Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty

 PC
User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 3772 Ratings

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

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. WickedWizard
    Aug 2, 2012
    6
    Don't let the number '2' fool you, it's just the original 12 year old game with 1/3 the content. If you're not familiar with SC and are considering buying this get the first one instead; the gameplay has changed little plus you get more for your money.
  2. jim109109
    May 31, 2012
    6
    This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20 over and over, because the system kills creativity. It feels like Blizzard itself is now enemy to creativity, it's a big ball-less, slow, boring company which issues remakes and cashes in money. Warcraft III was superior in every way, ten years earlier.… Expand
  3. Bobbo
    Jun 21, 2012
    6
    I want to enjoy and savor the moment when playing an RTS, not click like a madman in some pointless E-sports game. Battlenet 2 is designed around E-sports where every online game is on super-fast speed and nobody cares about having fun, just moving up on some pointless E-sports ladder.
  4. Expospeed
    Dec 3, 2014
    6
    "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Wings of Liberty does this with improved graphics. My breakdown is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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