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. BradK
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    It's sad to see that even reviewers are being sucked in by hype. The one reviewer gave it 100 and said the game is exactly the same as the first one with a new skin. Don't these people even think this through.
  2. JamesB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Considering the extraordinary length of time between the original StarCraft and SC2, this doesn't really show any signs of a game that's been in development for several years. It's a fun game to be sure, and any SC fan will absolutely love it, but it still seemed rather lacking to me, at least considering the lengthy development time.
  3. David
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    This is one of those games that had a heavy investment into cinematics and marketing, while gameplay is only mediocre. It has been 12 years since SC1, you can't just remake the same game. A predictable and cliche ridden story doesn't help it, too. There is nothing particularly bad about SC2, it's just that it doesn't take any chances and ends up being too boring.
  4. SuciuM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    I like the menu and the cutscenes make you drool . However the overall graphics are bad. And I had expected to see a much massive game with thousands of creatures fighting for their survival . I mean the plot it`s happening in space I expected to see thousand of sprites on the screen.
  5. DD
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    This gameplay is old and busted. I prefer the new Dawn of War rts formula to the old Starcraft formula (for resource collection, unit control, reinforcement and upgrades, micro-macro ratio, a total of 8 unique armies, etc). There's nostalgia appeal in S2, but not enough *new* stuff.
  6. FarSpace
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of Blizzard so called going with what so called works but I guess other don't want there game to get any more interesting but just have more options and better graphics is fine but lets some some big time stratagy that really getsmore interest, chess is way better even. sorry.… Expand
  7. FrancoisV
    Jul 30, 2010
    6
    blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. some missions were fun but it didnt add anything to the story. considering it has only the terran campaign and it took so much time before they release this game, it's seriously is weak. dialogue were a bit cheasy too. as for the multiplayer, i havent played much so far, but most of the map seems the same thing, you start on a elevate floor with one entrance....the gameplay overall seems a bit slower too (haverster, gather less mineral and gas than the first game and most unit/building cost around the same as the first game :S ) the menu/battle net is confusing too, i will probably get use to it but so far it's a little bit annoying. overall i am disapointed. i'll probably wait til they release protoss game or a bundle and spoil myself a little and see if the next games are going to be worth it.… Expand
  8. JSewell
    Jul 31, 2010
    6
    Basically more of the same. Updated graphics from the original, however gameplay remains largely unchanged. Blizzard must not realize that there have been improvements to RTS games in the past decade. I'll take Supreme Commander any day over this game.
  9. StarCraft
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack first...if you don't you lose similar to paper-rock-scissors. I don't get the hype. The graphics are cool, sound is awesome but the game play isn't any different than the original. Strategy buffs need not apply..this game comes down to who can build and attack faster and hope like hell you chose the attack...no defensive strategy what so ever in this one.… Expand
  10. serkanu
    Aug 2, 2010
    6
    I dont understand these reviews. THIS GAME HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INNOVATION. Gameplay is boring and 10 years old! What kind of industry has gaming become? Cool cinematics, good graphics and BLIZZARD trademark are not enough to make an excellent game!
  11. MM
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Great single player experience...can be great online too but follow this link: http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence This article is about how Activision want to control everything. No more lan party even online. Tournament? Not without Activision approval. It is a great game but you have too accept the Acti"vision" on your shoulder.
  12. Lolwut
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I would wait a few years down the road for all the games to be released in some kind of battlechest.… Expand
  13. MikeK
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, have no co-op in RTS for the campaigns is unforgivable. If it wasn't for the great cutscenes, and backstory for single player, would be a total loss. But, for a single player game, the story is nowhere near the likes of Mass Effect or Dragon Age. After I'm done with single player, don't envision myself playing this all too much. Be lucky to have this still installed in a few months from now.… Expand
  14. JM
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, why bother? They'll sell a ton no matter how little effort they put into it.… Expand
  15. TuanH
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 if you're not interested in paying for graphic updates. If you're moving from Warcraft 3 and never played Starcraft before, expect almost-to-nothing micro and lots of more emphasis on macro. If moving for modding purposes, expect a very long wait for modding artists to release loads of medieval models/icons to suit needs for fantasy genre custom games.… Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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
  50. 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
next
Page:

Awards & Rankings

2
#2 Best PC Game of 2010
2
#2 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 82 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 82 out of 82
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 82
  3. Negative: 0 out of 82
  1. PC Zone UK
    Jan 18, 2011
    95
    "Quotation Forthcoming"
  2. Video Game Talk
    Jan 18, 2011
    90
    If you are into real time strategy in any form, it's hard to ignore Starcraft II.
    Read full review
  3. PC Format
    Dec 24, 2010
    93
    Perfectly balanced multiplayer with old school elements intact, and rich and dynamic single player campaigns. [Issue#244, p.102]
See all critic reviews »