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. WickedWizard
    Aug 2, 2012
    6
    Don't let the number '2' fool you, it's just the original 12 year old game with 1/3 the content. If you're not familiar with SC and are considering buying this get the first one instead; the gameplay has changed little plus you get more for your money.
  2. jim109109
    May 31, 2012
    6
    This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20 over and over, because the system kills creativity. It feels like Blizzard itself is now enemy to creativity, it's a big ball-less, slow, boring company which issues remakes and cashes in money. Warcraft III was superior in every way, ten years earlier.… Expand
  3. Bobbo
    Jun 21, 2012
    6
    I want to enjoy and savor the moment when playing an RTS, not click like a madman in some pointless E-sports game. Battlenet 2 is designed around E-sports where every online game is on super-fast speed and nobody cares about having fun, just moving up on some pointless E-sports ladder.
  4. Expospeed
    Dec 3, 2014
    6
    "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Wings of Liberty does this with improved graphics. My breakdown is as follows:

    1. Graphics: 7/10 - detailed unit models, good relative to other games on the market
    2. Gameplay: 7/10 - great interface and satisfying micro/macro control
    3. Multiplayer: 8/10 - competitive and fun
    4. Story: 2/10 - shallow story, not interesting at all

    Overall, average game.
  5. njkk
    Nov 15, 2012
    6
    This game is a poor mans Warcraft 3 in terms of the custom games. Based purely on competitive 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 games I found command and conquer 3 to be more enjoyable.
  6. coldshot27
    Jan 14, 2013
    6
    The gameplay itself is probably a 8-9 and not that bad. I got on to give this a six because I have an eyefinity setup and they purposefully limit the res to 1080p. C'mon Blizzard, we spend $400 extra for these setups and you won't even let us play against the AI with triple monitors. You should be able to register what type of play you want to do; stats accumulation or just fun. IfThe gameplay itself is probably a 8-9 and not that bad. I got on to give this a six because I have an eyefinity setup and they purposefully limit the res to 1080p. C'mon Blizzard, we spend $400 extra for these setups and you won't even let us play against the AI with triple monitors. You should be able to register what type of play you want to do; stats accumulation or just fun. If it's just for fun then you can have control over your gave without this psychotic big brother monitoring. Ridiculous.… Expand
  7. jackhunter
    Feb 15, 2014
    6
    Major probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it afterMajor probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it after finishing campaign.… Expand
  8. RazvanClau
    Nov 16, 2017
    6
    So here's the thing.

    I've played this game the first time when it was launched. I've never finished the campaign then (something came up and I had to stop at about 70%) but I've played quite a lot multiplayer and skirmishes. I've also picked up the game again not so long ago and I've played it in co-op, single player, versus AI and multiplayer. It's not that great anymore. I used    So here's the thing.

    I've played this game the first time when it was launched. I've never finished the campaign then (something came up and I had to stop at about 70%) but I've played quite a lot multiplayer and skirmishes.

    I've also picked up the game again not so long ago and I've played it in co-op, single player, versus AI and multiplayer.

    It's not that great anymore. I used to love it but after playing about a dozen co-op games, I've realized that it is exactly the same thing again and again and again. The same build order, the same strategy, the same moves. It is like chess without the mental stimulation. Once you find a strategy that works, you keep repeating it and that's about it. The entire idea of multi-player or co-op (especially co op) comes down to mastering three or four build orders and then massing your troops against your enemy.

    The single player is not that great either. At the time it was launched, it was great. There was nothing like that. A single player with units you can upgrade, multi-path missions, a story-line (even if it wasn't that great) and a feeling of grandness was something impressive in 2010. But in 2017, it feels extremely generic, downright boring and a waste of time.

    I've finished the game eventually. I am sure it is a great e-sport game but I am the kind of person that prefers single player. So from a single player perspective, once the novelty wears off, it is not that a brilliant game.    … Expand
  9. Giero
    Jan 3, 2023
    6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  10. Mike
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about multiplayer and the millions of Koreans.… Expand
  11. AndyG
    Aug 5, 2010
    5
    This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was so acclaimed (btw never liked pac-man at all personally). The reason of this low rating is cause the game is overpriced (… Expand
  12. Jexter
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and runs well on most machines. Cons: 1. Always need to be connected to the internet. No offline playability. 2. No LAN 3. No cross-realm / global playability. Many of my RTS friends are either from the US and Asia. Why does Blizzard want to kill global communities? 4. No chat channels. Hard to form a community. 5. Additional charges for "premium" maps and units. 6. No tournament / clan support. 7. No ownership of the product. If Battle.net is down, you cannot play. DRM going way over the top.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. ColinR
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Compared to other RTs's this is just lacking. It is not as in depth as supreme comander or innovative as company of hero's. It is not as tactical as the total war series. It is a very basic rts with an ok story. The only reason it is so popular is based off the original. But it has been years couldnt they have done and changed more.
  15. MarioS
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    Same gameplay are the old one with the worst battlenet in any blizzard game. Same it took them 7 year and it's still missing many things.
  16. BradK
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    It's sad to see that even reviewers are being sucked in by hype. The one reviewer gave it 100 and said the game is exactly the same as the first one with a new skin. Don't these people even think this through.
  17. FarSpace
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of Blizzard so called going with what so called works but I guess other don't want there game to get any more interesting but just have more options and better graphics is fine but lets some some big time stratagy that really getsmore interest, chess is way better even. sorry.… Expand
  18. DaneilD
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    Like most of the users here, I haven't actually played this game; but that won't stop me from commentating on it. I thought about giving it a perfect score, and I also thought about giving it a 0/10. But I felt about that. So instead, I'm giving it a 5/10 in order to balance out the 10/10 and 0/10 scores given by everyone else who hasn't played the game.
  19. FabioF.
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    A excellent art work as every game from Blizzard. Sadly it was shipped with a poor story as all recent games released. True good games dont need a restrictive DRM to make a profit. We was hoping to buy a great sequel of the original Stracraft not a multiplayer client. I would not play in Battle.net even for free. Blizzard is surely losing his touch.
  20. JamesE
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. Lowest common denominator anyone? The business model is pure greed. Won't be too long before MW is integrated into Battlenet and we'll all have to pay subs for the privilege of using the service. The graphics could pretty much be sprites and viewing angle (especially compared to Total War, SupCom, CoH and the Dawn of War series) only allows for a small amount of the pretty small maps to be seen at once. Online is completely unbalanced (even if the units are fairly well-balanced), seeing as Blizz decided who was going to be good at it months/years ago and gave them alpha + beta access while the rest of us will have to play SC1 or dry as dust skirmish maps against the PC to even learn the names of Zerg or Protoss units. Of course the potential reviewers were included in the beta as well. So glad they all had a good time.… Expand
  21. MM
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Great single player experience...can be great online too but follow this link: http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence This article is about how Activision want to control everything. No more lan party even online. Tournament? Not without Activision approval. It is a great game but you have too accept the Acti"vision" on your shoulder.
  22. MikeK
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, have no co-op in RTS for the campaigns is unforgivable. If it wasn't for the great cutscenes, and backstory for single player, would be a total loss. But, for a single player game, the story is nowhere near the likes of Mass Effect or Dragon Age. After I'm done with single player, don't envision myself playing this all too much. Be lucky to have this still installed in a few months from now.… Expand
  23. AndrewP
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 games related to the mario franchise in that amount of time. The C&C franchise has released 12 titles (xpacs incl.) since 1998. In March 1998 the Backstreet Boys were at the peak of their careers, there was a new show on TV called South Park that had been causing controversy since its first episode 7 months earlier, and something called a "Justin Beiber" had just celebrated its 4th birthday. This is basically a first generation RTS re-packaged, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to play Broodwars.… Expand
  24. meh
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    Meh. 10 years. Blizzard spent the better part of a decade working on the next installment of the Starcraft franchise and this is all they came up with? A boost to the graphics, fancy CG cutscenes, no apparent change in gameplay, and a total reliance on micro-management. Whoop-dee-do.
  25. ultrafang
    Aug 21, 2010
    5
    Graphics aren't too great compared to previous rts releases, story isn't that immersive and get's a little silly at points, same old sh** I suppose for a rts, gets old fast! I will admit I'm not a real fan of rts style games, but all this hype is ridiculous.
  26. altekki
    Aug 24, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detailStarcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detail models? I'm sorry but it is not enough. And how does the game get any better by the 3D when the view is fixed? It seem most of the game's success is only because of the hype and the name. If there was no SC1, this game had already be forgotten as a decent Xmas present candidate. When playing the game, it is hard to believe it has been released in 2010. Someone might say Starcraft 2 is a good game because it is so balanced. True, but does it actually matter but only for those top level players who have practised and practised for hundreds or thousands of hours. What is in for a casual player? I would rather play a RTS that amazes me with it's graphics and mechanics and challenges me intelligently from the very beginning.… Expand
  27. Scubadave
    Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ),Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ), but this is not a game to be purchased for graphics, it is the addictive fastpaced arcade competitive style multiplayer action that gives it such a good score. Though... :) I think it's highly over rated!… Expand
  28. rabage
    Oct 5, 2010
    5
    Really just do not get the hype or the love for this game. I can understand the enjoyment of the game in a competitive field, but the single player is pretty terrible. I pretty much just rushed through it and tried to get it over with as there was just nothing to really enjoy about the boring story and just in general pathetic game play provided by Blizzard. The whole thing just felt uninspired.
  29. RealityChecker
    Oct 14, 2010
    5
    It's basically SC-1 with new graphics... So it starts with a 10 score... minus 1 point for no LAN... Minus 1 point for forcing battlenet on peeps... Minus 1 for making people wait 12 years for a new coat of paint... Minus 1 because the other 3 minus's were actually minus 1.3333333333333333 .... Minus 1 for having to have a constant I-net connection to play.
  30. oneclipleft
    Oct 15, 2010
    5
    Yes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highlyYes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highly recommend Company of Heroes. It's 2 years old now, but superior to Starcraft in all respects (as well as graphics would you believe? I guess SCII has to run on Korean PCs so that explains the disappointing visuals).… Expand
  31. Moogle
    Dec 21, 2010
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The gameplay is simply fantastic. Everything feels much smoother, the melee is great... and everything else sucks.

    The campaign was simply terrible. Cliche ridden dialog (time to put this rebellion into overdrive!), retcons (Oh Overmind, how you have fallen), random plot holes (hey - lets bust onto Mengsk' flagship and kill all his guards AND GET OFFERED A DEAL. No mention made of the dead guards.), and everything else makes it sickening.

    Custom games are ridiculous. The popularity system for ranking maps is simply stupid. New games can't get up there. The editor is somewhat improved over Warcraft 3, but the scripting/triggering side is still crappy. Worse, since SC2 doesn't even off GetHandleId like WC3. What's wrong with just introducing python or something already in the industry? Why make your own heavily neutered version of C?

    Battle.net 2 is a slap in the face. The menu is made of laggy, stupid flash based dialogs. No chat channels, no clans, lobbies for custom games automatically start... with a 30 second timer. That you can't quit out of except by logging out.

    What is this, Blizzard?

    I'd recommend if you enjoy melee (and I do), but you're better off avoiding the campaign and the custom game system. At least, until they fix it. They're getting there with patches, but you should never release a game missing features.    … Expand
  32. vmp
    Dec 29, 2010
    5
    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war it just feels like a memorabilia rather than a fresh game. Very few new elements and the same game play that we know for 12 years with much less content and a high price tag.    … Expand
  33. BananaPuncher
    Jan 30, 2011
    5
    I once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I canI once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I can see the future. I was playing Starcraft 2.… Expand
  34. KhorneFlakes
    Apr 13, 2011
    5
    Its your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort thatIts your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort that Blizzard put into this game, every campaign mission always adds some interesting element with every level, but over all, game is nothing new or interesting, how it got over 12 million sales is beyond my comprehension.… Expand
  35. Darkwing
    Mar 8, 2011
    5
    There are some elements that Blizzard did improve on which is the maps and competitive play than some elements that Blizzard either made things worse or kept the same. The good parts is the map creation tool. That is right you can make neat maps, modes or if someone did World of Starcraft. The competitive play is there for the E-sport scene. Now the bad parts of this game. There is littleThere are some elements that Blizzard did improve on which is the maps and competitive play than some elements that Blizzard either made things worse or kept the same. The good parts is the map creation tool. That is right you can make neat maps, modes or if someone did World of Starcraft. The competitive play is there for the E-sport scene. Now the bad parts of this game. There is little to no innovation in this game. It's basically Starcraft 1.5. At least add something different or hindrance to the normal get ass and resources. Look at the transition from WC 2 to WC 3, Blizzard added Hero units but in this game it's just Starcraft 1.5 nothing more or less. The single player story is boring and well it sucks blatantly. Even the use of Nova was felt like it was just there for the game instead of being involved in the story. As for Battle.net 2.0 it's really bad. It's hard to navigate and what is worse is that it's an closed off community. Battle.net 1.0 got everything right and more. So in all Blizzard taken 5-6 steps back while taking 2 steps forward.… Expand
  36. Auctane
    Feb 24, 2014
    5
    While continuing the story of Starcraft, Starcraft 2 is a modernization of the original title. With other RTS games offering innovations in the way RTS are played, emphasizing on the strategy, Starcraft 2 offered a clean UI & intuitive interface but nothing new. Having good marketing is important, the popularity of this game proves it.
  37. MrCinnamon
    Jun 23, 2011
    5
    Starcraft 2 is a bit of a hit and miss. yes, the gameplay is fun. The campaign is well written. And the visuals are very impressive for the most part. but it has so many issues. The constant fixed camera angle is so out of date. One has to ask how little effort it would have been to make a rotateable camera. I felt cheated of a basic tenement for when I want to see a little bit more. ThisStarcraft 2 is a bit of a hit and miss. yes, the gameplay is fun. The campaign is well written. And the visuals are very impressive for the most part. but it has so many issues. The constant fixed camera angle is so out of date. One has to ask how little effort it would have been to make a rotateable camera. I felt cheated of a basic tenement for when I want to see a little bit more. This also made a perspective problem (Strictly artistic point of view). I shouldn't have been able to see certain object angles from the fixed camera point. The space combat was, pardon the phrase, ridonculous. The ships were stuck on a 2 dimensional plane and relative to size, battleships had a weapon range of less than a mile. Also its a very lazy sci-fi universe. The aborted child of games workshop's warhmmer, it still has problems with who it is. All of the races and designs are a copy of someone else's fantasy. And then the killer. The game is too easy. There is no inherent strategy. Strategy is the art of forcing the opponent to your schemes and outmanouvering him. This is button spamming rushes. Its fun, but there is no tactics needed. All in all it is a fun game, but it has lazy lore, unreallistic space combat and a lack of strategy. I'd buy the game, but not for full price. I'll wait for a preowned copy.… Expand
  38. Daisai
    May 29, 2012
    5
    Starcraft 2 basicly is a typical Blizzard game with the same rock paper scissor mechanics we know from games like World of Warcraft.
    Its their way in making a balance in games and they seem to be succesfull in it.
    Gameplay however does make it very boring, basicly you need to counter the counter that counters you because you counter that which you counter and counter a bit more, if you    Starcraft 2 basicly is a typical Blizzard game with the same rock paper scissor mechanics we know from games like World of Warcraft.
    Its their way in making a balance in games and they seem to be succesfull in it.
    Gameplay however does make it very boring, basicly you need to counter the counter that counters you because you counter that which you counter and counter a bit more, if you understand what im trying to say.
    Bit like rock counters scissors then paper counters rock and and scissors counters paper.
    Graphics are pretty pathetic for a 2012 game which such a budget, outdated even.
    They really could have done alot better on the graphics with this game, at least for single player, they are just not up to par with current games.

    So this game scores a bit in between, it has decent gameplay if you are into the "rock paper scissor" mechanics blizzard is known for.
    However if you are looking for a game with graphics you can expect from a developer of this level then Starcraft 2 isnt your game.

    The only reason why Starcraft 2 is a succes is the huge esport community around it, so basicly living of its succes of the first version.
    Bit like what the same company Blizzard is doing with Diablo.    … Expand
  39. choppy
    Oct 12, 2011
    5
    As a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayerAs a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayer mission focuses on microing some new unit, against a clock. You have to play it their way, and in a hurry, or you will lose. There's no time to play around or adapt your own style or strategy. It's all about using Reapers or some other unit in a rush against a game board that has been artificially tilted to necessitate lots of Reapers. So, the shackling of the personal singleplayer experience (every mission must teach you how to play multiplayer!) is problem number one.

    Problem number two is that Blizzard killed the epic story. You have to choose what tone you want your story to take - is it epic or serious, or is it jokey? Blizzard tries to mix both - cartoonish characters who are constantly overacting, being goofy, acting ridiculous, mixes in with moments of maudlin sentimentality and high seriousness. I just can't take a poorly-animated man with shoulders bigger than his head who suddenly starts crying over the horrors of battle seriously. You can have an epic story with light moments and dark humor, but you can't have characters that seem ridiculous or are "in on the joke", winking and riffing on the series itself. This ruins the immersion.

    In short, the singleplayer was completely ruined for me. I don't care about multiplayer, and I definitely won't be buying the sequel. Great job, Blizzard, I hope it was worth it to you.    … Expand
  40. TheArchaeon
    Oct 26, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty, the long awaited sequel to the award winning Starcraft... Let me blunt, it doesn't live up to the hype, but what game does these days? The first major flaw with it is the integrated online community, which forces you to be connected to the internet to even play the game. There is an offline option, but for some reason, Blizzard thought it a good idea to make you sign in every 30 days using the internet in order to keep using the offline mode. I aimed to play this game purely alone, i do not enjoy online gameplay. It's boring. So being forced to be a part of Battle.net in order to play a game which should be firstly single player, and optionally multiplayer, really annoyed me before i even started to play the game. The second annoyance came when you find out that the only campaign you can play is that of the Terran's. To be fair, the Terran campaign has a lot of effort put into the none gameplay sections, such as animated pre-mission screens in which you can see the interior of the Hyperion Battleship. However, that's about it as far as in-depth story goes. The majority of missions are quite boring, which seem to only get vaguely better the close you get to the end of the game. The graphics are an improvement, new unit types and the ability to upgrade units and structures before the battle are quite fun, but ultimately wont improve the standard gameplay all that much. That is what this is after all of these years of waiting, it's essentially Starcraft 1 with better graphics and missing two campaigns in place of a forced internet community. Rather than have a built in community, Blizzard could have easily crafted two more campaigns for customers to enjoy, but i guess the idea of milking us for more money with expensive expansion packs was too much to ignore... The game we have awaited for years is a disappointment, though any Starcraft fan will enjoy it, just don't expect any real innovation here. You will be playing Starcraft 1 with just a few new units and improved graphics and a pointless achievement system which you can only use if connected to the internet. This is the future of games it seems, linear single player options and multiplayer modes which are forced upon you. With Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty, you pay for the privilege to play the game Blizzard's way. Once you have completed the campaign there's not much to do, play the odd game against the terrible AI, and await the arrival of two more expansion packs each with a single campaign and a nice price tag.… Expand
  41. Latrec
    Sep 10, 2012
    5
    Overall a disappointment. I've notched off a rating for everything I found wrong.

    1) Battle.net: You know what I liked most to do when I was tired of gaming, or searching for a new one? I sat in chat rooms. I joined clans, I talked, trash talked, or watched other people have their own conversations. It was great, I possibly had more fun in chat rooms than in the actual game.    Overall a disappointment. I've notched off a rating for everything I found wrong.

    1) Battle.net: You know what I liked most to do when I was tired of gaming, or searching for a new one? I sat in chat rooms. I joined clans, I talked, trash talked, or watched other people have their own conversations. It was great, I possibly had more fun in chat rooms than in the actual game. Battle.net 2.0 has removed this, and otherwise killed that part which I liked best.

    2) Originality: There is surprisingly very little which is original in sc2. If you played wc2, and then wc3, you will understand. I mean, sure they added reapers and queens and stuff, but honestly, they added about as many units when frozen throne came out, and that was just an expansion! SC2 just seems like a $50 SC expansion with very little new. I would have loved to see more play within the environment, or an added race, or even totally revamped races, but no... you just get reapers.

    4. Graphics: Face it, sc2 graphics are the same as wc3 graphics. Don't get me wrong, I love wc3 graphics, but it's 10 years old! Man, when I first got sc1, I couldn't believe how bloody and dark that game was, so I expected sc2 would be similar. Instead I see these cartoonish units with this fake blood, in a children's atmosphere! Terrible.

    5. Noob-Friendly: This is an issue Blizzard really wanted to solve. As I see it there are two ways to handle it: a) Provide in-depth help explaining all the features and game mechanics, allowing the player to review this easily whenever he/she desires. Also could have given scenarios with computer scripted responses based on real players so that noobs could learn what a rush is or fast expand, and which is good for which. OR b) do what blizzard did and make guys like me dislike the game further.    … Expand
  42. Claytality
    Sep 27, 2012
    5
    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock to Blizzard's remake of SC:BW. They know not that Blizzard is owned by some dumbass French company.    … Expand
  43. fukery3
    Dec 10, 2012
    5
    I'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off itsI'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off its decent singleplayer, nothing to write home about though. Now the multiplayer is frought with problems. According to Dustin Browder the design plan in this game was to "make cool units" and worry about the numbers later. This is pretty apparent in the multiplayer where its a circus of stupidity with units. Also, because the engine makes units clump, there tends to be big balls of units that smash into each other in an A-moved orgy. Add in a lot of cheesing, and you get one of the messiest multiplayers around. Sorry Blizzard, this game is average.… Expand
  44. Vamrem
    Jun 3, 2015
    5
    A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends,A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends, so it has the half note too.… Expand
  45. yoloswagins
    Apr 21, 2015
    5
    This game receives much higher praise than it really deserves. It says alot about the current RTS when this is hailed as one of the best RTS games out there.

    The first place really to start from is the single-play (although no one really buys this game for the single-player). There is no real discussion about this, the single-player is a half-assed tick in a check box to get more    This game receives much higher praise than it really deserves. It says alot about the current RTS when this is hailed as one of the best RTS games out there.

    The first place really to start from is the single-play (although no one really buys this game for the single-player). There is no real discussion about this, the single-player is a half-assed tick in a check box to get more players playing the game. It is filled with uninspiring levels and a generic sci-fi "story-line" if it can even be called that. The 2nd expansion also lives up to this low standard.

    The real reason people buy this game is to play with friends, play the arcade or play competitive multi-player. Competitive multiplier is a strange breed of RTS. It is more of a "RT" as there is no real strategy involved in winning. The most important aspects of succeeding in the multi-player is executing build orders and having perfect timing on micro and macro and having the APM (how fast you can do stuff in the game) of a god. Even on the highest level professionals win through micro rather than strategy. Never have I heard a game commentator say "what an amazing strategy" or "player X just can't compete with this flawless strategy" etc... It is really a de-evolution of the RTS genre to appeal to a wider audience.

    The arcade I do have to admit is fun but here is the good news, Its 100% free!

    To conclude, don't buy this game; simply get the free trail (that lasts forever) and play arcade the whole time!    … Expand
  46. igolrum
    Aug 16, 2023
    5
    I loved the original Starcraft and Brood war. And while Starcraft 2 is still good gameplay-wise and character-wise, the story is much worse. It feels like they wanted to get rid of the series. Wrap it all up and be done with it. Pretty stale and straight-forward, uninspired. No more twists, betrayals and interesting political situations, like the original story had.

    Overall The whole    I loved the original Starcraft and Brood war. And while Starcraft 2 is still good gameplay-wise and character-wise, the story is much worse. It feels like they wanted to get rid of the series. Wrap it all up and be done with it. Pretty stale and straight-forward, uninspired. No more twists, betrayals and interesting political situations, like the original story had.

    Overall The whole Xel'naga and Duran story-line mystery especially has basically been straight up thrown away. The story of Wings of Liberty is especially bland and the weakest of the 3.

    Gameplay: 10
    Characters: 7
    Story: 2    … Expand
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. JCT
    Aug 5, 2010
    4
    Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved graphics. If this game is released with all three campaigns with at least as much missions and lasted as long as Grand Theft Auto IV and the acquired features I am looking for, I would own this game for $100. Therefore this game isn't by far unique and worth the price on features from what Relic's Company of Heroes had.… Expand
  50. BShum
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    It's basically a tutorial for each othe new units. Every stage will have a new unit that specializes on that map. Mass that unit and win. If the game were a full game that would be ok, but since its so short its a terrible game. Sure it looks good, but is empty in game play. Everything else is (besides some corny dialog) was ok. Sometimes it felt like they borrowed too much from WC3.
  51. JackJ.
    Jul 29, 2010
    4
    WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and can pay off the reviewers. (I don't think Crackdown 2 is a great game either, I was using it as an example.)… Expand
  52. JasonC
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, single-player takes a huge backseat to multi. But it'll get rave reviews solely because it has "Blizzard" on the box, just like anything from Bioware or Nintendo.… Expand
  53. Rexus
    Oct 14, 2010
    4
    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
    Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

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

    Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
    And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
    you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!    … Expand
  54. Nanu
    Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure thereI'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues.… Expand
  55. Coeco
    Apr 11, 2012
    4
    Outdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and otherOutdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and other re-re-replayed junk) and you'll get Starcraft II. It's like eating a really tasty looking eye-appeal pie that has no filling besides the bread crusts for anyone that isn't Korean along with the beautiful cinematics accompanied by some silly storyline.… Expand
  56. 12dan4
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scatteredWhile a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly.… Expand
  57. ngh2b
    Apr 7, 2011
    4
    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

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

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

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

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

    It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not worth $60, and is the most overrated game of 2010, and my biggest gaming disappointment.    … Expand
  58. syrik
    Apr 26, 2011
    4
    I was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's reallyI was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's really the only good thing there is though. The single player campaign is just a small part of a larger marketing campaign that was really a huge let down. The maps are boring and the storytelling is disjointed. They attempt to make it nonlinear but if you do the missions in different orders some parts of the story don't make sense. There is definitely the "right" order, though you're not forced to do it that way. Multiplayer is not my bag personally, but there is nothing new and exciting here. You will play on a map with fewer units than in the campaign against other people in exactly the same way I did 12 years ago against my friends. Except now, you can't spawn a copy to their machine, everyone has to pay $60 or you don't play. Blizzard has become the same as the other major game companies like Activision and EA and is only about the almighty dollar now. Skip this unless you absolutely have got to have more Starcraft multiplayer like it used to be, because that hasn't changed.… Expand
  59. dc42
    Feb 10, 2012
    4
    After hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics areAfter hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics are lacking. Still a decent game and worth checking out if your a RTS fan but don't fall into the "hype trap" generated by overzealous fans.… Expand
  60. Atomics
    Jun 23, 2011
    4
    I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities,I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

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

    There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!    … Expand
  61. Avadon
    Oct 13, 2011
    4
    A little over a year after SC2's release, Blizzard have yet not added clan support, LAN (which leads to massive problems during tournaments) or Gateway selection. You are also still limited to one account per cd key, which means that if you step away from the game for a couple of months or want to try a different race you will have to get stomped for many, many games until your rankingA little over a year after SC2's release, Blizzard have yet not added clan support, LAN (which leads to massive problems during tournaments) or Gateway selection. You are also still limited to one account per cd key, which means that if you step away from the game for a couple of months or want to try a different race you will have to get stomped for many, many games until your ranking plummets to where it's supposed to be. They are also reacting in a tragically slow manner to balance concerns, and usually in the wrong direction, as if they are incapable of fixing the game or don't really care about WoL's balance, since they have two more games on the horizon.

    As for the single player, it's widely viewed as terrible. The story, characters and dialogues were absolute rubbish, and its only saving grace was the relative variety of the mission objectives. Even so, I know many people who have played SC1 and Brood War's campaigns >10 times, but never bothered with SC2's campaign again after they were done with the achievements, which is not a good sign.

    Its graphics are still bad and not much effort has been done to improve them or optimize them. Even 5 year old games like SupCom and C&C3 look much better than SC2, but you still need a **** quad core CPU and a good GPU to run SC2 with everything maxed, for disappointing results, and still have it lag when maxed armies collide. Unacceptable for an e-sport, every professional player out there plays on low settings to avoid graphical lag that could cost him the game.

    Still, even though it doesn't offer much to the casual player, SC2 is a rapidly growing e-sport with hundreds of shiny tournaments going on. It is also amazing to watch, unfortunately much more enjoyable to watch than to actually play. I do enjoy watching SC2 tournaments, even though, like everyone else, I often get bummed out by imbalances that Blizzard timidly attempt to address once every 6 months, but always end up short.

    If you would like an e-sport to watch and be entertained, I would recommend buying SC2, it does have potential and maybe 2 years after Legacy of the Void it will actually be balanced. I can't however recommend it to casual players who don't play a lot, or people who expect a unique and immersive single player experience like Brood War had.    … Expand
  62. ShinsFortress
    Apr 8, 2017
    4
    The game is not good enough to overcome the bad feeling of renting something that I should own. Blizzard even intellectually insult me by telling me I own it after I registered their game code that locks StarCraft to me.
  63. jackel79
    Oct 26, 2012
    4
    This game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on BroodThis game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on Brood Wars, rarely had a time limits and I could take my own pace in completing a mission. The new one is no fun at all, you are too much in a hurry to finish the mission to enjoy any part of the game and the extra units that are playable are a waste, because I never get enough time to use a new unit to their full Potential. It seems the new units were only created to be used for multi-player and were just added to single player for their introduction. I never did like multi-player because I die to fast and I never have enough units to defend my base. The first game will alway be my favorite because you do have to be online to get the ok from Blizzard that I can play my game on my PC. Furthermore, the units on the first game had more uniqueness that they don't look out of place and actually help the player in winning a game. This will be my last starcraft game until blizzard makes a more compelling game that is fun to play like their old games were. Very disappointed about this game.… Expand
  64. genericreviewer
    Jun 30, 2013
    4
    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it. Game itself is not bad, it's that the single    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it.
    Game itself is not bad, it's that the single campaign is so bad it hurts physically.    … Expand
  65. SailorSonic
    Oct 23, 2019
    4
    Incredibly short game. Just when you are starting to get into it, it's over! Cannot understand why it is praised so highly.
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. SteveJ
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    Very disappointing, but not because of the core gameplay. The load times are ridiculous, the menu is confusing and messy, the newsflash cutscenes try to be 'funny' but end up like something that would be in a show for 7-year olds. Worst of all are the regional locks.... making online play with international friends nigh-on impossible. You can't even add people from other Very disappointing, but not because of the core gameplay. The load times are ridiculous, the menu is confusing and messy, the newsflash cutscenes try to be 'funny' but end up like something that would be in a show for 7-year olds. Worst of all are the regional locks.... making online play with international friends nigh-on impossible. You can't even add people from other regions to your Battle.NET friends list. The game itself, once started, is not so bad.... but woefully uninteresting. It's changed from StarCraft quite a bit, notably units won't just run around in a single file and get killed one by one when assaulting a base, which was never fun. However, some problems that were bad already in StarCraft still exist, such as SCVs getting stuck behind buildings if they are built too close to something else. There is less micromanagement, but in the end it's mostly just a graphical update with a few different units and few interesting features. Overall, the problems don't necessarily stem from the game itself but rather its presentation. The single-player campaign isn't bad, and it has a few attempts at original and good missions while still leaving in nods to the original game, but it doesn't really shine as an outstanding example of story-telling and originality. I got the collector's edition, which is quite impressively designed but beware; the art book has several pictures that are clearly just scaled up from a low resolution, and as a result they look pixelated in the final product. This is extremely poor work on their part. I cannot honestly give this a high score. With some luck, Blizzard will fix their menus and optimize the load times, while also removing the regional locks. That would go a long way to making the game more playable both offline and online. The lack of LAN play, the requirement to stay connected to Battle.NET and regional locks all contribute to making this game inferior to the set standards and expectations.… Expand
  69. AndyD
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire armies by a few cheap units, which is not only extremely unbalanced, it isn't fun. This coupled with the extremely competitive ladder system, in which people new to the game stay bad at the game because they aren't allowed to play with players who are good, and keeps highly skilled players playing solely against other highly skilled players, segregates the SC2 population into cutthroat pools of angry players. This makes player abuse not only something that creates negative and unhappy attitudes among the people on the "new" battle.net, it is something that players who are at a skill level any lower than that of the competitive Korean leagues of SC1 will encounter on a basis something on the order of nearly every match. I will say that the graphics are a major improvement over SC1, and that will make SC1 fans rejoice, including a system that allow a player to select an nearly unlimited number of units at a time, and a system which allows players to select buildings as if they were units, allowing players to queue up many units at a time without clicking on each individual building. These new features, which should have been included in the first game, aren't enough to redeem Starcraft II enough to live up to the name of its predecessor.… Expand
  70. Tylerwhat
    Jul 29, 2010
    3
    So 12 years and the only thing blizzard could come up with is a graphics update straight out of 2005? You've got to be kidding me. Only a sucker would pay 60 dollars for this boring RTS. Spending your money on Company of Heroes is a much better idea.
  71. JamesS.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Technically superb, but otherwise I don't feel like getting my money's worth with this one. The multiplayer is, as expected, just a horrible korean zergfest. Single player dishes out nothing new and is as dull as the first game back in the day. Even with the Blizzard logo on the game's cover, I just can't bring myself to like this game.
  72. CameronL
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be good, it's not great and it's far from being the greatest.… Expand
  73. 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.
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. AlexeyM
    Aug 5, 2010
    3
    A 12 year old game with a new engine. Nothing new nothing interesting 3 points are for pretty CGI the rest is just the same **** all over again. Also COST. Also cliche'd story. Also lack of 2 more stories. Basically time to play SC:BW some more.
  77. PunhaR
    Jul 27, 2010
    3
    Cliche history, short campaign, overpriced, 1/3 of a game for the price of a full game, graphics doesnt scale well (i have a radeon4870, playing int on max at 1920x1200 the game drops to 15 fps when there is 5 or more units doing shit on the screen), pathetic attempt to please the casual masses with a bullshit history line. i wish my money back.
  78. OdinB
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    Really? It does seem incomplete. Needs work done- and its released with core features not implemented. Release a game thats completed please. Blizzard has had plenty of experience making thease games, they should know better then to say 'wait for patches' Not to mention the resolution problems, give the users some more view of the battle, and give them more control over the UI.
  79. KennethG.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of the dated elements distract from gameplay. the dated Ui: the dated camera. (you cant even ROTATE the camera!) the very start of the campaign has a boring introduction ( a guy sitting in a bar? COME ON!) and i think the game relys too much on its flashy CGI scenes rather then the actual gameplay. The campaign might be fun.. but its nothing that hasnt been done before 10 times over in RTS...games. there is no deep strategist with the game its basically gather as much resources as you can and build your stuff as fast as you can and attack? I think they are just spending so much time on Catacyslm that they just half did Starcraft 2 ... the next wow addon will be in my opinion ten times better and then times more interesting then Starcraft 2 is. Starcraft 2 feels more like a dated title with improved graphics. Heck i bet Red Alert 3 will be more fun for me! (i should reinstall it!). Next!… Expand
  80. DylanC
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The fact that there really isn't anything new is disappointing. This is a rehash of Starcraft 1 for the new generation and those nostalgic ones who can't handle a little pixelation. If making a more polished remake of old games was all there was to it, we'd have a top 10 list populated by EA sports games they churn out every year. Doing the same thing with more gloss is just not good enough. Starcraft II doesn't deserve a spot among the likes of Half-Life at the top of the PC heap.… Expand
  81. MaximB
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    -not realy playable offline. -many crashes, battle net needed. -just remake of Starcraft 1 -comic graphics -end disappointing -no LAN modus -not playable worldwide Overall this game is pretty bad. I cant understand the scores from magazines. It is bad implementation of first part with better graphics. It can't reach Starcraft or WC3. There are also many better RTS. It is just hyped.
  82. rremmy72
    Aug 27, 2010
    3
    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

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

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

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

    Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.    … Expand
  83. Heroine4Life
    Sep 6, 2010
    3
    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

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

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

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

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

    The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.    … Expand
  84. Dracongo
    Sep 13, 2010
    3
    You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly,You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though.… Expand
  85. Ubermac
    Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed.    … Expand
  86. vXxo0oxXv
    Sep 30, 2011
    3
    To be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are underTo be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are under attack is not fun, and you can lose them all in a matter of seconds, which completely ruins your chance of winning the game. Also not fun. Scouting is near impossible in this game. You will find yourself most of the time simply trying to make educated guesses on what your opponent is building. An incorrect guess can lead you to a loss. This is especially irritating when one or two stealth units kills your entire army and base. The early tier units completely overpower anything late tier. It is not surprising to see even a top level player build 10-15 barracks or gateways and just pump mass garbage units. Stategic element is lacking. The most strategic thing you will do in this game is drop units on an enemy mineral patch. It's all about speed. You see the same build orders game after game. No real variants on the ladder. Some units just aren't worth building. The SC2 battle.net forum is catered for little kids and Christians. Perhaps the worst part of the game however, is the fact that you spend most of the game staring at your base. Active engagements seldomly take place, and the god awful ramp mechanics make penetration into the enemy base more irritating and frustrating than anything else, and also highly favor the defender. Save the money. Buy new brake pads or something.… Expand
  87. sudoscientist
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess.StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original.… Expand
  88. grok70
    Sep 18, 2011
    3
    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped playing. Starcraft 2 is Starcraft. It didn't feel any different. I still ended up setting up with siege tanks and marines, slowly grinding my way through all opposition while my base sat pretty. The goliaths were still worthless, and the bigger version of the Goliath...still worthless. It was easier to keep the base defended - my supply depots didn't have to be blown up in order to leave. The computer was the same AI I had dealt with in Broodwars. What does this game offer really? The whole campaign, except the cut scenes/ SS-pointless, could have been done using the old map editor. The campaign was trite, the character development non-existent, the plot movement utterly unsurprising. The animations weren't particularly good. The buildings looked cool - in 1996. The artwork was inappropriate for the quality of graphics that were possible. The economy was uninspired.

    Truthfully I knew this would be the case walking in. I watched the e-sport videos during beta. I kept thinking....there is nothing new here. NOTHING. What was improved upon in Starcraft 2? What was really innovation? Units that move up cliffs. That's it. Otherwise it's just an expansion. A boring one. Maybe it's the Korean gaming scene, or the just the outrageous nerdrage inherent in the fetishistic fandom that follows blizzard, but it seems like all innovation was squashed. I paid $60 dollars, and I don't think I will ever play the game again after getting through the trite storyline. Wikipedia is free, I could have just gone and read it. I will not be buying expansions.

    If you liked Starcraft 1 and already matured and move on from its gameplay, this game is not worth it. PS: Blizzard, Hire some professional writers who have credits in literature and cinema that have won awards. Whoever you have doing it needs to be sent to get their MFA or something, this $#!7 is bad.    … Expand
  89. NGResonanceFan
    May 12, 2012
    3
    Lo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the storyLo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the story was. It was like some cheesy action-adventure movie, and inventing that whole Tychus Findlay backstory was incredibly lame. It's very sad really. Back in the day when Blizzard was small they were innovative and seemed to respect their fans. The fame and success obviously went to their heads though, and big money translated into big egos and accountants, and as a result SC2 was nothing more than a sop for the masses.… Expand
  90. theNILE
    Dec 9, 2012
    3
    Where should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematicsWhere should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematics unlike BW. So... you have to pay for another account in a different region...if you're playing on a foreign region then your ping is terrible even though the ping was perfectly fine in the beta. The lack of social interaction is a big issue which they are only now coming to address. They removed units from the game itself from BW and changed the meta to encourage turtling. That being said, it is more balanced than BW and it is better spectator-wise which was the main problem with BW. Now the single-player...is the single-player, with a bad story and less memorable characters than in SC1/BW. All in all, Blizzard tried to capitalize on old franchise (as they did with Diablo 3) and it was just a waste of space.… Expand
  91. vortex10
    Oct 30, 2013
    3
    A stupidly fast paced over hyped mediocre RTS with no real creative flair or potential. Unless your a die hard fan of Starcraft don't waste your time or money. Play CoH 1 Instead.
  92. ComBrandon
    Feb 6, 2014
    3
    Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however,Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however, in my opinion outweigh this. My list of negatives are as follows. The game lacks varieties of units, even with the expansion pack the game has a depressing selection of bio units, tanks, and aircraft. The game has only 3 factions, as opposed to nearly all other strategy games having 4 or more. The game has replay value to an extent, and major replay value if you want to become professional, and set yourself a goal, however for casual gamers this has little replay value due to its uninspired map design, lack of units and factions as stated above, and slightly repetitive gameplay (If you play custom maps on arcade mode this can hold your attention longer than regular gameplay at times). Another con to this game is the matchmaking, early on you will be facing incredibly strong opponents, this will not be so much of a problem as you progress and increase in rank, however for early SC2 players this can be troublesome.

    If you want a good strategy game, try Age of Empires 2, Supreme Commander 1, or Battlezone 2.
    If you want a strategy game that has more fighting, and commanding than base building and factional differences, then you want Starcraft 2.    … Expand
  93. OwenS
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    To me it feels like a kids game. I'm not seeing the depth that everyone else seems to notice. Also not seeing what is so great about it. I definitely wasted $60. I'll go back to playing SupCom and Company of Heroes (which are both much better).
  94. john
    Jul 29, 2010
    2
    Game is shit totally not worth the 60 usd hate the music the ui the gameplay is so bad controls are crap campaign is really bad (havent finished it and not planning to do so) bottom line is ill sell it on ebay and hope i get a good price on this shitty game my advice is dont buy it if u want something a littel new than the old game cuz this is almost the old one in 3d.
  95. 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
  96. 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.
  97. 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
  98. 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.
  99. JohnD
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    No LAN play, only 1 campaign for the price of 3, already out-dated graphics, not much new from Brood War. Sadly, Blizzards army of mindless drones will think this is the greatest thing ever. This is what we get because of WoW... the dumbest game ever.
  100. Nitroz
    Aug 12, 2010
    2
    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard.    … Expand
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 »