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. igolrum
    Aug 16, 2023
    5
    I loved the original Starcraft and Brood war. And while Starcraft 2 is still good gameplay-wise and character-wise, the story is much worse. It feels like they wanted to get rid of the series. Wrap it all up and be done with it. Pretty stale and straight-forward, uninspired. No more twists, betrayals and interesting political situations, like the original story had.

    Overall The whole    I loved the original Starcraft and Brood war. And while Starcraft 2 is still good gameplay-wise and character-wise, the story is much worse. It feels like they wanted to get rid of the series. Wrap it all up and be done with it. Pretty stale and straight-forward, uninspired. No more twists, betrayals and interesting political situations, like the original story had.

    Overall The whole Xel'naga and Duran story-line mystery especially has basically been straight up thrown away. The story of Wings of Liberty is especially bland and the weakest of the 3.

    Gameplay: 10
    Characters: 7
    Story: 2    … Expand
  2. 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.
  3. Giero
    Jan 3, 2023
    6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  4. 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.
  5. Wiebe
    Feb 25, 2020
    7
    I played competitively for some time, but stopped because it is too much about the speed at which you can click and not enough about strategy & tactics. The game also looks outdated, comical and its single player campaign was too simple and not engaging compared to the original.
  6. MillersWeeb
    Nov 16, 2018
    7
    Мне понравилась кампания. В мультиплеер не играл, в свое время переплатил за эту игру 1500 рупий.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. TemplarGR
    Sep 9, 2016
    6
    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations. Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations.

    Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the beginning of the great RTS draught we are currently experiencing, back when it was released. But i expected much more. This game is archaic by modern standards.

    It has the usual Blizzard polish. Great art, not the most advanced engine though. Great cutscenes and cinematics. The story is somewhat corny but enjoyable, the campaign is enjoyable but won't make you think much.

    But ultimately, it was a game we had already played before. And the RTS genre had seen many advances that Blizzard chose to disregard to return to the 90s.

    All in all, this game was overrated. Worth a playthrough for nostalgia's sake, just for the story. Don't bother with the multiplayer unless you are a Korean.    … Expand
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. jackhunter
    Feb 15, 2014
    6
    Major probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it afterMajor probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it after finishing campaign.… Expand
  19. cwilder06
    Dec 2, 2013
    7
    I generally wait a long time after playing a game to write reviews. As with anything in life, I think time can change the opinion dramatically. Starcraft 2 is one such game where, unfortunately, it just does not stand up well upon further reflection. Failing to do anything memorable to change the RTS landscape, and in general providing a fun but not engrossing single player campaign, theI generally wait a long time after playing a game to write reviews. As with anything in life, I think time can change the opinion dramatically. Starcraft 2 is one such game where, unfortunately, it just does not stand up well upon further reflection. Failing to do anything memorable to change the RTS landscape, and in general providing a fun but not engrossing single player campaign, the game does little more than represent a fine example of using an established formula well. It's a good game, but when compared to other games that have moved their respective genres forward (and thus warrant higher ratings) Starcraft represents more of the same. Assuming you like what has come so far, you'll like this. If you don't, this will not change your mind.… Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. coldshot27
    Jan 14, 2013
    6
    The gameplay itself is probably a 8-9 and not that bad. I got on to give this a six because I have an eyefinity setup and they purposefully limit the res to 1080p. C'mon Blizzard, we spend $400 extra for these setups and you won't even let us play against the AI with triple monitors. You should be able to register what type of play you want to do; stats accumulation or just fun. IfThe gameplay itself is probably a 8-9 and not that bad. I got on to give this a six because I have an eyefinity setup and they purposefully limit the res to 1080p. C'mon Blizzard, we spend $400 extra for these setups and you won't even let us play against the AI with triple monitors. You should be able to register what type of play you want to do; stats accumulation or just fun. If it's just for fun then you can have control over your gave without this psychotic big brother monitoring. Ridiculous.… Expand
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. LRMCatsPaw
    Oct 8, 2012
    7
    While The game is good, it definitly is far wors than its predecesor. Facts to sustain my claim: No lan; internet connection required for single player (if not connected says launcher did not update); after a bit more than a year, users droped from around 9 million peak to 800.000 peak; unfriendly and isolating interface.
    Now, on the opinion side: Unit counters are far too strong (build    While The game is good, it definitly is far wors than its predecesor. Facts to sustain my claim: No lan; internet connection required for single player (if not connected says launcher did not update); after a bit more than a year, users droped from around 9 million peak to 800.000 peak; unfriendly and isolating interface.
    Now, on the opinion side: Unit counters are far too strong (build order loss is almost always game loss); Imbalances (there are many, but very hard to actually point out); Very bad Matchmaking system (especially in team games); Frustrating disconects and server errors.

    Apart from those, the game is great, and quite fun. Definitly better than your averege game.    … Expand
  27. Necro321
    Oct 1, 2012
    7
    The game was clearly improved on some parts, but the idea for a forced online gameplay and the lack of "computer" enemies like it used to be on Starcraft 1, make this game really annoying to play. The missions are fun and really interesting, the units are new an unique, but the always online to play something else make me put it a 7 as score. It misses a lot of what made Starcraft 1 real fun.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. sunsun
    May 25, 2012
    7
    I like starcraft more than starcraft II. Maybe it's because SC2 is just nearly the same as SC1 except the graphic and the story line.

    I would rate higher if it has new classes , not only zerg, zealot and terran.
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. meediocre
    Dec 20, 2011
    6
    I've played and completed the game, but I wouldn't call myself a Starcraf2t fan. The pace of the game and the actual combat is so quick that you can't really see how each unit is getting along. Typically the enemy will build and send a mixed party of units right at you. You hear some bangs, see some quick and brutal deaths, then it's back to the business of buiding more units. No matterI've played and completed the game, but I wouldn't call myself a Starcraf2t fan. The pace of the game and the actual combat is so quick that you can't really see how each unit is getting along. Typically the enemy will build and send a mixed party of units right at you. You hear some bangs, see some quick and brutal deaths, then it's back to the business of buiding more units. No matter how many times I've played the maps, it always boils down to scenarios that are either way too easy, or way too hard. I either end up being completely overwhelmed or the other way round. I'm comparing this to my two favourite real-time RTS games at present - RUSE and World in Conflict. Maybe my brain just is a tad slow, or I just hate having to do so much high-octane multi-tasking .. not sure, but for me I have to sit on the fence.… Expand
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. liquefire
    Sep 1, 2011
    7
    Liked the new units, some tweaks were really appreciated but the overall feeling left me a bit empty. Maybe because SC1 had all three races to play and this one just seemed good but not great. Feeling that all 3 story lines could have been included in this one to make every level interesting versus a few which were too easy. I guess its more economical to sell 3 games vs. 1 - for Blizzard.
  47. 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.
  48. czerro
    Jul 13, 2011
    7
    I don't understand the diversity of the ratings. It IS a good game...unfortunately it is NOT as good as SC. Does that make it a 1? No, just like how it can't be a 10 because it's a step back. The cut scenes are over long and uninteresting, and maneuvering about the ship for console style "reward" upgrading is silly as well. That being said, the game is a nice visual upgrade. It isI don't understand the diversity of the ratings. It IS a good game...unfortunately it is NOT as good as SC. Does that make it a 1? No, just like how it can't be a 10 because it's a step back. The cut scenes are over long and uninteresting, and maneuvering about the ship for console style "reward" upgrading is silly as well. That being said, the game is a nice visual upgrade. It is not WC3, which I think myself and many others are quite happy about. Unfortunately, it's not SC either. The campaign missions all feel unique and interesting, but we could have done away with all of the cutscenes and shipboard pre-mission elements. Overall there are too many units. The most complex strategy games are based on the most basic of elements. No one ever tried to develop Chess 2 with the selling point of 3 times as many types of units would make it better. Wouldn't every type of poker be better and more complex if instead of 13 cards per suit there were 50?! No. As much as BroodWar overstepped the line with the addition of units that actually ruined game balance, SC2 has overstepped the line and simply included TOO MANY units for any sort of strategic balance.

    I know I am digging into this game a bit, but that's only because I expected a lot more of the creators of WC2 and SC. WITHOUT that pedigree on it's heels, its actually quite a fun little single player campaign, and decent online. Definitely a step back for the franchise though. Less is more, but blizzard was apparently more interested in excess in all areas: unit variety, theatrical cutscenes, dull expositions on a done to death unoriginal storyline, PRICE. Still a good game simply because it was based on a great game, but definitely a huge gaff on Blizzards part.    … Expand
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. iamthewizard2
    Apr 28, 2011
    7
    I was a huge huge fan of the starcraft 1 series and expected big things from starcraft 2. in the end, it didnt live up to its hype. the story was predictable. the characters hollow. the plot timing was bad. the voice acting average....but worst of all it was very very cliche. dont get me wrong...i still have hope in blizzard but i think their quality is starting to degrade here.
  53. 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
  54. yarr
    Apr 10, 2011
    7
    I went in with high hopes for this one, which were somewhat fulfilled, and somewhat not. On one hand, you have just the standard RTS campaign, and the other you have fully fleshed out multiplayer and modding. I should have guessed though that the overall experience would be a tweaked and graphically updated Starcraft: Brood War, but I didn't. Honestly I'm glad that Blizzard went to greatI went in with high hopes for this one, which were somewhat fulfilled, and somewhat not. On one hand, you have just the standard RTS campaign, and the other you have fully fleshed out multiplayer and modding. I should have guessed though that the overall experience would be a tweaked and graphically updated Starcraft: Brood War, but I didn't. Honestly I'm glad that Blizzard went to great lengths to get what seems to be a very extensive multiplayer portion of the game down, this being, leagues, ranks, stats tracking, and so forth. But, the problem I had with the multiplayer is the fact that it feels like a math problem, that's right, a math problem. If you don't do "x," in "y," window of time then you lose, it's often very frustrating and a tedious experience for even the more experienced. Although, I might add that there are people that LOVE this formula, and this is the game for them! Albeit, I am not one of them.… Expand
  55. 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.
  56. Darkwing
    Mar 8, 2011
    5
    There are some elements that Blizzard did improve on which is the maps and competitive play than some elements that Blizzard either made things worse or kept the same. The good parts is the map creation tool. That is right you can make neat maps, modes or if someone did World of Starcraft. The competitive play is there for the E-sport scene. Now the bad parts of this game. There is littleThere are some elements that Blizzard did improve on which is the maps and competitive play than some elements that Blizzard either made things worse or kept the same. The good parts is the map creation tool. That is right you can make neat maps, modes or if someone did World of Starcraft. The competitive play is there for the E-sport scene. Now the bad parts of this game. There is little to no innovation in this game. It's basically Starcraft 1.5. At least add something different or hindrance to the normal get ass and resources. Look at the transition from WC 2 to WC 3, Blizzard added Hero units but in this game it's just Starcraft 1.5 nothing more or less. The single player story is boring and well it sucks blatantly. Even the use of Nova was felt like it was just there for the game instead of being involved in the story. As for Battle.net 2.0 it's really bad. It's hard to navigate and what is worse is that it's an closed off community. Battle.net 1.0 got everything right and more. So in all Blizzard taken 5-6 steps back while taking 2 steps forward.… Expand
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. vmp
    Dec 29, 2010
    5
    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war it just feels like a memorabilia rather than a fresh game. Very few new elements and the same game play that we know for 12 years with much less content and a high price tag.    … Expand
  61. Moogle
    Dec 21, 2010
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The gameplay is simply fantastic. Everything feels much smoother, the melee is great... and everything else sucks.

    The campaign was simply terrible. Cliche ridden dialog (time to put this rebellion into overdrive!), retcons (Oh Overmind, how you have fallen), random plot holes (hey - lets bust onto Mengsk' flagship and kill all his guards AND GET OFFERED A DEAL. No mention made of the dead guards.), and everything else makes it sickening.

    Custom games are ridiculous. The popularity system for ranking maps is simply stupid. New games can't get up there. The editor is somewhat improved over Warcraft 3, but the scripting/triggering side is still crappy. Worse, since SC2 doesn't even off GetHandleId like WC3. What's wrong with just introducing python or something already in the industry? Why make your own heavily neutered version of C?

    Battle.net 2 is a slap in the face. The menu is made of laggy, stupid flash based dialogs. No chat channels, no clans, lobbies for custom games automatically start... with a 30 second timer. That you can't quit out of except by logging out.

    What is this, Blizzard?

    I'd recommend if you enjoy melee (and I do), but you're better off avoiding the campaign and the custom game system. At least, until they fix it. They're getting there with patches, but you should never release a game missing features.    … Expand
  62. KlassicKritic
    Dec 9, 2010
    7
    An incomplete game put on shelves, a one-time payment of $60 for something that ends as poorly as Halo 2, yet being able to entertain me, that's a difficult to rate game. This is a game, but it isn't a great game.
  63. RobRoyZA
    Dec 2, 2010
    6
    Its hard to understand why this game took so long to make since it is basically a remake of the original with a couple of extra units and slightly updated graphics. However, if you liked the original you'll like this with the reverse being just as true. By itself, a good (not great) rts that relies to much on the success of the original.
  64. Hax
    Nov 29, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It took them over twelve years to make this game and nothing has changed except more polished graphics and that's it. The storyline wasn't interesting what so ever. I just wanted to complete the game to understand whats going on but the game still doesn't grab a hold of me. The only ting I really enjoyed was the cinematic scenes. That was amazing.… Expand
  65. 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
  66. ojinneal
    Nov 4, 2010
    6
    I'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, butI'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, but if your like me then it will be played once and then forgotten.… Expand
  67. oneclipleft
    Oct 15, 2010
    5
    Yes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highlyYes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highly recommend Company of Heroes. It's 2 years old now, but superior to Starcraft in all respects (as well as graphics would you believe? I guess SCII has to run on Korean PCs so that explains the disappointing visuals).… Expand
  68. RealityChecker
    Oct 14, 2010
    5
    It's basically SC-1 with new graphics... So it starts with a 10 score... minus 1 point for no LAN... Minus 1 point for forcing battlenet on peeps... Minus 1 for making people wait 12 years for a new coat of paint... Minus 1 because the other 3 minus's were actually minus 1.3333333333333333 .... Minus 1 for having to have a constant I-net connection to play.
  69. Cptkovacs
    Oct 9, 2010
    6
    Nothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game isNothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game is based almost entirely on multiplayer. It felt as if I were playing a "remastered version of Starcraft" rather than its sequel- as far as my expectations went, it didn't surprise or impress me too much, and of course this game took far too long to develop.… Expand
  70. bishopknight
    Oct 7, 2010
    6
    Single player campaign owns. But multiplayer is imbalanced, even after patch 1.1 terran is still too strong. Zerg is too weak. Terran can counter everything and easily reveal any stealthed unit. EMP and PDD are OP vs Toss. They'll fix the imbalances but it will take a few months.
  71. rabage
    Oct 5, 2010
    5
    Really just do not get the hype or the love for this game. I can understand the enjoyment of the game in a competitive field, but the single player is pretty terrible. I pretty much just rushed through it and tried to get it over with as there was just nothing to really enjoy about the boring story and just in general pathetic game play provided by Blizzard. The whole thing just felt uninspired.
  72. marqpas
    Oct 3, 2010
    7
    It looks a bit better than StarCraft 1, and it's a nice RTS.

    The "storyline" is for kiddies (i.e. rubbish), but the game is fun to play.

    Don't believe the hype.
  73. user1234
    Sep 27, 2010
    6
    They should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the artThey should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the art direction. As a bonus for the new game, it works on old hardware (integrated graphics), but that's all. They never pushed the sound direction, either. To sum it up, multiplayer is fun, but nothing worth mentioning in terms of what haven't been mentioned since the original.… Expand
  74. 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
  75. dustin12345678
    Sep 8, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire game. The terran units themselves look very cartoonish. I like the ideas, but I think they look like toys/cartoonish/overly bulky. The protoss is even worse in my opinion. This is probably because of the 3-D aspect of the game.

    I would have given this game an 8 if it would have taken half as long to be released. This could have easily been realesed five or six years ago and still be the same. A lot of it reminds me of Warcraft 3, except you get to build big armies and there aren't stupid heros that harrass you to death!!! I would have given this game one more point if the gameplay was altered just a little more. Company of Heros set the bar for new RTS, especially the cover options and how the landscapes around you are incorporated into the strategy. I can't fault SC 2 too much though, as it is important to stay with the basics that made the original so great. The retail price is a little steep for not including the other two campaigns, but it's still worth it. Bottom Line:

    Great game, but its starting to get tired. Probably should have been released five or six years ago. Should have moved RTS forward a little bit more without comprising original. This game feels like WCIII and SC merged into one. 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  76. Scubadave
    Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ),Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ), but this is not a game to be purchased for graphics, it is the addictive fastpaced arcade competitive style multiplayer action that gives it such a good score. Though... :) I think it's highly over rated!… Expand
  77. LambdaRed
    Aug 31, 2010
    6
    Pretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategyPretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategy gaming you will not be disappointed.… Expand
  78. zeca
    Aug 26, 2010
    6
    I really dont consider this game the best of year. Why? The story is fair to poor, its Jim Raynor collecting artifacts to save Kerrigan. If she is devil, why save her? The gameplay is good with well structured graphics. The only thing thats good it's graphics, the gameplay, and the multiplayer mode. Starcraft 1 is much more intertsing with good story and cinematics.
  79. altekki
    Aug 24, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detailStarcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detail models? I'm sorry but it is not enough. And how does the game get any better by the 3D when the view is fixed? It seem most of the game's success is only because of the hype and the name. If there was no SC1, this game had already be forgotten as a decent Xmas present candidate. When playing the game, it is hard to believe it has been released in 2010. Someone might say Starcraft 2 is a good game because it is so balanced. True, but does it actually matter but only for those top level players who have practised and practised for hundreds or thousands of hours. What is in for a casual player? I would rather play a RTS that amazes me with it's graphics and mechanics and challenges me intelligently from the very beginning.… Expand
  80. 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 !
  81. 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.
  82. Goosebump
    Aug 21, 2010
    6
    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original Cons: Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original

    Cons:

    Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real life friends and 'game only friends' where you really don't want to be sharing your real life name and such. Therefore their friend system is rubbish too.

    This game gets a six purely based on the drawbacks I've listed above. The region lock even on custom games is incredibly shortsighted by Blizz and their increasingly annoying push with where they are going with Battle Net is very off putting. No doubt Diablo will be poisoned with an even worse incarnation of the current social notworking crud.

    Quite disappointed with how blizz are changing as a company. I miss the old Blizz circa WC3 where they were not only loved for making superb games but because they also treated their customers much better than the current assumption where they think everyone is some sort of thief and everyone uses junk like Failbook.    … Expand
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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.
  89. 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
  90. madhat
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. TheI'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. The campaign itself isn't fantastic, but it balances an OK story with fun gameplay very well i found. Some new features for gameplay would have been nice though, just to mix things up a bit, I am glad they didn't add any superweapons though, which ruined C&C for me. (what about shifting maps? someone make them.) At least you can select more than 30 units at once now. :P It is not a realistic RTS by any means and shouldn't try to be, in my opinion. It has its own challenging tactics and strategies which are not bound by realism, not everyones cup of tea of course. (What were you expecting?) This isn't Axis vs. Allies, its space cowboys vs. psychic bugs vs. nigh immortal telepathic aliens.… Expand
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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.
  94. 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
  95. 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.
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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.
  100. 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.
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 »