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. Hoooooooar
    Jul 6, 2011
    9
    SC2 is rock solid, there is nothing more you can say about it. The gameplay is fun, the mods coming out are great, b.net is fantastic (although it is populated by a bunch of mutes, b.net use to be the true internet hate machine) I deducted one point simply because the story-line and graphics have been all asianed up. I think the jap animation graphics and story are hideous, was reallySC2 is rock solid, there is nothing more you can say about it. The gameplay is fun, the mods coming out are great, b.net is fantastic (although it is populated by a bunch of mutes, b.net use to be the true internet hate machine) I deducted one point simply because the story-line and graphics have been all asianed up. I think the jap animation graphics and story are hideous, was really hoping it wouldn't turn out looking like world of warcraft or warcraft 3, but it did. I suppose Korea is where their money and base is, so whadya gona do. Still gets a 9.… Expand
  2. snowshreder
    Jul 5, 2011
    10
    Starcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting greatStarcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting great examples for future Strategy games. As far as the story goes, well you have to know the older game stories to appreciate this continuing story which i think is just perfection.… Expand
  3. R7critical
    Jun 28, 2011
    10
    Pretty fantastic game. Very smooth and polished. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign mode, and eagerly await the next installment. Sadly the community that surrounds it is not conducive to enjoying the game experience. Great fun to play with friends, but as usual you should avoid the pubbies. Most of them haven't learned to act like decent human beings yet, or play very robotic "strats" thatPretty fantastic game. Very smooth and polished. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign mode, and eagerly await the next installment. Sadly the community that surrounds it is not conducive to enjoying the game experience. Great fun to play with friends, but as usual you should avoid the pubbies. Most of them haven't learned to act like decent human beings yet, or play very robotic "strats" that if fail, they immediately leave. The computer opponent is more challenging and inventive than most of the players you'll find online. Also the major league gaming component is entirely ignorable. You can have a much better time with this game without paying any attention to the elitist buffoonery that surrounds it.… Expand
  4. Olivander
    Jun 28, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really think, this game is the best multiplayer game, i have ever played! It is really funny to play alone ladder or you can also play with your friends. There are also a lot of games made by players which have nothing to do with the original gameplay. Of course to creat maps and games with the editor is at the beginning very hard, but with a bit of time, it also makes a lot of fun. Last but not least, is there a really big online community and so many cups, casts, and replays to watch, it is unbelieveble how funny it is to watch pros playing the game. All in all I think starcraft is with all his tactics and diffrent possibilitys to game, also after 50 hours of playing and watching so interresting as in the first minutes. It is just an awesome game!… Expand
  5. 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
  6. Atomics
    Jun 23, 2011
    4
    I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities,I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

    It's a shame that exceedingly average games like Starcraft II steal all the press and attention, when truly excellent and forward-thinking RTS games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander get pushed to the side and hardly noticed. Do gamers really want the same thing, over and over again? Starcraft II seems to suggest they do. (Rhyme!)

    There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!    … Expand
  7. Acidosis
    Jun 19, 2011
    8
    Despite the game looking identical to Starcraft when graphics are turned to the lowest settings, just so you know. The development of race's units in this game disappoint me, this is because the lore and race feeling doesn't match at all. Protoss is suppose to be an advance alien race with unmatched technology and yes blizzard did follow the whole Protoss is expensive, slow and powerful inDespite the game looking identical to Starcraft when graphics are turned to the lowest settings, just so you know. The development of race's units in this game disappoint me, this is because the lore and race feeling doesn't match at all. Protoss is suppose to be an advance alien race with unmatched technology and yes blizzard did follow the whole Protoss is expensive, slow and powerful in the first Starcraft but in Starcraft 2 Protoss races seems to be having some sort of recession. Its grand highly advance technological ships are the worst among the three races as it does average damage and doesn't tank well due to the whole rock, paper, scissors armor system implemented. For the Zerg, in Starcraft 2 Zerg has lost its evil feeling and that drones and overlord looks damn pretty cute and its trademark unit their Hydralisk unit has become nothing more than worthless, Terran in Starcraft 2 seems to have when crazy on their research and remove units which are not suppose to remove and adding units which will never be used. Also constant "nerfing" of siege tank makes a tank firepower as powerful as a alien claw....like come on, a tank fire as good as an alien scratch? As much as i enjoy Starcraft 2, i do feel that the whole rock, paper, scissors armor system did spoil the game. It isn't no longer about strategy and attacking but instead it is about waiting and defending then countering back with enemies weakness which could turn veteran's off like me. Starcraft 2 has also became so user friendly that even four old can play it which is a joke. Despite all the criticism, i would say i do still enjoy playing the game because after all, i waited for also 10 years for the game.… Expand
  8. Pomornik
    May 29, 2011
    10
    This is basicly Starcraft 1 with modernized graphics. There are minor enrichenments to the gameplay, but overall is nearly identical as in the previous game. Campaign is great, I can safely say its greatest single player campaign in any RTS ever.
  9. Gratson
    May 20, 2011
    9
    Fun game, and I don't even enjoy multiplayer RTS. I just played through the campaign, which I enjoyed a lot. The only complaint I have is that the campaign wasn't longer. It was well done, but it could have been longer. That's why I give it a 9 instead of a 10.
  10. Zealloux
    May 18, 2011
    10
    Awesome multiplayer, awesome graphics, and awesome RTS gameplay. Challenging gameplay (multiplayer) allows for long periods of game time. Modern port allows for perseverance of the series. It's constantly being updated and has an unlimited amounts of maps (with custom maps). Most importantly it's fun and addictive!
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. syrik
    Apr 26, 2011
    4
    I was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's reallyI was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's really the only good thing there is though. The single player campaign is just a small part of a larger marketing campaign that was really a huge let down. The maps are boring and the storytelling is disjointed. They attempt to make it nonlinear but if you do the missions in different orders some parts of the story don't make sense. There is definitely the "right" order, though you're not forced to do it that way. Multiplayer is not my bag personally, but there is nothing new and exciting here. You will play on a map with fewer units than in the campaign against other people in exactly the same way I did 12 years ago against my friends. Except now, you can't spawn a copy to their machine, everyone has to pay $60 or you don't play. Blizzard has become the same as the other major game companies like Activision and EA and is only about the almighty dollar now. Skip this unless you absolutely have got to have more Starcraft multiplayer like it used to be, because that hasn't changed.… Expand
  14. Crux
    Apr 26, 2011
    10
    Although the game doesn't have the level of polish I would expect from a game of this caliber, it is still incredibly good. I enjoyed the campaign, but really like the focus on multiplayer play. I never got into the first game's multiplayer, but have played many other RTS online, and can say that it is very refreshing to see the level of balance and uniqueness in the units in this game.Although the game doesn't have the level of polish I would expect from a game of this caliber, it is still incredibly good. I enjoyed the campaign, but really like the focus on multiplayer play. I never got into the first game's multiplayer, but have played many other RTS online, and can say that it is very refreshing to see the level of balance and uniqueness in the units in this game. Custom maps keep the game fresh, and I have no major complaints since it came out. Easily the best RTS I have ever played.

    My final score: 9.5/10    … Expand
  15. Jman5
    Apr 20, 2011
    10
    Having played it for the last 8 months, Starcraft II is a phenomenal game that is a worthy successor to SC1. For fans of Real-Time-Strategy games, this is a must buy. Blizzard does an excellent job of making the game easy to pick up but incredibly hard to master. The most daunting aspect for any buyer is jumping into the multiplayer scene. Many of the players are extremely skilled so itHaving played it for the last 8 months, Starcraft II is a phenomenal game that is a worthy successor to SC1. For fans of Real-Time-Strategy games, this is a must buy. Blizzard does an excellent job of making the game easy to pick up but incredibly hard to master. The most daunting aspect for any buyer is jumping into the multiplayer scene. Many of the players are extremely skilled so it can be discouraging when faced against these people. Blizzard has tried hard to create a robust match making system so players are placed against people of similar skill. For the most part they have succeeded, but there are still plenty of gamers who abuse loopholes to match against beginners.

    If you are looking for a well designed RTS that will no doubt maintain a robust community for years to come, Starcraft 2 is right for you.    … Expand
  16. hensothor
    Apr 19, 2011
    10
    Lives up to its namesake. I'd say more, but really, 'nuff said. It didn't have to do anything more. The game has the classic gameplay that everyone has grown to love, over a decade while also innovating into a new metagame. This game will last a long time.
  17. theshonen8899
    Apr 19, 2011
    9
    If you loved the original Starcraft, I have no reason to believe you won't be amazed by Starcraft II unless you're really nitpicky. Starcraft II's new multiplayer is absolutely addicting and the new battle.net makes it fun to gather all kinds of achievements. The campaign might Terran only but it has enough content to justify a $50 price tag. That's where the problem comes in. The retailIf you loved the original Starcraft, I have no reason to believe you won't be amazed by Starcraft II unless you're really nitpicky. Starcraft II's new multiplayer is absolutely addicting and the new battle.net makes it fun to gather all kinds of achievements. The campaign might Terran only but it has enough content to justify a $50 price tag. That's where the problem comes in. The retail price is $60 (I believe is $50 now on Amazon as of this writing) and the online authentication is absolutely annoying. There is also no LAN, which isn't a problem for me because unfortunately my friends don't play anymore but I can see how it would be an enormous problem. I'm hoping these are just changes wrought by the Activision side of things (seeing as how they raped Infinity Ward). Nonetheless, this is an absolutely fun and addicting game which belongs in any Starcraft lover's hands.… Expand
  18. nopistons420
    Apr 19, 2011
    9
    this game is the real deal. its what a pc game should be; tons of user content, long and challenging single player experience, ranked competative online play, pushes the limits of even the best computers, highley tuned and tested, i was in the beta for over 7 months

    there is a reason blizzard is king of pc gaming
  19. 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
  20. KTcraft
    Apr 13, 2011
    8
    Starcraft 2 doesn't embody the future of gaming, nor does it try anything revolutionary. Instead, it focuses on the strengths of the past, much like Blizzard's other titles. The first place to look is the story and single player campaign. For this, Blizzard has in fact created a new style of campaign interface, a persistent base of operations that you can upgrade and improve as you beatStarcraft 2 doesn't embody the future of gaming, nor does it try anything revolutionary. Instead, it focuses on the strengths of the past, much like Blizzard's other titles. The first place to look is the story and single player campaign. For this, Blizzard has in fact created a new style of campaign interface, a persistent base of operations that you can upgrade and improve as you beat missions, and complete objectives that while limited, offers a fundamentally different approach to a single player campaign then most other RTS. The story follows the character James Raynor who, for fans of the original game, will remember as a daring soldier and revolutionary. As the story progresses you meet new characters who will continue to fight alongside you during your campaign against the Dominion. Although frequently predictable, the story is compelling, and the cinematics and dialogue help build the gritty atmosphere of the Starcraft universe.

    The AI has seen many improvements over the original game. It is far more responsive and in many ways, plays like a real opponent would. Alas, it is still limited by technology, and things like cannon rushing can catch the AI off guard time and again. Unit pathing and individual AI is much improved as well, you won't be waiting for ten minutes while your goliaths try to squeeze up a ramp at the same time, and as a result, run across the map. UI and controls are also a huge improvement. Waypoints are much easier to access, hotkeys work in an extremely efficient manner with most keybindings set around the "wasd" keys for very easy access. Multiple buildings may be selected and hotkeyed simultaneously and unit ability control is fine tuned to precision.

    While single player is entertaining and has limited replay value, the competitive multiplayer is where Blizzard truly chose to focus. In an intuitive, and persistent matchmaking system, you can test your skill against other players nation wide. While there were some initial networking issues, Blizzard has smoothed most if not all of the lag issues and has worked tirelessly on balancing(I will discuss in the next paragraph). Social networking has taken a hit for the worse however, and local play is non-existent. One of the greatest features of the original Starcraft was the ability to share and watch game replays together. Currently it is not available in Starcraft 2, however Blizzard has made clear an interest in bringing it back.

    A common gripe among many seems to be game balance. That this unit is overpowered, this race is bad, this ability doesn't work. As a high-intermediate level player, I have the capacity to understand both high and low levels of game play, even if i cannot match it myself. Those criticizing the balance often have little experience of their own, and the experience they had was often relatively poor. It is clear in Starcraft 2, that Blizzard chose to emphasize the playstyles of each of the races, and can be summed up relatively simply. The Zerg are a macro and economic intensive race, who focus on very large numbers of relatively inexpensive troops. A Zerg player must be constantly managing multiple bases at once as well as being able to constantly build units almost rhythmically. Zerg requires lower level of tactical control.

    The Protoss is an extremely tactically oriented race. Its units are expensive-particularly gas intensive. A Protoss player must conserve troops, and learn not to throw them away. The key to winning as Protoss is learning how to use abilities wisely. Because Protoss armies are often outnumbered, a Protoss player must learn to create his own advantages. Using storms, force fields and hallucinations are all keys to success as a Protoss player.

    Terran is a versatile race. Terran has the ability to make relatively quick tech changes early game, allowing for many varied army compositions. Terran also features a high capacity for harassment and hit and run tactics. Terran relies very heavily on unit placement, using high ground, taking advantage of ramps and choke points, spacing and kiting. While this sums up the basis of each races gameplay, it does not represent a definitive guideline. As time goes, new strategies and builds will be created, and playstyles will change. Learning and adapting to these playstyles is an important part of the multiplayer experience, something many people lack the patience and understanding for.


    In summary, Starcraft 2 is a game that offers a very competitive multiplayer scene, with a good(if short) single player campaign. While it does nothing new or revolutionary, it reestablishes what made Starcraft Brood War so great.    … Expand
  21. 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
  22. ngh2b
    Apr 7, 2011
    4
    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

    The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

    The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were doing. People try to make the excuse that 'so what if it's 1/3 of a game, you still get 29 missions for race, that's more than the original or brood war". Well, the main storyline is really only made up about ten missions or so, the rest are filler. The entire storyline including the other races could have been done for 30 to 40 missions.

    The gameplay itself is also quite disappointing after an extended play through. So much more could have been done with the technology that so many other games have taken advantage of, such as cover. The developers even admitted that they kept the game the way it was in order to preserve the e-sports leagues surrounding it. Talk about the greed factor :/

    It's strange that age of empires 3 and command and conquer 3 were criticism and their game scores lowered for being behind the times, Starcraft 2 is being praised for it for the most part. If this wasn't called STARCRAFT 2, say Space Wars, it'd be getting alot more criticism for being behind the times.

    It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not worth $60, and is the most overrated game of 2010, and my biggest gaming disappointment.    … Expand
  23. Omegawolf8
    Apr 5, 2011
    10
    This is possibly THE best game ever. The multiplayer is smooth, The campaign is unique, The game is VERY, VERY balanced. There is nothing bad about this. The only people giving this bad reviews are people who have honestly played it before.
  24. Failshipdown
    Mar 26, 2011
    10
    One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win.
  25. clovis20
    Mar 25, 2011
    10
    Best RTS ever played. I'm a old RTS gamer since Dune I, Dune II, C&C and etc.
    It's brand new (some imbalance appears as normal in RTS world) and is already awesome. The next expansions and patches for sure will lead this game to the top #1 as most played RTS in world. Getting error: Score (4.0) id must be a floating point number.
  26. Weggy
    Mar 20, 2011
    10
    What else can I say but MASTERPIECE. This game gets full marks in all areas. The single player is enjoyable and different yet deep. The Multiplayer is superb as expected and oh so competitive. The UI flows and is flawless and the game it's self runs on every PC which is something I like the most about it. Triple A stuff!
  27. akelz7
    Mar 17, 2011
    10
    Dear everyone complaining about this game, OF COURSE it is just Starcraft with some polish, Starcraft is one of the best games of all time! Why would they make any radical changes? I mean THINK for once in your "I'll divert from the crowd and hate this game" life.
  28. sudoscientist
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess.StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original.… Expand
  29. bernardtcx
    Mar 15, 2011
    10
    Great game with an enjoyable storyline. Blizzard is really good with their plot development and cliffhangers - the story itself has some closure but leaves me wanting the heart of the swarm NOW. I will not play melee maps over and over again though - I'm just a casual gamer. However, the games are that are being made by the community are getting better and better! Its a pity that the worldGreat game with an enjoyable storyline. Blizzard is really good with their plot development and cliffhangers - the story itself has some closure but leaves me wanting the heart of the swarm NOW. I will not play melee maps over and over again though - I'm just a casual gamer. However, the games are that are being made by the community are getting better and better! Its a pity that the world editor has gotten so complex!… Expand
  30. thirdspaced
    Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Another great game from Blizzard! The story is engaging from start to finish. The character interaction between missions add to the immersion of the story. To criticize this game as not having evolved enough, is not giving this game any credit. I think many modern RTS games are just trying to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to prove they are different. They are adding features thatAnother great game from Blizzard! The story is engaging from start to finish. The character interaction between missions add to the immersion of the story. To criticize this game as not having evolved enough, is not giving this game any credit. I think many modern RTS games are just trying to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to prove they are different. They are adding features that are not always better. It is like if a company came alone and tried to improve basketball by making four hoops and three balls the standard.… Expand
  31. Coldspyros
    Mar 11, 2011
    9
    Very fun game. The online play is great, requiring a lot of skill and constant effort to actually get anywhere. The graphics are great, and all of the animations are very smooth. The game play is amazing, although I wish they could've added more units to online play, such as Black Archons, Medics, Dragoons, etc etc.

    Still, amazing game.
  32. Bohdan
    Mar 10, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. CelkovÄ… Expand
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. pro7otype
    Mar 7, 2011
    8
    This game is solid throughout. Good storyline and great cutscenes in the single player, a good feel to the game in the multiplayer. Great soundtrack and effects. Graphics are reasonably good, but they lack the style and panache of Warhammer 40K's Dawn of War series in my opinion. If you are a Starcraft fanboy you are going to love this, especially all the matchmaking options built into theThis game is solid throughout. Good storyline and great cutscenes in the single player, a good feel to the game in the multiplayer. Great soundtrack and effects. Graphics are reasonably good, but they lack the style and panache of Warhammer 40K's Dawn of War series in my opinion. If you are a Starcraft fanboy you are going to love this, especially all the matchmaking options built into the game, but if you are merely someone who loves good RTS games, you will enjoy this, but you will also see some of its flaws as well, namely: Confused, somewhat messy looking unit models (especially for Terrans) and very little in the way of sense of humour or gimmicks to keep you interested. This is a Solid RTS game through and through.… Expand
  36. 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
  37. Goa_uld
    Feb 20, 2011
    0
    The worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but theThe worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but the micromanagement is impossible at such speeds, so, the game become one arcade game, not a RTS. Idem on multiplayer, players just rush, so, we cannot see here great tactical and strategic abilities, only fast button push (the player who have a better computer, a more responsive keyboard and mouse is in great advantage from start) The designed by default hotkeys-based gameplay make the game experience more sluggish, and frustrating, not more smoothly. The mass cast abiltities lack entirely, also many players regrets the units from Starcraft I and Broodwar. For that causes, Starcraft II, despite the 3D graphic and other improvements, is very far from SC I and Broodwar at their time. Somebody from the game-stuff imposed with obstinacy a wrong personal vision about to way to play the game, and from that point are resulted all game failures and lack of game joy for many players. The game have good parts too, and other bad parts too, but even just for the reasons mentioned above the game deserve the score 0!… Expand
  38. Kaizoku2793
    Feb 14, 2011
    9
    Over 10 years ago I was introduced to Warcraft II. Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty is one of the best RTS money can buy but that doesnâ
  39. cory2704
    Feb 8, 2011
    8
    Starcraft 2 was my first game within the starcraft or even warcraft series, and I have to say it instantly became a favorite of mine in the rts genre. Infact after playing countless command and conquer, and supreme commander games you begin to see where other series have tried building upon starcrafts success by using similar gameplay niches. What these other games failed to do in my eyesStarcraft 2 was my first game within the starcraft or even warcraft series, and I have to say it instantly became a favorite of mine in the rts genre. Infact after playing countless command and conquer, and supreme commander games you begin to see where other series have tried building upon starcrafts success by using similar gameplay niches. What these other games failed to do in my eyes was to be daring and escape from standardized gameplay ( yes I understand games like supreme commander are player on a much larger scale but the idea of resource collection and macroing is pretty much identical)

    however after trialling the original starcraft in the aid of this blog I found that the core mechanics of the game hasnâ    … Expand
  40. 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
  41. Nirso
    Jan 28, 2011
    10
    Best game ever. Best multiplayer. Blizzard improve the fantastic StarCraft. Batlle.net is a fabulous system, where you can play with your friends or strangers that are in the same level of you.
  42. 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
  43. L0stR3negade
    Jan 22, 2011
    10
    Arguably the best stratagy game of all time starcrft 2 just brings a great story and a huge multiplayer will with a great chat system and profile system.. The make/game making is just fantastic and possibilitys are endless this game Diserves a 10
  44. Rael
    Jan 17, 2011
    9
    I think you should give three ratings of a game: one right away, one after 20 hours of play and one 6 months later. The average of my votes is 9, as you can see.
    StarCraft II delivers a great gaming experience, with some minor flaws (and I'm talking about the lack of LAN play and some online features) but great content anyway. Graphics are really notable, even if the system requirements    I think you should give three ratings of a game: one right away, one after 20 hours of play and one 6 months later. The average of my votes is 9, as you can see.
    StarCraft II delivers a great gaming experience, with some minor flaws (and I'm talking about the lack of LAN play and some online features) but great content anyway. Graphics are really notable, even if the system requirements are way too high right now: I would really like to see a new low-rez version of the client, because if you don't have a fairly decent (at least Intel Core Duo or AMD equivalent) processor and 4 gigs of DDR2 RAM, well, it's unplayable.
    Music is another really good point: the band performing the Terran soundtrack features Tony Levin and Jerry Marotta, two fairly known and very good musicians.
    As for the gameplay side, this games really is influenced by the eSports system, making it least complex and slow, and much more fast-paced, quick-thinking (HUGE battles take 10 secs at maximum), which may be either really good or really bad, but what I think is that this is good indeed!
    An absolute must-buy, but try to avoid paying 60 â    … Expand
  45. Templar19
    Jan 13, 2011
    8
    Starcraft was one of the only games i played years ago, i have been waiting for Starcraft 2 for a LONG time. I ended up spending $60 on the game the day after it came out. Now i was greatly satisfied at first, i really liked the storyline, the cinematics were awesome, the graphics and gameplay were great, but SC2 was lacking in a few different areas, First off, LAN, i love playing LAN andStarcraft was one of the only games i played years ago, i have been waiting for Starcraft 2 for a LONG time. I ended up spending $60 on the game the day after it came out. Now i was greatly satisfied at first, i really liked the storyline, the cinematics were awesome, the graphics and gameplay were great, but SC2 was lacking in a few different areas, First off, LAN, i love playing LAN and just hanging out in a room playing PC games with my friends, But i was extremely dissapointed when i found out that for me and 2 of my friends to play LAN we would have to pay $180, on top of that, i am not able to play singleplayer on my laptop unless i make sure to sign in online on my laptop before i take it somewhere (i play SC2 mostly on my desktop), now i understand the need for anti-piracy, but it is getting to the point where it is pissing me off so much that i almost want to go pirate the game, put it on a CD and give it out to all my friends. Because we all know these protections are easily bipassed. Other than that, the multiplayer is great, lots of good custom maps (a lot are very similar to the first Starcraft) The game has almost all the same units, plays almost exactly the same as the first SC but with better graphics and more features for units and buildings, (some of the units look the same as original ones, just renamed example:Dragoon=Stalker) Fun trying to get all the achievments, this game can last hours if you are really into competative RTS games!… Expand
  46. VentXekart
    Jan 9, 2011
    10
    It was totally worth waiting the ten years of development, I believe this game to be one of the best strategy games to ever be produced by Blizzard Entertainment.
  47. maxpower1118
    Jan 4, 2011
    10
    This game is great. period. The storyline is pretty good, and pretty long and all but a few missions are really fun. But in my opinion the main good thing about the game is the multi-player mode. Battlenet 2.0 is really good at finding and pairing you against people who have about your skill level, although rarely you get paired with someone who is way above or below your skill level. IThis game is great. period. The storyline is pretty good, and pretty long and all but a few missions are really fun. But in my opinion the main good thing about the game is the multi-player mode. Battlenet 2.0 is really good at finding and pairing you against people who have about your skill level, although rarely you get paired with someone who is way above or below your skill level. I have never played SC1, but i am very into other RTSs. I play the total war series and age of empires and stuff... everyone who is saying bad things about the game being the same as SC1 is basically complaining about what they asked for. It is NOT all hype. Sure the game is similar to SC1 most likely because that is what people wanted -- SC2, not a new and completely different game with the same title. It is NOT all hype. I went into the game expecting a good game, but not hyped on the SC1 hype, and it delivered a good game.… Expand
  48. TastyOishi
    Jan 3, 2011
    9
    An extremely well polished experience. While lacking in some areas (Campaign). The online is something else, while fustrating as hell if you're new to playing online. I keep coming back for more.

    A really well rounded experience, which is fun too!
  49. Omegamon
    Jan 2, 2011
    9
    I was a Starcraft nut when the first game came out and a number of years after. I used to play it all day with my buddies. So it is pointless to say that i had high hopes for this one. Also I cannot help but compare it to the original Starcraft. Gameplay: The gameplay is good, I think it's actually harder then the first one. A lot of variety and build choices. Speed seems to be theI was a Starcraft nut when the first game came out and a number of years after. I used to play it all day with my buddies. So it is pointless to say that i had high hopes for this one. Also I cannot help but compare it to the original Starcraft. Gameplay: The gameplay is good, I think it's actually harder then the first one. A lot of variety and build choices. Speed seems to be the governing attribute in terms of player qualities required to be proficient at the game, sometimes to the detriment of creativity. This makes established builds dominant especially in the early game, leaving experimentation valid only against weaker players. There seems to be a number of hard counter units in the game which make the rock-paper-scissors aspect of the game more visible. I wish game designers would grow out of this, as rock-paper-scissors is not a good base for strategy games, being a game of luck and all. Story: The single player story sucks big time, it's a generic, "I'm the good guy, the establishment is bad" kind of deal, which wouldn't be that bad by itself though. However the dialog sinks the whole thing as all characters pretty much spew banalities and talk to the camera. To me, the story is what seals my impression of the game. I guess this is what happens when professional writers have to come up with stories for games they are not nuts about. Also speaking of the single player campaign, it is very rigid and consists almost solely of "against the clock" missions. In my book, the single player campaign should allow the user to waste some time and "smell the graphics" and leave the time pressing aspects to the multi-player. Graphics: They are decent, functional, not over the top. Conclusion: Good game, but could use some help with the story which pretty much transforms it into a Hollywood "Pearl Harbor" kind of production.… Expand
  50. iamportal
    Dec 29, 2010
    10
    I absolutely love this game! The campaign has a few flaws, but is one of the best in the whole RTS genre. The online multiplayer is wonderful, and battle.net 2.0 works perfectly.
  51. 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
  52. theone565
    Dec 24, 2010
    10
    Not only does this game build on the original award-winning game from 1998, but this game also brings in more features and drastically improves on the gameplay. If it is possible to take the best and make it better, Starcraft II : Wings of Liberty has done it. With several new abilities that boost the economy, like the terran M.U.L.E. , the zerg queen's spawn larvae ability, and theNot only does this game build on the original award-winning game from 1998, but this game also brings in more features and drastically improves on the gameplay. If it is possible to take the best and make it better, Starcraft II : Wings of Liberty has done it. With several new abilities that boost the economy, like the terran M.U.L.E. , the zerg queen's spawn larvae ability, and the protoss chronoboost ability, it makes building a large number of units quickly very easy. Also, there are several new units, like the terran Thor, the zerg roach, and the protoss stalker. Blizzard has also replaced several unbalanced units with better units, or made unbalanced units balanced. The terran goliath has been replaced with the viking, the zerg mutualisk has increased in price, and the zealot can now sprint towards its target. Blizzard has done it again.… Expand
  53. Prosthetics
    Dec 24, 2010
    9
    Blizzard continues to astound with their support for the PC platform, and seem to have the exact opposite feelings held by their parent, Activision (Blizzard). It is nice to know that Blizzard still cares about quality of their products, and will take the amount of time necessary to ensure they release a great product. Sad that they feel that this game needs 2 expansions (likely to goBlizzard continues to astound with their support for the PC platform, and seem to have the exact opposite feelings held by their parent, Activision (Blizzard). It is nice to know that Blizzard still cares about quality of their products, and will take the amount of time necessary to ensure they release a great product. Sad that they feel that this game needs 2 expansions (likely to go for $40 in of themselves) to tell a full story, but at least this release is very well done.… Expand
  54. Egoecro
    Dec 23, 2010
    8
    Very nice game, a worthy successor to the previous chapter.
    A game that has been adapted to modern needs but with the same parameters as the old one, a lot of news even if the game remains the same as it was, so nothing new or particularly innovative.
    Excellent graphics.
    Beautiful sound.
    Gameplay almost identical to the previous chapter.
  55. stimmedmarine
    Dec 22, 2010
    2
    No direct B-Chat.... When you enter this game you feel alone... It has northing to do with Online Gaming. You got not real direct contact to your enemies or friends
  56. 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
  57. rev0lutions
    Dec 18, 2010
    8
    First off to all the idiots giving the game a "1" your idiots. I have been gaming for most of my life and while the storyline in sc2 has so far left me completely bored the graphics are good, the music awesome and fitting to the mood of the game and the online gameplay intense. you could never change a classic game like sc too much as the MILLIONS of hardcore fans would spit the dummy soFirst off to all the idiots giving the game a "1" your idiots. I have been gaming for most of my life and while the storyline in sc2 has so far left me completely bored the graphics are good, the music awesome and fitting to the mood of the game and the online gameplay intense. you could never change a classic game like sc too much as the MILLIONS of hardcore fans would spit the dummy so blizzard had a limited range as to what they could actually do with the game. Considering that little fact blizzard has done an amazing job. To all the idiots crying about not having new races... this is because sc1 was the best rts ever made because of the unique balance presented by having 3 different races, introducing any more races would have thrown in sc2 with the million other dime a dozen unbalanced rts games all over the market. those saying the the graphics arnt amazing probably dont have computers capable of running the game on "ultra" and thus miss out on the clean cut, beautiful graphics that keep sc2 a step above the competition.

    I am a diamond player on battle net and the new interface is great in many ways although i dislike not having chat channels or rooms in which to simply discuss things with other players, the chat in sc2 in general is not very good. all round its a quality game and is vastly superior to most other rts games on the market, however it does still have room for improvement, but then, what game doesn't? All up i give sc2 an 8.    … Expand
  58. 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.
  59. GMOSU22
    Dec 3, 2010
    10
    SC2 is about as complete an RTS that has ever existed. It's sad to see some people poorly reviewing this game without objective analysis. You don't simply give a game a poor score because you don't like it, or you don't understand why it is the way it is. SC2 was not made to have some overwhelming storyline and then the game is over like RPG games are. It was made to continue an epicSC2 is about as complete an RTS that has ever existed. It's sad to see some people poorly reviewing this game without objective analysis. You don't simply give a game a poor score because you don't like it, or you don't understand why it is the way it is. SC2 was not made to have some overwhelming storyline and then the game is over like RPG games are. It was made to continue an epic storyline that people around the world grew to love. No other RTS storyline even compares. And let's not forget SC2's bread and butter is it's multiplayer AND map editor features.

    I've read that no LAN option is a problem for some people. The reality is 99.9% of games these days don't offer LAN. No console games offer LAN, and almost no computer games offer LAN because nobody really needs it. The multilayer was developed around one of the best matchmaking systems that has ever been made. It's designed to let casual players enjoy competition along with letting professional level players rise up and compete in MLG events. And it works WELL.

    I've read in a few below reviews that they are giving low scores for such shallow claims as "possibly few add-ons" and "cut scenes that have nothing to do with the game." These are as merit-less as claims come. The cut scenes in the game have EVERYTHING to do with the game. They directly connect the story, and are not merely eye-candy. I can't fathom how this assumption was made, but if you are even paying attention at all to the in depth story being told, you'd know exactly what was going on. Keep in mind that this is the first of 3 campaigns, and a continuation of a previous story in SC1/SC Brood War. The map editor in SC2 is above and beyond what I've ever seen in any game. there are countless games available under custom map play because users have the ability to use the versatile map editor to make creative works of game-play art. It's capable of reproducing classic RPG turn-based games, tower defenses, totally new game types, DotA style games, custom unit creation, etc etc. It's virtually limitless. Let's not forget that Blizzard recently announced that it is developing map mods for SC2 like "Left for dead" and official "DotA."

    When you combine the above aspects with almost perfectly balanced multi-player game-play featuring 3 totally different races, it's simply astounding how well this game was executed. The matchmaking is as perfect as it gets, the map editor adds thousands of potential game-play hours, and the story is top-notch for an RTS series. It just doesn't get much better than this.

    The graphics are phenomenal. I don't know why anyone would complain about this aspect. Critics agree, and so do most people that these are the best RTS graphics ever produced. Some other games look more "realistic" But Blizzard was purposefully trying to capture the original style of SC1 that so many people loved. SC2 is nowhere near a simple remake of SC1. The intent was to keep the top of the line game mechanics that made SC1 so successful. The atmosphere of the game continues to drop jaws, and the mechanics just simply work perfectly for "strategic" game-eplay. There is a reason SC2 is the main MLG game, and it is revered as a sport in Korea. It's because it is so well balanced, so well executed, and so well supported. What other games create JOBS dishing out potentially $MILLIONS in prize money through professional competition?

    Blizzard doesn't charge money to play this game after you buy it, even though it offers hundreds, even thousands of hours of online play. There are constant patch updates to fix every tiny balance issue, every tiny glitch. There is no game on the market that gets this kind of attention to maintaining the game. You buy any console game and chances are you get what you get, no updates, no patches. And on top of that you have to pay $5-$20 for "DLC." This is also true with most other PC games these days. With SC2 you can log in after a week and find custom maps that offer totally new experiences, and it doesn't cost a dime more. Blizzard could have easily kept the map editor in their own hands and released "DLC" to milk it's customers....

    For $60 you will never get more entertainment hours than SC2 offers. I am very satisfied with what Blizzard has produced in SC2. If you are looking for the ultimate strategy game, SC2 is it.    … Expand
  60. 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.
  61. WillKill
    Dec 2, 2010
    10
    DECENT Singleplayer. After playing the first for many hours over the years, I was even more excited for SC2. When I played through the singleplayer I found it to be nothing special. It was entertaining, but I don't agree with how the story progressed. I won't judge it on that though. Just as the first, the multiplayer is outstanding. This time it's even better as it is more balanced atDECENT Singleplayer. After playing the first for many hours over the years, I was even more excited for SC2. When I played through the singleplayer I found it to be nothing special. It was entertaining, but I don't agree with how the story progressed. I won't judge it on that though. Just as the first, the multiplayer is outstanding. This time it's even better as it is more balanced at release than the first and the new ranking system means you don't get your face smashed all the time. I don't play any RTS games except StarCraft. This game is amazing and i recommend it if you have the dedication of putting down the hours for fine tuning your skills.… Expand
  62. 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
  63. BubblegumImp
    Nov 26, 2010
    9
    After years of development, it's finally here. The visuals are sharp, the sound is punchy and the plot at the heart of the single player campaign does a fine job of setting the scene for the next installment in the planned SC2 trilogy. The multiplayer aspect of the first game remains one of the most highly competitive RTS titles in history and Blizzard saw fit to craft a sequel whichAfter years of development, it's finally here. The visuals are sharp, the sound is punchy and the plot at the heart of the single player campaign does a fine job of setting the scene for the next installment in the planned SC2 trilogy. The multiplayer aspect of the first game remains one of the most highly competitive RTS titles in history and Blizzard saw fit to craft a sequel which measures up to the lofty standards set by its predecessor. Fast, fun and functional... the only issues stem from some minor balance issues pertaining to the weakness of the Zerg species. However, Blizzard has already released numerous patches to address this issue and looks to continue supporting SC2 for the forseeable future. Starcraft 2 is here... and it's about time!… Expand
  64. Rosstickle
    Nov 25, 2010
    9
    Starcraft 2 is just the starcraft 1 on speed. That in itself makes it an awesome game, but after more than a decade I was hoping for something a bit more. I lost interest after about a month, mainly due to the fact i'd done it all before.
  65. 12dan4
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scatteredWhile a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly.… Expand
  66. DoctorKilla
    Nov 21, 2010
    10
    Just an complete, quality, fitting, and epic improvement upon the original, StarCraft is the frontrunner for Game of the Year along with God of War III in my eyes.
  67. 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
  68. RMW_Critic
    Nov 19, 2010
    9
    I love this game. It has all of the fundamentals of an RTS while still keeping originality. Multiplayer is totally epic and the single-player campaign is even more brilliant. It's one of those games that you just have to pick up whether you are or are not an RTS gamer. It got me into RTS games and I recommend it to everyone. My only gripe is the battle.net 2.0. It is region locked so, as II love this game. It has all of the fundamentals of an RTS while still keeping originality. Multiplayer is totally epic and the single-player campaign is even more brilliant. It's one of those games that you just have to pick up whether you are or are not an RTS gamer. It got me into RTS games and I recommend it to everyone. My only gripe is the battle.net 2.0. It is region locked so, as I have, if you buy a game from overseas then you will have to connect to the overseas battle.net. Also no LAN support which got me really angry. Other than that, a great game.… Expand
  69. DebanR
    Nov 17, 2010
    10
    The best RTS ever.
  70. BroLuk
    Nov 10, 2010
    10
    The best 2010 game for me. Really good campaign - continuation of StarCraft 1 story and most of all mission (really good made - there isn't 2 same mission in campaign). And the best multiplayer ever - this is true esport.
  71. 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
  72. Arrecho
    Nov 3, 2010
    0
    This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so itThis is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people...… Expand
  73. Shaitan87
    Nov 2, 2010
    10
    While the campaign is fun, what sets Starcraft apart is the multiplayer. Extremely competitive fast paced action leads to a very entertaining experience. Getting a couple friends on vent and playing 3v3 is some of the most fun I have had in ages.
  74. unpronounceable
    Oct 31, 2010
    10
    Starcraft II is as perfect as an RTS can be. It doesn't have shiny new mechanics like a cover system (Company of Heroes), or customizable squads (Dawn of War), the depth of strategy and gameplay destroys all competition with ease. The only criticism I have for it is the lack of LAN support, but the amazing campaign and challenging multiplayer more than make up for it.
  75. Nanu
    Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure thereI'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues.… Expand
  76. C4K3
    Oct 26, 2010
    8
    It's an alright game, it's not as perfect as some would describe it, but still definitely one of the better games in existence. Singleplayer is dull. Multiplayer is pretty nice. Custom multiplayer is just great.
  77. UsedRugs
    Oct 24, 2010
    9
    SC2 is the best multi-player RTS game out today. If you are looking for a fast strat game look no farther.
    It beats the socks off of C&C 4 which is a only half a game.
  78. Julius33
    Oct 21, 2010
    10
    I am a big fan of RTS games and well i can say that this game is awesome! I played SC:BW for some time and loved (despite its outdated graphics, still awesome).
    The game-play i would say is somewhat different from BW but it isnt a drastic change. The campaign is great and will take some time to complete and is quite challenging on higher difficulties. And as i said, single-player is great,    I am a big fan of RTS games and well i can say that this game is awesome! I played SC:BW for some time and loved (despite its outdated graphics, still awesome).
    The game-play i would say is somewhat different from BW but it isnt a drastic change. The campaign is great and will take some time to complete and is quite challenging on higher difficulties. And as i said, single-player is great, but multi-player. Now that is a different story :)
    Battle.net 2.0 can be described with one word: Awesome. I mean you could just spend your whole day in SC2 either by playing 2v2/3v3 against computers with a teammate, playing some league matches, or the best part: custom games. Custom games are just incredible. Basically you have around 100 different games(and i think many more actually) in SC2 so you will not get bored easily.
    The balancing is great when playing league matches: you always get to compete against a player who is pretty much at your level. I have yet to actually see some sort of idiot on Battle.net, everyone behaves and there are no retarded people online.(Trolls/spammers/anything like that)
    So my advice: If you like RTS games, or you have thought about which one should be your first one, then you should definitely buy this game! Thumbs up 10/10. High Five Blizzard!    … Expand
  79. Gr33nF00t
    Oct 18, 2010
    8
    Good things:
    1. It's a StarCraft game. Blizzard did an excellent job of staying with the tried and true formula that made the first SC so legendary, and while the game isn't going to revolutionize RTS gameplay, it is incredibly entertaining and effective as it is.
    2. It has very addictive gameplay. You could very well find yourself losing some sleep with this one. 3. The competitive    Good things:
    1. It's a StarCraft game. Blizzard did an excellent job of staying with the tried and true formula that made the first SC so legendary, and while the game isn't going to revolutionize RTS gameplay, it is incredibly entertaining and effective as it is.
    2. It has very addictive gameplay. You could very well find yourself losing some sleep with this one.
    3. The competitive online matchmaking is wonderful. Other games have tried implementing matchmaking systems with varying success, but SC2 is the first game that I feel "got it right." It makes sure that no matter your skill level, you will always have a good and close game.
    4. Gameplay is very streamlined. The controls make sense and are relatively easy to pick up, even if you've never played an RTS before.

    Bad things:
    1. The single-player campaign is rather lackluster. The story isn't bad, but it isn't gonna turn any heads either. If you're looking for superb storytelling of Mass Effect proportions, you will be disappointed.
    2. The graphics aren't the greatest. While this isn't all that important to me since I generally don't judge a game by how shiny it looks, I still have noticed that I was never really impressed by the visual and aesthetic style in general.
    3. While the new matchmaking part of the new Battle.Net is a real achievement, there really isn't all that much else going on online. The lack of a lobby where players not in a game could chat it up made the system feel rather incomplete. There is a friend list and you can chat with people, but the new Bnet is light on the social aspect.

    Closing remarks:
    Let's face it; if this wasn't a StarCraft game, it would not have been all that noteworthy. It would have been viewed as a solid entry in the RTS genre, but it still would have been brushed off for failing to bring anything new to the table. However, it IS StarCraft, so it gets special dispensation. Indeed, people would even get mad if they changed anything major. While certain things are holding it back from being "The Greatest Game Ever Made," it provides an excellent form of entertainment, which is what SC is about at its core, and as such, Blizzard did exactly what they needed to do.    … Expand
  80. Gamingking007
    Oct 18, 2010
    10
    Best strategy game ever created!!! Love it to death!!! Graphics and voice acting is Macnificent!!!Story line is also really great really loved it!!!Wow!!!
  81. 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
  82. 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.
  83. WolfAngelFT
    Oct 14, 2010
    9
    Ok so Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty aint anything new for RTS but hell do any of you know what it takes to creat flawless gameplay? I mean you all got to remember Starcraft was and still is one of their best works there wasn't a real need to change much. The graphics alone is what people wanted out of Starcraft and Broodwar. And not to mention Blizzard sets standards to the highest andOk so Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty aint anything new for RTS but hell do any of you know what it takes to creat flawless gameplay? I mean you all got to remember Starcraft was and still is one of their best works there wasn't a real need to change much. The graphics alone is what people wanted out of Starcraft and Broodwar. And not to mention Blizzard sets standards to the highest and makes games that don't need tons and tons of patches. All those that give the game less than a 7 need to realize you put your standards too high. Why recreate the wheel on this beautiful game? ALL RTS's are just about the same no matter what. Look at all the Diablo games not much changed from Diablo to Diablo 2 or that matter of Diablo 2 LOD. Diablo 3 is going to be just about the same just better graphics, new characters, and maps. Starcraft 2 Wings of Liderty should get at least a 7 but I give it a 9 for the fact its beautifuly made flawless and the few new things it brings to the table for other RTS's out there need to compete with. Blizzard is the best company out there hands down and I barely play anyother games out there from other companies. In fact I want to work for Blizzard once I get out of collage because I want to set a new bar with RPG's/MMORPG's. Blizzard themselves ARE THE BEST!… Expand
  84. Rexus
    Oct 14, 2010
    4
    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
    Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

    Graphics... pretty good. Considering it`s an obsolete engine and all other jazz. No physics effects or changing the morphology of the terrain with hellish artillery barrages the likes of which we`ve seen in CoH (4 years ago, mind you). So no innovation, but still looks good. Is it demanding? Pretty much, which is ridiculous, really. Graphics IS NOT that good, nor are there that many units in the game at any given time for the game to drag its heels on a mainstream rig, 3 years old. And no physics, which usually taxes the computer to some extent. But still, you could say that designers achieved a lot with very little, using that old engine and somewhat cartoonish visual style in the game, because, to me, it was pleasing. Even unrealistic size comparisons between units (talking about realism in 26th century, heh...) are usually overseen, and that kind of stuff used to bother me even when Red Alert 2 came out some 10 years ago. Gameplay, mechanics, balance, and all that jazz... pretty good too. It`s the good `ol SC gameplay formula, refurbished with new units and some minor features. It works pretty good too, since you can find some use for all new and old units, even ones you are not used to, well, using. Balance... is fine. I will berate, the game`s insistence (especially in singleplayer), to force its own tempo upon you. There is barely a handful of missions where you can build your base and get things done at your own pace. I can understand the need for a bit of dynamic in the game, but in SC2 it feels a bit rushed, imposed upon you. True, I might be oldschool, laidback strategist, forged in the fires of old Steel Panthers and early C&C games, but I prefer not to be forced to act ALL THE TIME. They could at least mask it better, like, for example, Sins of Solar Empire does. You can build up slowly and not fight at all for hours. But then something happens and suddenly you have an epic clash of massive fleets, where distance of nearest shipyard and attrition often decides battles. Management. Control. Trying to be at dozen places at the same time and prevent things from falling apart. An ultimate strategic experience. Does SC2 with its small, skirmish-like battles and smartly conceived, albeit simple economy, feel like one?
    Or Company of Heroes. I admit, there you have to do something ALL the time, or you wind up FUBAR. But its immersive, addictive. Attacking and counterattacking, cutting off supply lines, retreating to shorten your defenses and build up... And all that strategy comes wrapped up with brutal, visceral, and near-realistic display of WWII warfare. SC2? The fact that I detected how the game forces its tempo on me speaks plainly of how exactly... cheap the methods for achieving this are. Summing it up, gameplay has its ups and downs, but it`s good.

    Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
    And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
    you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!    … Expand
  85. TopProGamer
    Oct 13, 2010
    10
    This game right here.... This game right here.... This game right here player.... This game right here player.... IS STRAIGHT FIRE!!! IF I DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT BLIZZARD DROPPED THAT NUKE ON JAPAN IN WW2!!!

    On a serious note, I hear your complaints about taking stuff out of the original game and I think they will put it back when they do the patches. I like how    This game right here.... This game right here.... This game right here player.... This game right here player.... IS STRAIGHT FIRE!!! IF I DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT BLIZZARD DROPPED THAT NUKE ON JAPAN IN WW2!!!

    On a serious note, I hear your complaints about taking stuff out of the original game and I think they will put it back when they do the patches. I like how they put another old school game back out there and I like that they will be coming out with a new Diablo and the World of Warcraft expansion. This game is a blast from the past and even if Blizzard is doing the same thing they were doing 10 years ago they are still 30 years ahead of the competition.    … Expand
  86. Bobaganoosh
    Oct 12, 2010
    9
    Tries too hard to be better than the 1st one and the multiplayer doesn't really do it for me. Don't get me wrong, i think it's a great game and I gave it a 9, but as a sequal, the multiplayer was a little dissapointing. They took away most of my favorite units and replaced them with less powerful units. The single player is fantastic, i really like how they set it up, so that reallyTries too hard to be better than the 1st one and the multiplayer doesn't really do it for me. Don't get me wrong, i think it's a great game and I gave it a 9, but as a sequal, the multiplayer was a little dissapointing. They took away most of my favorite units and replaced them with less powerful units. The single player is fantastic, i really like how they set it up, so that really saves them for my score, but the multiplayer just doesn't seem as fun for me as the original...which is the only reason i docked a point. i'd give 8.5 if i could though.… Expand
  87. Junk
    Oct 11, 2010
    8
    The thing that makes this game great is the fact that it is an old school RTS game, they did not jump on the no base building hero unit trend which is great. Overall a good game. No problems running the game at all even on ultra.
  88. Tubie
    Oct 11, 2010
    8
    This game is not as good or at least it did not have the same impact Starcraft had on me and my friends when it came out. Still, this game is a must buy if you are a fan of the genre. Single player is fun and the achievements might keep you hooked for a while. Multipayer is great, blizzard made sure to make battle.net work well for it, at least to try and compensate for no LAN support.
  89. 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
  90. bloodyjackel
    Oct 8, 2010
    9
    A great game, another great product made by blizzard.I wish the solo campaign was longer but it just makes me want the next one even more. Be prepared to constantly multitask when playing online matches, I would advise reading up on strategies and watching videos on you tube it helps. There is a custom made game for anyone online.
  91. 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.
  92. 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.
  93. 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.
  94. drbo
    Sep 29, 2010
    9
    While all turn based games lack the big adrenaline rush you get from 1st person shooter types, in its category Starcraft II lacks nothing. The missions are challenging, some very much so, and the growing stockpile of mercenaries and weapons allow for multiple and variable solutions to each episode. The story line is compelling and the action is moved along by the A.I. fluidly. Once playWhile all turn based games lack the big adrenaline rush you get from 1st person shooter types, in its category Starcraft II lacks nothing. The missions are challenging, some very much so, and the growing stockpile of mercenaries and weapons allow for multiple and variable solutions to each episode. The story line is compelling and the action is moved along by the A.I. fluidly. Once play begins you are engrossed in completing the mission(s) and the hours slip by unnoticed. This is an extremely satisfying game.… Expand
  95. GameDogsLeader
    Sep 27, 2010
    10
    Starcraft II Wings of Liberty, Is probably my favorite RTS game in my history of gaming. It has 3 fairly balanced race's. The game continues to get updates to make the game get better. They even recently changed there Icon design. There is no one in the world I would not recommend This game to. The campaign is good as there will be more ahead I am sure. Casual gamers and even the hardcoreStarcraft II Wings of Liberty, Is probably my favorite RTS game in my history of gaming. It has 3 fairly balanced race's. The game continues to get updates to make the game get better. They even recently changed there Icon design. There is no one in the world I would not recommend This game to. The campaign is good as there will be more ahead I am sure. Casual gamers and even the hardcore gamers would not get tired of this game. Well if you do, Then you are a noob go back to playing E.T.… Expand
  96. 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
  97. Clone25
    Sep 25, 2010
    10
    This game has got to be the best PC game ever made. Amazing graphics and improved gameplay has blown all those series that get yet another game every year to the sky. The wait for this game has really paid off. Continuing with the unfinished story from the first games, Starcraft 2 has refitted itself with new units, structures,characters and map editor. The prologue at the installationThis game has got to be the best PC game ever made. Amazing graphics and improved gameplay has blown all those series that get yet another game every year to the sky. The wait for this game has really paid off. Continuing with the unfinished story from the first games, Starcraft 2 has refitted itself with new units, structures,characters and map editor. The prologue at the installation point tells you the story so far, so new players of starcraft do not have to buy the first games to get whats going on. Starcraft 2 now has an achievements centre where you earn achievements for something you did while playing. you can see the achievements board in your profile. This is one of the best real time strategy games ive ever played… Expand
  98. derpderpderp
    Sep 24, 2010
    8
    The criticism is from most people is understandable. Battle.net 2.0 is nothing but restrictive, the campaign was okay (in an old-school rts type of way) but had a terrible plot, and you get the chance to pay for two expansions with similar, lacking content. But the multiplayer in SC2 is just really, really solid and fun. New players may find it a bit daunting, and rts fans may complainThe criticism is from most people is understandable. Battle.net 2.0 is nothing but restrictive, the campaign was okay (in an old-school rts type of way) but had a terrible plot, and you get the chance to pay for two expansions with similar, lacking content. But the multiplayer in SC2 is just really, really solid and fun. New players may find it a bit daunting, and rts fans may complain that the little change in 12 years is nothing but a rehash, it is still a great multiplayer game. The strategies in 1v1s are very diverse, and the old school system may be hard to learn, but really interesting once you've mastered it. The new unit additions add more depth, or revamp some of the lacking choices and opportunities of the factions that occured in Brood War.… Expand
  99. Ubermac
    Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed.    … Expand
  100. Uh_Oh
    Sep 19, 2010
    10
    Well worth the wait. Seeing the story with kerrigan and jim raynor continue was great. Story was well paced. All the voice actors did an outstanding job. MP is very similar to the original but with some nice updates. Very please, bring on heart of the swarm!
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 »