Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty

 PC
User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 3772 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2,975 out of 3772
  2. Mixed: 410 out of 3772
  3. Negative: 387 out of 3772
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. rareh
    Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations onThe game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In the end, if you are a PC gamer, it's almost unlikely that you've never heard of Starcraft. I suggest any PC gamer play this game, as it truly is the sequel to the best RTS of all time.    … Expand
  30. eduedu87
    Aug 25, 2010
    1
    The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions ofThe game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them.… Expand
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 »