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. EsbenC.
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    By far the best game I have yet played, the campaign is amazing and so is the multiplayer part. There is almost perfect balance on the first day of the release with no tactics being lame (meaning that every tactic can be beat if you spot it and counter it) This game is severely underpriced for the great job Blizzard have done with it.
  2. BradS
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    I find it hilarious that so many people are giving this game a 0 out of shear spite. All the "problems" that most people have with this game could be solved by upgrading their computers. We knew there would be no LAN and no cross-realm months ago. And, they'll probably add cross-realm features sometime in the near future. The single player is a glorious and challenging and stunning I find it hilarious that so many people are giving this game a 0 out of shear spite. All the "problems" that most people have with this game could be solved by upgrading their computers. We knew there would be no LAN and no cross-realm months ago. And, they'll probably add cross-realm features sometime in the near future. The single player is a glorious and challenging and stunning experience (play it on Brutal), and the multiplayer is as deep and intriguing as SC1. People who say multi is micro-oriented must really suck at the game, it's still a macro game at heart just like SC1. The improvements on the UI are everything we could have asked for with multiple building selection, worker rally straight to minerals, infinite unit selection, and improved hotkey locations. You no longer have to have 300 actions per minute if you want to be competitive. I hope this game brings e-sports to the US. It's the perfect game to do it.… Expand
  3. ChrisK
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    So far, this game fantastic. I rarely (and I mean very rarely) play RTS because there hasn't been a real classic RTS with a really distinct set of characters, races, and not to mention the ludicrous amount of content that the game offers. IM sort of new to the Starcraft universe, so playing this is really a treat. Fantastic graphics, great story, amazing set pieces (with such detail So far, this game fantastic. I rarely (and I mean very rarely) play RTS because there hasn't been a real classic RTS with a really distinct set of characters, races, and not to mention the ludicrous amount of content that the game offers. IM sort of new to the Starcraft universe, so playing this is really a treat. Fantastic graphics, great story, amazing set pieces (with such detail in the environments and everything else, it is quite astounding), this game is definitely a GOTY contender. I'm bought the game for campaign, and am loving it. Totally worth the purchase, and the fact that there is no subscription fee is totally awesome! Starcraft 2, so far in my opinion, is probably the best game I have ever played on a PC (I'm actually on Mac, and it works and plays just as good). It is definitely a very pleasant surprise and I highly recommend it. And just FYI Gary, make sure you tone down the settings. All computers can't handle Ultra settings.… Expand
  4. DanB
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Absolutely fantastic! Multiplayer will keep me coming back for quite some time, and the single player is leaps and bounds better than any RTS I've ever played.
  5. 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
  6. HughM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    I was skeptical about how this game would turn out after having played the entire line up of the first Starcraft games...Well after seeing it in action I decided to buy it, and it lives up to all the 10's and good reviews its gotten so far. Especially having some elements from the older games and refining them for the better. This game deserves more than a 10.
  7. BobbyK
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about where it stops. Once you get online and have more than 20-30 units in a spot expect even the most heavy rigs to drop frames and begin to crawl. Not to mention the $10 price hike just cause they could get away with it, or the fact they've split up the game into 3 just to make more money. That's $180 if you'd like to see the entire story....rofl. Thanks Activision for making the gaming world just a bit more cynical place.… Expand
  8. ChipW.
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Excellent game. Anyone saying it's 1/3 of a game is dead wrong. The campaign is the same length as the first game, give or take a mission or 2. Besides the campaign, there's also an additional challenge mode, which are kind of like mini games designed to test your game skill and knowledge. Also, there's lots of achievements for those completionists out there. Then Excellent game. Anyone saying it's 1/3 of a game is dead wrong. The campaign is the same length as the first game, give or take a mission or 2. Besides the campaign, there's also an additional challenge mode, which are kind of like mini games designed to test your game skill and knowledge. Also, there's lots of achievements for those completionists out there. Then there's the robust map editor, which allows players to create and share maps and mods that will be fun for years to come.… Expand
  9. KyleG
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Balanced multiplayer (people playing otherwise should give some time to adjust to the different races' gameplay styles before making sweeping claims about balance) and an incredibly deep pool of available strategies for each race leads to one of the best multiplayer experiences in years. Blizzard did it again. Flawless. I will definitely be playing this for years to come.
  10. DavidD.
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Amazing game. Campaign was hard but awesome and you can play with countless other people online based on your skill level. Not to mention, you have years of replay value due to custom games. My only complaint is that there's no chatrooms, but that's okay.
  11. TannerB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is good. Not the best, not inovative at all. If you liked the original starcraft chances are you will also like this one. If you were looking for more than the first im sorry to dissapoint you. The scaling for starcraft is also really bad, some fps drops with 2 hd5870 crossfire even. I think dawn of war 2 is the better. Although i have to admit the menus are nice for sc2.
  12. AnnaK.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing the players with new graphics and some simple fixes to UI and controls. The problem is that in perfecting the known schemes, Blizzard refuses to try anything new. After 12 years of waiting for a sequel, i think they wasted their chance to provide their fans with some new, exciting expierience. Similarly to WoW that took best thing from MMOs made prior to it, Starcraft 2 used all the knowledge of traditional RTS gathered ever since Westwood created Dune2 and polished it till it shines. Personally, i found the Terran campaign a little too much on the cliche side, and voice acting at moments is way below the standards of modern market. Splitting the experience into 3 parts, also seems to be hurting the overall reception. It's a good game, but not good enough to deserve a perfect score. It's all been done before, Blizzard took no risks to try to create something new. It's same old game with new looks. 7.5 Is all it can count on from me.… Expand
  13. CMueller
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    I am running a system that is almost 7 years old with this game. I have to run with some lower setting, but tearing and lag seem to still be minimal. As a huge fan of the previous title I am glad to see Blizzard has made the gorgeous game accessible even to players with a smaller budget.
  14. 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.
  15. Roman
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    This game is absolutely amazing, they campaign is great and the multiplayer is outstanding.
  16. AlexL
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    To Gary K from the love of God upgrade your video card ! Game is simply amazing, on the negative note I waited so long for this sequel that my reflexes are not what they used to be
  17. JohnB.
    Jul 29, 2010
    9
    This is a bog-standard RTS. But given that it's Blizzard there was never any doubt that it was going to be an AWESOME bog-standard RTS. Beautiful design, great graphics, engaging storyline. Highly recommended.
  18. MikeD.
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    WOW. This is one of the 5 best games I have ever played. If you loved the first Starcraft, get this game. If you like strategy games, get this game. Heck, even if you just enjoy videogames, get this game. You will not be dissapointed. Everything in this game is so perfectly crafted and balanced that I simply can't get enough of the best multiplayer game of all time. Yes, I said it. WOW. This is one of the 5 best games I have ever played. If you loved the first Starcraft, get this game. If you like strategy games, get this game. Heck, even if you just enjoy videogames, get this game. You will not be dissapointed. Everything in this game is so perfectly crafted and balanced that I simply can't get enough of the best multiplayer game of all time. Yes, I said it. This tore me away from both WoW, and MW2. The single player campaign is also great, with great cinematics and awesome gameplay, but nothing will ever beat the multiplayer mode. Game of the year here!… Expand
  19. ShaneB
    Jul 29, 2010
    8
    Fantastic game, great single player campaign and excellent multiplayer gameplay. My only issue with the game is that it does feel incomplete once you beat the Terran Campaign. Blizzard should have waited to complete the entire game and it does feel like a money grab on their part.
  20. LailaL
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    This game is great, it is simple to play and hard to master, campaing is not boring at all, every mission is different, and storyline is equal to those of Starcraft and Warcraft 3 - almost perfect.
  21. 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.
  22. JzM
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    The single-player takes a long time to start swinging but the instant-on multiplayer action more than makes up for it. Not quite at the level of the original yet, but tactics are constantly evolving and with the base provided it's pretty hard to see this game as anything other than pure awesome.
  23. JayF
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Blizzard doesn't try to change the gameplay from the original Starcraft. Blizzard polishes its tried and true formula and creates another addicting Real Time Strategy game. From the beautiful graphics to the fast pace gameplay. Blizzard also adds a nice feature that allows new gamers, or gamers out of touch with the Starcraft universe, to play practice games so that not affect your Blizzard doesn't try to change the gameplay from the original Starcraft. Blizzard polishes its tried and true formula and creates another addicting Real Time Strategy game. From the beautiful graphics to the fast pace gameplay. Blizzard also adds a nice feature that allows new gamers, or gamers out of touch with the Starcraft universe, to play practice games so that not affect your competitive score. Great for Blizzard to bring the RTS scene back from an industry flooded with First Person Shooters.… Expand
  24. DD
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    This gameplay is old and busted. I prefer the new Dawn of War rts formula to the old Starcraft formula (for resource collection, unit control, reinforcement and upgrades, micro-macro ratio, a total of 8 unique armies, etc). There's nostalgia appeal in S2, but not enough *new* stuff.
  25. DavidM
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Gary K, dont blame a game for being bad if you computer doesnt reach the minimum specs of the game, you cant rate it as a bad game. im running the game on the minimum specs, and im getting a good 18-24 fps, plenty if you are trying to run things. This is a great game, story is longer than all 3 starcraft campaigns, the time they spent balancing the units was definately worth it.
  26. SteveX
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    This game is the total package. It has all the core elements from the original StarCraft along with all the new bells and whistles you expect from a modern video game. The multiplayer is well-balanced despite having a larger roster of units...that's incredible! I'm sad the lurkers and medics aren't in the multiplayer, but they were somewhat overpowering in the first This game is the total package. It has all the core elements from the original StarCraft along with all the new bells and whistles you expect from a modern video game. The multiplayer is well-balanced despite having a larger roster of units...that's incredible! I'm sad the lurkers and medics aren't in the multiplayer, but they were somewhat overpowering in the first version. Regardless, the match-making is awesome. B.net 2.0 is great...no more noobs spamming messages to you because you've beaten them hard. I like SC2's DRM as well...you have to be connected online the whole to you play whether it's single or multiplayer, but it's not a problem. As with MW2, there is no LAN play, but that's not even an issue. Their net code is incredible...my roommate and I have played matches against each other and there is no lag whatsoever...so LAN play is virtually "unnecessary". The single player campaign is awesome...I love the cutscenes. I'm playing on an HD 5850, and it looks like a dream. Hands down, SC2 has the best graphics you'll see besides Crysis.… Expand
  27. 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.
  28. DavidH
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Hell, it's about time. I am writing this review because this is probably one of the most noteworthy games to be released in the past five years or so, and it is getting shit tons of awful reviews. I will address this at the end of things. First off, it is the successor to literally the greatest RTS game ever (it's the national sport of south korea), so how could this game not be Hell, it's about time. I am writing this review because this is probably one of the most noteworthy games to be released in the past five years or so, and it is getting shit tons of awful reviews. I will address this at the end of things. First off, it is the successor to literally the greatest RTS game ever (it's the national sport of south korea), so how could this game not be good? It's been a 12 year gap since StarCraft was originally released, and this game has been in development for around five to seven years (that's a loose value). At E3 in 2007 they showed gameplay previews and have been working on it ever since. Any other game company would have quickly churned out a steaming load of crap when they had the slightest semblance of an actual game... aka back in 2007. Blizzard releases stuff when it's ready, and this game shows that 'it's ready'. I'm glad they took their time. This game gets 10/10, even with a few minor complaints. It is incredibly polished, well thought out, and well executed. Graphics are pretty awesome for an rts (I still zoom in on random stuff just to see the little nuances and details... especially after unit upgrades). I can run it on ultra at 1680x1050 on a rig that cost me around 500 bucks for the graphics card, mobo, cpu, and memory a year and a half ago. So far the campaign is enthralling and very well made. The little things really shine. The achievements are pretty legit and the single player challenge exercises really help to develop some core skills (micro mainly) to succeed on the multiplayer front. The map editor is hugely powerful and will definitely yield some awesome results. I will now address my complaints. /****!!!!!!MAY CONTAIN SPOLIERS!!!!!!!!*****/ My main complaints (disappointments even) are that prerendered cutscenes are recycled from various teasers and trailers released... I had a huge WTF moment during the opening "cinematic". Also, the mid-campaign zeratul cutscene was also unveiled previously. Not game changers by any means, but based on how good Blizzard cinematics are, I was expecting some ridiculous new stuff, but was sort of let down. That is honestly my biggest complaint. Crazy huh? Despite this, between missions there are plenty of scripted dialogue events and some pretty cool news casts, though I wish they could have been a bit more subtle in their portrayal of the UNN newscaster guy as an obvious faux news // disinformation source. I can understand the humor, but it's blatant to the point where it's just over the top and stupidly done (I'm sure there are people who are reading this and thinking: 'it's supposed to be FUD for the masses duh lolololololzzzz so true amirite!!!!'... these people also probably worship South Park... 'nuff said). This has no effect on gameplay though. I think it's also cool how they included original SC units in the campaign, but left them out of multiplayer. During the beta I was super pissed at first that there would be no firebats or medics or vultures (protoss and zerg units were also excluded), but quickly realized that the new units more than compensated in strategic value. I really like the upgrade and research system for the campaign. Researching stim packs or siege mode every mission would get tiresome quickly, so I'm glad that was dispensed with. The difficulty gap between normal-hard-insane is pretty large. I'm attempting everything on insane for the first time, but for around half the missions I've had to go to hard to finish them, and for maybe half of those hard missions I've had to go to normal as to not waste hours of time. The main obstacle is understanding how to effectively complete a mission, and then sticking with it. Normal is a breeze. Hard is more difficult. Insane has the same AI as hard, but I believe the computer gets additional resources. That's how the multiplayer worked, but I'm not exactly sure about the campaign. My only issue with multiplayer is that there are no custom game titles (for the inevitable DoTA comparison, how do we know we are playing -ap -rm and the lot? Also how do I know if a game is lightheartedly made for drunk college kids to dick around on and not really be interested in uber competition?) Bnet2 is pretty good, though the match making placement system for ladder games is sort of effed up... I won four matches and utterly destroyed my opponent, but then got cheesed by the fifth. I got placed in the bronze league (this was when they still had copper during the beta). I'm waiting to play multiplayer after I finish the campaign. We'll see how that goes. I will now address the people who are giving out 0/10 reviews. These people generally fall into a couple of categories: 1. They are legitimate fans of the game who play competetively and recognize the problems with a lack of LAN play for tournaments, and thus have waged campaigns of poor ratings in hopes of getting Blizzards attention. This was an organized movement by various StarCraft sites and leagues such as TL or ICCUP. I can somewhat understand this complaint, as it is an indication that Blizzard (or more accurately perhaps Activision) wants to be in control of "official" tournaments. I believe there were talks of LAN capabilities being available, but only to properly licensed (ie paying) organizations. Most of these people probably bought the game on release, but gave a poor review for their cause. I'm pretty sure we'll see LAN in the future though... if not from Blizzard, then from a third party. A possible solution to this could be to have an initial internet verification of every game client (DRM check), but then have it transfer over to a LAN based game. I honestly couldn't imagine having an internet based LAN party with eight people on one connection... that would be a mess, and I'm hopeful that a solution will arrive (but lets be serious... the days of the LAN are overshadowed by Call of Halo Wars Gritty Destruction: FUll Auto and Farmville) 2. Asshole pirates/cheapskates who want everything given to them for free. They whine about lack of LAN and spawn installs, and the fact that you have to have a Bnet account to play... when in reality they just want to play without paying a cent. Yes, starcraft was originally so successful due in part to it's spawn install, but that was back in the days when high speed internet was not as prevalent, and there needed to be some sort of demo type shareware thing going around. It was so you could play with friends together, socialize, have a good time, and convince people to actually buy the game. After I got a spawn install and realized I couldn't play without my other buddy who owned the game, I went out and bought the retail game. I don't know why these people bother with a review, because they are going to get a pirated version anyways and just play it in singleplayer, LAN, custom games, and probably emulated bnet eventually. I wonder what their rating would be based on actually playing the game??? SC has always been about the multiplayer. The campaigns are great, but multiplayer is where the value and replayability comes from. Tying the game to a bnet account seems to be one of the few methods of DRM that seems to actually work (Valve has a similar system via Steam). Additionally these people will say that you are paying full price for 1/3 of a game. This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The campaign is a full single player gaming experience. It is a full game. The single player campaign should take an acceptable amount of time to complete for a standalone single player experience. I've spent ten hours on it, and I'm maybe 1/3-1/2 of the way through it. I'm playing on insane/hard so things take some time. Yes you can blow through it on easy in probably under ten hours, but that defeats the purpose of the game. Guess what? If you Use cheats, and you can 'beat' it in under fifteen minutes! Amazing! The next games in the trilogy will be expansion packs adding huge campaigns. While I agree it sucks that it is divided up into three parts for each race, the sheer scope of the game warrants a trilogy. They have been transparent about this for around three years I believe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. I only hope that the future expansions are priced accordingly... perhaps around thirty bucks. These reviews generally sound like: NO LAN, NO CHAT CHANNELS, NO SPAWN, 1/3 OF A GAME @ FULL PRICE, NO BUY!!!!! (that is a pretty accurate summary of all the 0 reviews on amazon and metacritic... wish they were actually playing and reviewing the game!) 3. Legitimate complaints. I've heard some valid issues from a very small minority of people complaining about compatibility issues (that may be the fault of awful/outdated hardware... even though the game scales really well), and the internet connection required to play... the most intriguing was that of a guy who had a yacht he wanted to play on but didn't have satellite internet so he couldn't play on his boat, even in a single player setting. That's a pretty niche issue. As far as compatibility/server issues, I'm pretty sure this stuff will get worked out and solved. Yeah it sucks that it doesn't work, but these things will be addressed. Basically, a lot of the zero star people are not giving reviews based on the merits of the gameplay. I would agree that maybe if people have issues with compatibility, internet connection, graphics, bnet, etc, that they should knock a couple points off the rating, but they shouldn't troll and give out a zero for a game they haven't even purchased/played yet. Despite all these negative reviews, Starcraft 2 is going to be GotY.… Expand
  29. RobertM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    9
    Awsome game game. Even with the hype this game still wowed me in a few places. The flow of the mission was done very well with good transition between missions. Graphics cards can studder because of the mission breifing though bevause the card is rendering the on-ship enviroment and the onscreen enviroment seperately which is kinda impressive in its own right. Even though there is only Awsome game game. Even with the hype this game still wowed me in a few places. The flow of the mission was done very well with good transition between missions. Graphics cards can studder because of the mission breifing though bevause the card is rendering the on-ship enviroment and the onscreen enviroment seperately which is kinda impressive in its own right. Even though there is only one race the mission is fairly long. The lack of lan play was a major disappointment for me. The online portion for single player has advantages but has a very annoying disadvantage. I can play the game online at home and when I am out and about on my laptop and my progress will remain the same how ever if the connection drops you will loose your progress and might as well quite the misson because it wont remember your progress even on the machine you played on once you closed the game. I did not like having to repeat missions needlessly. the game should try to reconnect when the connection comes back after a few seconds.… Expand
  30. SuciuM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    I like the menu and the cutscenes make you drool . However the overall graphics are bad. And I had expected to see a much massive game with thousands of creatures fighting for their survival . I mean the plot it`s happening in space I expected to see thousand of sprites on the screen.
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 »