiss starcraft 2 because A: It's a genre that I don't prefer. and B: Because it's incremental, when that's exactly what I want from the genre I DO prefer. (Action rpg).

    So in that light. Starcraft 2 is reccomended for people who enjoy two things, a well balanced and tightly playing rts, and a superb online competitive mode. And while the story is well presented, well written, and relatively engaging. It's not the long term highlight of this package. Frequent online play is. If you do end up enjoying this game competitively - This is a 10. I enjoyed playing singleplayer, and since I am not a competitive person - I did not enjoy the hardcore requirements or thought processes of multiplayer. So I judge the part I can judge. And it's a 8.    … Expand
  11. Auctane
    Feb 24, 2014
    5
    While continuing the story of Starcraft, Starcraft 2 is a modernization of the original title. With other RTS games offering innovations in the way RTS are played, emphasizing on the strategy, Starcraft 2 offered a clean UI & intuitive interface but nothing new. Having good marketing is important, the popularity of this game proves it.
  12. Slipfeed
    Jul 8, 2011
    7
    Having finally picked up starcraft 2 about a month ago, having succumbed to the endless hype from rabid fans and excited shoutcasters, I now find myself in an interesting position.

    Starcraft, you see, has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon in the gaming community. Boasting one of (if not the most) zealous fanbases this side of Justin Bieber. Professional tournaments are played    Having finally picked up starcraft 2 about a month ago, having succumbed to the endless hype from rabid fans and excited shoutcasters, I now find myself in an interesting position.

    Starcraft, you see, has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon in the gaming community. Boasting one of (if not the most) zealous fanbases this side of Justin Bieber. Professional tournaments are played world wide. Small numbers of fans line up for hours to watch this game being played.

    And here is where my previously mentioned position becomes interesting. I don't understand why....

    The game itself is nothing short of mediocre. All of the otherwise exciting portions of the game, the combat in particular, are forced to take a back seat to mundane tasks like constructing supply depot's, or consistently pressing a certain series of keys on your keyboard as fast as you possibly can throughout the game.

    This leaves little of the players attention for combat, and oh man does it show.

    Imagine if you will, a football game where the action on the field is constantly covered by an overlay of the plays that the two teams are running, and might run next on the screen. Furthermore, the players on the field are not allowed to deviate from those plays for any reason. they must attack move the enemy, because the coach has something more important to do. We need another supply depot.

    And here in lies the folly of choosing starcraft as the worlds electronic sport. It's boring. Listen to the commentators during a match at dreamhack or NASL. They're talking about minerals, and gas, and bases. Production facility's and APM, and that drone that's been circling the map for the last three minutes scouting. When a fight does occur, its an afterthought. The player has pressed a couple of buttons, and moved on while the commentators do their best to make it sound like the players are fully engaged, but the way the actual fight plays out tells the true tale. There is little to no tactical creativity involved. Like our football players that are not allowed to make snap decisions on the field, starcraft players don't have the time or the mechanics available to win a battle through tactics or strategy, because if they allow too much of their attention to flow into the battle, they will loose the war.

    Said war mostly involves the construction of buildings. More harvesters, more barracks, more command centers, more hatchery's, with more queens to repeatedly spit on them for more larvae, inducing a near trance state for more work and less fun.

    E-sports will never take off like this. Not in a mainstream sense. When the game you choose as your flagship relegates the excitement down to a distraction meant to draw a players attention away from the repetitive and monotonous tasks that must be performed to actually win, the combat will never be engaging enough to the viewer to hold their attention.

    And why should starcraft's combat hold the attention of an audience? It cant even hold the attention of the players.

    The single player campaign, thankfully, is immune to this disease. Giving the player more choices in the realm of army customization, both strategic and tactical, the single player campaign manages to find innovative and interesting ways to make sure the player is always on their toes. It could almost be said that mission mechanics where used as a tool to make the campaigns combat the focus, while all of these tools where stripped out of the multiplayer along with the majority of customization options.

    It's too bad blizzard was so focused on creating a multiplayer experience that south Koreans could use to display their superior button mashing skills they forgot to provide a conduit for creative tactical response.

    All in all, the single player campaign is worth the money, even for those that don't consider themselves starcraft fans.

    Most should probably uninstall the moment they complete it however, because unless you're looking for a second job that will never pay you, and cause more frustration than your mother in law, multiplayer is not for you.    … Expand
  13. Kaaristu
    Nov 25, 2011
    7
    It's an okay game, it's a very well polished game. But it's just no for me. It's for the people who love doing hundreds of things at once, but I'd rather be relaxed, not tensed up doing the same thing over and over.
  14. jim109109
    May 31, 2012
    6
    This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20 over and over, because the system kills creativity. It feels like Blizzard itself is now enemy to creativity, it's a big ball-less, slow, boring company which issues remakes and cashes in money. Warcraft III was superior in every way, ten years earlier.… Expand
  15. Bobbo
    Jun 21, 2012
    6
    I want to enjoy and savor the moment when playing an RTS, not click like a madman in some pointless E-sports game. Battlenet 2 is designed around E-sports where every online game is on super-fast speed and nobody cares about having fun, just moving up on some pointless E-sports ladder.
  16. Hurzdligh
    Sep 4, 2012
    7
    The overall score for this game is between 6 and 9. Compared to war 3, the latest rts from Blizz, I would say that Starcraft 2 was a letdown for me. Even more if I think that I was in-loved with SC1.
    The graphics are nice, the gameplay even better, but the whole game made me start hating on blizz developments. In hindsight, after the D3 fiasco, I see that I was right then as I am now. My    The overall score for this game is between 6 and 9. Compared to war 3, the latest rts from Blizz, I would say that Starcraft 2 was a letdown for me. Even more if I think that I was in-loved with SC1.
    The graphics are nice, the gameplay even better, but the whole game made me start hating on blizz developments. In hindsight, after the D3 fiasco, I see that I was right then as I am now. My first few hours spent on SC2 were with the campaign. I am sorry to say this, but the design, the story and the entire feeling after I've finished the game was of disappointment. I would rate the campaign with 3. Went through it only in the memory of SC1, with the hope that will get better eventually. It didn't. The multiplayer is good, but the lack of offline gameplay angered all my friends, thus my hours spent on battle.net reached not more than 15-20 since I`ve bought the game. I won`t buy the sequel. Even if it were for free, I wouldn't spend any more time on blizz poor developed games. I am sorry Blizzard, in my eyes you are heading atm straight to the EA levels. 7/10    … Expand
  17. Expospeed
    Dec 3, 2014
    6
    "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Wings of Liberty does this with improved graphics. My breakdown is as follows:

    1. Graphics: 7/10 - detailed unit models, good relative to other games on the market
    2. Gameplay: 7/10 - great interface and satisfying micro/macro control
    3. Multiplayer: 8/10 - competitive and fun
    4. Story: 2/10 - shallow story, not interesting at all

    Overall, average game.
  18. fukery3
    Dec 10, 2012
    5
    I'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off itsI'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off its decent singleplayer, nothing to write home about though. Now the multiplayer is frought with problems. According to Dustin Browder the design plan in this game was to "make cool units" and worry about the numbers later. This is pretty apparent in the multiplayer where its a circus of stupidity with units. Also, because the engine makes units clump, there tends to be big balls of units that smash into each other in an A-moved orgy. Add in a lot of cheesing, and you get one of the messiest multiplayers around. Sorry Blizzard, this game is average.… Expand
  19. lolfactor100
    May 29, 2013
    7
    Now i personally hated this game, but I can't deny that the core gameplay and visual looks are good and give the game the fresh look that was needed since the first game. I have never gotten into RTS style games so i don't know how good this actual game is when compared to other games, but for those looking for a widely played RTS game here is a good choice.
  20. McFranz
    Oct 29, 2013
    7
    It's a great game but Blizzard made it a bit, well: they removed some lovely characters that are in the first StarCraft, it's overpriced, short campaign, and overrated.

    Other than that, great gameplay, great voice acting, great plot/story. Good job Blizzard for making such a nice game.
  21. SupaChigga
    Nov 18, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (2/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (2/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (-1)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.    … Expand
  22. Vamrem
    Jun 3, 2015
    5
    A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends,A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends, so it has the half note too.… Expand
  23. LimitedEdition
    Jun 8, 2016
    7
    My list descending in personal priority concerning negative and positive aspects:

    Negative: 1. User-hostile policies, the company definitely poses the customer under its own profit 2. The game itself feels a bit too stale and lifeless, units are mostly just a plain tool to work with 3. After a while the game feels quite repetitive and not very rewarding at all Positive: 1. The    My list descending in personal priority concerning negative and positive aspects:

    Negative:
    1. User-hostile policies, the company definitely poses the customer under its own profit
    2. The game itself feels a bit too stale and lifeless, units are mostly just a plain tool to work with
    3. After a while the game feels quite repetitive and not very rewarding at all

    Positive:
    1. The user interface and handling of the game in general is outstanding and it performs very well
    2. The main game is really well balanced
    3. A lot of possible settings make the gaming-experience very customizable

    I give 7 out of 10 because I think that this game is a solid one which offers a lot of challenge and interesting matches, but it just lacks color and soul and playing it feels more like doing maths than playing a video game. The custom games are fine, but the playerbase is still quite small there.

    If this review was helpful to you, please let me know!    … Expand
  24. albodoin
    Sep 23, 2017
    7
    The campaign is fun, I always loved the story aspect of this universe. But the only reason why I play this game is because of a friend otherwise the multiplayer is too hard to be enjoyable.
  25. RazvanClau
    Nov 16, 2017
    6
    So here's the thing.

    I've played this game the first time when it was launched. I've never finished the campaign then (something came up and I had to stop at about 70%) but I've played quite a lot multiplayer and skirmishes. I've also picked up the game again not so long ago and I've played it in co-op, single player, versus AI and multiplayer. It's not that great anymore. I used    So here's the thing.

    I've played this game the first time when it was launched. I've never finished the campaign then (something came up and I had to stop at about 70%) but I've played quite a lot multiplayer and skirmishes.

    I've also picked up the game again not so long ago and I've played it in co-op, single player, versus AI and multiplayer.

    It's not that great anymore. I used to love it but after playing about a dozen co-op games, I've realized that it is exactly the same thing again and again and again. The same build order, the same strategy, the same moves. It is like chess without the mental stimulation. Once you find a strategy that works, you keep repeating it and that's about it. The entire idea of multi-player or co-op (especially co op) comes down to mastering three or four build orders and then massing your troops against your enemy.

    The single player is not that great either. At the time it was launched, it was great. There was nothing like that. A single player with units you can upgrade, multi-path missions, a story-line (even if it wasn't that great) and a feeling of grandness was something impressive in 2010. But in 2017, it feels extremely generic, downright boring and a waste of time.

    I've finished the game eventually. I am sure it is a great e-sport game but I am the kind of person that prefers single player. So from a single player perspective, once the novelty wears off, it is not that a brilliant game.    … Expand
  26. Nekellor
    Aug 1, 2018
    7
    Прекрасная музыка. Отличный сюжет с возможностью выбора. Куча красивых кацсцен. Приятные и живые персонажи. Красиво оформленный корабль, в общении, прокачки и развитии. Интригующие дополнительные задания.
  27. MillersWeeb
    Nov 16, 2018
    7
    Мне понравилась кампания. В мультиплеер не играл, в свое время переплатил за эту игру 1500 рупий.
  28. joglow
    May 16, 2022
    7
    In some way it feels like StarCraft and just a little bit... rushed? I feel I just lack of something there.
  29. Giero
    Jan 3, 2023
    6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  30. HydrophobikFish
    Jun 9, 2023
    7
    Pretty fun RTS game. Really enjoyed the upgrade systems and the involved campaign missions. Memorable story and characters, but overall campaign was pretty forgettable for me. Somehow feels like less than the sum of its parts.
  31. kirkteegardin
    Jul 5, 2012
    7
    Star Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last oneStar Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last one given in three years). They way I look at it is that if you don't already have this game and are planing to play online you should not get it. I got it about a month after release and I am do terrible online. The game give noobs like you and me fifty warm up rounds (I skipped them and did the five games that places you in a bracket). I some how managed to win one of the five games. Now when I play online I usually lose in fifteen minutes. In other Real Time Strategy games like Age of Mythology and Age of Empires it usually takes at around twenty minutes for the first attack. In Starcraft II you are attacked after ten minutes of playing the game. As for me, I like to make an empire, get resources, get all the upgrades, and so on. Maybe RTS games online are not my cup of tea. The graphics are good along with the campaign. What I like most about the campaign is that in between missions you are on a ship and you can get upgrades and talk people. (This is unheard off in an RTS). I also liked when you are on a mission you get people communicating with you about the mission of the left side of the screen. The story was okay but I never played the first Starcraft (that may have helped me understand it). The graphics are good but I have seen better. With this game being pushed and pushed for a release date you would expect the graphics to be at least as good as Red Dead Redemption. One positive thing was that you did not have to pay a monthly fee like World of Warcraft. I would have played even less of this game or may have not purchased it if had Like I said, if your not already playing online then expect to get you smashed in.… Expand
  32. yoloswagins
    Apr 21, 2015
    5
    This game receives much higher praise than it really deserves. It says alot about the current RTS when this is hailed as one of the best RTS games out there.

    The first place really to start from is the single-play (although no one really buys this game for the single-player). There is no real discussion about this, the single-player is a half-assed tick in a check box to get more    This game receives much higher praise than it really deserves. It says alot about the current RTS when this is hailed as one of the best RTS games out there.

    The first place really to start from is the single-play (although no one really buys this game for the single-player). There is no real discussion about this, the single-player is a half-assed tick in a check box to get more players playing the game. It is filled with uninspiring levels and a generic sci-fi "story-line" if it can even be called that. The 2nd expansion also lives up to this low standard.

    The real reason people buy this game is to play with friends, play the arcade or play competitive multi-player. Competitive multiplier is a strange breed of RTS. It is more of a "RT" as there is no real strategy involved in winning. The most important aspects of succeeding in the multi-player is executing build orders and having perfect timing on micro and macro and having the APM (how fast you can do stuff in the game) of a god. Even on the highest level professionals win through micro rather than strategy. Never have I heard a game commentator say "what an amazing strategy" or "player X just can't compete with this flawless strategy" etc... It is really a de-evolution of the RTS genre to appeal to a wider audience.

    The arcade I do have to admit is fun but here is the good news, Its 100% free!

    To conclude, don't buy this game; simply get the free trail (that lasts forever) and play arcade the whole time!    … Expand
  33. ReggiWatson
    Mar 1, 2011
    7
    Having lost countless hours in starcraft back in 1998, fighting those battles where a simple misuse of resources would cost your match, where every unit mattered, i was really looking foward to starcraft 2.
    Reading any 10 score reviews, i can appoint them to be just blizzard fanboys, and not to be accounted too seriously, and anything bellow 5 is not accurate either.
    Back in 1998 the    Having lost countless hours in starcraft back in 1998, fighting those battles where a simple misuse of resources would cost your match, where every unit mattered, i was really looking foward to starcraft 2.
    Reading any 10 score reviews, i can appoint them to be just blizzard fanboys, and not to be accounted too seriously, and anything bellow 5 is not accurate either.

    Back in 1998 the awesome game called Starcraft got a Metacritic score of 88, and that game was really good. Now 12 years later Starcraft 2 Gets 93, but does it really deserve it? - Single player campaign gets its lore totally torned up.
    - Some old units disappear.
    - Units and buildings just die too fast. (dont call it fast paced, super units like Ultralisk take about 3 secs to kill, and main buildings, like 5)
    - Multiplayer is a major unit spamfest, whoever gets the more units up in less time wins.
    - No more LAN parties, since there is no LAN option, every one must be online.
    - In Skirmish modes AI mimics real players strategies for multiplayer games, meaning, spamfest of units early in the game.

    So, for "fast paced strategy" gamers this is an very good title, for old school gamers that actually want time to deploy strategies, this is nothing but a fast paced spamfest.
    In the other hand, it has an unusual way to deploy the campaign, wich was a good surprise, the good music score, and the updated graphics, make this game a good game to play (not trash, and not awesome, and overall never better than the original Starcraft)

    Bottomline, its a good game to play once in a while, especially the campaign (if you dont care much about the lore), or with friends with similar feelings towards RTS, without any AI. Starcraft 2 is definitely not a must have, but if you like RTS and are looking for a good game, get this one.    … Expand
  34. Shaytan1986
    Sep 2, 2011
    6
    Pros: Like most blizzard games, Starcraft II ships with a lot of replay value. One of the main strong points of the game is that the races and units have always been very well balanced leading to a lot of room for skill in the game. The ease of joining multiplayer games and custom games is quite easy as well. Cons: They havn't really changed anything from Starcraft 1. It's still 2.5D, samePros: Like most blizzard games, Starcraft II ships with a lot of replay value. One of the main strong points of the game is that the races and units have always been very well balanced leading to a lot of room for skill in the game. The ease of joining multiplayer games and custom games is quite easy as well. Cons: They havn't really changed anything from Starcraft 1. It's still 2.5D, same units, same resolution, same everything. If you adored the first one, maybe that's not a con, but considering the price tag on it, it seems a little overrated. You can't change the defaults of the game outside a narrowly defined set of rules from blizzard (game speed, AI Difficulty, races, etc), and it takes forever to load maps, even for single player.

    Conclusion: On the whole, it's not a bad game, it's just a little weak for what you pay for. If you like Starcraft 1, you'll love Starcraft 2, but otherwise it's not really a panty dropper. I gave it a 6 because it's more good than bad IMO, but bare in mind, were this school, that would still be a "D".    … Expand
  35. Qkumba
    Nov 20, 2010
    7
    The single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at howThe single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at how archaic and inept WOW is graphically. This game was made and adjusted prior to full retail release for the seasoned starcraft player, and I as a casual gamer stood to lose out 70% of the games online, and it was a boring and unrewarding experience to say the least. Needless to say, and reiterated numerous times, the price tag is a total rip off for what it offers in only a terran campaign. I never knew a such a software giant such as Blizzard had the low in them to bully us consumers.… Expand
  36. CBZ
    Mar 8, 2011
    6
    The graphics are impressive (if the game came out in 2004) I dont see what the big deal about this game is. The gameplay is not that good, its pretty much one attack and the result can be a big win or a big fail. If you like strategy games i recommend you try Company of heroes.
  37. Shanked_Salt
    Jan 24, 2011
    6
    The single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that haveThe single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that have pre-imposed and arbutary time limits. Achievements, medals and challenges are a novel addition. Graphics are quite nice for a rts on a good PC but you cannot zoom out very far which is frustrating and limits battlefield awareness. Like looking through a narrow funnel. I appreciate that alot of the little annoyances from the original have been fixed up in the sequel and the AI works better when left to it's own devices that it did traditionally. This isn't to say that some legacy issues are not still present. On mulitplayer - this is more about perfecting build orders, hoarding resources and spamming units than genuine strategy. A shame given some of the new creative unit types on offer. Without significant time invested into practice It's all too frantic to be truly enjoyable. Doesn't feel as balanced as the orignal SC but also feels less likely for games to end in locked stalemates. Find an opponent equal in skill and it will probably be a blast - just as the original was. SC2 remains an enjoyable though somewhat regressive game which has it's place amongst other more evolved and deeper RTS games - shame that mutliplayer is still a shallow dog for novices and there is no Zerg or Protoss campaign included. As a final note I do not care that this game was released in 2010 - needing to be logged onto the net to play "single" player is a joke.… Expand
  38. BananaPuncher
    Jan 30, 2011
    5
    I once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I canI once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I can see the future. I was playing Starcraft 2.… Expand
  39. mongoosedog
    Aug 5, 2011
    6
    I really liked this game, but it was so expensive and the campaign was so short. I know a lot of people that never even played the campaign and swear by the online games... but I still really feel let down. Oh well.
  40. choppy
    Oct 12, 2011
    5
    As a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayerAs a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayer mission focuses on microing some new unit, against a clock. You have to play it their way, and in a hurry, or you will lose. There's no time to play around or adapt your own style or strategy. It's all about using Reapers or some other unit in a rush against a game board that has been artificially tilted to necessitate lots of Reapers. So, the shackling of the personal singleplayer experience (every mission must teach you how to play multiplayer!) is problem number one.

    Problem number two is that Blizzard killed the epic story. You have to choose what tone you want your story to take - is it epic or serious, or is it jokey? Blizzard tries to mix both - cartoonish characters who are constantly overacting, being goofy, acting ridiculous, mixes in with moments of maudlin sentimentality and high seriousness. I just can't take a poorly-animated man with shoulders bigger than his head who suddenly starts crying over the horrors of battle seriously. You can have an epic story with light moments and dark humor, but you can't have characters that seem ridiculous or are "in on the joke", winking and riffing on the series itself. This ruins the immersion.

    In short, the singleplayer was completely ruined for me. I don't care about multiplayer, and I definitely won't be buying the sequel. Great job, Blizzard, I hope it was worth it to you.    … Expand
  41. ScreamingWargod
    Sep 18, 2012
    7
    I waited over a year after release to buy this game when it went on sale for 50% off. I was a fan of the original game, and decided to give this one a shot when the price hit my "sweet" spot. Gameplay is right where it should be; great. The only negative was no real support for LAN play like the original Starcraft offered. Graphics are good, but not great for what I would consider to be aI waited over a year after release to buy this game when it went on sale for 50% off. I was a fan of the original game, and decided to give this one a shot when the price hit my "sweet" spot. Gameplay is right where it should be; great. The only negative was no real support for LAN play like the original Starcraft offered. Graphics are good, but not great for what I would consider to be a modern game. Overall worth a buy if you are an RTS fan, if you can find it for a good price.… Expand
  42. WickedWizard
    Aug 2, 2012
    6
    Don't let the number '2' fool you, it's just the original 12 year old game with 1/3 the content. If you're not familiar with SC and are considering buying this get the first one instead; the gameplay has changed little plus you get more for your money.
  43. Latrec
    Sep 10, 2012
    5
    Overall a disappointment. I've notched off a rating for everything I found wrong.

    1) Battle.net: You know what I liked most to do when I was tired of gaming, or searching for a new one? I sat in chat rooms. I joined clans, I talked, trash talked, or watched other people have their own conversations. It was great, I possibly had more fun in chat rooms than in the actual game.    Overall a disappointment. I've notched off a rating for everything I found wrong.

    1) Battle.net: You know what I liked most to do when I was tired of gaming, or searching for a new one? I sat in chat rooms. I joined clans, I talked, trash talked, or watched other people have their own conversations. It was great, I possibly had more fun in chat rooms than in the actual game. Battle.net 2.0 has removed this, and otherwise killed that part which I liked best.

    2) Originality: There is surprisingly very little which is original in sc2. If you played wc2, and then wc3, you will understand. I mean, sure they added reapers and queens and stuff, but honestly, they added about as many units when frozen throne came out, and that was just an expansion! SC2 just seems like a $50 SC expansion with very little new. I would have loved to see more play within the environment, or an added race, or even totally revamped races, but no... you just get reapers.

    4. Graphics: Face it, sc2 graphics are the same as wc3 graphics. Don't get me wrong, I love wc3 graphics, but it's 10 years old! Man, when I first got sc1, I couldn't believe how bloody and dark that game was, so I expected sc2 would be similar. Instead I see these cartoonish units with this fake blood, in a children's atmosphere! Terrible.

    5. Noob-Friendly: This is an issue Blizzard really wanted to solve. As I see it there are two ways to handle it: a) Provide in-depth help explaining all the features and game mechanics, allowing the player to review this easily whenever he/she desires. Also could have given scenarios with computer scripted responses based on real players so that noobs could learn what a rush is or fast expand, and which is good for which. OR b) do what blizzard did and make guys like me dislike the game further.    … Expand
  44. Claytality
    Sep 27, 2012
    5
    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock to Blizzard's remake of SC:BW. They know not that Blizzard is owned by some dumbass French company.    … Expand
  45. KhorneFlakes
    Apr 13, 2011
    5
    Its your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort thatIts your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort that Blizzard put into this game, every campaign mission always adds some interesting element with every level, but over all, game is nothing new or interesting, how it got over 12 million sales is beyond my comprehension.… Expand
  46. MrCinnamon
    Jun 23, 2011
    5
    Starcraft 2 is a bit of a hit and miss. yes, the gameplay is fun. The campaign is well written. And the visuals are very impressive for the most part. but it has so many issues. The constant fixed camera angle is so out of date. One has to ask how little effort it would have been to make a rotateable camera. I felt cheated of a basic tenement for when I want to see a little bit more. ThisStarcraft 2 is a bit of a hit and miss. yes, the gameplay is fun. The campaign is well written. And the visuals are very impressive for the most part. but it has so many issues. The constant fixed camera angle is so out of date. One has to ask how little effort it would have been to make a rotateable camera. I felt cheated of a basic tenement for when I want to see a little bit more. This also made a perspective problem (Strictly artistic point of view). I shouldn't have been able to see certain object angles from the fixed camera point. The space combat was, pardon the phrase, ridonculous. The ships were stuck on a 2 dimensional plane and relative to size, battleships had a weapon range of less than a mile. Also its a very lazy sci-fi universe. The aborted child of games workshop's warhmmer, it still has problems with who it is. All of the races and designs are a copy of someone else's fantasy. And then the killer. The game is too easy. There is no inherent strategy. Strategy is the art of forcing the opponent to your schemes and outmanouvering him. This is button spamming rushes. Its fun, but there is no tactics needed. All in all it is a fun game, but it has lazy lore, unreallistic space combat and a lack of strategy. I'd buy the game, but not for full price. I'll wait for a preowned copy.… Expand
  47. RonnyS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll get better next map", but that never really happened. And when you're still thinking "it'll get better" after 10 hours of play... then... that's a massive fail. I'm not going to get into the MP of this game, I know it's the big draw of a game like this, but I'm just not going to get back into it. It's the same as it was 12 years ago, when the playerbase of online games were at about 18-20 years average. Now I'm 12 years older, don't have patience for kids and their insults, and don't really care much about pwning nabs in a retro RTS.. If you liked SC1 and played it a lot back in the day, it might be worth buying it when it hits the cheap bin just for the nostalgia. Definitely not worth the 60bucks I paid. I bought Warhammer 40k Dawn of War II Chaos Rising 2 days after I bought sc2. It's just a better game. Metascore of 85, but that's not a bloated 85. Starcrafts 94 is just a testament to how many reviewers get paid these days.… Expand
  48. MickoW
    Aug 5, 2010
    7
    Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for battle.net. The time spent on making videos for the single player campaign should probably have been spent on improving the graphics engine. Good fun, if a little underwhelming.… Expand
  49. AndrewP
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 games related to the mario franchise in that amount of time. The C&C franchise has released 12 titles (xpacs incl.) since 1998. In March 1998 the Backstreet Boys were at the peak of their careers, there was a new show on TV called South Park that had been causing controversy since its first episode 7 months earlier, and something called a "Justin Beiber" had just celebrated its 4th birthday. This is basically a first generation RTS re-packaged, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to play Broodwars.… Expand
  50. FabioF.
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    A excellent art work as every game from Blizzard. Sadly it was shipped with a poor story as all recent games released. True good games dont need a restrictive DRM to make a profit. We was hoping to buy a great sequel of the original Stracraft not a multiplayer client. I would not play in Battle.net even for free. Blizzard is surely losing his touch.
  51. ScottK
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is undoubtedly awesome, and coming to the end of the campaign here shortly, it did not let me down! The online side on the other hand has a lot to be desired. Lack of chat rooms, lack of Lan, lack of cross region play, something that has been pabundant in previous titles has been removed from this game. With thousands of users asking for the ability to chat "in game" and being The game is undoubtedly awesome, and coming to the end of the campaign here shortly, it did not let me down! The online side on the other hand has a lot to be desired. Lack of chat rooms, lack of Lan, lack of cross region play, something that has been pabundant in previous titles has been removed from this game. With thousands of users asking for the ability to chat "in game" and being ignored, thats why im giving this a 7. Though to be fair, a 9 for the gameplay/story, a 3 for their failed battle.net experience...it really brings it down.… Expand
  52. PeterR
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 or 5 you need to re-issue all orders). Without changing the core gameplay Blizzard could have added any number of features that truly make modern RTS's very fun and engaging. Some such features would be: Zoom engines, Dual monitor support, group attack commands (being able to issue a command to attack an entire group and not just 1 individual in a group), formations, a low profile UI, etc. This is why this game gets a 7. While the gameplay isn't bad, it sure isn't good. It's simply antiquated. So if you're looking for story absolutely buy this game. If you're an RTS fan you may want to look elsewhere.… Expand
  53. KarstenF
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given paths. I don't really have to develop a tactic. Multiplayerwise I am not a fan of a wild click orgy. There is basically no helping AI for movement. Your Units will frequently block each other. But hey its starcraft and the wild clicking is called esports. Be quick and anywhere on the map and replace the missing AI. Not my kind of game. We get what we expected. A game over 12 years old with an graphics update. Still works but really won't blow my mind or reinvents the RTS genre.… Expand
  54. Dokk
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it regularly over the years and it was always like seeing an old friend. I'm having a blast with Starcraft 2 but 12 years is too long to wait for this to be honest. It could just have easily come out 5 years ago. After all this time, we should have something new and innovative while still maintaining the high level of polish and fun we've come to expect. And sometime during that 12 year hiatus, I wish they would have given us the original with a new coat of paint - ie higher resolutions, etc - just to whet the appetite for SC2. I guess they have been working on the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. But that's where they went with the sequel as well. The gameplay was awesome fun 12 years ago and is still plenty of fun all this time later. Unfortunately, given the next 2 expansions as well as the very long development cycle, it seems Blizzard is leaving innovation to more creative companies. Like I said, that's not such a bad thing given how much fun there is to be had. But if we're still zerg rushing in 2025 or so (when SC3 is released).… Expand
  55. JoeS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing with glass figurines. The gameplay feels about the same, the only major differences being that some of the old units now have different names and appearances. Really, this whole thing just makes me want to play Starcraft 1 again.… Expand
  56. DamienR
    Aug 3, 2010
    5
    While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty disappointing. Singleplayer story is average, if not a bit cliche (saving a lost love, betrayal, shady alliances etc etc yawn), though the missions are fairly interesting. Lastly, paying three times for one game, and forcing Battle.net on everyone, AND no LAN? No thanks.… Expand
  57. ESRolic
    Sep 15, 2010
    6
    Over 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find itOver 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find it somewhere else before. Technically, the graphics and sounds etc are just average, nothing special. The only good thing, is probably the so called 'map editor', with which we may see some fantastic innovations in the future.… Expand
  58. DrCola
    Nov 19, 2011
    7
    Very addicting, only worth it if you play the multi player alot, and I mean alot. If it aint broke, dont fix it, I totally agree, the reason why rehashed games like COD suck is because their formula is broken and they release more without fixing it. But Starcraft was almost perfectly balanced. So is starcraft 2. really though, the one thing that would make me buy this game over starcraft 1Very addicting, only worth it if you play the multi player alot, and I mean alot. If it aint broke, dont fix it, I totally agree, the reason why rehashed games like COD suck is because their formula is broken and they release more without fixing it. But Starcraft was almost perfectly balanced. So is starcraft 2. really though, the one thing that would make me buy this game over starcraft 1 is the abillity to select more than 12 units at once.… Expand
  59. TheArchaeon
    Oct 26, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty, the long awaited sequel to the award winning Starcraft... Let me blunt, it doesn't live up to the hype, but what game does these days? The first major flaw with it is the integrated online community, which forces you to be connected to the internet to even play the game. There is an offline option, but for some reason, Blizzard thought it a good idea to make you sign in every 30 days using the internet in order to keep using the offline mode. I aimed to play this game purely alone, i do not enjoy online gameplay. It's boring. So being forced to be a part of Battle.net in order to play a game which should be firstly single player, and optionally multiplayer, really annoyed me before i even started to play the game. The second annoyance came when you find out that the only campaign you can play is that of the Terran's. To be fair, the Terran campaign has a lot of effort put into the none gameplay sections, such as animated pre-mission screens in which you can see the interior of the Hyperion Battleship. However, that's about it as far as in-depth story goes. The majority of missions are quite boring, which seem to only get vaguely better the close you get to the end of the game. The graphics are an improvement, new unit types and the ability to upgrade units and structures before the battle are quite fun, but ultimately wont improve the standard gameplay all that much. That is what this is after all of these years of waiting, it's essentially Starcraft 1 with better graphics and missing two campaigns in place of a forced internet community. Rather than have a built in community, Blizzard could have easily crafted two more campaigns for customers to enjoy, but i guess the idea of milking us for more money with expensive expansion packs was too much to ignore... The game we have awaited for years is a disappointment, though any Starcraft fan will enjoy it, just don't expect any real innovation here. You will be playing Starcraft 1 with just a few new units and improved graphics and a pointless achievement system which you can only use if connected to the internet. This is the future of games it seems, linear single player options and multiplayer modes which are forced upon you. With Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty, you pay for the privilege to play the game Blizzard's way. Once you have completed the campaign there's not much to do, play the odd game against the terrible AI, and await the arrival of two more expansion packs each with a single campaign and a nice price tag.… Expand
  60. noobr
    May 9, 2011
    6
    Suffers from being designed for high level professional tournament play, not enough creativity and effort is put into making the game fun and diverse
  61. GlenA.
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the mission's fun and you will easily get your money's worth in just the campaign alone which is something that's rare to find nowadays. But prepared to be unimpressed by the story which is told not in nice little discussions pregame but instead in bland 30 second conversations between characters and it lacks the scope of the first as half of the missions feel like side quests and don't advance the plot. I'll say this again EVERY mission except like four of them are extremely fun so don't worry about feeling bogged down in grind like the original tended to do. The multiplayer, at least the Battlenet multiplayer is solid and flawless the game groups you based on skill into different ladders and you usually only fight people in that group which makes well matched games, plus there is a newb ladder to help you get a hang of things early on so don't worry about being out classed by psycho crazy players and never learning. The teams as usual are perfectly balanced and each fun to play, plus Blizzards mapmaker makes it so you can just play custom maps (like DOTA spin offs and Tower Defenses) and not even bother with traditional play. As of now just looking at the games features it easily warrants a 9 only losing one point for the poor story, but now we get to the real problem at hand, the corporate bull crap. This game has no LAN! There is no way to play it with a few buddies without them each spotting $60 which is disgusting, but if you don't have friends who do that sorta thing then who cares. Also you get one profile, that's it, you can't go back and restart at lower ladders or have an account for a buddy to use if u don't want your record wreaked. Finally there are going to be two expansions, set in stone! that's at least $50 dollars more of investment to keep up, which sucks. All of that combined makes this game drop from nearly flawless to a mere 7 which is below its quality. If that last paragraph didn't faze you then get it if it did then I'd mooch off another guys copy until you figure out if it's worth the money.… Expand
  62. AnthonyC
    Jul 28, 2010
    6
    The game itself is fun, with overall fun missions for single player, fairly well balanced units, and fantastic graphics. It severely lacks in quality storyline, story telling, and character acting/dialogue. I'm very dissapointed with both the storyline and the dialogue during the single player campaign. It comes off as cheasy, and the love-story with Raynor and Kerigan is completely The game itself is fun, with overall fun missions for single player, fairly well balanced units, and fantastic graphics. It severely lacks in quality storyline, story telling, and character acting/dialogue. I'm very dissapointed with both the storyline and the dialogue during the single player campaign. It comes off as cheasy, and the love-story with Raynor and Kerigan is completely unnecessary after looking back at the SC1 storyline. An example of the bad character scripting happens during an early cutscene with Captain Matt and the Convict. The player [Raynor] tells Matt that him and the Convict go way back and they're good friends and he trusts him. Then when talking with the convict he starts warning the convict that he better not be leading them into a trap with his deals for the Protoss relics. If they were friends wouldn't he be asking the Convict if they were walking into a trap? Or tell the Convict that they had better plan for this being a trap? Rather than subtly threatening him? That's not even a very good example, especially when you start looking at the rest of the cheasy dialogue... You might be thinking "why do you care about the dialogue"? Because if you're going to make it into a major portion of the game, and spend eleven years making said game, you think someone in their QC department would have said "wait... this is really pretty bad acting. We can do better..." The game itself offers a ton of new units, and some oldies. I was pleased to see the Vulture replaced by a powerful-when-upgraded dune buggy. Firebats were upgraded to be walking fortresses, and my favorite marines are still all-around great units (love rushing with them). The game was complicated more by the addition of more types of infantry and I was surprised to see the Goliath back (always disliked making that unit, and the experience hasn't been improved since it dies easily and takes forever to produce). The missions are usually a hoot, and have been more complicated than SC1's typical "destroy the enemy base" mission. I've especially enjoyed how several missions have been added to make a defensive player happy - the "survive thirty minutes" style games. In all I would purchase this again, but have lost respect for Blizzard for dropping the ball on a storytelling experience that had great potential. I look forward to reading reviews for expansion packs before I purchase them.… Expand
  63. bob
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, save the flashy but poorly written and schizophrenic single player campaign. Blizzard has become a subsidiary of Activision, and they just want your money now. Mutiplayer for this game was slapped together before the server was even finished. There's not even a chat room as of August 4th.… Expand
  64. Mike
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about multiplayer and the millions of Koreans.… Expand
  65. trashciii
    Aug 15, 2010
    6
    Starcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothingStarcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothing but an upgraded experience. Sorry, I'm just fine with original Starcraft...… Expand
  66. BenA
    Aug 5, 2010
    6
    Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and starcraft as an e-sport, leaving little room for casual players. Playing the campaign in no way prepares you for playing normal matches. Defensive structures are practically useless, and get flattened quite easily. Unit ranges have been shrunk overall, so that the difference between say the range of a siege tank and the range of a marine is quite small. On the whole Campaign is fun, but the new battle.net, the multiplayer balance, and lack of much in the way of user generated content at this point combine to kill any interest I had in playing online.… Expand
  67. AndyG
    Aug 5, 2010
    5
    This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was so acclaimed (btw never liked pac-man at all personally). The reason of this low rating is cause the game is overpriced (… Expand
  68. DaneilD
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    Like most of the users here, I haven't actually played this game; but that won't stop me from commentating on it. I thought about giving it a perfect score, and I also thought about giving it a 0/10. But I felt about that. So instead, I'm giving it a 5/10 in order to balance out the 10/10 and 0/10 scores given by everyone else who hasn't played the game.
  69. ChuckFarley
    Aug 19, 2010
    7
    This game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; butThis game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; but it's not like they'll miss the numbers. having said that, the single player campaign was substantial and challenging, the cutscenes were cool, and no-one (certainly not me) is going to say they didn't get value for their money.… Expand
  70. SelkciPlum
    Aug 20, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would giveStarcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would give it a 8 if there was a tournament option (with a party of 8, P1 v P2, P3 v P4, P5 v P6, P7 v P8 all at the same time with 2 people battling on each map. Then the winners face off, and those winners face off etc.) I would give it a 9 if it had the tournament option, and it also didn't require you to be online to do almost everything. There are times when my internet is down, and I want to just play against A.I, but Blizzard won't let me do that. Finally, it would get a 10 if it had the two prior features, and the races were balanced. Not only did the races lose their defining traits (Zerg can no longer swarm, and Protoss is weaker than Terran HP-wise) but the races are now just plain imbalanced. Zerg is underpowered compared to both races, and no I'm not saying this just because Zerg is my main. Even the professional Korean players are starting to complain that Zerg is too weak especially after the Roach and Ultralisk got nerfed. Fix all these things, and Starcraft 2 gets a 10.… Expand
  71. ultrafang
    Aug 21, 2010
    5
    Graphics aren't too great compared to previous rts releases, story isn't that immersive and get's a little silly at points, same old sh** I suppose for a rts, gets old fast! I will admit I'm not a real fan of rts style games, but all this hype is ridiculous.
  72. frank84
    Aug 24, 2010
    6
    The game is great, it's definitly Blizzard and a great balanced STR... but how sad that they have not renewed a little bit more the universe, the units, the gameplay... I'm looking foward to an extention pack with more differences !
  73. Daisai
    May 29, 2012
    5
    Starcraft 2 basicly is a typical Blizzard game with the same rock paper scissor mechanics we know from games like World of Warcraft.
    Its their way in making a balance in games and they seem to be succesfull in it.
    Gameplay however does make it very boring, basicly you need to counter the counter that counters you because you counter that which you counter and counter a bit more, if you    Starcraft 2 basicly is a typical Blizzard game with the same rock paper scissor mechanics we know from games like World of Warcraft.
    Its their way in making a balance in games and they seem to be succesfull in it.
    Gameplay however does make it very boring, basicly you need to counter the counter that counters you because you counter that which you counter and counter a bit more, if you understand what im trying to say.
    Bit like rock counters scissors then paper counters rock and and scissors counters paper.
    Graphics are pretty pathetic for a 2012 game which such a budget, outdated even.
    They really could have done alot better on the graphics with this game, at least for single player, they are just not up to par with current games.

    So this game scores a bit in between, it has decent gameplay if you are into the "rock paper scissor" mechanics blizzard is known for.
    However if you are looking for a game with graphics you can expect from a developer of this level then Starcraft 2 isnt your game.

    The only reason why Starcraft 2 is a succes is the huge esport community around it, so basicly living of its succes of the first version.
    Bit like what the same company Blizzard is doing with Diablo.    … Expand
  74. SteveR
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for very high price 6/10 is fair rating in my opinion… Expand
  75. JohnS
    Jul 27, 2010
    6
    The game is polished to an insane level, following Blizzard's best standards. Sadly, the absence of LAN play ruins what I thought to be the very essence of this RTS series.
  76. WeeBee886
    Aug 11, 2010
    7
    They did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and theyThey did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and they unrealistically cluster together like crazy, as if they do not really occupy any physical space. They line up in a circle around enemies they're attacking, and there is no cover system, formations, or any other kind of advanced, realistic tactics. It's a bit silly and cartoonish. But that's just what it is, and if you're into that type of thing, with the ultra-micromanagement and all, go for it.… Expand
  77. Maciech42
    Aug 14, 2010
    7
    While StarCraft II remains an incredibly fun game with a fun storyline, people who have never given two craps about RTS games, aren't starting to care here.
  78. ColinB
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    If you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interestedIf you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interested in this game casually, you should give it a pass. The gameplay is hardly different from the original, and it is more of a large patch than a new game entirely. It is sad to see that the game is even more micro intensive than before, forgoing skill for memorized cookie cutter strategies and quick hands. Unless you like to spend hours perfecting you ability to multitask, I would suggest choosing another game.… Expand
  79. Beerit
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    Though the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less andThough the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less and less acceptable.… Expand
  80. njkk
    Nov 15, 2012
    6
    This game is a poor mans Warcraft 3 in terms of the custom games. Based purely on competitive 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 games I found command and conquer 3 to be more enjoyable.
  81. raefon
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse clickI played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse click competition. It defeats the purpose of Real time strategy and with 12 years from 1 to 2 I would have expected a lot more.… Expand
  82. robbo
    Aug 14, 2010
    6
    Competently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament playCompetently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament play than the original, and it strips many features away from the original in the process (with the absence of LAN being sorely missed, and in an incredible level of greed, adds region locks to screw countries with high game prices like Australia)

    I ask then, what reason does this game have to exist? If a game adds nothing over an original in the way of plot or gameplay, then why make it? The game is fun and well built, sure, but then I can crack out my old copy of Starcraft and have the exact same experience and save myself $90 AUD.

    Starcraft 2 is the worst kind of cynically marketed products, a completely unimaginative paycheck of a game that took no risks and learnt nothing - designed to sell on **** hype and nostalgia; and shame on us for falling for it.    … Expand
  83. CharlieL
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. Starcraft was a great game when it was released, now people just need to get over it.… Expand
  84. MarcelN
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    Poor sequel, overhyped and DRM-infested. Why, oh why, did I fell for the marketing BS and bought this?! I'm totally UNHAPPY with no LAN, no custom matchmaking, no custom map naming, 'premium content you'll need to pay for' and so on. Suck ass.
  85. AnnaK.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing the players with new graphics and some simple fixes to UI and controls. The problem is that in perfecting the known schemes, Blizzard refuses to try anything new. After 12 years of waiting for a sequel, i think they wasted their chance to provide their fans with some new, exciting expierience. Similarly to WoW that took best thing from MMOs made prior to it, Starcraft 2 used all the knowledge of traditional RTS gathered ever since Westwood created Dune2 and polished it till it shines. Personally, i found the Terran campaign a little too much on the cliche side, and voice acting at moments is way below the standards of modern market. Splitting the experience into 3 parts, also seems to be hurting the overall reception. It's a good game, but not good enough to deserve a perfect score. It's all been done before, Blizzard took no risks to try to create something new. It's same old game with new looks. 7.5 Is all it can count on from me.… Expand
  86. StevieP
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have a third of a full game at full price, the lack of saves (only auto-saves), etc. etc. Honestly, this is poor value for money if you're not into the insanely-competitive online aspect. If it ever drops to … Expand
  87. Jexter
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and runs well on most machines. Cons: 1. Always need to be connected to the internet. No offline playability. 2. No LAN 3. No cross-realm / global playability. Many of my RTS friends are either from the US and Asia. Why does Blizzard want to kill global communities? 4. No chat channels. Hard to form a community. 5. Additional charges for "premium" maps and units. 6. No tournament / clan support. 7. No ownership of the product. If Battle.net is down, you cannot play. DRM going way over the top.… Expand
  88. DavidB
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    In the past when asked for a release date for StarCraft II, Blizzard would proudly proclaim:
  89. Christoph
    Jul 30, 2010
    7
    Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2 and WarCraft 3 are all more modern than this game. StarCraft II throws RTS evolution back by several years. The Campaign is "OK", not very exciting so far, and multiplayer is basically the same it was 10 years ago.
  90. PaulF
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    I cant believe that there are so many people giving this 10 which is a perfect score because this is not a perfect game.Sound and graphics are outstanding but i was expecting more than just a graphics upgrade.It feels old not classic. RTS has moved on (i am so over base building). Having said that it is still fun but it doesn't draw me in like CoH or DoW.
  91. AndreyI
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of Heroes. And that is 4 years old game. SGI are good but not that impressive as it were in Diablo 2. And those childish things like achievements and facebook integration. It's really making me a sad panda. Overall it's a good game but nothing like "brilliant sequel" or any other hollow words in all this 95+ score reviews. Today Blizzard is more about making money so we all "enjoying" this "the same old thing but 2x shiny". Sad but true.… Expand
  92. SpendrikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    7
    It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just play a few games. I hope they have more robust privacy settings soon.… Expand
  93. MatthewC
    Jul 27, 2010
    7
    Not enough has changed from the last game to warrant receiving a super high score from me. The game is pretty and has a nice soundtrack, but coming from the original game, there is practically no innovation and no surprises to be had. It's a shame to think that the original Starcraft was released in 1998 and still compares well with Starcraft 2, now in 2010.
  94. ColinR
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Compared to other RTs's this is just lacking. It is not as in depth as supreme comander or innovative as company of hero's. It is not as tactical as the total war series. It is a very basic rts with an ok story. The only reason it is so popular is based off the original. But it has been years couldnt they have done and changed more.
  95. KostasI.
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both from the old days and the new ones. Sound is also at a very high standard. Intercace is also a notch above anything else i have seen in the genre. Gameplay is what you expect, nothing has changed from the old days WHICH IS GOOD and speaks loud at how far ahead was Starcraft 1 from the competition. What i did not like about the game. The engine is very unstable and does not seem to perfom as good as other engines even if the graficks are not nearly on the same level as current strategy games. The story is just not what i expected. I wanted it to be really epic with the characters being developed even more but no....Its not bad but it could have been so much better and so much "to the point", it feels like a blabbermouth is telling it. Keep it simple and focused people. Overall the game, while very good and very well done, fails to capture the essence and heritage of the old game and slows down the story much more than it should.… Expand
  96. MarioS
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    Same gameplay are the old one with the worst battlenet in any blizzard game. Same it took them 7 year and it's still missing many things.
  97. Hendrik
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont become that happy… Expand
  98. RanoldC
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    While this game is a pretty good RTS by itself, it just doesn't feel right. It feels like blizzard tried too hard to make it as good as its predecessor which in my opinion just ruined the game. Making the game overpriced and splitting it up into 3 campaign also shows that they are trying to rip off people with the legacy of its predecessor. Honestly, I'm disappointed.
  99. JacobP.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Cinematics are great (although blizzard are still way behind square enix) but the rest of the graphics are just not up to 2010 standards, not by a long shot to be honest. The single player is entertaining but its nothing new at all so it just cant get higher marks from me. I was expecting something truly fantastic but its just not. Good game ? Yes Greamt game ? No.
  100. TannerB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is good. Not the best, not inovative at all. If you liked the original starcraft chances are you will also like this one. If you were looking for more than the first im sorry to dissapoint you. The scaling for starcraft is also really bad, some fps drops with 2 hd5870 crossfire even. I think dawn of war 2 is the better. Although i have to admit the menus are nice for sc2.
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 »