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. rareh
    Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations onThe game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

    And it's more expensive than other games on the market.    … Expand
  2. DRUNKCANADIAN
    Sep 15, 2010
    8
    It honestly deserves less, but when pieces of garbage like the entire Halo franchise (ok the first one was original) get 9s this game deserves at least an 8. The game has a solid single player experience, albeit brief and severely disjointed if you want it to be (I can literally do the missions in some messed up orders). Still a bold style for the RTS genre. The online is terrible thanksIt honestly deserves less, but when pieces of garbage like the entire Halo franchise (ok the first one was original) get 9s this game deserves at least an 8. The game has a solid single player experience, albeit brief and severely disjointed if you want it to be (I can literally do the missions in some messed up orders). Still a bold style for the RTS genre. The online is terrible thanks to Bnet 2.0 which even the biggest fans must concede is terrible, thinking Xboxlive-ish junk is an improvement over previous Battlenet is just sad. Support for the game itself is poor, still no free name changes nor the much needed patch 1.1 to nerf siege tanks (I'm top tier diamond so please be quiet). When players like IdrA who play this game say no self respecting player would play terran something is up. Although overall the races are pretty balanced at top tier of play. The game itself is the same core SC with more emphasis on hard counters and some radically changed combat mechanics to bring the game into the modern RTS era. Its not a bad game, and its certainly better than a lot of the crap on the market, but its sub-par for Blizzard which has done much better with their RTS titles in the past.… Expand
  3. ESRolic
    Sep 15, 2010
    6
    Over 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find itOver 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find it somewhere else before. Technically, the graphics and sounds etc are just average, nothing special. The only good thing, is probably the so called 'map editor', with which we may see some fantastic innovations in the future.… Expand
  4. Falling_Hammer
    Sep 14, 2010
    2
    When I heard that the new Starcraft II was coming I was so happy, but when I bought the game I realized that this game is just a copy of a Starcraft I. I was very disappointed because the only new things are some abilities and a few new units. For me this is the Disappointment of the decade. I used to love games coming from Blizzard games factory but now I get the real picture...
  5. Kommissar
    Sep 14, 2010
    10
    This game is by far the best game i have ever played. When compared to other RTS titles it beats everything else by miles; it is the best balanced game on the market and that is NOT debatable. The game runs smoothly on the amazingly new Battle.net 2.0; it doesnt need to have chat rooms as finding friends has never been easier and the matchmaking is brilliant. Offline the gameplay is fun;This game is by far the best game i have ever played. When compared to other RTS titles it beats everything else by miles; it is the best balanced game on the market and that is NOT debatable. The game runs smoothly on the amazingly new Battle.net 2.0; it doesnt need to have chat rooms as finding friends has never been easier and the matchmaking is brilliant. Offline the gameplay is fun; especially with units that don't exist online as they are OP (flame turrets ftw!). So smooth, so fast, so tactically diverse and challenging, and it looks sooo shiny! This game blows everything else out of the water!… Expand
  6. Dracongo
    Sep 13, 2010
    3
    You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly,You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though.… Expand
  7. Bud5252
    Sep 9, 2010
    2
    Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences"Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences" which would be the point of a "Defence" because they have more hitpoints and cost ratio is better, then yes someone screwed up. as far as balancing... well its not. the old starcraft the old war horses of blizzard knew. protoss; high power low output on units. terran medium power, medium output on units, zerg; low power high output of units.... pretty simple. the game is not balanced when a good protoss player can take a probe into the enemys base and set up photon cannons and win the game in 5 mins before a half decent player can get any units up. sry blizzard but i think your failing. and this aside, no LAN? not only that but there were SOOO many more options in the old starcraft in multiplay that allowed for cooperative play on the same team why cant the A.I. have an option to build defences and turtle the game. and the campaign story line that was.. ehh.... Two words for me sums this all up, extreme disappointment. as a hardcore gamer i loved the long played out matches i played 12 years ago. well this makes no difference to blizzard im sure. but this long time SC2 fan will not be buying those expansions… Expand
  8. chris999
    Sep 9, 2010
    9
    Finished this game right down to all 3 achievements per mission - point is I really played this game. And the verdict? PROS: Excellent game and a worthy successor to Starcraft 1. It retains enough of the original Starcraft 1 look and feel so as to make you feel comfortable - and yet it is still different enough to be challenging and exciting. Graphics are bigger, more detailedFinished this game right down to all 3 achievements per mission - point is I really played this game. And the verdict? PROS: Excellent game and a worthy successor to Starcraft 1. It retains enough of the original Starcraft 1 look and feel so as to make you feel comfortable - and yet it is still different enough to be challenging and exciting. Graphics are bigger, more detailed and sparkle, especially if you have a good video card (I use a 9800GT). There are 29 missions overall and they are balanced excellent, always challenging, and the achievement system makes for great replay. Also, many new units added for all races, other units have evolved, lots of new stuff to learn. And you can rotate the game left and right a bit by pushing Insert & Delete buttons - definitely a much more 3D look to the game. Loved the plot, loved the cinematics. A lot of work put into this title - the usual Blizzard level of quality. CONS: Why I didn't give a ten is because of the need to always be online to play this game. I think maybe Blizzard has gone overboard in its efforts to stop piracy. Playing this game is like when you play a game thru Steam. Warning: If you are playing the game and Battle.net goes down, be aware that you can only get achievements if you are connected to Battle.net. And I wish they had allowed LAN play, but you can still play with friends or someone else at home thru Battle.net, you just create the game non-public and you each need your own battle.net account. Hoping the next installments to this title won't be too expensive, and am sure they will be excellent campaigns also.… Expand
  9. dustin12345678
    Sep 8, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

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

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

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

    Great game, but its starting to get tired. Probably should have been released five or six years ago. Should have moved RTS forward a little bit more without comprising original. This game feels like WCIII and SC merged into one. 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  10. swampfox357
    Sep 7, 2010
    8
    SC2 is all about the online multiplayer. It was a disappointing campaign compared to previous Blizzard games. The matchmaking system is okay, but overly simplistic. A brand new player may end up playing against veterans of hundreds of games in the Platinum league simply by winning all their placement matches.

    The races are not yet balanced. In 1v1 terran > zerg, zerg > protoss. Zerg has    SC2 is all about the online multiplayer. It was a disappointing campaign compared to previous Blizzard games. The matchmaking system is okay, but overly simplistic. A brand new player may end up playing against veterans of hundreds of games in the Platinum league simply by winning all their placement matches.

    The races are not yet balanced. In 1v1 terran > zerg, zerg > protoss. Zerg has a definite disadvantage in team games as well. Hopefully this will change when the expansion comes out. The game gets an 8 because of the terran imbalance, the lack of LAN play, and the lack of many battlenet 1 features that they stripped out.    … Expand
  11. Shefath
    Sep 6, 2010
    10
    This game is the greates rts game ever made.The graphics are enjoying and the gameplay provides a perpetual enthusiasticy.Those who gave negative comments in this game.Eiether they dont know a thing about gaming or they play stupid games like gta.
  12. Heroine4Life
    Sep 6, 2010
    3
    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and that is a bad comparison. But if we compare this game to other RTS games graphically (Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Dawn of War 2) we see it falls short and has the quality of Majesty 2. It is very pretty but not what I would expect form a game published in 2010, after a long production time, or a $60 release price.

    Gameplay: So yes there are new units that adds new strategy. I would hope in a brand new game this was doable. If I had bought an entirely different new game there would be a ton of new strategies. So this for me feels more like an expansion then worthy of a stand alone. The 'S' of RTS also seems to be missing in this. For a long time Starcraft has been about min/maxing and playing the spread sheet game, not about paper, rock, scissors, flanking, and general out maneuvering. Mass single units are still popular in high ranked matches, general disorganized rushes still work.

    Sound: It's good...I didn't know people really still cared about this or worried about it.

    The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.    … Expand
  13. Seraph
    Sep 5, 2010
    9
    An Amazing game that fans of the first game will love. The game plays very similarily to the first one but with a wide array of new features and units. Amazing story and cinematics as is to be expected from blizzard is always a plus. 9/10 for an amazing come back to one of the greatest games ever made.
  14. Chupwn
    Sep 4, 2010
    8
    It's a prettier starcraft, you play it just like the 1st one, only you can have unit groupings as big as you like. Oh, and terrans get very different equipment in Campaign mode, so when you switch over to multiplayer, you've got to rethink all your strategies.

    Love the music and the new layout of in-between mission area.
  15. Scubadave
    Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ),Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ), but this is not a game to be purchased for graphics, it is the addictive fastpaced arcade competitive style multiplayer action that gives it such a good score. Though... :) I think it's highly over rated!… Expand
  16. Achtung
    Sep 1, 2010
    9
    very good game.
    one of the best RTS games I played lately. It is designed for players whp like fast action RTS games. I'm a turtle player but still like the game. The graphics and sound are good. The single player story is good. The missions are fun to play and have divers goals (not every time kil everything on the map). The multiplayer is as good as the original.
  17. Tridus
    Sep 1, 2010
    10
    This game is unabashed and honest about what it is. It's an old school base-building fast paced rush heavy RTS. If you like that kind of game, stop reading and go buy it right now, because this is the best of that type of game that we've seen in a long time.

    If you don't like that type of game, then you won't like this game and you should move on.
  18. yolandivisser
    Aug 31, 2010
    10
    i wuoldn't say dat this is the best game ever made, but it's like 124 times better than the first one because the story is more intense like and the strategy gets like so crazy you can't even count your fingers in front of your own hands, it's as if you got like 5 hits of some crazy pomp and you got no sense about you - and plus the zerg is like EKA EKA EKA EKA EKA
  19. LambdaRed
    Aug 31, 2010
    6
    Pretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategyPretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategy gaming you will not be disappointed.… Expand
  20. Cheeseman
    Aug 31, 2010
    10
    I have never been a fan of RTS games. I was born and bred as an FPS man all the way; however, Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, has had me questioning my upbringing.

    I have found myself playing Starcraft and only wanting to play Starcraft. The single player campaign and story is phenomenal, with touching cut scenes and intriguing levels, but this game really shines in its multiplayer    I have never been a fan of RTS games. I was born and bred as an FPS man all the way; however, Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty, has had me questioning my upbringing.

    I have found myself playing Starcraft and only wanting to play Starcraft.

    The single player campaign and story is phenomenal, with touching cut scenes and intriguing levels, but this game really shines in its multiplayer design. It's hard to describe the tension and excitement that you feel while playing someone that you've never met. There have been many games where I have been shaking from nerves after playing. Seriously, there are few games that do that to me and multiplayer Starcraft II literally causes me to shake from tension and excitement.

    All I can say: Starcraft II, even if you are not a fan of the RTS genre, try it out and see if you like it. I'm sure you will. I have hated RTS for many years, but this game has made me want to only play RTS games.    … Expand
  21. Kassdhal
    Aug 28, 2010
    8
    By large the best STR done so far. The campaign is great and innovative. Pure Blizzard game in many respects: extremely polished and thought-through, great realization, perfect balance. The best studio of the last 17 years has not lost its touch.
    The big issue for me, as it was for the first Starcraft is Multiplayer. Very balanced gameplay but it is always Rush, Rush, Rush and having no    By large the best STR done so far. The campaign is great and innovative. Pure Blizzard game in many respects: extremely polished and thought-through, great realization, perfect balance. The best studio of the last 17 years has not lost its touch.
    The big issue for me, as it was for the first Starcraft is Multiplayer. Very balanced gameplay but it is always Rush, Rush, Rush and having no other choice than either stop multiplayer or being forced into always the same kind os strategy is depressing. There should be a way to play on maps allowing long term development instead of being forced to rush all the time. Maybe it is only wishful thinking.    … Expand
  22. rremmy72
    Aug 27, 2010
    3
    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races. Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race?    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races.

    Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race? Or the Hybrid toss/zerg? We get tantalizing glimpes of these characters yet we're not able to play as them? Maybe they're saving those for an expansion pack...either way, it's inexcusable for such a highly-anticipated sequel.

    Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.    … Expand
  23. Alucard
    Aug 26, 2010
    8
    Starcraft II is a GREAT game. It has quite possibly the best graphics i have ever seen in an RTS and the gameplay is great and I only have a few problems with the game. Problem 1) the need to be logged in to play singleplayer that is seriously just a pain in the ass. Problem 2) The fact that the majority of units you can get in the campaign and lots of classic Starcraft Units cannot beStarcraft II is a GREAT game. It has quite possibly the best graphics i have ever seen in an RTS and the gameplay is great and I only have a few problems with the game. Problem 1) the need to be logged in to play singleplayer that is seriously just a pain in the ass. Problem 2) The fact that the majority of units you can get in the campaign and lots of classic Starcraft Units cannot be used in the multiplayer (Firebats, Medics, Vultures, Diamondbacks, wraiths, Science Vessels, and Goliaths) and other units from the original starcraft are not even included (dark archons, Valkyries, Scouts, Corsairs, Reavers, Gaurdians, Arbiters, Devourers, Scourge, Defielers, and flying queens) like is there really a reason you need to take out a ton of the original units? 3) The protoss have been incredibly weakened to the point where they're almost not worth playing im not a great player but i am pretty decent but the loss of scouts, corsairs and arbiters has destroyed the protoss air forces void rays are good for destroying buildings and tanks and stuff but when they come up against another large force of air the specializes in anti air they will get destroyed, pheonix's are useless and carriers have had their build time increased. Reavers have been completly taken out meaning the protoss no longer have a long ranged anti building unit/defence unit (though i must admit the colossi are pretty good at holding back waves of ground units) and immortals while powerfull really dont have the punch or the range siege tanks do or the massive damage of ultralisks. No more dark archons means that you can no longer steal units from enemies which im sure that terran and zerg players are thankfull about but i always loved being able to branch out into other races and just in general if im low on minerals steal enemy units to bolster my own forces. as for defending your base Photon Cannons have had a huge range reduction and have had some damage reduction this makes defending your base from reapers incredibly hard as they can just hop cliffs anywhere and take out your buildings fast and always seem to stay just outside your cannon range while they hit your pylons. Despite all these flaws i still consider starcraft II to be a great game the terrain mechanics are just great small eye candy things you may not notice like the fact that when you blow up something if the wreckage is on a ramp it will slide down it (i just found that to be a cool thing in sc2) so obviously alot of work went into this game (10 freaking years of work) but its here now and hopefully through balancing and patches the races will be balanced because as it is protoss are waaaaaay underpowered… Expand
  24. gams
    Aug 26, 2010
    10
    Holy! sh*t! what a game! amazing amazing
    Excellent history, excellent gameplay, excellent graphics, what's not excellent in this second version of the best strategy game of all times!
  25. Honkeymagoo
    Aug 26, 2010
    8
    This is Starcraft 2, if you're not an RTS fan this probably won't turn you into one, but if you're a Starcraft/ Warcraft player it won't disappoint. STORY: Eh, I wasn't wowed by it, but it wasn't a turn off either, it kept me playing but won't win any awards for the plot either, voice acting is decent, but again not award winning. GRAPHICS: A very good looking RTS no doubt, the Zerg lookThis is Starcraft 2, if you're not an RTS fan this probably won't turn you into one, but if you're a Starcraft/ Warcraft player it won't disappoint. STORY: Eh, I wasn't wowed by it, but it wasn't a turn off either, it kept me playing but won't win any awards for the plot either, voice acting is decent, but again not award winning. GRAPHICS: A very good looking RTS no doubt, the Zerg look creepy, the Protoss look shiny, and Terran look gritty, overall I think the graphics will hold up well and it's a very pretty game to look ing. SOUND: Pretty decent sound, each race is distinctive in the way it sounds you're not going to mistake the Zerg for the Terrans, also the swooshes and blips of the menus are nicely done. GAMEPLAY: This is where most people get divided, if you're a HUGE Supcom fan you're probably not going to like the gameplay as Starcraft is much more oriented with the Macro style gameplay, it's fast paced with most matches end in less than 15 minutes, but CAN last over an hour. VALUE: This is a high value game, the custom maps and mods are going to make this game into a game that is played for years to come. Overall it's definitely worth the money if you're an RTS fan. OVERALL: I'd say Starcraft 2 is not the 2nd coming that the hype would lead most people to believe, but it's going to revolutionize e-sports within 2 years, the custom maps and mod scene will be HUGE, so if you're a fan of RTS games pick it up, but if you're not, then it's probably not going to convert you.… Expand
  26. zeca
    Aug 26, 2010
    6
    I really dont consider this game the best of year. Why? The story is fair to poor, its Jim Raynor collecting artifacts to save Kerrigan. If she is devil, why save her? The gameplay is good with well structured graphics. The only thing thats good it's graphics, the gameplay, and the multiplayer mode. Starcraft 1 is much more intertsing with good story and cinematics.
  27. Rumpelstiltskin
    Aug 26, 2010
    10
    @JCT You're the typical moron saying "wah wah 12 years in the making wah wah". For your information jack***, the game didn't even start development until 2003 and in 2005 they stopped for a year to work on WoW. If you can make a better game than by all means... do it. Secondly this game has way more features than 99% of all RTS games in the past decade. 20+ maps, great matchmaking, etc.@JCT You're the typical moron saying "wah wah 12 years in the making wah wah". For your information jack***, the game didn't even start development until 2003 and in 2005 they stopped for a year to work on WoW. If you can make a better game than by all means... do it. Secondly this game has way more features than 99% of all RTS games in the past decade. 20+ maps, great matchmaking, etc. Did you really just compare StarCraft 2 to GTA4? 2 very different games... not to mention GTA4 is completely the opposite of this game. GTA4 is the game that had cut features but I won't go into that since this is about SC2. Know what you're talking about you stupid f**k.

    I guess virgins like yourself, who spent 10 hours a day playing the original, will never accept that games change and keeping them the exact same as the original is pointless. So do us a favor and never write a review again because you just made yourself look like a complete dumb***.    … Expand
  28. justinscustoms
    Aug 25, 2010
    8
    As already mentioned Starcraft II indeed delivers on the same game play mechanics of its predecessor which as before was very easy to jump in and play, I also enjoyed a more serious look into the Starcraft universe offering a storyline that allows that keeps the single player interesting and offers moral choices that effect future game play. I also have to complement Blizzard on makingAs already mentioned Starcraft II indeed delivers on the same game play mechanics of its predecessor which as before was very easy to jump in and play, I also enjoyed a more serious look into the Starcraft universe offering a storyline that allows that keeps the single player interesting and offers moral choices that effect future game play. I also have to complement Blizzard on making the game scalable which indeed seems to be a corporate goal of theirs and the game runs amicably on systems much lesser than mine with tolerable settings. Where I was left a little aback on was how little upwardly the graphics scaled, having a more than capable system seemed to offer little difference than much lower rigs and at the hefty 60$ dollar tag and 12 years of possible development, it did leave me wanting a little more. I also was less than happy with the lack of campaigns available for the Protoss and Zerg. All in all it is a solid game and worth picking up, it will consume your time and it is definitely challenging.… Expand
  29. Bonisaur
    Aug 25, 2010
    9
    There's a reason why renowned critics have given universally favorable reviews for Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. It is simply one of the best PC gaming experiences out there, ever. With the "selling out" of many games to the more popular console system, there are very few companies left which truly devote the resources which the PC deserves above a console game. Blizzard, along with aThere's a reason why renowned critics have given universally favorable reviews for Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. It is simply one of the best PC gaming experiences out there, ever. With the "selling out" of many games to the more popular console system, there are very few companies left which truly devote the resources which the PC deserves above a console game. Blizzard, along with a few other developers such as Sid Miers, are the last standing frontier of PC gaming out there.

    The campaign from Wings of Liberty throws thirty-some missions at the player, with several additional mini-games or challenges thrown in the mix. There are a plethora of achievements. Although some users might complain that it's not "complete" since it only features thirty missions, the story and plot come to a climactic close, not just some cliff-hanger to sell the next expansion.

    Graphics are good, but not anything great; Blizzard, for most part, caters to hard core gamers, except here, where they allowed WoL to run on a range of specs. Music and sound effects are grade A, it doesn't sound recycled from the past game and the sounds as well as voices are unique to the units and the characters you meet throughout your adventures.

    Multiplayer is what truly caters to the needs of the hard-core. It's been intensively balanced, and has a new style of match making as well as a revamped Battle.net 2.0. Leagues and points systems attempt to ensure that players play against those of equal skill level or so, with the chance to play greater skilled opponents in order to promote into another league. Starcraft 2 has a great community; as of now, much of the DotA company (rude and mean) has not moved over into Starcraft 2. There are many new players who picked up the game who were dedicated WoW fans, but generally, they are mannered. The forums, as well as spin-off fan sites, offer a plethora of ways to communicate with the community. A rising phenomena is the commentary of the Pro-gaming series, as well as novice and amateur commentary of one's own replays, or replays of friends. After the release of Starcraft 2, there was an increase in scamming and phishing attempts however.

    As for cons, there is no LAN, but fortunately there is offline play. You can have guests play on your computer, but only one battle.net account is allowed from a CD-Key. Zerg is never handled by the player; this leaves many new players playing Terran in multiplayer. You cannot change the set-up of the default keys (but there are four different sets including the original Broodwar setup) , but this is mainly to ensure an equal gaming environment.

    In the end, if you are a PC gamer, it's almost unlikely that you've never heard of Starcraft. I suggest any PC gamer play this game, as it truly is the sequel to the best RTS of all time.    … Expand
  30. eduedu87
    Aug 25, 2010
    1
    The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions ofThe game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them.… Expand
  31. Ophenix
    Aug 25, 2010
    0
    This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
    blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.
  32. altekki
    Aug 24, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detailStarcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detail models? I'm sorry but it is not enough. And how does the game get any better by the 3D when the view is fixed? It seem most of the game's success is only because of the hype and the name. If there was no SC1, this game had already be forgotten as a decent Xmas present candidate. When playing the game, it is hard to believe it has been released in 2010. Someone might say Starcraft 2 is a good game because it is so balanced. True, but does it actually matter but only for those top level players who have practised and practised for hundreds or thousands of hours. What is in for a casual player? I would rather play a RTS that amazes me with it's graphics and mechanics and challenges me intelligently from the very beginning.… Expand
  33. frank84
    Aug 24, 2010
    6
    The game is great, it's definitly Blizzard and a great balanced STR... but how sad that they have not renewed a little bit more the universe, the units, the gameplay... I'm looking foward to an extention pack with more differences !
  34. Aironas17
    Aug 24, 2010
    10
    It's a awesome and cool game,good graphics,good story,good soundtrack,good game play,good menu,a lot of achievement's and awesome Multilayer who's needed to be played all days all nights.
  35. dj_stevie_c
    Aug 23, 2010
    10
    I wanted to write a review but I had to play one more mission.

    GO BUY IT ALREADY.

    No seriously, if you're a fan of RTS style games then you should go and get it. The game is absolutely superb.
  36. AdamR
    Aug 22, 2010
    10
    First, lets get one thing straight: This is a sequel. Hence the 2 after the, "Starcraft". It will bear a similarity to the original. Blizzards intent is to take the original game, refine it, tune it, add new content, spruce it up, and keep the story moving. It has succeeded on every count. There are a large number of new units: Certainly more then enough to completely alter the playingFirst, lets get one thing straight: This is a sequel. Hence the 2 after the, "Starcraft". It will bear a similarity to the original. Blizzards intent is to take the original game, refine it, tune it, add new content, spruce it up, and keep the story moving. It has succeeded on every count. There are a large number of new units: Certainly more then enough to completely alter the playing field, and add in a wide number of new strategies while still feeling like that Starcraft we know and love at its core. New units are neither a hackneyed add-on, nor an overpowered new addition: They fit into the new game seamlessly in clever, interesting new ways. Level design is varied, interesting, and quite open to user content

    The single player is a real treat. As long as any previous Starcraft game, and there is actually a lack of, "Race A here, Race B there, now kill each other" scenarios. I started missing this standard, cliche level design, but the overwhelming variety of mission objectives is impressive. One mission your robbing a train using quick, mobile units, another your hunkering down for a zombie wave, while rapidly destroying the infestation mostly undisturbed by day, and suddenly you playing an almost puzzle-esque level of priority assassinations and planning. The variety is astounding. Achievements are interesting, and add a good deal of re-playability, and challenge missions add that little something extra

    The Cons are pretty negligible. An extra 10 dollar price tag is a bit insulting, but Id finger point at Activision, and you are paying for quality. Loss of LAN will hurt only a very small percentage of people, thanks to the friend system: My internet is extremely unreliable, along with all the people I live with, and I have yet to observe any appreciable difference from traditional LAN play. Menus can get a bit confusing, and adding a friend manually is a bit annoying, and while the Facebook integration is interesting, but doesn't seem to be very reliable. Also, Protoss fans only get a brief glimpse of there single player, while Zerg get no single player outside of challenges, which may be annoying, but make no mistake: You get a full games worth of content here. Lastly, thanks to the 3 separate releases, don't get to attached to medics, fire bats, science vessels, or a number of other units: They do not yet carry over into Multiplayer. It's an understandable balance issue, we need to hold off until other races get there shiny new units, but its a tad annoying.

    Sequels are a problem when they are pushed out constantly without much improvement to the overall design. SC2 took what, 12 years, and has the maximum possible new content without feeling like it's covering the core experience. Blizzard hasn't created a new life form, it has just taken a giant step forward in its evolution, with hardly a vestigial tail or wisdom tooth in sight. Perfect no, but I think it rounds up to a 10.    … Expand
  37. ultrafang
    Aug 21, 2010
    5
    Graphics aren't too great compared to previous rts releases, story isn't that immersive and get's a little silly at points, same old sh** I suppose for a rts, gets old fast! I will admit I'm not a real fan of rts style games, but all this hype is ridiculous.
  38. Goosebump
    Aug 21, 2010
    6
    Pros:

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

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

    Cons:

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

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

    Quite disappointed with how blizz are changing as a company. I miss the old Blizz circa WC3 where they were not only loved for making superb games but because they also treated their customers much better than the current assumption where they think everyone is some sort of thief and everyone uses junk like Failbook.    … Expand
  39. Bob_H
    Aug 20, 2010
    0
    I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game'sI played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good.… Expand
  40. blikk
    Aug 20, 2010
    10
    The wait was well worth it. Everything about this game satisfies me in every single way imaginable. Single player campaign was great, absolutely cannot wait for the second installment to come out. It's just too bad we'll have to wait!

    100% Recommend to any RTS lover. Starcraft is second to NONE!
  41. SelkciPlum
    Aug 20, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would giveStarcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would give it a 8 if there was a tournament option (with a party of 8, P1 v P2, P3 v P4, P5 v P6, P7 v P8 all at the same time with 2 people battling on each map. Then the winners face off, and those winners face off etc.) I would give it a 9 if it had the tournament option, and it also didn't require you to be online to do almost everything. There are times when my internet is down, and I want to just play against A.I, but Blizzard won't let me do that. Finally, it would get a 10 if it had the two prior features, and the races were balanced. Not only did the races lose their defining traits (Zerg can no longer swarm, and Protoss is weaker than Terran HP-wise) but the races are now just plain imbalanced. Zerg is underpowered compared to both races, and no I'm not saying this just because Zerg is my main. Even the professional Korean players are starting to complain that Zerg is too weak especially after the Roach and Ultralisk got nerfed. Fix all these things, and Starcraft 2 gets a 10.… Expand
  42. dudwasup
    Aug 20, 2010
    10
    this is a great game i never played he first but the second looked great and its a great game its not a game you sit down your first time and are just good you do have to put some time in and practice multiplayer is well done. i recommend having a good cpu a quad core is a good choice or a really fast core 2 duo both would play fine
  43. Janny_A
    Aug 19, 2010
    10
    The negative comments are just hilarious. The game is fantastic in every single way, it surpasses the original so much it's not even funny.
    Sure, some balance issues have come, but is that something new and unexpected? The first one wasn't balanced enough for years and SC2 came out with almost perfect balance. You have an expansive campaign with unparalleled multiplayer. I can't wait for    The negative comments are just hilarious. The game is fantastic in every single way, it surpasses the original so much it's not even funny.
    Sure, some balance issues have come, but is that something new and unexpected? The first one wasn't balanced enough for years and SC2 came out with almost perfect balance. You have an expansive campaign with unparalleled multiplayer. I can't wait for the expansions - this is by far the best RTS campaign ever. There's so much more to say about the game but I'll only say this - it's the best RTS you will have for the next 10 years. Deal with it and enjoy it! 10/10.    … Expand
  44. Beerit
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    Though the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less andThough the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less and less acceptable.… Expand
  45. fuwaneko
    Aug 19, 2010
    9
    Polished, balanced and very detailed game. Everything is just good. The only problem is that SC2 is very repetitive and old-school. Nothing really new comparing to the first game. Anyways, it's a new cybersport discipline for a long time now. That is what Bliz aimed for. If you're nostalgic - buy w/o thinking. If you're SC1 multiplayer fan - buy w/o thinking. Others probably will bePolished, balanced and very detailed game. Everything is just good. The only problem is that SC2 is very repetitive and old-school. Nothing really new comparing to the first game. Anyways, it's a new cybersport discipline for a long time now. That is what Bliz aimed for. If you're nostalgic - buy w/o thinking. If you're SC1 multiplayer fan - buy w/o thinking. Others probably will be disappointed. I would prefer something where more thinking and less clicking required.… Expand
  46. ColinB
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    If you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interestedIf you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interested in this game casually, you should give it a pass. The gameplay is hardly different from the original, and it is more of a large patch than a new game entirely. It is sad to see that the game is even more micro intensive than before, forgoing skill for memorized cookie cutter strategies and quick hands. Unless you like to spend hours perfecting you ability to multitask, I would suggest choosing another game.… Expand
  47. ChuckFarley
    Aug 19, 2010
    7
    This game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; butThis game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; but it's not like they'll miss the numbers. having said that, the single player campaign was substantial and challenging, the cutscenes were cool, and no-one (certainly not me) is going to say they didn't get value for their money.… Expand
  48. paketep
    Aug 18, 2010
    0
    12 years and all we get is the same game, with better but not current graphics, and a lot of features removed: fundamentally LAN support and spawn CD, which are what made StarCraft and Blizzard what they are today. Thanks, Blizz, but I won't buy the game when all you're interested in is me signing in into your facebook clone and giving you my RL details. Shame on you.
  49. medun412
    Aug 18, 2010
    9
    The years of waiting worth it all the way.Everything is just the way a gamer,loving the first version.Starcraft 2 is the right successor.The cinematics,the way they are part of the game,not the boring motions we are used to watch,tapping the Esc button for them to stop getting us bored.No other words from me.Complete 10,just like the good old Starcraft.
  50. bigdaddy84
    Aug 17, 2010
    9
    Now I don't understand people CONSTANTLY whining about "$60? omgwtf??" and "its the same game with better graphics". I agree LAN is important and with it this game would have been a 10/10 but why the whining about the price? If you can't afford it, don't buy it and shut up. If you havent noticed, everything and everyone in this world is driven by profits. It's that simple. And yes, theNow I don't understand people CONSTANTLY whining about "$60? omgwtf??" and "its the same game with better graphics". I agree LAN is important and with it this game would have been a 10/10 but why the whining about the price? If you can't afford it, don't buy it and shut up. If you havent noticed, everything and everyone in this world is driven by profits. It's that simple. And yes, the gameplay is a lot like SC1 but its not the same game. There are many new units which completely change the old strategies, upgrades, and a pretty impressive campaign (compared to most of the RTS games out there). SC1 was a great game and I bet if they had made a totally different SC then these same people would have been whining "They destroyed StarCraft QQ". What do really want from SC2? Bikini clad girls jumping out from the screen and into your laps? If you havent played this game please do not give it a low score and then justify your stupidity by saying things like "I gave it a 0 to offset all the 10s" .. Bottomline - SC2 is a fun RTS game and blizz has done a great job with BNet 2.0. Yes it may not deserve a 10 but its certainly not a game worth "0" points. Get a life.… Expand
  51. tsabszy
    Aug 16, 2010
    10
    This game totally worht the wait!! I bought the collector's edition at midnight on july 27 and it's worht the price too!! I love this game. Awsome characters and awsome game experience. The multyplayer part of the game is the same in every way it should be the same like in SC1 but it has all the improvements i miss from that game!
  52. capthavic
    Aug 15, 2010
    10
    This is exactly what a sequel should do: keeping what works while adding enough changes to make it fresh. The in game graphics and cutscenes look amazing without the obvious difference between them like most games. The gameplay is the classic SC but with modern tweaks and upgrades to make it even better. I don't understand why some people complain about that. Those same people wouldThis is exactly what a sequel should do: keeping what works while adding enough changes to make it fresh. The in game graphics and cutscenes look amazing without the obvious difference between them like most games. The gameplay is the classic SC but with modern tweaks and upgrades to make it even better. I don't understand why some people complain about that. Those same people would complain that Blizz should have kept things the same if they had radically altered the gameplay. If you go into SC2 expecting DoW or WiC then yeah you'll be disappointed. And if that's what you want then go play those games instead.… Expand
  53. trashciii
    Aug 15, 2010
    6
    Starcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothingStarcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothing but an upgraded experience. Sorry, I'm just fine with original Starcraft...… Expand
  54. Inthrax
    Aug 15, 2010
    10
    !!ALTHOUGH NO REAL SPOILERS - THIS WILL SAY A LOT ABOUT THE FEATURES OF THE GAME!!

    I've read many reviews saying it's just a rehash of starcraft 1 , and the graphics havn't changed much, but that's completely wrong. There are many more new units to choose from , more depth into upgrading them, the graphics are fenomenal for an rts making it look gorgeous to play and the maps are    !!ALTHOUGH NO REAL SPOILERS - THIS WILL SAY A LOT ABOUT THE FEATURES OF THE GAME!!

    I've read many reviews saying it's just a rehash of starcraft 1 , and the graphics havn't changed much, but that's completely wrong. There are many more new units to choose from , more depth into upgrading them, the graphics are fenomenal for an rts making it look gorgeous to play and the maps are thouroughly detailed. The campaign will give you entertainment for 10+ hours, even more if you want to challenge yourself to do the achievements( Yes , achievements! , very similar style to blizzard's World Of Warcraft.). The cutscenes are spectacular which you expect of blizzard from their past cutscenes such as the wow ones. The story is deep with lots of great depth and is grabbing from the off. Multiplayer is addicitvie. There are many subcatergory's (1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 FFA) , and with all apart from FFA , after 5 placement games you get placed into a division (Bronze Silver Gold Platinum Diamond). You are constently motivated to progress higher!. You can go into a team game as random , or with a friend, and if you go in with a different friend later on , you will start from placement matches , so it tracks your members in multiple teams of the same catorgory. This game is certainly worth a purchase. You may see Korean gamers who are mighty impressive players with fast hands playing this game, but it matches you to players in your region so no need to panic. There are to be 2 new campaigns set for release most likely at the end of the year or next, so content will keep coming towards you with new maps. Once more, this game features an intergrated Real ID system , which lets you talk to friends playing other Blizzard Games (WoW ofcourse!) and friends who are perhaps in the campaign while you play multiplayer. If you like to have some sort of bragging rights (We all do) then you can showcase your best achievements which will be seen to any member viewing your profile and along with achievements come portraits to put a picture next to your ingame name. These portraits can say a lot about a player IE beating the game on the hardest difficulty (Brutal).

    Best RTS currently on the pc market in my opinion.    … Expand
  55. vai0
    Aug 15, 2010
    10
    When something like SC2 gets released by a developer like Blizzard people expect the absolute best, and will criticize it with that in mind. The story could be a little more serious, and the MP still has some slight balancing needed, but realistically compared to the other games on the market its amazing.
  56. Maciech42
    Aug 14, 2010
    7
    While StarCraft II remains an incredibly fun game with a fun storyline, people who have never given two craps about RTS games, aren't starting to care here.
  57. LarryMay
    Aug 14, 2010
    9
    One thing about this game is that the balanced nature of all the sides. With so many sides competing on such a large scale, man o man. Starcraft 2 strategies are formed by the minute. I am currently taking professional help at http://starcraft2-strategies.com
  58. robbo
    Aug 14, 2010
    6
    Competently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament playCompetently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament play than the original, and it strips many features away from the original in the process (with the absence of LAN being sorely missed, and in an incredible level of greed, adds region locks to screw countries with high game prices like Australia)

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

    Starcraft 2 is the worst kind of cynically marketed products, a completely unimaginative paycheck of a game that took no risks and learnt nothing - designed to sell on **** hype and nostalgia; and shame on us for falling for it.    … Expand
  59. Snippy
    Aug 14, 2010
    9
    This game is fun. Plain and simple. Sure there's no LAN for all the crybabies, sure, and I did hear it was rehash-y (StarCraft, the original, doesn't work on my computer). But come on! It's a good game. It's well designed and generally entertaining. Also, the people complaining about the expansions are plain stupid. Expansion packs are fun! No one's forcing you to buy it! So, I ask youThis game is fun. Plain and simple. Sure there's no LAN for all the crybabies, sure, and I did hear it was rehash-y (StarCraft, the original, doesn't work on my computer). But come on! It's a good game. It's well designed and generally entertaining. Also, the people complaining about the expansions are plain stupid. Expansion packs are fun! No one's forcing you to buy it! So, I ask you people to stop being wet blankets and embrace what Blizzard has given us.… Expand
  60. franny2k
    Aug 14, 2010
    0
    Tried to enjoy it but it's still a bad bad game. A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  61. Bisonator
    Aug 13, 2010
    10
    The last ten years has mostly been console gaming for me. Starcraft 2 reminded me why I used to play PC games. Games like this just don't work on consoles! C&C is a travesty on a console and Halo Wars was v simplistic. Starcraft 2 has great balancing, top notch production values and tweaks that old nostalgia nerve just enough to make it feel like home. This is a masterful recapturing ofThe last ten years has mostly been console gaming for me. Starcraft 2 reminded me why I used to play PC games. Games like this just don't work on consoles! C&C is a travesty on a console and Halo Wars was v simplistic. Starcraft 2 has great balancing, top notch production values and tweaks that old nostalgia nerve just enough to make it feel like home. This is a masterful recapturing of yesteryear brought to a new generation of PCs and gamers alike. Do yourself a favour and check it out - at least on a trial basis. (The retail edition comes with free, time-limited trial cards to give to friends, so just ask around!) I cannot wait to see what Blizzard do with Diablo 3!… Expand
  62. BrotherLaz
    Aug 13, 2010
    2
    A disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite havingA disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite having the same number of races and units as SC1, it's highly imbalanced - try and use a mothership for a serious purpose.

    This is not Company of Heroes, a much superior RTS that failed because it wasn't by Blizzard so it wasn't supported or advertised well.

    And you can't play with people in other continents. Why not?

    The promised map editor/game creator fails to deliver due to the terribad custom game system. Basically maps are sorted by popularity and the interface makes it nearly impossible to play 'less popular' maps. New maps, with popularity 0, are doomed to languish on page 54 where nobody plays them; search and filter options are nonexistent. You can't publish maps across the pond. Also, you can't differentiate game types (like Dota's -ap) in the list, the hyped keyboard and mouse controls are either extremely laggy or simply nonexistent; and there is an irritating design flaw where if you are the last player to join a lobby the game will auto start and you can no longer quit even if you're on the wrong team or clicked the wrong map.

    Warcraft 3 survives to this date by virtue of DotA. But custom games in SC2 - an important reason to buy War3 or SC1 for many people - are completely useless.    … Expand
  63. KSHARPE
    Aug 13, 2010
    1
    First off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn'tFirst off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn't expect a product that can run on a system I could find at my 92 year old grandmother's house or my local junkyard. I could probably run this on my Gameboy Color, by honestly, I would rather play Pokemon Red/Blue than SC2. When I started to play this game, I thought I had been pranked. When I found out I was indeed playing Starcraft 2, I was pretty disappointed. I honestly thought I was playing some kind of BW patch. Pretty much everything about SP was bad. Even on hard-mode you just need to build 10-15 depots, max your favorite unit, bind to '1' and attack. A few levels were clever; the lava, day/night, fire, etc. But for 12 years of development, it is a struggle to see where all that time went. The graphics, if anything, feel nostalgic and take me back to 2005. All these critics must have been bought out or work for Blizzard. MP is flawed. I used to think Battenet 1.0 needed to be tweaked a little, but 2.0 makes me wish on every 4 leaf clover I see for good ole 1.0. No LAN support and restriction to regions really makes MP pretty worthless. I have no idea where my $60 went. Mediocre SP (at best) and a watered down and 2 step backwards version of Battlenet really ruin both aspects of the game. All this WoW fanboy Blizzard worship is pretty sickening. All Blizzard accomplished was making me want to go down to the nearest bargain bin and buying a SC1 Battlechest for $9.99 because the $50 difference (+ another $80 for the next "expansions") can be spent much wiser. For an eventual $130 you will get 2005 graphics (at best), a couple new units, SLIGHTLY better AI, NO LAN, REGION ONLY, Facebook support (by far the most sellout thing I have ever seen), having to log in to **** ass Battlnet 2.0 (even for SP), and 1/3 proven **** lazy campaign, and the other 2/3 of the campaign will be called "expansions" even though you will be getting the same 2005 graphics and **** ass Battlenet 2.0.

    I already wasted my $60 and can only hope the time I spent writing this will save at least 1 poor soul from the emotional letdown that is: Starcraft 2, "Universally Acclaimed" based on critic reviews. They get +1 point from me because they at least spelled the name of the game correctly (the only thing they did right unfortunately).    … Expand
  64. kenstarkun
    Aug 13, 2010
    0
    If I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. SayIf I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. Say Goodbye to tournaments outside of Blizzard's authorization; if you read the EULA you'd realize how many things you simply can't do. Just like how Activison screwed the multi-player on Modern Warfare 2 by porting XBox live to the PC now they've ruined one of the greatest games of the PC gaming Golden Ages by removing the very things that made the game great.… Expand
  65. Galenmereth
    Aug 13, 2010
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Gameplay:

    The gameplay of SC2 is superb. While some lament its decision to stay true to its old-school RTS roots invented back in the nineties, I cherish Blizzard for being bold enough to let it bask in its own simplistic-but-hard-to-master roots. StarCraft 2 feels like the Tetris of fast-paced strategy games. It's not the World of Warcraft of strategy games like a lot of people seemed to expect it to be, but it's the best fast-paced hardcore strategy game you'll find. And the campaign does these mechanics a great justice; it plays with the mechanics, easing you into the finer aspects of multitasking and micro-management over time, all the while keeping the gameplay interesting by changing the playing field and the rules constantly. The story supports the gameplay perfectly, giving you an intellectual reason to keep on playing.

    You can change the difficulty any time you want in between missions, meaning you're never locked into a tight spot if you find a mission is too hard for you on your current difficulty.

    It's great fun while it lasts, and it can last quite a while if you want to get all the achievements and unlock all the extra portraits. Not to mention the fact that the multiplayer aspect is a potentially endless hobby, one that will provide hundreds upon hundreds of hours if you're into the competitive aspects of multiplayer gaming.

    Story:

    There is a problem with the StarCraft II that you won't be aware of if you haven't read a lot about it beforehand, filtering out the preconceptions from the legitimate complaints, which is that the game is not a complete single player game. Although most of us know Wings of Liberty is the first part of a trilogy, I believe few of us were prepared for what this actually means. You see, the campaign ends so abruptly, there isn't even a cliffhanger to get you psyched up for the next installment. When the last and severely short cinematic faded into black and the credits started rolling, it felt like a fluke. As if watching a movie from a scratched disc that suddenly skipped to the ending, leaving out the essential last minutes of dialogue. My gripe is not that Wings of Liberty does not complete the story, but rather that it doesn't even try to wrap up its own part of it. It was a tremendous disappointment, even for me, who bought the game mostly for the multiplayer aspects.

    Summary:

    First of all, if you plan to buy Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty for the multiplayer, you don't really need a reason. This is StarCraft, and it's better than ever.

    However, if you plan to buy it purely for the single player experience, you need to ask yourself what's most important; the story or the gameplay. If you buy it for the former, you will be very disappointed. But if you buy it either purely for the gameplay experience or at least for both gameplay and story, you'll feel content even despite its somewhat amputated ending.    … Expand
  66. Oberon
    Aug 13, 2010
    9
    Starcraft 2 started out a bit slow but picks up the pace very quickly. Game play is pretty much exactly the same as Starcraft with just a few new features and improvements for the most part. The game feels very balanced and the single player campaign has a host of different difficulty settings for amateur to hardcore players. Soundtrack is great and the game really feels like starcraft andStarcraft 2 started out a bit slow but picks up the pace very quickly. Game play is pretty much exactly the same as Starcraft with just a few new features and improvements for the most part. The game feels very balanced and the single player campaign has a host of different difficulty settings for amateur to hardcore players. Soundtrack is great and the game really feels like starcraft and not simply a pretender. Story is excellent continuation of the saga although some of the dialogue is a little "action movie" like, this is what you would expect from a terran only campaign. The new features such as the ability to move around on your command ship and speak to characters, different mission choices which influences some of the sub plots and overall cinematic feel really add something extra to the game from the previous one. The game isn't perfect though but it is a great continuation of the starcraft series and a worthy sequel. Now there is only one frustration left. When is Heart of the swarm coming out?!… Expand
  67. nvnick
    Aug 12, 2010
    9
    Really 'effin polished. Great strategy, I always wanted to start starcraft but was never motivated as everyone was so good and I hated the graphics. Now SC2 is the only game I'm playing. You don't need to play the first but check the summary of the story if you want so that you'll understand the story more for the second. Better than average cinematics, solid gameplay and lots of onlineReally 'effin polished. Great strategy, I always wanted to start starcraft but was never motivated as everyone was so good and I hated the graphics. Now SC2 is the only game I'm playing. You don't need to play the first but check the summary of the story if you want so that you'll understand the story more for the second. Better than average cinematics, solid gameplay and lots of online fun. Polished to hell, no bugginess! What a relief.… Expand
  68. madhat
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. TheI'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. The campaign itself isn't fantastic, but it balances an OK story with fun gameplay very well i found. Some new features for gameplay would have been nice though, just to mix things up a bit, I am glad they didn't add any superweapons though, which ruined C&C for me. (what about shifting maps? someone make them.) At least you can select more than 30 units at once now. :P It is not a realistic RTS by any means and shouldn't try to be, in my opinion. It has its own challenging tactics and strategies which are not bound by realism, not everyones cup of tea of course. (What were you expecting?) This isn't Axis vs. Allies, its space cowboys vs. psychic bugs vs. nigh immortal telepathic aliens.… Expand
  69. raefon
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse clickI played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse click competition. It defeats the purpose of Real time strategy and with 12 years from 1 to 2 I would have expected a lot more.… Expand
  70. Googoo24
    Aug 12, 2010
    9
    It kills me when people promise an objective review, yet slap the work in question with a 0. But I digress. The title in question, SC II, is a superlative piece. Is it revolutionary? No. However, if you were even remotely interested in this product before its release, you probably already knew this. What you get is a refined game that gets a lot of things right, and is unapologetic aboutIt kills me when people promise an objective review, yet slap the work in question with a 0. But I digress. The title in question, SC II, is a superlative piece. Is it revolutionary? No. However, if you were even remotely interested in this product before its release, you probably already knew this. What you get is a refined game that gets a lot of things right, and is unapologetic about retaining an established format. Is this a bad thing? In my humble opinion, no. It's refreshing to play a strategy game that isn't desperate to skew its perspective, or mimic other recent RTS', for the sake of innovation. Is it safe? Perhaps. But the product is so refined, who cares?

    In regards to the campaign, it gets a lot of things right. This is what the original DoW II campaign should have been like. The missions are diverse, the story is strong (albeit cheesy at times), and the experience, as a whole, is very entertaining. The productions values, per usual Blizzard, are excellent. The game world is vibrant and detailed.

    MP, per usual, is good. However, unlike a majority of games that toss fresh meat into the fray with no support, SC II goes out of its way to accommodate inexperienced players; even assigning them to specific leagues. Is the absence of LAN or chat a big deal? I didn't care, but maybe some one else will. Also, the game ships with a intuitive map editor that is fun to toy around with, even if you aren't creating anything. I can only imagine the works art members of the community will present in the near future.

    The big question is the game worth $60! YES! Rarely do games come this refined and bug free.    … Expand
  71. ttocs
    Aug 12, 2010
    10
    Real time strategy games just don't get any better than this. They took what worked in the original and expanded upon it creating a universe that not only puts you in the driver seat but shocks and awes along the way. The units are balanced, the gameplay is fun, and the multiplayer is fantastic as ever. I was afraid that my aging PC wasn't going to be able to handle the graphics, but itReal time strategy games just don't get any better than this. They took what worked in the original and expanded upon it creating a universe that not only puts you in the driver seat but shocks and awes along the way. The units are balanced, the gameplay is fun, and the multiplayer is fantastic as ever. I was afraid that my aging PC wasn't going to be able to handle the graphics, but it can. My PC is 3 years old with an upgraded 9000 series nvidia geforce card and it plays it fine on medium. My buddy has an even older computer and plays it fine on low. So, don't be afraid if your PC isn't up to snuff.… Expand
  72. ThomasM
    Aug 12, 2010
    0
    First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

    9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really    First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

    9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really shouldn't: MP - various cheats are already in use, very little is done against them. Balancing is a joke at best in every other playmode than 1v1.

    The SP part is OK, but nothing you haven't seen so far. Story? Eric Cartman would say: lame!

    If I take all of this I can only say I am very dissappointed, a game made for money and not for the gamers - 1 pts for greed and lack of inspiration.    … Expand
  73. Nitroz
    Aug 12, 2010
    2
    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard.    … Expand
  74. HomeSlice
    Aug 11, 2010
    10
    Changes from SC1: --Added queen/comstat/chrono boost to the races to add another component to your strategy. Huge CHANGE from SC1. --Buildings addons can be used interchangeably with other buildings with terran race. --Can hotkey all buildings together to cutout some micromanagement. --Group sizes are limitless now unlike 12 units from the first game. --New abilities, such asChanges from SC1: --Added queen/comstat/chrono boost to the races to add another component to your strategy. Huge CHANGE from SC1. --Buildings addons can be used interchangeably with other buildings with terran race. --Can hotkey all buildings together to cutout some micromanagement. --Group sizes are limitless now unlike 12 units from the first game. --New abilities, such as blink/corruption/changeling/can move while burrowed/ --can rally workers straight to minerals, which again cuts out unneeded micromanagement from SC1 which are all HUGE and great changes. --With SC2 came a completely new Battle.net, which has been the same since SC1, but I guess, you know, that doesn't matter. --High yield resources. --High ground units can not be attacked unless you have sight up there. HUGE change, which completely differs from SC1. --All the new units. --Creep plays a lot more role, such as spreading it out with either your overlords or creep tumors, which increases your zerg units speed while they're on it. UNLIKE in SC1.

    I mean, how are these not changes? What in the world could anyone possibly ask for? Everyone on here that gives it a bad rating always says that. I don't understand, they aren't specific. "Same game as SC1". If you don't like the game that's fine. I can understand why people (younger) have gotten used to modern day RTS. SC has always been about mineral/map control. If you don't like the game fine, but please explain why you feel it's the same as SC1.    … Expand
  75. WeeBee886
    Aug 11, 2010
    7
    They did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and theyThey did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and they unrealistically cluster together like crazy, as if they do not really occupy any physical space. They line up in a circle around enemies they're attacking, and there is no cover system, formations, or any other kind of advanced, realistic tactics. It's a bit silly and cartoonish. But that's just what it is, and if you're into that type of thing, with the ultra-micromanagement and all, go for it.… Expand
  76. Luki
    Aug 11, 2010
    9
    Not many games made me spend so much time there - this does. Single player is really nice, mult really much fun. Only bad thing is high price but well, blizzard know how to make profit...
  77. meh
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    Meh. 10 years. Blizzard spent the better part of a decade working on the next installment of the Starcraft franchise and this is all they came up with? A boost to the graphics, fancy CG cutscenes, no apparent change in gameplay, and a total reliance on micro-management. Whoop-dee-do.
  78. JamesE
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. Lowest common denominator anyone? The business model is pure greed. Won't be too long before MW is integrated into Battlenet and we'll all have to pay subs for the privilege of using the service. The graphics could pretty much be sprites and viewing angle (especially compared to Total War, SupCom, CoH and the Dawn of War series) only allows for a small amount of the pretty small maps to be seen at once. Online is completely unbalanced (even if the units are fairly well-balanced), seeing as Blizz decided who was going to be good at it months/years ago and gave them alpha + beta access while the rest of us will have to play SC1 or dry as dust skirmish maps against the PC to even learn the names of Zerg or Protoss units. Of course the potential reviewers were included in the beta as well. So glad they all had a good time.… Expand
  79. FabioF.
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    A excellent art work as every game from Blizzard. Sadly it was shipped with a poor story as all recent games released. True good games dont need a restrictive DRM to make a profit. We was hoping to buy a great sequel of the original Stracraft not a multiplayer client. I would not play in Battle.net even for free. Blizzard is surely losing his touch.
  80. GlenA.
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the mission's fun and you will easily get your money's worth in just the campaign alone which is something that's rare to find nowadays. But prepared to be unimpressed by the story which is told not in nice little discussions pregame but instead in bland 30 second conversations between characters and it lacks the scope of the first as half of the missions feel like side quests and don't advance the plot. I'll say this again EVERY mission except like four of them are extremely fun so don't worry about feeling bogged down in grind like the original tended to do. The multiplayer, at least the Battlenet multiplayer is solid and flawless the game groups you based on skill into different ladders and you usually only fight people in that group which makes well matched games, plus there is a newb ladder to help you get a hang of things early on so don't worry about being out classed by psycho crazy players and never learning. The teams as usual are perfectly balanced and each fun to play, plus Blizzards mapmaker makes it so you can just play custom maps (like DOTA spin offs and Tower Defenses) and not even bother with traditional play. As of now just looking at the games features it easily warrants a 9 only losing one point for the poor story, but now we get to the real problem at hand, the corporate bull crap. This game has no LAN! There is no way to play it with a few buddies without them each spotting $60 which is disgusting, but if you don't have friends who do that sorta thing then who cares. Also you get one profile, that's it, you can't go back and restart at lower ladders or have an account for a buddy to use if u don't want your record wreaked. Finally there are going to be two expansions, set in stone! that's at least $50 dollars more of investment to keep up, which sucks. All of that combined makes this game drop from nearly flawless to a mere 7 which is below its quality. If that last paragraph didn't faze you then get it if it did then I'd mooch off another guys copy until you figure out if it's worth the money.… Expand
  81. bob
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, save the flashy but poorly written and schizophrenic single player campaign. Blizzard has become a subsidiary of Activision, and they just want your money now. Mutiplayer for this game was slapped together before the server was even finished. There's not even a chat room as of August 4th.… Expand
  82. xixixixi
    Aug 6, 2010
    0
    A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  83. RonnyS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll get better next map", but that never really happened. And when you're still thinking "it'll get better" after 10 hours of play... then... that's a massive fail. I'm not going to get into the MP of this game, I know it's the big draw of a game like this, but I'm just not going to get back into it. It's the same as it was 12 years ago, when the playerbase of online games were at about 18-20 years average. Now I'm 12 years older, don't have patience for kids and their insults, and don't really care much about pwning nabs in a retro RTS.. If you liked SC1 and played it a lot back in the day, it might be worth buying it when it hits the cheap bin just for the nostalgia. Definitely not worth the 60bucks I paid. I bought Warhammer 40k Dawn of War II Chaos Rising 2 days after I bought sc2. It's just a better game. Metascore of 85, but that's not a bloated 85. Starcrafts 94 is just a testament to how many reviewers get paid these days.… Expand
  84. DaneilD
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    Like most of the users here, I haven't actually played this game; but that won't stop me from commentating on it. I thought about giving it a perfect score, and I also thought about giving it a 0/10. But I felt about that. So instead, I'm giving it a 5/10 in order to balance out the 10/10 and 0/10 scores given by everyone else who hasn't played the game.
  85. steven
    Aug 6, 2010
    9
    I had a chance to watch someone play this game and it looks amazing. Blizzard did not make the mistake of overhauling gameplay for the next chapter in the story. An upgrade in graphics, engaging storyline and the introduction of new units is plenty to spike the interest of a RTS fan.
  86. PLib
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft is a fun game, if you're into Starcraft. That's about it. This game feels like a rehash of the Starcraft the first, just with updated graphics and interface. Quite frankly, that's not enough to compel me to buy this when their are other great RTS's still out there, like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
  87. bobg
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    I just don't get it. The story is boring and doesn't grab you, the graphics are nothing amazing and the game is lacking a number of important features, e.g. LAN play. Sure this is a decent game if you want the same gameplay you had 12 years ago, but no way does it deserve the kind of perfect scores it's getting.
  88. JoeS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing with glass figurines. The gameplay feels about the same, the only major differences being that some of the old units now have different names and appearances. Really, this whole thing just makes me want to play Starcraft 1 again.… Expand
  89. Erik
    Aug 6, 2010
    8
    It ain't perfect but nothing really is. I do really enjoy this reborn version of one of my favorit game, the campaign might be a bit cliché but still I feel hooked into it. The thing about being connected to Bnet all time is annoying but works very well and so does the matching system inside the game. But I would also like to point out that anything that is but into the game It ain't perfect but nothing really is. I do really enjoy this reborn version of one of my favorit game, the campaign might be a bit cliché but still I feel hooked into it. The thing about being connected to Bnet all time is annoying but works very well and so does the matching system inside the game. But I would also like to point out that anything that is but into the game Blizzard has approved of which is why they only get a 8 from me. Dropping LAN ain't ok Blizz!… Expand
  90. VoidC
    Aug 6, 2010
    10
    Reading all the 0 negative user reviews, i can safely say that they are frustrated pirates and copyright infringers. The game is great, and it doesn't deserve a score lower than 9.
  91. WoodyF
    Aug 6, 2010
    10
    I'd feel more impartial if I only gave this game a 9 but I have to give it a 10/10! I actually enjoyed the cinematics and single player campaign, I'm about 1/3 of the way through the achievements and I'm still learning new aspects of the multiplayer game daily. Yes, it IS pretty much Starcraft with updated graphics. No, it isn't an epic strategy game like Galactic Civ I'd feel more impartial if I only gave this game a 9 but I have to give it a 10/10! I actually enjoyed the cinematics and single player campaign, I'm about 1/3 of the way through the achievements and I'm still learning new aspects of the multiplayer game daily. Yes, it IS pretty much Starcraft with updated graphics. No, it isn't an epic strategy game like Galactic Civ II or even Warlords. Still, I feel like I got a good value for $60. Despite claims that WoL is only "1/3 of a game", the quantity and quality of missions in the single player campaign (26+ missions depending on how you count them) is easily equal to any single player RTS out there. And be honest... how many of us bought SC2 expecting to spend more than a week playing solo, anyway?… Expand
  92. BenA
    Aug 5, 2010
    6
    Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and starcraft as an e-sport, leaving little room for casual players. Playing the campaign in no way prepares you for playing normal matches. Defensive structures are practically useless, and get flattened quite easily. Unit ranges have been shrunk overall, so that the difference between say the range of a siege tank and the range of a marine is quite small. On the whole Campaign is fun, but the new battle.net, the multiplayer balance, and lack of much in the way of user generated content at this point combine to kill any interest I had in playing online.… Expand
  93. MaziM
    Aug 5, 2010
    10
    Blizzard has done it again! The anticipation for the arrival of Starcraft II was probably the only negative factor working against the game. However, upon its release, all has been forgiven and forgotten. This game is spectacular. It's vividness in its artistry and its fluidity in the game play together make for a highly addictive and impressionable experience. RTS gaming may not be Blizzard has done it again! The anticipation for the arrival of Starcraft II was probably the only negative factor working against the game. However, upon its release, all has been forgiven and forgotten. This game is spectacular. It's vividness in its artistry and its fluidity in the game play together make for a highly addictive and impressionable experience. RTS gaming may not be as popular today, but the Starcraft franchise continues to resonate in a powerful way within the genre.… Expand
  94. JCT
    Aug 5, 2010
    4
    Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved graphics. If this game is released with all three campaigns with at least as much missions and lasted as long as Grand Theft Auto IV and the acquired features I am looking for, I would own this game for $100. Therefore this game isn't by far unique and worth the price on features from what Relic's Company of Heroes had.… Expand
  95. brenty
    Aug 5, 2010
    8
    one point away for the price of the game, another point for the combination of making us wait for so long and bringing very little new to the table. also the fact thats it 1/3 of a game, but im fine with that since it works on its own. everything else is fun tho, the game play is well balanced and it seems like they spent more time on the story this time (its always nice even when the one point away for the price of the game, another point for the combination of making us wait for so long and bringing very little new to the table. also the fact thats it 1/3 of a game, but im fine with that since it works on its own. everything else is fun tho, the game play is well balanced and it seems like they spent more time on the story this time (its always nice even when the story has been done many times). all in all, starcraft fans have to buy it, everyone else, wait till the price goes down.… Expand
  96. AlexeyM
    Aug 5, 2010
    3
    A 12 year old game with a new engine. Nothing new nothing interesting 3 points are for pretty CGI the rest is just the same **** all over again. Also COST. Also cliche'd story. Also lack of 2 more stories. Basically time to play SC:BW some more.
  97. MickoW
    Aug 5, 2010
    7
    Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for battle.net. The time spent on making videos for the single player campaign should probably have been spent on improving the graphics engine. Good fun, if a little underwhelming.… Expand
  98. michealq
    Aug 5, 2010
    0
    Game will melt down your PC will also cause intrusive DRM ttat will require you to log in to play the game. Match making system is flawed. You always get matched with inexperienced players if you are inexperienced like me. Various features removed from blizzard.
  99. AndyG
    Aug 5, 2010
    5
    This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was so acclaimed (btw never liked pac-man at all personally). The reason of this low rating is cause the game is overpriced (… Expand
  100. AParsons
    Aug 5, 2010
    9
    Dont listen to the total haters out their its clear that they have something in their bonnet with either Blizzard or SC2 and having played all the single player I would say these people have not really played the game much or at all. What you get with SC2 is a great but shortish single player campaign where you play from the Terran side or miore exactly Jim Raynor's Rebels. The story Dont listen to the total haters out their its clear that they have something in their bonnet with either Blizzard or SC2 and having played all the single player I would say these people have not really played the game much or at all. What you get with SC2 is a great but shortish single player campaign where you play from the Terran side or miore exactly Jim Raynor's Rebels. The story line is fun though with a lot of humor and a few bits of cgi thrown in the rest of the story cut scenes are from the games engine. Again people claiming billion of hours of cgi really are miss informing you. The other two races single player stories are going to be covered in the next two expansions so you will have to buy too expansions to complete the whole story line. However SC2 main strength is not the single player campaign its the multiplayer where the true strengh of the game really lies and that side of play is really good fun you get split into different leagues after taking part in 5 placement matches so you will be facing people of your own skill level. The multiplayer is very fast paced with all the races being fairly well balanced yet playing in totally different fasions, matches can range from 1v1 roo teams of 4v4 or even Free for all matches and with the quick find functions of B.net you will be quicky to find a match most the time. You have too remember that SC1 is concidered a national sport in Korea and SC2 looks like it will replace its aging brother so expect a very high level of play in the top leagues. With players being able to earn upto a six figure sallary this game really can be concidered Pro Gaming. The down side of all this is that SC2 requires you to have internet access in order to play even the single player which can be a real downer if Battle.net is down for whatever reason because you will not be able to play the game at all. Also you can not lan this game at all. Still all in all this is as good as an RTS gets at the moment.… Expand
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 »