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 The game also looks outdated, comical and its single player campaign was too simple and not engaging compared to the original.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
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 »