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. AlfonsoG
    Aug 5, 2010
    10
    Fantastic. I've spent plenty of time in the campaign and the multiplayer, both Custom and Ladder and I have to say, I'm completely impressed. Being an avid gamer, that doesn't happen often. Bravo, Blizzard.
  2. PeterC
    Aug 4, 2010
    8
    I've heard all the arguments against this game, and it always, always, always comes down to one of 4 things 1) Its not as innovative as I thought it would be This is usually in reference to things associated with older RTS's, like base building. Well, its the second game in a series, if it were completely different, people would complain that they're simply trying to ride I've heard all the arguments against this game, and it always, always, always comes down to one of 4 things 1) Its not as innovative as I thought it would be This is usually in reference to things associated with older RTS's, like base building. Well, its the second game in a series, if it were completely different, people would complain that they're simply trying to ride the Starcraft name. The way I see this, it would be like people complaining that diablo 3 has too many dungeons. 2) There's no LAN play. Yes, this is a problem. This is also the reason I dropped the score a bit. I hope they come out with a patch that corrects this particular decision at some point. 3) battlenet is too hard Either you're really, really terrible at the game, or you haven't gotten through the placement matches. I find the game is quite good at putting you into somewhere you're competitive, neither dominating nor dominated. The lowest brackets allow people to start slowly and still have a good chance at winning the match, even without a clear strategy 4) Its only 1/3 of a game No, its not. Most non-rpg games run about 20-30 hours. Thats about what the story mode in starcraft 2 runs. Then there's the multiplayer on top of that. If this were the first game in the series, and blizzard simply announced 2 planned expansions for the other races, I doubt many people would complain about this at all. The other 2 games will be expansions, and so sold at a cheaper price (my guess would be somewhere around $30), and they'll be the same length Overall, I found the story engaging, the gameplay is challenging in the story mode and competitive in multiplayer. There are enough changes from the first game that it feels like a new game, but retains enough similarity that it feels somewhat familiar. A lot of the original strategies are still there, but i see a lot of room for new ones too.… Expand
  3. JohnR
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Boohoo, interface issues exist. Anyone up to date knows that patches will remedy them (like chat functionality being announced for a future patch) - given this, the real issue is the actual core of a game, which has been honed to greatness. "Oh no, it didn't revolutionize the world!" - no game does that. There were FPSes before Counter-strike: true legends just do what they do Boohoo, interface issues exist. Anyone up to date knows that patches will remedy them (like chat functionality being announced for a future patch) - given this, the real issue is the actual core of a game, which has been honed to greatness. "Oh no, it didn't revolutionize the world!" - no game does that. There were FPSes before Counter-strike: true legends just do what they do extremely well, which SC2 does.… Expand
  4. ClaudS.
    Aug 4, 2010
    9
    This game was worth the wait, it is extremely polished with smooth gameplay. It manages to capture the glorious essence of it's predecessor while adding new units, abilities and features creating a nostalgic, awesome effect. The graphics are beautiful and clean, with amazing cinematics. My complaints are of course the lack of lan-support, and the $60 price tag, which will go up as This game was worth the wait, it is extremely polished with smooth gameplay. It manages to capture the glorious essence of it's predecessor while adding new units, abilities and features creating a nostalgic, awesome effect. The graphics are beautiful and clean, with amazing cinematics. My complaints are of course the lack of lan-support, and the $60 price tag, which will go up as the other 2/3 are released. A slight betrayal in my mind(why it doesn't deserve a 10) but still worth absolutely every penny. It stands up to the original and even more, it'll be an RTS staple and must have for almost every gamer.… Expand
  5. DannyV
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    It would be nice if some people actually played this game before putting up a bogus 0 review about LAN play. The game is awesome. I can never really get hooked on rts games because they aren't fast enough or the missions are too boring. This game is fast and each mission is completely different. I've played about 30 hours and I haven't even completed the single player It would be nice if some people actually played this game before putting up a bogus 0 review about LAN play. The game is awesome. I can never really get hooked on rts games because they aren't fast enough or the missions are too boring. This game is fast and each mission is completely different. I've played about 30 hours and I haven't even completed the single player campaign yet. It's a long game. Can't wait for the other 2.… Expand
  6. FJ
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    This is just another example of how great games will remain good for eternity. The trend of bringing games back to their roots is really saying something here. The truth is games have not really improved since the golden ages of gaming. Most developers no longer have the gamer's heart and creativity which shows in their bland games of this generation. Great job Blizzard, this game is This is just another example of how great games will remain good for eternity. The trend of bringing games back to their roots is really saying something here. The truth is games have not really improved since the golden ages of gaming. Most developers no longer have the gamer's heart and creativity which shows in their bland games of this generation. Great job Blizzard, this game is breath of fresh air for us true gamers.… Expand
  7. rockmosh
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Excellent game, been waiting for a decade and it was well worth it. I played since the beta and I havent had this much fun in years. This is a full game, dont fall for the illusion that its incomplete just because its part of a trilogy. It has 30 or so campaing missions and the full multiplayer experience.
  8. StefanD
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Wow amazing the hate from the trolls in this vote board. Starcraft 2 is excellent, if you loved the first one you will love this! Engaging story, excellent graphics (remember this is an RTS and not a FPS you TROLLS!), and great all around presentation!! Highly Recommended!
  9. ColinY
    Aug 4, 2010
    1
    A one for expenditure, but no points for effort. They took all the points that made SC 1 good, and removed them, and tried to cover for it with some prettied up graphics, and then split the game into three to make an even more obscene profit by releasing the same game engine again and again and call them new games rather then expansion packs. Activision is the devil.
  10. Brian
    Aug 4, 2010
    2
    Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have already returned it. Definitely not going to waste my time on the next two.… Expand
  11. NikoD
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    It's a perfect combination of RTS and RPG elements. The story itself is great and is being told in a very stylish manner. Graphics are pure awesomeness and so is the gameplay. Everything feels so familiar and yet so fresh. I dunno how Blizzard managed to pull this on off, but it's just perfect in every way. Waiting for the new campaigns.
  12. SpendrikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    7
    It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just play a few games. I hope they have more robust privacy settings soon.… Expand
  13. GernR.
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    I don't know why everyone complains: "It's a new sc1". In my eyes, that's the best that could have happened. Starcraft 1 was the best strategygames for years, so why not remaking it, polished up, with a nice competition-system, new units, upgrades and abilities and an awesome editor? Blizzard really did a great job in those things, although the graphics aren't really I don't know why everyone complains: "It's a new sc1". In my eyes, that's the best that could have happened. Starcraft 1 was the best strategygames for years, so why not remaking it, polished up, with a nice competition-system, new units, upgrades and abilities and an awesome editor? Blizzard really did a great job in those things, although the graphics aren't really high end. I myself like that Blizz-comiclook, so I have nothing to complain. Great multiplayer experience, wonderful campaign, awesome game.… Expand
  14. ErikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    I think most people need to step back and remember it's STARCRAFT 2, not some new game. Blizzard never has been known for their pushing of new innovated game play and I doubt they ever will. They take what they know works and throw it together into a bundle and polish it to near perfection. That is exactly what SC2 is, Starcraft with a nice new shiny coat of paint. If you don't I think most people need to step back and remember it's STARCRAFT 2, not some new game. Blizzard never has been known for their pushing of new innovated game play and I doubt they ever will. They take what they know works and throw it together into a bundle and polish it to near perfection. That is exactly what SC2 is, Starcraft with a nice new shiny coat of paint. If you don't like Starcraft then you shouldn't review this game because guess what it's Starcraft 2.0. There is nothing really new about Starcraft and I personally like that; I was able to jump right in and enjoy my old favorite game once again. If you wanted different game play then go play a different RTS franchise. The storyline wasn't deep but it was fun, I felt involved within the missions and look forward to the expansions. For all your people out there down rating for what it lacks it's time to look at what it has, and tell me what you find wrong with it then.… Expand
  15. nwhaxyz
    Aug 4, 2010
    9
    Excellent single player campaign - there are some really nice levels, which can be replayed multiple times in different ways and difficulty (if only to get the achievements). The "secret level" is here -again . Kudos to Blizzard for not concentrating only on multiplayer. Though some missions in the later stages of the game, lack balance due to upgrades and units you buy - depending on the Excellent single player campaign - there are some really nice levels, which can be replayed multiple times in different ways and difficulty (if only to get the achievements). The "secret level" is here -again . Kudos to Blizzard for not concentrating only on multiplayer. Though some missions in the later stages of the game, lack balance due to upgrades and units you buy - depending on the way you progress and the choices you've made, these can make your life really easy on the hard difficulty. Very little about the missions that can be criticized. Some occasional crashes and slow-downs (a vivid example is the last mission with Zeratul). also some low-res textures in the cinematics and the only minus in the sound section worth mentioning IMHO, is that simply Tricia Helfer is not Glynnis Talken (the difference here is very notable and not in the right direction).… Expand
  16. JerremyB.
    Aug 3, 2010
    3
    Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been introduced to the game. + Storyline is very linear. + Blizzard gauging its fans by providing 3 installments of the same game but to access the 3 different campaigns. + No LAN support means the local gaming community takes a big hit. + Graphics is dated (5 years behind the curve). + B.Net gameplay is localized, which is disappointing (cannot play with my european and asian friends).… Expand
  17. Fluster
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    After the disappointing C&C 4, this came as a most welcome change for a RTS fan like me. I loved Starcraft 1 and I love this game even more. The graphics are amazing and surprisingly the game runs smooth on High/Ultra settings on my 2gb, geforce9800 and 2ghz C2D PC. The campaign is fun and plays out at just the right pace. There are numerous upgrades, bonus units for you to play around After the disappointing C&C 4, this came as a most welcome change for a RTS fan like me. I loved Starcraft 1 and I love this game even more. The graphics are amazing and surprisingly the game runs smooth on High/Ultra settings on my 2gb, geforce9800 and 2ghz C2D PC. The campaign is fun and plays out at just the right pace. There are numerous upgrades, bonus units for you to play around with, and finally the Multiplayer totally blows you away. Ladders, perfect match making and a slick efficient Battlenet 2. The Terran campaign included is huge with around 30 missions, that would keep you busy for hours. Add to this achievements, excellent cinematics and voice acting and you have tons of stuff to fuel your bragging rights. My only complaint is the absence of LAN play. In conclusion the RTS game world sorely needed a game like this and Blizzard has delivered a masterpiece. Starcraft 2 lives up to the hype and more.… Expand
  18. DF
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    The game is fantastic. I received it the day it came out and haven't really been able to put it down since. I'm a very casual gamer, so I was thrilled at the new multiplayer mode as it really helps work you into the game. First, there are "practice" levels with easier map layouts to help ease you into the game, you can play up to 50 of these matches before jumping into the real The game is fantastic. I received it the day it came out and haven't really been able to put it down since. I'm a very casual gamer, so I was thrilled at the new multiplayer mode as it really helps work you into the game. First, there are "practice" levels with easier map layouts to help ease you into the game, you can play up to 50 of these matches before jumping into the real thing. Second, placement matches- you will play 5 matches then get placed with people who are as terrible as you are! this is a big selling point for me because I'm not very good. Third, challenges- there are challenges you can try to master that really show the strengths and pros of each unit for each race and helps give you an idea of what you want to do. fourth-organized computer battles- in the original my friends and I really enjoyed playing computers, but we had to go to custom games set it up etc. Now its just a click away, get you friend and pick the game. fantastic. Th ere are also many different A.I. difficulty levels to make it fun. Fifth- Easy matching- You can quick start a game and don't have to try to join a game first, which is awesome. you can be playing in seconds. I've played a little of the campaign too (which is really why I bought the game in the first place, it says a lot about the game that it's MP has kept me so engrossed). It is fantastic, and the interaction with the environment between missions which highlights the story and lore even more is unlike any RTS I've ever played. That said it IS an RTS which really isn't for everyone, but if you like real time strategy this game is a must buy.… Expand
  19. BenF.
    Aug 3, 2010
    9
    OK lets get this straight this IS a full game. you can play 3 fractions and you do infact play 2 fractions in the campaign. There are 26 missions all together each mission about 20 mins in lenght ranging to a 1 hour mission i clocked up and that was me "blitzing it" there are 9 challenge remminisant of the mini games in rise of nation if not a full blown copy of it and then there's OK lets get this straight this IS a full game. you can play 3 fractions and you do infact play 2 fractions in the campaign. There are 26 missions all together each mission about 20 mins in lenght ranging to a 1 hour mission i clocked up and that was me "blitzing it" there are 9 challenge remminisant of the mini games in rise of nation if not a full blown copy of it and then there's the terrifying multiplayer and i was getting beat in beta all time so i'll stay away from it untill all the hardcore players have gone through the beginner leagues. The gameplay is amazingly balance for a newly release product clocking maybe a little to easy to use since the ai doesn't twat you every time you use it like in starcraft 1. the audio is amazing you'll never hear a better sounding real time strategy (right up with napoleon TW) from the retro music down to the the people say "slam'n'". Bg question is it worth the inflated price only just. and depending if your the person who expects the next ps3 blockbuster to be the best looking game available. As for the people giving it 1 2's ect just read there comments there all about only 1/3 of a game. as i said 26 missions with amazing story telling is not 1/3 of a game these days. and they will all say so i'm not getting it. well there missiong out and well they havn't played the game all way through so how can they review it. sorry about grammer, puntuation, spellings ect i'm dyslexic and lazy. very nasty combo when writing long stuff.… Expand
  20. JamesY.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Starcraft 2 is all about the multiplayer. It's singleplayer is good, much better than MW2 where it's one go and done, whereas this will keep you coming back, because it's just so fun. Custom content is what makes me coming back and back.
  21. TomN.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    This game is beautiful, polished, and worth every penny of the 59.99. Full of features, music, artistic touch, and excellent gameplay it is a joy to own. Yet This is more than a game. It is a call to liberty, and take our fallen nation back. Its theme of revolution throughout is something we need in our own society, as the government has become opressive, defunct, and corrupt beyond This game is beautiful, polished, and worth every penny of the 59.99. Full of features, music, artistic touch, and excellent gameplay it is a joy to own. Yet This is more than a game. It is a call to liberty, and take our fallen nation back. Its theme of revolution throughout is something we need in our own society, as the government has become opressive, defunct, and corrupt beyond repair. When voting starts making no difference, The only thing left is a revolution. How much longer are we going to allow the calamity of harsh taxes, false wars, and oppresive oligarchies to ruin us before we stop being cowards, pick up the guns, and take our country back from the plutocracy it has become?… Expand
  22. MikeG.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Everything you could hope for to the sequel to what many consider the best RTS game out there. All though battle.net 2.0 may be a work in process everything that is import about the game itself is wonderfully executed. Gameplay is as addicting as SC1, the Soundtrack seems even better, the graphics look wonderful for the style of SC, the campaign is an absolute blast. Even in spite of Everything you could hope for to the sequel to what many consider the best RTS game out there. All though battle.net 2.0 may be a work in process everything that is import about the game itself is wonderfully executed. Gameplay is as addicting as SC1, the Soundtrack seems even better, the graphics look wonderful for the style of SC, the campaign is an absolute blast. Even in spite of Battle.nets limitations the most important thing it needs to do works flawlessly, which is placing you in matches against players of your relative skill level.… Expand
  23. RamiroC.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    After 12 years waiting...they just appeared with the Best Game Ever. Amazing Campaign mode with a lot of different missions. New options between missions New amazing and well balanced units. The worst thing about the game? That you have to wait for the expansion to know what is going to happen!
  24. ColinK
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Anyone criticizing this game because it's only "one third" of a game obviously hasn't played it. While it's true that the campaign is Terran only, it's as big, if not bigger, than the 30 mission campaign that included all the races in the original game. The additions of mission choices; buying upgrades, research, and mercenaries; acheivements; and bonus objectives in Anyone criticizing this game because it's only "one third" of a game obviously hasn't played it. While it's true that the campaign is Terran only, it's as big, if not bigger, than the 30 mission campaign that included all the races in the original game. The additions of mission choices; buying upgrades, research, and mercenaries; acheivements; and bonus objectives in missions all build on top of the same formula that worked to make the original game so much fun. Add to that the new units and structures, and the fact that the missions are more varied than ever (still haven't played one where the goal was just to destroy the enemy, there's always some interesting twist), and this might have been worth the 10 year wait.… Expand
  25. MikeO.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    It's what was great about StarCraft but with additional dimensions added on (and I don't just mean gorgeous 3D rendering as compared to SC:BW isomorphic 2D). Play through the campaign on "Normal" for the story, then play through on "Hard" (or worse!) for a challenge; complete all the 'Challenges'; chase down interesting achievements; and that's all aside from the It's what was great about StarCraft but with additional dimensions added on (and I don't just mean gorgeous 3D rendering as compared to SC:BW isomorphic 2D). Play through the campaign on "Normal" for the story, then play through on "Hard" (or worse!) for a challenge; complete all the 'Challenges'; chase down interesting achievements; and that's all aside from the core of the game, multiplayer play. The ladder is still there, but the new BattleNet system prevents "smurphing", i.e. good players can't use a fake name to sneak into the Copper leagues and stomp on the n00bs. And they've improved the management of cooperative games. Twenty pounds of fun in a five-pound bag!… Expand
  26. DamienR
    Aug 3, 2010
    5
    While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty disappointing. Singleplayer story is average, if not a bit cliche (saving a lost love, betrayal, shady alliances etc etc yawn), though the missions are fairly interesting. Lastly, paying three times for one game, and forcing Battle.net on everyone, AND no LAN? No thanks.… Expand
  27. Dokk
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it regularly over the years and it was always like seeing an old friend. I'm having a blast with Starcraft 2 but 12 years is too long to wait for this to be honest. It could just have easily come out 5 years ago. After all this time, we should have something new and innovative while still maintaining the high level of polish and fun we've come to expect. And sometime during that 12 year hiatus, I wish they would have given us the original with a new coat of paint - ie higher resolutions, etc - just to whet the appetite for SC2. I guess they have been working on the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. But that's where they went with the sequel as well. The gameplay was awesome fun 12 years ago and is still plenty of fun all this time later. Unfortunately, given the next 2 expansions as well as the very long development cycle, it seems Blizzard is leaving innovation to more creative companies. Like I said, that's not such a bad thing given how much fun there is to be had. But if we're still zerg rushing in 2025 or so (when SC3 is released).… Expand
  28. noop
    Aug 3, 2010
    1
    Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Choices you make don't really do much. Too much "magical" fantasy stuff for a sci-fi game. Still too much micromanagement for 2010 game. And price is really to high for a one chapter of a game you basically don't even own. I believe this game deserves 7 or 8 but something has to be done to offset fake fanboy ratings.… Expand
  29. AndreyI
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of Heroes. And that is 4 years old game. SGI are good but not that impressive as it were in Diablo 2. And those childish things like achievements and facebook integration. It's really making me a sad panda. Overall it's a good game but nothing like "brilliant sequel" or any other hollow words in all this 95+ score reviews. Today Blizzard is more about making money so we all "enjoying" this "the same old thing but 2x shiny". Sad but true.… Expand
  30. KarstenF
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given paths. I don't really have to develop a tactic. Multiplayerwise I am not a fan of a wild click orgy. There is basically no helping AI for movement. Your Units will frequently block each other. But hey its starcraft and the wild clicking is called esports. Be quick and anywhere on the map and replace the missing AI. Not my kind of game. We get what we expected. A game over 12 years old with an graphics update. Still works but really won't blow my mind or reinvents the RTS genre.… Expand
  31. ChrisJ
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by infantry with grenades and an anti-tank gun - against 4 assault tanks and 4 teams of mechanized infantry if you are smart about where and how you fight (and im not talking subversive warfare or hit and run tactics). At the very bottom of the RTS pile you have your Starcraft, Warhammer, and all the EA C&C's - games tarnished with plain bordem, uselessly complicated oversized maps, rock paper scissors gameplay, unit spamming, and rushing.… Expand
  32. ChristosK
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the specific unit each mission provides. Gameplay is pretty much the same with the original. Same or slightly different units, same buildings, same techs, same controls, same stats. Providing an existing game with just an updated graphics engine shouldn't take so long... Company of heroes is way better... We only get 1 campaign, which no matter how the fanbois justify it is short and boring, we get no lan, and the price is higher than usual. Blizzard is milking players because it can... Stop supporting this company!… Expand
  33. NickJ
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Okay. I'm getting a bit sick of complaints...So rather than give a true review, I'm going to just address them all. 1) No LAN: Who cares? Who uses LAN anymore? I don't know anyone that does, honestly, and almost all my friends are gamers. 2) Battle.Net: Okay, yeah. It's a bit silly needing to always be connected, but they do have the guest account. You just can't Okay. I'm getting a bit sick of complaints...So rather than give a true review, I'm going to just address them all. 1) No LAN: Who cares? Who uses LAN anymore? I don't know anyone that does, honestly, and almost all my friends are gamers. 2) Battle.Net: Okay, yeah. It's a bit silly needing to always be connected, but they do have the guest account. You just can't earn achievements when playing it, but it does allow you to play offline. But still, if you (like me) have a dedicated internet connection (I'm a WoW player after all), then it's not a problem. I happen to like BNET and all its features, except for Real ID, which is easily turned off through parental controls. 3) Only One Campaign: There's only one campaign, but it's the size of all three campaigns from SC1 put together. 30 missions. 4) Unbalanced Units: I played the beta and it's one of the most balanced games in multiplayer I have played in a looong time. I just suck at it. 5) Graphics Are Choppy: I played on high settings (with most on ultra) and I play on a laptop. It ran really smoothly, probably around 30 FPS. If you're looking to get 60, then yeah, you might not be able to, but when the human eye only detects 26, why bother with more than 30?… Expand
  34. Jim
    Aug 2, 2010
    8
    I loved the original Starcraft, but seriously, fanboi hat off for this. Yes, it's an amazing game. Graphics are very good, system reqs reasonable, cinematics are incredible, multiplayer was beta tested to death (and boy does it show with the amazing balance of gameplay), and the Terran campaign is decent. It's more than just a new coat of paint on the old game, but you can see I loved the original Starcraft, but seriously, fanboi hat off for this. Yes, it's an amazing game. Graphics are very good, system reqs reasonable, cinematics are incredible, multiplayer was beta tested to death (and boy does it show with the amazing balance of gameplay), and the Terran campaign is decent. It's more than just a new coat of paint on the old game, but you can see though that the gameplay is evolutionary of the original game, not revolutionary. Blizzard had to do this so the game would find instant favour with the legions of Starcraft 1 fans. However, you just know that Blizzard held back Protoss and Zerg campaigns so they can wring more cash out of people buying this game. And you can be guaranteed that those 'expansions' will contain new branches to the existing tech trees for multiplayer, so you will have to buy them, even if you're not interested in the campaigns. Let's face it, multiplayer is the core of this game - but no LAN play is a slap in the face, forcing you onto Battle.net. An obvious ploy to deter piracy at the expense of people who buy the game, and forcing people into their realm for buying their retarded horse DLC. You can be sure there will be a "complete" battle chest edition in the future, with all the content that should have been there from the start. Then if they add LAN play back in, this game would be a perfect 10.… Expand
  35. TropicanaJ
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, and put it back where they pulled it out from.… Expand
  36. JimB
    Aug 2, 2010
    1
    It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of the reviewers are saying it is the best game of all time but none of them explain what elements actually make it good and why.… Expand
  37. markm
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going to get that $15/mo they do from other sub-par graphic games that people spend money on. People will buy it, they'll keep releasing it. I imagine Diablo 3 will be of a similar fate. Welcome to the Wii "Meh, as long as people buy it, we'll put it out there" generation of mediocrity.… Expand
  38. JohnC
    Aug 2, 2010
    4
    I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely offline so it also rubs I have to log into battle net every time I start my computer to verify my game account; I verified my game by paying for it!! If Diablo 3 follows a similar pattern I won't by buying.… Expand
  39. BenH
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    Well its still starcraft but expertly polished, upgraded and an amazing game. The weighting between the races is perfect (If you know how to use them) This game will put RTS gaming back on the map. What i find sad is that Absolute Games basically rated this low as they believe the Genre is no longer current. What the hell, reviewers like that should not even be allowed to review on a site Well its still starcraft but expertly polished, upgraded and an amazing game. The weighting between the races is perfect (If you know how to use them) This game will put RTS gaming back on the map. What i find sad is that Absolute Games basically rated this low as they believe the Genre is no longer current. What the hell, reviewers like that should not even be allowed to review on a site like this. Their reviews are consistently way off the mark.… Expand
  40. JohnK
    Aug 2, 2010
    4
    I'm very dissapointed with this game. WC3 made several improvements over SC, notably adding heroes and a 4th race. Many SC fans weren't enamored with the hero concept, but SC3 easily could have improved on WC3 by going up to 5 races and making individual units gain xp. Blizzard did neither, they cut back to 3 races, added/changed a few units, and "upgraded" to a 3D engine. Big I'm very dissapointed with this game. WC3 made several improvements over SC, notably adding heroes and a 4th race. Many SC fans weren't enamored with the hero concept, but SC3 easily could have improved on WC3 by going up to 5 races and making individual units gain xp. Blizzard did neither, they cut back to 3 races, added/changed a few units, and "upgraded" to a 3D engine. Big whoop. I am honesty not even sure if other than the bnet upgrades this game is even better than the original SC.… Expand
  41. BenF
    Aug 2, 2010
    9
    The good of the Old, The Spice of the new, but -1 on the score because the macro manage has not been made easier after so many years. it all comes down to keyboard & MVP it seems. Albiet a fun way to micro macro! no other game makes me want to learn how to use a keyboard with RTS as much as SC2.
  42. JamesG
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I loved the first Starcraft. The problem is, I haven't been on a desert island for the last 12 years.… Expand
  43. Derek
    Aug 2, 2010
    8
    Felt that the game lost some of it's draw over the decade in-between sequels. A lot has happened since then, making it tough to go back and play an old school RTS without some disappointment. The game does what it wants to do with excellence, but falls short of the greatness that the original achieved.
  44. serkanu
    Aug 2, 2010
    6
    I dont understand these reviews. THIS GAME HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INNOVATION. Gameplay is boring and 10 years old! What kind of industry has gaming become? Cool cinematics, good graphics and BLIZZARD trademark are not enough to make an excellent game!
  45. marko
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to any die-hard Blizzard fan. It's kind of like what Valve did to Counterstrike: Source; they just took the original game, tweaked it with the Source engine, and slapped a price tag on it. As I am playing Starcraft 2, I keep asking the same question: So what? What does this game actually prove that the first one didn't prove? That Blizzard made a new (and now very dated) engine. That Blizzard added some extra units. That Blizzard made one "cool" campaign (the original had all three, by the way . . .). C'mon people. The answer quite simply is: there is nothing special. The game is just "okay." After seeing marines shooting at a bunch of incoming hydralisks without taking cover, I said to myself: "you've got to be serious." The fact that marines can't shoot while running is also pathetic. The game feels very mechanical and static, which is acceptable for the first-- not the second. The fact that warcraft 3 added two extra races and Starcraft 2 added none also pissed me off. I already uninstalled the game and will not waste $120 on two expansions that will add a handful of zerg and protoss missions. I refuse to get cheated by Blizzard. I am back to playing Starcraft and the other fine RTS games that were made in the past few years like Company of Heroes and dawn of war to name a few. It's like Blizzard has lost all of its creative juice-- as if Starcraft 2 was taken over by a bunch of guys with marketing majors, wanting to make billions of dollars rather than make an interesting game. Starcraft was (and still is) a superb game, simply because there was nothing like it back in 1998. I can go play plenty of other games like Starcraft 2.… Expand
  46. alexandreP
    Aug 2, 2010
    8
    Strip the cutscenes away and you have a kind of booring RTS in single player. Multi-player it's another thing, but playing the campaign it's not quite fun, it's ok but not what I expected.
  47. AustinS.
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    Firstly, all the people giving out the common complaints, no LAN, one campaign, $60, etc. are idiots, plain and simply. LAN only enables people to play without paying, thus rendering a lower profit and lower incentive to make the game. Yes, it's one campaign, but it's a full game's worth. You have to be a complete moron to think that Blizzard would put out 1/3 of a game. Firstly, all the people giving out the common complaints, no LAN, one campaign, $60, etc. are idiots, plain and simply. LAN only enables people to play without paying, thus rendering a lower profit and lower incentive to make the game. Yes, it's one campaign, but it's a full game's worth. You have to be a complete moron to think that Blizzard would put out 1/3 of a game. They are putting out three games, all with full and entertaining campaigns. On the $60 price point, games have cost $50 for over a decade; since then, the production cost has increased, and the value of the dollar has decreased. $60 now is less than $50 was when games started charging $50.… Expand
  48. AndrewB
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    Absolutely true to the original and polished to a mirror sheen. Definitely worth the money. Don't listen to the "It's only a third of a game" crowd. If they tried to squeeze the amount of content included in Wings of Liberty into one game, then it would fall short of magnificent and that's certainly not in Blizzard's reputation. Jackson broke up Lord of the Rings into Absolutely true to the original and polished to a mirror sheen. Definitely worth the money. Don't listen to the "It's only a third of a game" crowd. If they tried to squeeze the amount of content included in Wings of Liberty into one game, then it would fall short of magnificent and that's certainly not in Blizzard's reputation. Jackson broke up Lord of the Rings into three films for a reason, and Blizzard has done just the same.… Expand
  49. CaleS.
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    I love RTS games it's my favorite genera and I've played them all. So when StarCraft 2 was finally announced to be released a year ago I was skeptical. After playing it and beating the single player campaign I can say that it is the single greatest RTS i've ever played. No other RTS has ever had this good a story and presented it in such a polished form.
  50. TimM
    Aug 2, 2010
    9
    Blizzard aimed to topple the original as the gold standard for RTS and succeeded admirably. Great graphics and stellar sound. Although "Wings of Liberty" provides a story-based single player campaign for the Terran faction only, that campaign is rich and deep, with some non-linear elements and considerable replayability. The single player campaign is comprised of 29 story missions, up to Blizzard aimed to topple the original as the gold standard for RTS and succeeded admirably. Great graphics and stellar sound. Although "Wings of Liberty" provides a story-based single player campaign for the Terran faction only, that campaign is rich and deep, with some non-linear elements and considerable replayability. The single player campaign is comprised of 29 story missions, up to 26 of which may be included in each play through (based on the player's decisions). Mission variety is superb, as each mission offers unique goals and obstacles, including some genuinely original and exciting scenarios. Rounding our the single player options are a series of "Challenge Modes", 9 stand-alone levels designed to teach advanced RTS tactics and test experienced players' acumen. Multiplayer components are both familiar and engaging. Starcraft 2 debuts Blizzard's "Battle.net 2.0" online functionality, with built in matchmaking, leagues, statistics, and chat. Smartly, Blizzard has included Facebook integration to allow players to easily add online friends to their in-game friends lists for multiplayer. Gameplay consists of the same 3 classic factions from the original, with many units from the previous game returning with new abilities alongside a host of new units. Balance is excellent, although the early game focus (known online as Blitzing and Rushing) may frustrate newer players. If Starcraft 2 has faults, they are likely to be found deep in the pedigree itself. Starcraft 2 remains an "old-school" RTS, with plenty of base building, resource gathering, and hands-on unit control. The trappings of modern RTS's are not present, and players accustomed to the features of newer strategy games may find themselves fustrated by the level of micromanagement the game demands. While faction balance is nearly flawless, the multiplayer relies on an elaborate structure of so-called "hard counters": units which trump specific other units. Slow build times and deep tech trees can mean that, at all but the highest levels of gameplay, even if you see a particular attck coming well in advance you may still be helpless against it. Adding to the frustration, the aforementioned Rush and Blitz strategies predominate competitive multiplayer, forcing both players to go "all-in" within the first minutes of a match. Despite these minor annoyances, Starcraft 2 remains one of the best RTS games available today. This is a must-have for any fan of the genre.… Expand
  51. BrendanM.
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 years ago. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this game a 10/10. Perhaps they should be disclosing some sort of compensation they are receiving from Blizzard.… Expand
  52. DanD
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    This game is hands down the greatest game ever made. Everything about the original was improved to a great degree, from match making to game balance. The new units add a lot of new strategies as do new mechanics such as destructible rocks, xel'naga watch towers and the addition of a second gas node at every base. As a die hard fan of SC:BW I went into this game with very high This game is hands down the greatest game ever made. Everything about the original was improved to a great degree, from match making to game balance. The new units add a lot of new strategies as do new mechanics such as destructible rocks, xel'naga watch towers and the addition of a second gas node at every base. As a die hard fan of SC:BW I went into this game with very high expectations and I can tell you that it lived up to every bit of it. The campaign, im sure is fun if youre into that sort of thing, I myself went straight for the multiplayer, which is excellent with the brand new ladder system. Gone are the days where you play against people significantly below or beyond you in terms of skill . My only complaint is the lack of clan support which the original enjoyed. I think it'd be great if people could make clans to make it easier to connect with other skilled people for team matches, such as 3v3s and 4v4s. All in all, if you even sort of enjoyed BW you will love SC2. Stop reading this and buy it now.… Expand
  53. Loriftw
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    The wait was worth it. StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty delivers on all fronts with unique singleplayer missions, a gripping story for the campaign and excellent multiplayer. Prepare yourself for the definitive RTS of the decade. StarCraft II is the new standard and will cast a shadow over all RTS titles that follow for quite some time.
  54. ChrisR
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    The game is so massive and deep that it will take most players months to wade through all the content. The wait was well worth it judging by the polish of the final product. The three races are well balanced, each having their relative strengths and weaknesses. Online play is more fun than ever! I've had many games where my starting base gets wiped out, but I have an expo that I can The game is so massive and deep that it will take most players months to wade through all the content. The wait was well worth it judging by the polish of the final product. The three races are well balanced, each having their relative strengths and weaknesses. Online play is more fun than ever! I've had many games where my starting base gets wiped out, but I have an expo that I can turn into a main. "Hell, its about time."… Expand
  55. AndreasG
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    StarCraft 2 builds on the strenght of the core gameplay experience that made games such as SC1 and WC3 top RTS games. Solid strategy, balancing of units and level design have always been Blizzards forte along with engaging story line and mouthwatering cinematics. But this game has so many additional layers on top of the usual features. The hub between missions is spectacular, offering StarCraft 2 builds on the strenght of the core gameplay experience that made games such as SC1 and WC3 top RTS games. Solid strategy, balancing of units and level design have always been Blizzards forte along with engaging story line and mouthwatering cinematics. But this game has so many additional layers on top of the usual features. The hub between missions is spectacular, offering permanent unit upgrades and research options as well as additional story elements. Value for money is excpetional.… Expand
  56. MBand
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    Excellent game, the campaign is stunning in both the way it looks but also the innovation. Gone are the days of an RTS campaign being 'Destroy the enemy bases', with the bases simply getting more varied and numerous as the campaign goes on. Starcraft 2 changes this by giving the player optional objectives, time based missions and a whole host of other things to do that really Excellent game, the campaign is stunning in both the way it looks but also the innovation. Gone are the days of an RTS campaign being 'Destroy the enemy bases', with the bases simply getting more varied and numerous as the campaign goes on. Starcraft 2 changes this by giving the player optional objectives, time based missions and a whole host of other things to do that really make the game that bit better. To all of those who lament it being a terran only campaign i'd argue that i'd rather have the story of starcraft 2 told over 90-ish missions than 30, and that this game has as many missions as the original.… Expand
  57. MichaelT.
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    An absolute must have for any gamer. The story is epic in scale. Even if you don't enjoy RTS games, this may be the one game that changes your mind. Blizzard has once again delivered, and I will be looking forward to the next two entries.
  58. PaulF
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    I cant believe that there are so many people giving this 10 which is a perfect score because this is not a perfect game.Sound and graphics are outstanding but i was expecting more than just a graphics upgrade.It feels old not classic. RTS has moved on (i am so over base building). Having said that it is still fun but it doesn't draw me in like CoH or DoW.
  59. ChrisB
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    Epic game, love it so far. Finished the campaign on hard, will go for a second ride on brutal. The multiplayer will keep me occupied for the coming months/years - finally I have a truly competitive game, which doesnt seem to have a skill ceiling.
  60. Anon4800
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    A genius game, best RTS for a long time. If there is supposed to be a minus is that I will have a lack of sleep I belive :P Great graphic, great gameplay, amazing music, amazing story.
  61. MartinP
    Aug 2, 2010
    10
    I'd rather give this game 100 points out of 10 for reasons I'll come back to after my review. My review can be short, enough people already said it: - The game still has the exact same base principles which made it the best RTS of all times back in 98. - I personally believe the game has even better controls - The challenges and achievements just work really good - The campaign I'd rather give this game 100 points out of 10 for reasons I'll come back to after my review. My review can be short, enough people already said it: - The game still has the exact same base principles which made it the best RTS of all times back in 98. - I personally believe the game has even better controls - The challenges and achievements just work really good - The campaign has an epic story so far (saying otherwise makes me believe you didn't pay attention to it or haven't played the campaign yet). Brilliant CGI to support it too! - Addition of specialization trough research and improvement through hiring mercenaries and buying better hardware work great too. These are the reasons I'd give this game a 10. But I would like to give that score 9 times more to make a 100 out of ten just because I read reviews like: - "People beat me big time in multi-player, lame: score = 1" -- If you can't play it's your problem, don't blame the game for it... - "It's an ok game, but not the best ever. Score: 1" -- So you give good games a score of 1? You mean you want to give it a 5 or 6 but because so many people do like the game you feel like giving it a 1 so the game will get a lower score just like it should have in YOUR eyes? - "Too expensive, especially for only one campaign. Score: 0" -- You get allot more in this game than you'll get in most other games. It's well worth the price. Also only stating the high price and giving 0 points means the same as thinking every other aspect of the game you can think of is just fine but doesn't earn points for the game. Just a couple of reviews I can really get agitated about and made me want to rant. Reviews are opinions, but if you scale the score of your review down (or up like I'd really like to do here since it feels like I need to) your trying to shape the average opinion towards yours instead of generating a fair average opinion.… Expand
  62. PeterR
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 or 5 you need to re-issue all orders). Without changing the core gameplay Blizzard could have added any number of features that truly make modern RTS's very fun and engaging. Some such features would be: Zoom engines, Dual monitor support, group attack commands (being able to issue a command to attack an entire group and not just 1 individual in a group), formations, a low profile UI, etc. This is why this game gets a 7. While the gameplay isn't bad, it sure isn't good. It's simply antiquated. So if you're looking for story absolutely buy this game. If you're an RTS fan you may want to look elsewhere.… Expand
  63. EddieZ.
    Aug 2, 2010
    2
    Great game. But horrible-and I do mean HORRIBLE-online features. The new Battle.net 2.0 is so restrictive, so backwards, so lacking in even the most basic features like chat and a coherent map publishing system that it truly dampens the whole experience. What a disappointment. A wonderfully fun and fast-paced game ruined by online features that could have so easily been remedied.
  64. AlecB
    Aug 2, 2010
    9
    Given a 9 because no game is perfect, graphics are amazing, story is amazing, CGI is beautiful, missions are diverse and never boring- only daunting at times on harder difficulties, Battle.Net 2.0 gives you just about every possible way to become better at multilayer and league matchmaking is a long overdue blessing and the attention to detail in everything is way beyond the norm for Given a 9 because no game is perfect, graphics are amazing, story is amazing, CGI is beautiful, missions are diverse and never boring- only daunting at times on harder difficulties, Battle.Net 2.0 gives you just about every possible way to become better at multilayer and league matchmaking is a long overdue blessing and the attention to detail in everything is way beyond the norm for games today. All with a amazing map editor tool to extend the longevity of this game with custom games. Only thing I could ever complain about is the occasional sporadic matching, the slightly cartoonist look of things and the requirements to obtain any kind of unit decals is a little obsessive- but all are just minor complaints in an other wise truly epic game.… Expand
  65. 'Airstrike'I
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    While at first I was skeptical about the lack of LAN play, Protoss and Zerg campaigns and the requirement of internet connectivity, within minutes of starting it up for the first time I was hooked. The epic tournament-style play that made Starcraft what it is remains in the form of the new Battle.net, while the singleplayer campaign is incredibly immersive and fun by itself, with a lot While at first I was skeptical about the lack of LAN play, Protoss and Zerg campaigns and the requirement of internet connectivity, within minutes of starting it up for the first time I was hooked. The epic tournament-style play that made Starcraft what it is remains in the form of the new Battle.net, while the singleplayer campaign is incredibly immersive and fun by itself, with a lot more to do than "build, move, blow stuff up" 90% of the time.… Expand
  66. Richard
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    It may use the same game mechanics like starcraft but who wouldn't really want that. the king of RTS claim its rightful throne again with this game. extremely polished gameplay, unparralled RTS graphics, an absolutley amazing multiplayer experience. the new battle.net is well polished also tho the LAN problem is kinda of a downer. GREAT GAME.
  67. JamesJ
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Although this game was decent, it was sorely overpriced for a third of a game and no LAN. Story wasn't good and multiplayer is imbalanced. Quite frankly, this was the most over-hyped game of the decade.
  68. DaveL
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    Anyone giving this game a 10 needs to take a look at this game without buying into hype. Pretend it's called Blarghraft and re-assess it. It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc. There is nothing about this game that feels fresh or intriguing. It's an SC expansion that could've been released a decade ago and been Anyone giving this game a 10 needs to take a look at this game without buying into hype. Pretend it's called Blarghraft and re-assess it. It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc. There is nothing about this game that feels fresh or intriguing. It's an SC expansion that could've been released a decade ago and been decent at the time. Now it's just an average generic RTS with nothing that stands out from the myriad of RTS clones devoted to its own namesake. Except for a cliched story with middling voice acting there's nothing to rate SC2 on. It feels like Activision just put an old title through the assembly line to churn out something to put on the store shelves with the only innovation coming in ways to milk money off the title.… Expand
  69. RobV
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game doesn't even deserve a 1. It's starcraft with a higher resolution and 100 times the requirements.… Expand
  70. BrianN.
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Looks and feels exactly like the first game, resources are still a pain to gather and the cinematic are long and unnecessary. Blizzard must've spent the years of development on this game counting their WoW cash cause SC2 feels 14 years old.
  71. SamE
    Aug 1, 2010
    9
    This game is absolutely amazing. It delivers everything that is promised, from an epic campaign, to engaging multiplayer that will keep you hooked for a long time. Although with or without this review, you already know if you're buying it or not. Also, to those naysayers, they all seem to be made their computer can't run it or hold personal vendettas against Activision. Facebook This game is absolutely amazing. It delivers everything that is promised, from an epic campaign, to engaging multiplayer that will keep you hooked for a long time. Although with or without this review, you already know if you're buying it or not. Also, to those naysayers, they all seem to be made their computer can't run it or hold personal vendettas against Activision. Facebook integration in fact does not mean it updates your facebook with what you're doing in StarCraft 2. It just means it's easier to find your friends who have Battle.net accounts. Do a bit of research before you whine and complain.… Expand
  72. MockB.
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    The RTS aspect has been handled as expected almost flawlessly, extremely polished and already fairly balanced. However, after 12 years to think up a story and to go with this idiocy as the best they could think of was shameful. A 12 year old after smoking a pound of skunk would've done better. Shame on you blizz.
  73. RobertP.
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    At first I was discouraged when I heard StarCraft 2 was being divided into three games. However, Wings of Liberty stands on it's own two feet. An excellent story, good evolution of the RTS format and the best cinematics in gaming. Even if you never play online, the single player is well worth the price. I got the collectors editions and feel completely satisfied.
  74. ValnakK.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    Thoroughly dissapointed. They literally just remade Starcraft 1 with new, shiny graphics and a couple new units. This is more befitting of an expansion than a whole new game.
  75. ZaratanchoT.
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    The game is amazing. And it will become even greater when all patches and expansions come out. Never played alot of RTS games but there are some that you just need to... and Starcraft is one of them.
  76. JoeJ
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    With all that hype building up to Starcraft2 over this last decade, it puts a tremendous amount of stress on a game
  77. JayS
    Aug 1, 2010
    3
    A bit disappointed in this price gouging product from Blizzard. No LAN support is a huge turn-off as this has been in the past one of the single-most played LAN games. Single player is good, multiplayer still needs some tweaking.
  78. StarCraft
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack first...if you don't you lose similar to paper-rock-scissors. I don't get the hype. The graphics are cool, sound is awesome but the game play isn't any different than the original. Strategy buffs need not apply..this game comes down to who can build and attack faster and hope like hell you chose the attack...no defensive strategy what so ever in this one.… Expand
  79. JDS
    Aug 1, 2010
    3
    This game is nothing but a cash cow. Here is my review: Pros: --Runs pretty well --Decent art on the static screens in the ship --Resembles old Starcraft somewhat Cons: --Boring, trite story that is less interesting than your average Saturday morning cartoon, with even worse dialog: (things like: "the end of all things is nigh!!" "It is your destiny!!" and "Your efforts are futile!"...) 9 This game is nothing but a cash cow. Here is my review: Pros: --Runs pretty well --Decent art on the static screens in the ship --Resembles old Starcraft somewhat Cons: --Boring, trite story that is less interesting than your average Saturday morning cartoon, with even worse dialog: (things like: "the end of all things is nigh!!" "It is your destiny!!" and "Your efforts are futile!"...) 9 year olds will eat it up, and so will the legions of mouth breathers and diabetics who will spend time with this game. --No LAN play...seriously?!? --Facebook and Realname? Wow I can smell the corporate parties already as their bank accounts fill. Glad I got the collector's edition and sold off the pieces to pay for the game, as it wasn't worth it.… Expand
  80. Zachary
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    A complete rehash of SC1. Single player is dull, multiplayer is even worse. There is no strategy involved. All you need to do to win is hoard one type of unit, select all, hit CTRL+A and click the other side of the map. It pales in comparison to RTS games released even 5 years ago. The only reason this game is receiving good reviews is because of Blizzards huge marketing campaign.
  81. AgarwelI
    Aug 1, 2010
    8
    It is a very good game. But nothing more. Very similar to other RTS games and nothing more. So is it worth buying? Definetly? It is some extraordinary game that should be praised and call best game ever? Not at all. Release of this game is nothing more than release of Uncahrted2, Halo3, Deus Ex3 etc. Just another very good game. But there is like 10 of such games each year. So there is no It is a very good game. But nothing more. Very similar to other RTS games and nothing more. So is it worth buying? Definetly? It is some extraordinary game that should be praised and call best game ever? Not at all. Release of this game is nothing more than release of Uncahrted2, Halo3, Deus Ex3 etc. Just another very good game. But there is like 10 of such games each year. So there is no reason to make a special celebration for this one.… Expand
  82. RubenD.
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    After years waiting for this secuel, here it is an better than expected, with more ways to enjoy it than before. And in this years of action games and first person shooters, a bit of fresh air. New improved and revamp graphics. Excellent campaign modem, with a new Hub allowing you to get deeper in the story and also chose different upgrades and options for your army. The connection with After years waiting for this secuel, here it is an better than expected, with more ways to enjoy it than before. And in this years of action games and first person shooters, a bit of fresh air. New improved and revamp graphics. Excellent campaign modem, with a new Hub allowing you to get deeper in the story and also chose different upgrades and options for your army. The connection with facebook, means they are always near if you feel like playing. Blizzard has bring back good memories and improve them, when diablo 3 is out too, it will be like playing with my friends again at the beginning of the Milena.… Expand
  83. RohokT.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire-- Games that share the same genre, but expande on it and create something deeper, more involving, and ultimately, more exciting than this cookie-cutter piece of junk. A true eyesore to anybody who appreciates true games, Starcraft 2, like any of other Blizzard's games, is a plague on the gaming industries, and the company will probably continue to contribute to the downfall of the gaming industries for years to come-- God help us all.… Expand
  84. JimmyP
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    The people giving low scores to this game know nothing about gaming. This is STARCRAFT "2" - why would you expect anything like company of heroes? Starcraft was and is the most successful RTS franchise in the history of gaming and rightly so. Why would they try to change and innovate the game play? This is the perfect sequel. It is the first starcraft with a vastly improved game engine, The people giving low scores to this game know nothing about gaming. This is STARCRAFT "2" - why would you expect anything like company of heroes? Starcraft was and is the most successful RTS franchise in the history of gaming and rightly so. Why would they try to change and innovate the game play? This is the perfect sequel. It is the first starcraft with a vastly improved game engine, battle.net, and the addition of a number of cool units and features - which is exactly what a sequel should be. WHY would they change one of the most successful games in the history of computer gaming? So many games have been ruined with lousy "innovative" sequels. If you're looking for innovative, buy a new, innovative game - not a sequel. There are plenty out there. If you're looking for another 5-10 years of fun and insane multiplayer on battlenet - buy SC2. Blizzard does everything right, this is just another example. Although, not including all 3 campaigns in an expensive game is definitely a little ridiculous. If your framerate drops while playing this game, you need new hardware. It is far from hardware intensive. If you think your FPS drops playing SC2 - try a new FPS.… Expand
  85. RichardD.
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    Brilliant mission variety, long campaign (its proabably longer to play through than all 3 of the original SC campaigns) I don't care abount missing LAN, I can still play the person sitting next to me over battle.net. Fantastic story and even better multiplayer. Blizzard we salute you for making the best RTS of all time!
  86. BrianB
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    One of the greatest RTS games I have ever played is in my hands and installed on my computer. I have the original Starcraft and Brood War and those games have nothing compared to Starcraft 2. STORY: Everybody complains about no Protoss and Zerg campaigns in Wings of Liberty but there is no need . 26 missions (plus a bonus mission that I played) makes up for a long single player and really One of the greatest RTS games I have ever played is in my hands and installed on my computer. I have the original Starcraft and Brood War and those games have nothing compared to Starcraft 2. STORY: Everybody complains about no Protoss and Zerg campaigns in Wings of Liberty but there is no need . 26 missions (plus a bonus mission that I played) makes up for a long single player and really engaging story. The story was awesome. You do get to play some Protoss missions but overall the story is so engaging it is hard to stop playing and go get some sleep! SOUND: Sound is amazing! The original Starcraft nostalgia is there with some of the music being remixed to the newer setting. Even the units pretty much sound the same if not better. Great Sound. Graphics: One of the best for an RTS game. Do expect to play this game on some integrated graphics at decent frame rates with more than a couple of dozen of units. Some level are just plain beautiful and worthy of high praise. Blizzard has done a quality job in the graphics department. GAMEPLAY: A lot of people are saying this game is a rehash of the original but they are so wrong and I don't even think they played it. Now remember those cliffs that helped create a natural defense that would only be conquered by air units, well now some units like the Terren Reaper can fly up those cliffs with ease. This changes the gameplay up a bit and it is refreshing . But it does have the same Starcraft feel and isn't hat supposed to be what we all wanted in the first place? Why change the formula up when it has been proven to work? New units replace some of the old units from Starcraft and Brood War and to say I like these better than the old units.Multiplayer is such a blast and even better than the original. Too bad for no LAN support but I won't miss it. I don't live in South Korea anymore playing in the PC game rooms that is better with LAN. Most people won't miss it and the same goes for me. If your a fan of the original Starcraft then you gotta get this one. All others some play and see for yourself. I wouldn't really judge this game by what other people are saying, especially all the negative ones that give this game a 0 or a 1 because I feel they wanted features they wanted and since it doesn't include it they bash the game. You can't review what is not there. Best just to go out there and try it! Find someone who has it and ask if you can get their guest pass that was included with the game and see for yourself. You won't regret it!… Expand
  87. joeyg
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    Starcraft II has certainly been long overdue, but the immense waiting has really paid off. Blizzard have another jewel to add to their crown, and it
  88. NjoiF.
    Aug 1, 2010
    9
    Yes this is without a doubt an amazing game. An amazingly crafted campaign and extremely well balanced multiplayer make this the best rts experience this year. The only problem with this game is that blizzard had to compromise on the graphics in order to have a game that will run on almost any pc. Fortunately you can compensate for not so great graphics by playing it in stereoscopic 3d, Yes this is without a doubt an amazing game. An amazingly crafted campaign and extremely well balanced multiplayer make this the best rts experience this year. The only problem with this game is that blizzard had to compromise on the graphics in order to have a game that will run on almost any pc. Fortunately you can compensate for not so great graphics by playing it in stereoscopic 3d, like i do.… Expand
  89. SteveR
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for very high price 6/10 is fair rating in my opinion… Expand
  90. LukeH
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    CJ Henry, who gave a score of one, is being childish. He clearly isn't rating the game for what it is, but up against some ideal he formed - holding a grudge! The game is awesome.
  91. AdeptusA
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* portrays a NAKED MUTANT in the arms of a Terrorist Rebel walking off together into the sunset. Utterly disgusting. Report all those who play this game to your local Imperial Youth Brigade leaders. Those who denounce their peers and siblings before the local Peoples Imperial Commisariat in writing shall be shown leniency and understanding in the form of extra bread rations. The first 300 registered Imperial Youths informing on a parent shall receive a Meat Ration. Remain true to the EMPEROR of MANr and the everlasting Revolution! Resist this foul, bland game!… Expand
  92. MarkC
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    This version of Starcraft has got so much more to it than the original ever had. For one updated graphics that look -amazing- when on Ultra high. The battle.net system is better than ever apart from the lack of chat rooms. If you're a newbie like I was you'll find that the matchmaking system is perfect for newbies and veterans alike. You'll always have a close battle unless This version of Starcraft has got so much more to it than the original ever had. For one updated graphics that look -amazing- when on Ultra high. The battle.net system is better than ever apart from the lack of chat rooms. If you're a newbie like I was you'll find that the matchmaking system is perfect for newbies and veterans alike. You'll always have a close battle unless it's your very first game etc. The storyline in the campaign is very deep, and while some idiot reviewers complain we have to pay for two expansions just to see the Protoss/Zerg storylines they forget to mention that we have 26 missions in SC2 for Terran and probably will be the same for the Zerg/Protoss Expansions. Whereas SC1 did let you do all three race's storys in one game, they each only had 10 missions a part. I'd prefer 90 missions apart 3 games than 30 missions in one. Don't be swayed by all the reviewers here bashing it when you see them bring up Bobby Kotick or Activision. They have nothing to do with Blizzard's games. Read all the truly positive reviews and enjoy this game for what it is. It's an amazing RTS with a great story mode, badass graphics, and a never ending fun online experience. And contrary to some reviewer's beliefs, the critics who gave this a high rating aren't being paid. They just know a good game when they see one which is rare these days since everything else is crap. Also yes it does cost $60, but that's expected and fine. Games stayed at $50 for the past 15 years while people were paid more so in reality it's the same price it always has been.… Expand
  93. ARanly
    Aug 1, 2010
    9
    CJ Henry, that may be true, but there's no doubt that this game has polish and refinement written all over it. Original and innovative in improving the same old formula, yet uninspired in overhauling the foundation, its what Blizzard does best.
  94. ConstantineP
    Aug 1, 2010
    8
    Actually I'd give it 85%. It's a great game, but the hype was so big it just couldn't live up to the expectations. All that talk about EPIC story and such - never happened. Story is weak and derivative: ALL of it we already have read/watched/played before in some other book/movie/game. Starcraft got lots of nice touches and fun things and perks and tweaks and so on, but Actually I'd give it 85%. It's a great game, but the hype was so big it just couldn't live up to the expectations. All that talk about EPIC story and such - never happened. Story is weak and derivative: ALL of it we already have read/watched/played before in some other book/movie/game. Starcraft got lots of nice touches and fun things and perks and tweaks and so on, but truth be told it's not as fun second time. Blizzard just took way too long with the release.… Expand
  95. OwenM
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    Amazing game. Lengthy campaign with plenty of replay value in trying to get all the achievements, amazingly addictive multiplayer, and potentially infinite mods changing the game in every way possible. This has more value than almost any other new game release.
  96. PatrickH.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the '80s, not anymore. Same thing with StarCraft 2. Why it get so much high scores from reviewers? Maybe because they got a lot of money from Blizzard for the publicity of StarCraft 2. That can explain a lot of things. There's an expression in french that says: "Don't bite the hand that feed you!".… Expand
  97. DanB.
    Aug 1, 2010
    10
    This game was sick. everything I could have hoped for. Many people that didn't like it wanted elements from other genres added in. Guess what? It's not an RPG/RTS or an FPS/RTS.
  98. JoeN
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Best singleplayer campaign that an RTS can ever be. Every mission have different styles and gameplay. The longevity of singleplayer campaign is definitely guaranteed, and to explore hidden treasures or to unlock all the achievement you have tons of hours to kill. There is no other PC game that has such a huge production value, a true 100 million dollars game. And not surprisingly, Best singleplayer campaign that an RTS can ever be. Every mission have different styles and gameplay. The longevity of singleplayer campaign is definitely guaranteed, and to explore hidden treasures or to unlock all the achievement you have tons of hours to kill. There is no other PC game that has such a huge production value, a true 100 million dollars game. And not surprisingly, multiplayer is beyond that, a game that you can spend thousands of hours on. There is definitely no game worthier the money than this one on PC.… Expand
  99. MLittle
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    If the quality of this game extends into its two expansions, this will be the finest game in its genre. The multiplayer aspect of the game is so enthralling that I fully expect to spend countless hours working my way up to diamond league, and then staying there.
  100. JonH
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Before complaining about the lack of LAN, the lack of a zerg and protoss campaign, etc, just everything that you're getting for your $60 must be considered. You get a full fledged terran campaign which is not only longer than the original game's camapign, but also of much higher quality and production values. You get a map editor which gives you almost the same level of freedom Before complaining about the lack of LAN, the lack of a zerg and protoss campaign, etc, just everything that you're getting for your $60 must be considered. You get a full fledged terran campaign which is not only longer than the original game's camapign, but also of much higher quality and production values. You get a map editor which gives you almost the same level of freedom that the developers had when they designed the game; you could practically write the next expansion yourself if you wanted to. And you get a well-balanced multiplayer with fantastic, unique units, both new and old, with a skill curve much more friendly for beginners and still impossibly high for experts. The game may not be completely perfect, but it's pretty damn close, and it's no question as to whether or not a game with virtually endless and enjoyable replayability is worth your $60.… 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 »