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. TheNoise
    Jul 31, 2010
    9
    With companies ruining the RTS genre by taking RTS elements out of gameplay a la Dawn of War or Company of Heroes (expansions), Blizzard comes out with what even the RTS purists would call a perfect strategy game. First and foremost this is a multilayer game, it is not for the weak as you will be crushed online. So be prepared to lose. But if you are prepared to learn and practice you With companies ruining the RTS genre by taking RTS elements out of gameplay a la Dawn of War or Company of Heroes (expansions), Blizzard comes out with what even the RTS purists would call a perfect strategy game. First and foremost this is a multilayer game, it is not for the weak as you will be crushed online. So be prepared to lose. But if you are prepared to learn and practice you will have the time of your life with this one. Multilayer retains all the qualities of the original Starcraft while polishing the interface even more. This is a perfect competitive RTS game. I have two gripes with the game though which is why it doesn't get the full 10 from me. Lack of LAN support may not be such a big issue except that because of the segregated region launch it is impossible to play the game with people from other continents. This limitation could have been resolved had blizzard included the LAN option (by use of a VPN or Ethernet bridge). For a game that is supposed to be the end all be all competitive RTS game it is a pretty serious omission to exclude LAN play. I understand the decision was motivated by the rampant piracy on PC but not including LAN does more to hurt paying legit customers then it will do to combat piracy. The other issue has to do with the privacy. Once you are on Battle.net there is no way to hide your gaming habits from your friends/family. If you invite someone to your battlenet messenger you can't go invisible. It is a pretty basic feature Blizzard failed to implement. Because you can only have one character on Battlenet you are pretty much forced to buy another game if you want to play ranked matches anonymously. I think $60 is a fair price for this game as it has a potential of providing countless hours of entertainment. Even the solid single player campaign, challenge system and achievements offer many hours of game play. The game lives up to the hype! For any RTS fan or a hard core gamer this game is a must have, despite it's issues which I hope will get resolved by Blizzard.… Expand
  2. OP
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Awesome game... digital download from battle.net and installation were flawless. The game itself is no disappointment. Battle.net 2.0 is much better than the original battle.net. A lot of the features have been very well thought out... The best feature would probably be the quick matchmaking feature... which works perfectly.
  3. TimD
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Anyone who rates this game lower than 9 clearly does not own it nor do they have any intention of every buying it. This game is fantastic, if you like strategy games, there is no reason not to buy this game.
  4. MarcelN
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    Poor sequel, overhyped and DRM-infested. Why, oh why, did I fell for the marketing BS and bought this?! I'm totally UNHAPPY with no LAN, no custom matchmaking, no custom map naming, 'premium content you'll need to pay for' and so on. Suck ass.
  5. DavidB
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    In the past when asked for a release date for StarCraft II, Blizzard would proudly proclaim:
  6. PepeM
    Jul 31, 2010
    8
    Why does everyone on metacritic vote games either 1 or 10? Everyone here is a fanboy or a hater. You guys are stupid. A 1 would mean its a horrible game thats not worth a dollar. A 10 would mean it's absolute perfection. Starcraft 2 is neither. It's a good game. It's well above average, but not perfect. Therefore i'm giving it an 8.
  7. 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.
  8. DennisH
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    An absolutely perfect refinement of the classic RTS game. Yes, there's not much new in terms of types of gameplay but what the games does contain is near-perfect balance and polish polish and more polish. If you like RTS games it's literally impossible to not like Starcraft II.
  9. 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
  10. MatthiasF
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Extremely well done RTS. Worthy sequel to the original game which I blame for many lost nights and weekends. Performance is excellent too. The story is engaging and surprising altogether. First game in months which got me hooked on again. I don't mind the split into a trilogy myself and while some moves done by Blizzard are controversial (and as WoW player I'm used to their Extremely well done RTS. Worthy sequel to the original game which I blame for many lost nights and weekends. Performance is excellent too. The story is engaging and surprising altogether. First game in months which got me hooked on again. I don't mind the split into a trilogy myself and while some moves done by Blizzard are controversial (and as WoW player I'm used to their antics) they tend to be rather forthcoming as time goes by.… Expand
  11. JacobG
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Sc2, same crap, different day with shinier graphics. Gameplay from last decade that is extremely boring. Where are the tactics from the RTS's we have come to love like Company of Heroes. SC2 SP campaign is only interesting because of the story, you dont play it because the missions are engrossing, you play it to get to the next cutscene.
  12. JonL
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Definitely took everything from the first game and made it much better. The balance vital to multiplayer is still there. Granted, you only have a terran campaign, but it's just as long as the combined campaigns of the three races from SC1. Worth the money by far, and can't wait for the expansions!
  13. NicoS
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Simply a masterpiece and will start a revolution for casual RTS Games - just give it a month and most of the players are correctly rated. Then you will have mostly even matches only, already worked this in the beta. And the campain is absolutely awesome. Downside: got less sleep last few days.
  14. LincolnL
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Best game to be released in years. The campaign story while somewhat cliche is great. (What story isn't cliche these days?) People complaining about the single player only including 1/3 of the game obviously haven't played it, since it's easily longer and has more content than most recent games I've played barring long RPGs with 20+ hour storylines. The multiplayer is Best game to be released in years. The campaign story while somewhat cliche is great. (What story isn't cliche these days?) People complaining about the single player only including 1/3 of the game obviously haven't played it, since it's easily longer and has more content than most recent games I've played barring long RPGs with 20+ hour storylines. The multiplayer is awesome (if you like that kind of thing) and while maybe not perfectly balanced, it's as close as can be expected. Overall must buy.… Expand
  15. RogerB
    Jul 31, 2010
    1
    An utterly terrible game. The AI is atrocious even on the hardest setting. The graphics are very poor apart from the overused CGI cutscenes. Only one race has its own storyline... save your money and get another game. This is a terrible excuse for a "game" and an insult the StarCraft legacy.
  16. JerryL
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Don't listen to the haters. Worth every penny The missions are detailed, interesting, and as difficult as you want to make them. The achievement system is challenging and drives you to jump in and explore the whole new system and world Blizzard has created. It has expanded from just building up an army and blowing things up, to following story lines, choosing your missions and Don't listen to the haters. Worth every penny The missions are detailed, interesting, and as difficult as you want to make them. The achievement system is challenging and drives you to jump in and explore the whole new system and world Blizzard has created. It has expanded from just building up an army and blowing things up, to following story lines, choosing your missions and unit/tech advancement that make the campaign a totally different experience than the multiplayer. Speaking of the multiplayer, the new [...] is incredible. The matching engine has been phenomenal. For me at least, it always finds a challenging yet equal leveled player. Even when you lose you think, "had I just done a couple things differently I could have won." Those kinds of experiences are great for learning and as you play you get better and try out and see different techniques. The leagues and ladder system is an incentive to play and get better and is fun to watch yourself climb the latter and join higher leagues. I love to view and compare my opponent's statistics and see their achievements. The built in replay system is another major improvement. It's extremely helpful to have replays of all your matches and be able to review them to study the timing and tactics. The changes in [...] would have been worth the $60 alone. I've only heard 3 complaints: no LAN, lack of chat rooms (there are lots of personal and party chat features), and the game feels incomplete without equal campaigns for Zerg and Protoss. How many LAN games have you played in the last 5 years where you didn't have access to the internet? I can personally think of 3 and when you recognize the benefits of having everything connected to an online system that tradeoff isn't even a question. To invest tons of more time and effort into supporting that you lose time and energy to put into the game details itself. I say leave it out. 2. Lack of chat room in [...]. I personally found the chat rooms to be annoying, but others liked them, I'd be willing to bet it gets a patch to include them before years end. The last item is one I read a lot about and can't understand and that's people feel somehow ripped off by not having the other 2 campaigns. It's simple there is enough material and experience in this one game than both SC and Brood Wars combined. We have no idea what Blizzard is going to release with the next 2 games, I'm confident though that if it's the same cost, they will include enough to make it worth it, if they don't, it won't cost as much as the current one does. I don't think even Blizzard knows how much it's going to cost or include. So why freak out about it now? Bottom line, the campaign is enough to cover a stand alone game. Expecting that kind of detail X3 would be like asking someone to build you a house and then ask if they can build it 3X larger for the same amount of time and money. When you figure people spend $10 for 2 hours at the movie theater, $60 is a small price to pay for the hours, days, and years of entertainment this game will offer. Worth every penny and I'm excited to see what Blizzard has up their sleeve for the next 2 installments.… Expand
  17. TrojA
    Jul 31, 2010
    8
    Good game, decent graphics, great design, good story (people call it cliché but come on, it's a RTS, not a movie) awesome multiplayer. It's Starcraft 1 with updated graphics, which is how it should be. While some people here give it a 1 for that reason, I don't, I wouldn't even want it changed. It's Starcraft, and it should stay that way. Look at C&C's Good game, decent graphics, great design, good story (people call it cliché but come on, it's a RTS, not a movie) awesome multiplayer. It's Starcraft 1 with updated graphics, which is how it should be. While some people here give it a 1 for that reason, I don't, I wouldn't even want it changed. It's Starcraft, and it should stay that way. Look at C&C's last episode, dissapointed most casual gamers and hardcore fans of the game. Also, don't be scared away by people saying it has horrible framerate, those people should either buy a new rig or update their drivers, because my laptop with a mobile hd 4850 runs it fine on settings on ultra.… Expand
  18. TimothyJ
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    The RTS game I've been waiting for since the Warcraft 2 / Startcraft / Red Alert days! Awesome campaign. Visually amazing. A soundtrack that retains elements from the original game while not being exactly the same. And a nice smooth transition into multi-player that even the noobest of noobs will be able to cope with.
  19. BoB
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    The best game I've played to this date. Re-playability is the keyword here. Both multiplayer (mp) and singleplayer (sp) wise. Great core game mechanics make sure that foundation is solid to build the most epic game upon. SP has a great storyline and the achievements mixed with difficulty settings makes it worth replaying tons of times for me. MP has it all: clever rankings which The best game I've played to this date. Re-playability is the keyword here. Both multiplayer (mp) and singleplayer (sp) wise. Great core game mechanics make sure that foundation is solid to build the most epic game upon. SP has a great storyline and the achievements mixed with difficulty settings makes it worth replaying tons of times for me. MP has it all: clever rankings which enhances the online experience and gives me the incentive to become a better player. Custom games made possible by an awesome world editor, which makes sure that are always new playable challenges and makes the community thrive. 10/10… Expand
  20. JSewell
    Jul 31, 2010
    6
    Basically more of the same. Updated graphics from the original, however gameplay remains largely unchanged. Blizzard must not realize that there have been improvements to RTS games in the past decade. I'll take Supreme Commander any day over this game.
  21. RichardA
    Jul 31, 2010
    9
    It's not groundbreaking, but it doesn't need to be and (perhaps most importantly) it doesn't TRY to be. It is faithful to it's source material and an example of a PROPER sequel. Prospective owners of this excellent piece should take no heed of those who naysay the fact that there is only a Terran campaign and that it crawls on a modern system: The "Terran" campaign is It's not groundbreaking, but it doesn't need to be and (perhaps most importantly) it doesn't TRY to be. It is faithful to it's source material and an example of a PROPER sequel. Prospective owners of this excellent piece should take no heed of those who naysay the fact that there is only a Terran campaign and that it crawls on a modern system: The "Terran" campaign is 30 missions long, which is all three of the campaigns from the first game put together. The missions are shorter but much more varied, and thus the entertainment value is increased. And though it does look great on my system (e6300 and a radeon 4870) it will run on damn near anything that was built in the last half-decade when settings are tuned correctly. And all that without mentioning the multiplayer! Battle.net 2.0 is an amazing thing. No more lobbies to sit in, no more spam with comments from your friends mixed in. On the fly matchmaking that is quick and actually works! True the units do need some balancing, but Blizz spent 10 years perfecting the original, and it shows - the balance isn't terrible, it just needs some tweaking. The game isn't broken by any stretch of the word.… Expand
  22. JohnP
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player feels like questing in world of warcraft, and the campaign ending was uneventful. Not to mention that you need to pay another 120 bucks(?) to see the other 2 campaigns. Yay? Starcraft 1 was better. I'd rather play the eye rape that was cnc4 than this pile of blizzard ****.… Expand
  23. csonkab
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is regionlocked. You can only install this to ONE computer 3 times. That's it. It doesn't have any LAN either, which means you will never play this without lag. There is no excuse for buying this other than the hype machine behind it.… Expand
  24. 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
  25. DonL
    Jul 31, 2010
    9
    Power overwhelming! This game rocks. Rather than attempting some kind of high-concept, new style of RTS, Blizzard has stuck to their roots and changed virtually nil from the original Starcraft. Just added a few new units, a much improved campaign, and one extra dimension. The third one, that is. As in 3D. I don't mean we get to visit another dimension. Don't let me give you that Power overwhelming! This game rocks. Rather than attempting some kind of high-concept, new style of RTS, Blizzard has stuck to their roots and changed virtually nil from the original Starcraft. Just added a few new units, a much improved campaign, and one extra dimension. The third one, that is. As in 3D. I don't mean we get to visit another dimension. Don't let me give you that impression. Because we don't. And talk about beautiful! It's gorgeous and gritty. I was afraid, and I'm sure many of you have shared the same apprehension, that the Blizfags in all their stupid wisdom would adopt Warcraft's cartoony visuals for the Starcraft sequel. But let me assure you: not really. I mean, it's sort of cartoony. Like, the medics have these huge medic shields that don't really make any sense, but for the most part it's perfectly fine and adult-looking. If your girlfriend looks over your shoulder, you won't be embarrassed. That is, if you have a girlfriend. Which you don't. Anyways. Great game! What happened to the Sunken Colonies and Lurkers? I mean seriously. . . WTF happened to the Sunken Colonies and the Lurkers? Instead of the Sunken Colonies, the Zerg get some kind of huge, giant, flapping dildo-tentacle that snaps ground units in the face. You heard correctly. Ground units. . . get bludgeoned in the face. . . with a giant peeney-weeney. I guess that is kind of an incentive to stay away from their base, though, isn't it? Who wants to rush the Zerg base only to get cock-slapped? Fuck that dildo-slapping tentacle bitch. Great game, though! Dark Templars have Darth Maul scythes. There's a unit called the Omegalisk which is basically four-and a half Ultrulisks in one. You can't make it. There's a Jamaican Witch Doct. . . I mean, Ghost. Raynor shoots a huge, beautiful plasma TV that probably cost a few grand with his revolver like a dumbass. The Xel-Naga are a playable race. Just kidding.… Expand
  26. JonathanL
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Another excellent game from Blizzard, Starcraft II brings along a tour de force of gameplay, with excellent cutscenes, a wide variety of missions, and a gripping story line. The two more announced expansions only mean better things for the single player campaign, and nay-saying to the contrary, the new Battle.net remains an engaging and easy to use interface, making gaming online a breeze.
  27. tp
    Jul 31, 2010
    10
    Best freakin RTS game ever made. If theres one game thats worth 60$, is this. Hell, i'd pay full price for this game even if it only had online multiplayer because thats where all the meat and all the content are at. Multiplayer is where millions will still be playing 10 years from now. For me, the story mode was a bonus. One epic hell of a bonus indeed. And remember, before saying Best freakin RTS game ever made. If theres one game thats worth 60$, is this. Hell, i'd pay full price for this game even if it only had online multiplayer because thats where all the meat and all the content are at. Multiplayer is where millions will still be playing 10 years from now. For me, the story mode was a bonus. One epic hell of a bonus indeed. And remember, before saying this is just 1/3 of a game, 1) blizzard has always made expansion packs. No one complained that blizzard was making a half of a game when they released brood war and the frozen throne and lord of destruction did they? The only difference is that they announced the expansions ahead of time. Complaining that wings of liberty is 1/3 of a game is like telling Lucas that starwars episode I is 1/3 of a movie. 2) This game has 30 missions, the same amount as starcraft 1, so it has as much if not more content than the first game 3) starcraft 1 when it came out was 60$. It cost blizzard a tiny fraction of what it cost to make starcraft 2 today which some say was about 100 million. 4) people who say the expansions are going to cost 60$ each are morons who should be ignored.… Expand
  28. 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
  29. CharlieL
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. Starcraft was a great game when it was released, now people just need to get over it.… Expand
  30. MichaelB
    Jul 30, 2010
    10
    Incredibly fun, in every aspect. Matchmaking in multiplayer keeps those of use in the mid-range skill level from being stomped too often, and from being bored to tears fighting opponents with no chance of competing. I can't begin to applaud the single player campaigns as well as they deserve. One of those games that really makes you sit back and wonder, "Why is this just now being Incredibly fun, in every aspect. Matchmaking in multiplayer keeps those of use in the mid-range skill level from being stomped too often, and from being bored to tears fighting opponents with no chance of competing. I can't begin to applaud the single player campaigns as well as they deserve. One of those games that really makes you sit back and wonder, "Why is this just now being included in these games?" The campaign truly lets you play your way, upgrading your units and building to customize the things you personally choose to use most often. I'd give it an 11 if I could, I strongly advise anyone who likes RTS games or has wanted to try one to play this game.… 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 »