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. Sean-M
    May 27, 2020
    8
    Great strategy game, great story and level design. I give it an 8 out of 10.
  2. lolfactor100
    May 29, 2013
    7
    Now i personally hated this game, but I can't deny that the core gameplay and visual looks are good and give the game the fresh look that was needed since the first game. I have never gotten into RTS style games so i don't know how good this actual game is when compared to other games, but for those looking for a widely played RTS game here is a good choice.
  3. Xelluse
    Dec 22, 2013
    0
    WTF was dat O_o How people calling RTS game that even don't have any strategy mechanics inside, it's more third person shooter then RTS, Blizz what you did with Starcraft, where are freedom, hard game, unit uniq systems Just good visual game, with quite boring gameplay system, and too way EASY, still can't get how Blizaard making so easy game started from Diablo II... Warcraft andWTF was dat O_o How people calling RTS game that even don't have any strategy mechanics inside, it's more third person shooter then RTS, Blizz what you did with Starcraft, where are freedom, hard game, unit uniq systems Just good visual game, with quite boring gameplay system, and too way EASY, still can't get how Blizaard making so easy game started from Diablo II... Warcraft and Starcraft waws so amazing games so what happened with them nowdays... Great graphics will never hide boring gameplay, and more: Good Graohics all the time stealing place from in game freedom and flexible gameplay...
    Sorry to all of you, but more people who like SC 2 didn't play SC in original so for me it's big fail after so many years of wating, more when you pay so much for it...
    sry for bad english.    … Expand
  4. McFranz
    Oct 29, 2013
    7
    It's a great game but Blizzard made it a bit, well: they removed some lovely characters that are in the first StarCraft, it's overpriced, short campaign, and overrated.

    Other than that, great gameplay, great voice acting, great plot/story. Good job Blizzard for making such a nice game.
  5. SupaChigga
    Nov 18, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (2/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (2/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (-1)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.    … Expand
  6. TimMaxShift
    Dec 24, 2021
    0
    It's a shame they didn't take the script as seriously as they did the technical part. I played both parts already 10 times. The first part was much more serious and more mature, I would call it category R, ​​and the second part is PG-13. It feels like the story of the first part is not ideal, but it was written by people with a level of knowledge comparable to university students .. ItIt's a shame they didn't take the script as seriously as they did the technical part. I played both parts already 10 times. The first part was much more serious and more mature, I would call it category R, ​​and the second part is PG-13. It feels like the story of the first part is not ideal, but it was written by people with a level of knowledge comparable to university students .. It would seem that we have grown, they have too... Many naive works of art from our childhood grew up with us and began to acquire adult materialistic features or even rethought, without ceasing to be themselves, without losing the spirit of the original source. But not StarCraft. He not only remained in the same place, but also took a step back. Feels like the second part was written by schoolchildren. The game itself became brighter, the feeling of stuffiness disappeared, a large amount of children's humor appeared.
    An evil villain who is evil because he is evil, Prophecies, chosen ones, cosmic magic, abstract gods devouring worlds to which it is difficult to experience any kind of emotion, just as a person is not able to feel the distance in light years (since our biology was formed in conditions where this was not necessary), pink queen of blades, with a healthy complexion, neat eyebrows, hair styling and lip gloss with stilettos from a modeling agency called "swarm" ... if stilettos are her evolutionary advantage, then what does the world in which she exist look like? The world of strip clubs? Queen of our ... "blades". She is no longer a ruthless sociopath and manipulator, but a campy hysterical model from high society in Zerg.
    The first part is materialism, realism, and the second part is idealism and romanticism / classicism. The first SC is Terminator 1, 2, Alien 1, 2, Bladerunner and SC2 is Terminator 3, 5. This was the first time the game hurt me, the second time was BL3. In the opening videos Wol, Hots, LotV there is the spirit of the first part of the game, but in the game itself and in the rest of the videos, everything is much and much worse. And it's not the high cost of the videos, watch the SC: BroodWar videos. They are outdated, but they have a sense of danger, war, impending threat. The videos in the second part seem to be made by Hollywood. Secondary techniques, only proven methods. They seemed to come off the assembly line, as a result of the work of a raw neural network, and not of people.    … Expand
  7. whatever523
    Mar 28, 2015
    8
    I bought this game for the single player and wasn't disappointed. Story is decent enough, the combat is really fun and it's technically well made all around.
  8. VidyaBum
    Mar 22, 2014
    8
    An all-around great game that is also the poorest strategy game I ever played.

    Wonderful cutscenes, characters, voice acting, clearly above what the gaming industry gives, make it a game that I love to watch as much as I should love to play it. Fine graphics and somewhat lame sounds(I can't recall a single non-cutscene song of the game, but the sounds and noises are fine with nothing    An all-around great game that is also the poorest strategy game I ever played.

    Wonderful cutscenes, characters, voice acting, clearly above what the gaming industry gives, make it a game that I love to watch as much as I should love to play it.

    Fine graphics and somewhat lame sounds(I can't recall a single non-cutscene song of the game, but the sounds and noises are fine with nothing special) make it a very, very acceptable game despite its lack of memorable music in any way.

    The problem is with the gameplay.
    Fast-paced as all hell, it gives no defenses because it wants to keep being at top speed.
    It has a very tiny, if existent at all, growth curve and you can beat a super-army with basic units, since the game works on a painfully simplistic principle of "this unit kills that unit".
    Almost no consequential use is made of the terrain or the size of units or the size of armies: you can turn around an entire 150 population army instantly, no movement jams or slowdowns when you have 50 tanks turning around together at the same time. You can get to a high vantage point to shoot enemies and it can be proven useless in less than 5 seconds as enemies will just rush to you from an easily-accessible way up...

    The complexity of the game is quickly shown to be about knowing what units to use and where to send them. While sufficient to make Starcraft II a fun game, it makes its complexity suffer terribly and come off as a simplistic, almost boring RTS. Actually, it IS a boring RTS.
    The element that saves it is the incredibly fast pace it has.

    You will spend all your time micromanaging units cause the AI is too dumb and things such as formations, lines, organisations, or the like, simply don't exist in this very poor RTS. But micromanaging does keep you busy and you're never idle.
    You will have to constantly go back and forth between bases and front lines to direct every unit or group of units and constantly spend time changing your units or forces to fight the enemy with its current weak point. Again, poor and simplistic, but it keeps you busy.
    You will have to keep trying to amass all the resources you can and spend them in units and tech, but you will almost never decide of a good offensive or defensive position as even the hugest possible army can be wiped out in less than a minute and your main job is not to strategise or fool the foe but to keep mashing buttons so that you get all your units in their spots where you need them for attack or defense...

    Every unit's capacity has to be micromanaged and you'll have to shift between them to use them all, adding even more stuff to do, which keeps you busy, but taking away even more capacity for complex thinking or setting up intricate strategies as AGAIN, this game isn't, and doesn't even try to be, a strategy game, as much as it tries to be the fastest-paced "unit creation and control" game there can be.

    Best example I can find to define this game's problem as a strategy game is the missions: you'll have tons of varied and fun objectives and some nice bonuses in all of them, but in almost every single mission without exception, your strategy will be: learn their units, get the units that kill them, keep getting resources and don't stop till victory.
    All the missions are nice and varied, but all the strategies are the same, save a few very rare cases.

    While indiscutably fun and memorable thanks to its great cutscenes and characters, SCII WoL is also the poorest strategy game I've played in my life, and compared to the Command and Conquer series, the Total War series, or other non-"Blizzard RTSes", this is truly the worst strategy game I've played.

    Still loved the cutscenes and effort, still finished it several times, still think it's an all-around very fun game. But it has sucked the soul out of strategy to become another look-at-me-I'm-so-fast-I'm-so-fun game, with simplistic gameplay and functionalities, way less elements of growth or complexity, and way less long-term value than many real strategy games.    … Expand
  9. Vamrem
    Jun 3, 2015
    5
    A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends,A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends, so it has the half note too.… Expand
  10. MutinyMan
    Jun 8, 2022
    0
    Best game ever still playing in 2022, too bad Blizzard doesnt make games like they use to anymore if we should even still call them Blizzard.
  11. LimitedEdition
    Jun 8, 2016
    7
    My list descending in personal priority concerning negative and positive aspects:

    Negative: 1. User-hostile policies, the company definitely poses the customer under its own profit 2. The game itself feels a bit too stale and lifeless, units are mostly just a plain tool to work with 3. After a while the game feels quite repetitive and not very rewarding at all Positive: 1. The    My list descending in personal priority concerning negative and positive aspects:

    Negative:
    1. User-hostile policies, the company definitely poses the customer under its own profit
    2. The game itself feels a bit too stale and lifeless, units are mostly just a plain tool to work with
    3. After a while the game feels quite repetitive and not very rewarding at all

    Positive:
    1. The user interface and handling of the game in general is outstanding and it performs very well
    2. The main game is really well balanced
    3. A lot of possible settings make the gaming-experience very customizable

    I give 7 out of 10 because I think that this game is a solid one which offers a lot of challenge and interesting matches, but it just lacks color and soul and playing it feels more like doing maths than playing a video game. The custom games are fine, but the playerbase is still quite small there.

    If this review was helpful to you, please let me know!    … Expand
  12. albodoin
    Sep 23, 2017
    7
    The campaign is fun, I always loved the story aspect of this universe. But the only reason why I play this game is because of a friend otherwise the multiplayer is too hard to be enjoyable.
  13. 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
  14. SailorSonic
    Oct 23, 2019
    4
    Incredibly short game. Just when you are starting to get into it, it's over! Cannot understand why it is praised so highly.
  15. Nekellor
    Aug 1, 2018
    7
    Прекрасная музыка. Отличный сюжет с возможностью выбора. Куча красивых кацсцен. Приятные и живые персонажи. Красиво оформленный корабль, в общении, прокачки и развитии. Интригующие дополнительные задания.
  16. Hannibaal
    Aug 3, 2018
    1
    No es un mal juego si lo comparamos con la mayoría de los AAA que desde hace mas de una década están en un claro declive de calidad, en ese sentido SC2 tiene una profundidad en su apartado jugable bastante superior a la media. Pero objetivamente Starcraft 2 es un juego mediocre, casi todos sus puntos fuertes proceden de su antecesor, al que se parece muy poco en lo buenoNo es un mal juego si lo comparamos con la mayoría de los AAA que desde hace mas de una década están en un claro declive de calidad, en ese sentido SC2 tiene una profundidad en su apartado jugable bastante superior a la media. Pero objetivamente Starcraft 2 es un juego mediocre, casi todos sus puntos fuertes proceden de su antecesor, al que se parece muy poco en lo bueno (desgraciadamente). Por partes, primero la campaña, a nivel jugable es superior a la del primer Starcraft, eso es todo, sin ser sobresaliente es mas que aceptable aunque poco rejugable y con excesivas escenas de video (ambas cosas típicas de los juegos modernos) por otro lado es una verguenza que solo se maneja a una facción. En cuanto a la historia de la campaña, es una autentica basura en comparación con la del Starcraft original y su expansión Brood War, se centra demasiado en los personajes (la absurda historia de amor de Reynor y Kerrigan) y olvida lo importante, las facciones. Por culpa de la historia, las decisiones narrativas, la banda sonora, el apartado sonoro (voces y sonidos de las unidades) y el estilo artístico del apartado gráfico se ha perdido la ambientación oscura de ciencia ficción del primer Starcraft y SC2 en cambio parece mas bien una pelicula moderna de Disney, un enorme destrozo en comparación con su antecesor.

    Y en lo que atañe al modo multijugador, en muchos aspectos no es ya que no haya innovado es que es un paso atrás respecto al primer Starcraft ¿dónde están las grandes batallas entre ejército? ¿dónde quedaron las batallas de micreo intensivo entre los jugadores? ¿dónde están esos juegos que se van ganando poco a poco y en el que se ven muchas expansiones y pequeñas refriegas por todo el mapa? Nada de eso queda, este juego perdió todo eso y parece mas bien un piedra papel o tijera, se resume en elegir un orden de construcción para ganar la partida, matar recolectores y batallas entre bolas de la muerte, si, las unidades se apelotonan de una forma ridícula y además se pueden meter todas en un solo grupo de control, esto favorece especialmente a Protoss ya que tiene unidades fortísimas y un ejercito protoss junto con unidades vergonzosas como el Colosos es casi invencible. En cuanto a diseño del gameplay SC2 es una vergüenza, las deathballs son una vergüenza y es una vergüienza que a partir de recolectar de tres bases las adicionales no te proporcionen un aumento de recursos ni ventaja sobre el rival, mas bien es un problema por la extrema dificultad para defender la expansión, por cierto ¿he hablado de las macromecánicas? Terran puede lanzar un recolector mecanico gratis que le aumenta brutalmente el ritmo de recolección de minerales, Zerg ya no necesita muchas bases le basta una reina que injecta larvas y que además pone unos tumores que expande el creep (un maphack legalizado), protoss invoca las unidades de los portales en cualquier pylon (te puede colocar un pylon al lado de tus bases) y tiene un acelerador que le permite sacar mas rápido recolectores o unidades de ataque.

    En fin, SC2 es una basura, un juego sin alma, puro humo, y con un multijugador que es PEOR que el de su antecesor que salió 12 años antes. Esta mediocridad de juego siendo generosos no merecería mas de un 6/10, pero como está extremadamente sobrevalorado le voy a dar un 1/10.    … Expand
  17. MillersWeeb
    Nov 16, 2018
    7
    Мне понравилась кампания. В мультиплеер не играл, в свое время переплатил за эту игру 1500 рупий.
  18. Genek13
    Nov 20, 2019
    9
    Sequel on of the best RTS games in history, which I never played.
    That's why I give a chance to this one and I was not disappointed.
    Great gameplay, MP and campaign.
    What more do you want :)
  19. PanMrkvicka
    Feb 12, 2020
    8
    The game suprised me with how interesting and good the story was. Multiplayer is also great.
  20. JBWSpieletester
    Mar 9, 2020
    8
    Erstelle deine Basis!

    • Am besten gefallen hat mir, dass ich mit meinem Mutterschiff andere belästigen konnte. • Ich habe entdeckt, dass das Game sehr viel Spaß macht, wenn man zusammen durch alle durchrusht. • Ich hatte viel Spaß beim Craften und Verbessern des Mutterschiffs. • Wenn ich etwas ändern könnte, würde ich mehr Fahrzeuge hinzufügen. • Zum ersten Mal habe ich fiese Aliens    Erstelle deine Basis!

    • Am besten gefallen hat mir, dass ich mit meinem Mutterschiff andere belästigen konnte.
    • Ich habe entdeckt, dass das Game sehr viel Spaß macht, wenn man zusammen durch alle durchrusht.
    • Ich hatte viel Spaß beim Craften und Verbessern des Mutterschiffs.
    • Wenn ich etwas ändern könnte, würde ich mehr Fahrzeuge hinzufügen.
    • Zum ersten Mal habe ich fiese Aliens gespielt.
    • Ich habe nicht verstanden, wie das Spiel funktioniert.
    • Besonders mies war, als ich überraschend in der Base gekillt wurde.    … Expand
  21. nazarkin123
    Mar 10, 2021
    8
    We were waiting for it for so long. Such an amazing continuation of the story.
  22. Dr_Danik
    May 17, 2021
    0
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best game This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game This is the best game This is    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game
    This is the best gameThis is the best game
    This is the best game    … Expand
  23. Nepen1he
    Mar 10, 2022
    0
    games out of politics, juegos fuera de la politica, jogos fora da política
  24. joglow
    May 16, 2022
    7
    In some way it feels like StarCraft and just a little bit... rushed? I feel I just lack of something there.
  25. retztu
    Aug 22, 2022
    0
    still a good game, very enjoyable to play and to watch. also great story which is definetly worth playing.
  26. Giero
    Jan 3, 2023
    6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  27. HydrophobikFish
    Jun 9, 2023
    7
    Pretty fun RTS game. Really enjoyed the upgrade systems and the involved campaign missions. Memorable story and characters, but overall campaign was pretty forgettable for me. Somehow feels like less than the sum of its parts.
  28. LoLol
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    I can't give this one any less than a 10. Fans of the original will not be disappointed, as Starcraft II brings back all of the core elements of the first game, yet builds upon it in a way that should satisfy any fan of RTS. As time goes on, this game will only get better, with Blizzard's frequent patching and the upcoming expansion packs. If you enjoy real time strategy games, I can't give this one any less than a 10. Fans of the original will not be disappointed, as Starcraft II brings back all of the core elements of the first game, yet builds upon it in a way that should satisfy any fan of RTS. As time goes on, this game will only get better, with Blizzard's frequent patching and the upcoming expansion packs. If you enjoy real time strategy games, this is definitely worth checking out.… Expand
  29. kirkteegardin
    Jul 5, 2012
    7
    Star Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last oneStar Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last one given in three years). They way I look at it is that if you don't already have this game and are planing to play online you should not get it. I got it about a month after release and I am do terrible online. The game give noobs like you and me fifty warm up rounds (I skipped them and did the five games that places you in a bracket). I some how managed to win one of the five games. Now when I play online I usually lose in fifteen minutes. In other Real Time Strategy games like Age of Mythology and Age of Empires it usually takes at around twenty minutes for the first attack. In Starcraft II you are attacked after ten minutes of playing the game. As for me, I like to make an empire, get resources, get all the upgrades, and so on. Maybe RTS games online are not my cup of tea. The graphics are good along with the campaign. What I like most about the campaign is that in between missions you are on a ship and you can get upgrades and talk people. (This is unheard off in an RTS). I also liked when you are on a mission you get people communicating with you about the mission of the left side of the screen. The story was okay but I never played the first Starcraft (that may have helped me understand it). The graphics are good but I have seen better. With this game being pushed and pushed for a release date you would expect the graphics to be at least as good as Red Dead Redemption. One positive thing was that you did not have to pay a monthly fee like World of Warcraft. I would have played even less of this game or may have not purchased it if had Like I said, if your not already playing online then expect to get you smashed in.… Expand
  30. yoloswagins
    Apr 21, 2015
    5
    This game receives much higher praise than it really deserves. It says alot about the current RTS when this is hailed as one of the best RTS games out there.

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

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

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

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

    To conclude, don't buy this game; simply get the free trail (that lasts forever) and play arcade the whole time!    … Expand
  31. Gr33nF00t
    Oct 18, 2010
    8
    Good things:
    1. It's a StarCraft game. Blizzard did an excellent job of staying with the tried and true formula that made the first SC so legendary, and while the game isn't going to revolutionize RTS gameplay, it is incredibly entertaining and effective as it is.
    2. It has very addictive gameplay. You could very well find yourself losing some sleep with this one. 3. The competitive    Good things:
    1. It's a StarCraft game. Blizzard did an excellent job of staying with the tried and true formula that made the first SC so legendary, and while the game isn't going to revolutionize RTS gameplay, it is incredibly entertaining and effective as it is.
    2. It has very addictive gameplay. You could very well find yourself losing some sleep with this one.
    3. The competitive online matchmaking is wonderful. Other games have tried implementing matchmaking systems with varying success, but SC2 is the first game that I feel "got it right." It makes sure that no matter your skill level, you will always have a good and close game.
    4. Gameplay is very streamlined. The controls make sense and are relatively easy to pick up, even if you've never played an RTS before.

    Bad things:
    1. The single-player campaign is rather lackluster. The story isn't bad, but it isn't gonna turn any heads either. If you're looking for superb storytelling of Mass Effect proportions, you will be disappointed.
    2. The graphics aren't the greatest. While this isn't all that important to me since I generally don't judge a game by how shiny it looks, I still have noticed that I was never really impressed by the visual and aesthetic style in general.
    3. While the new matchmaking part of the new Battle.Net is a real achievement, there really isn't all that much else going on online. The lack of a lobby where players not in a game could chat it up made the system feel rather incomplete. There is a friend list and you can chat with people, but the new Bnet is light on the social aspect.

    Closing remarks:
    Let's face it; if this wasn't a StarCraft game, it would not have been all that noteworthy. It would have been viewed as a solid entry in the RTS genre, but it still would have been brushed off for failing to bring anything new to the table. However, it IS StarCraft, so it gets special dispensation. Indeed, people would even get mad if they changed anything major. While certain things are holding it back from being "The Greatest Game Ever Made," it provides an excellent form of entertainment, which is what SC is about at its core, and as such, Blizzard did exactly what they needed to do.    … Expand
  32. theshonen8899
    Apr 19, 2011
    9
    If you loved the original Starcraft, I have no reason to believe you won't be amazed by Starcraft II unless you're really nitpicky. Starcraft II's new multiplayer is absolutely addicting and the new battle.net makes it fun to gather all kinds of achievements. The campaign might Terran only but it has enough content to justify a $50 price tag. That's where the problem comes in. The retailIf you loved the original Starcraft, I have no reason to believe you won't be amazed by Starcraft II unless you're really nitpicky. Starcraft II's new multiplayer is absolutely addicting and the new battle.net makes it fun to gather all kinds of achievements. The campaign might Terran only but it has enough content to justify a $50 price tag. That's where the problem comes in. The retail price is $60 (I believe is $50 now on Amazon as of this writing) and the online authentication is absolutely annoying. There is also no LAN, which isn't a problem for me because unfortunately my friends don't play anymore but I can see how it would be an enormous problem. I'm hoping these are just changes wrought by the Activision side of things (seeing as how they raped Infinity Ward). Nonetheless, this is an absolutely fun and addicting game which belongs in any Starcraft lover's hands.… Expand
  33. 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
  34. ReggiWatson
    Mar 1, 2011
    7
    Having lost countless hours in starcraft back in 1998, fighting those battles where a simple misuse of resources would cost your match, where every unit mattered, i was really looking foward to starcraft 2.
    Reading any 10 score reviews, i can appoint them to be just blizzard fanboys, and not to be accounted too seriously, and anything bellow 5 is not accurate either.
    Back in 1998 the    Having lost countless hours in starcraft back in 1998, fighting those battles where a simple misuse of resources would cost your match, where every unit mattered, i was really looking foward to starcraft 2.
    Reading any 10 score reviews, i can appoint them to be just blizzard fanboys, and not to be accounted too seriously, and anything bellow 5 is not accurate either.

    Back in 1998 the awesome game called Starcraft got a Metacritic score of 88, and that game was really good. Now 12 years later Starcraft 2 Gets 93, but does it really deserve it? - Single player campaign gets its lore totally torned up.
    - Some old units disappear.
    - Units and buildings just die too fast. (dont call it fast paced, super units like Ultralisk take about 3 secs to kill, and main buildings, like 5)
    - Multiplayer is a major unit spamfest, whoever gets the more units up in less time wins.
    - No more LAN parties, since there is no LAN option, every one must be online.
    - In Skirmish modes AI mimics real players strategies for multiplayer games, meaning, spamfest of units early in the game.

    So, for "fast paced strategy" gamers this is an very good title, for old school gamers that actually want time to deploy strategies, this is nothing but a fast paced spamfest.
    In the other hand, it has an unusual way to deploy the campaign, wich was a good surprise, the good music score, and the updated graphics, make this game a good game to play (not trash, and not awesome, and overall never better than the original Starcraft)

    Bottomline, its a good game to play once in a while, especially the campaign (if you dont care much about the lore), or with friends with similar feelings towards RTS, without any AI. Starcraft 2 is definitely not a must have, but if you like RTS and are looking for a good game, get this one.    … Expand
  35. Shaytan1986
    Sep 2, 2011
    6
    Pros: Like most blizzard games, Starcraft II ships with a lot of replay value. One of the main strong points of the game is that the races and units have always been very well balanced leading to a lot of room for skill in the game. The ease of joining multiplayer games and custom games is quite easy as well. Cons: They havn't really changed anything from Starcraft 1. It's still 2.5D, samePros: Like most blizzard games, Starcraft II ships with a lot of replay value. One of the main strong points of the game is that the races and units have always been very well balanced leading to a lot of room for skill in the game. The ease of joining multiplayer games and custom games is quite easy as well. Cons: They havn't really changed anything from Starcraft 1. It's still 2.5D, same units, same resolution, same everything. If you adored the first one, maybe that's not a con, but considering the price tag on it, it seems a little overrated. You can't change the defaults of the game outside a narrowly defined set of rules from blizzard (game speed, AI Difficulty, races, etc), and it takes forever to load maps, even for single player.

    Conclusion: On the whole, it's not a bad game, it's just a little weak for what you pay for. If you like Starcraft 1, you'll love Starcraft 2, but otherwise it's not really a panty dropper. I gave it a 6 because it's more good than bad IMO, but bare in mind, were this school, that would still be a "D".    … Expand
  36. Peet1337
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Incredible game, I hate all those people who rank 0 just for a random fault or because they didn't read the system req. in the box, this game is awsome, and even if it didn't have as much inpact as its precestor, its always good to have a sequel. Best RTS game IMO in a long time, pretty more enjoyable than my all time favourite RON. Sorry if my English isn't that good, so Incredible game, I hate all those people who rank 0 just for a random fault or because they didn't read the system req. in the box, this game is awsome, and even if it didn't have as much inpact as its precestor, its always good to have a sequel. Best RTS game IMO in a long time, pretty more enjoyable than my all time favourite RON. Sorry if my English isn't that good, so please pardon my mistakes. … Expand
  37. FoxM.
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Don't fix what isn't broken. Blizzard did the right thing: it modestly updated a great game. It almost feels like a patched re-issue of the original game -- which is a compliment, not a criticism. I am glad that Blizzard did not add a fourth race. The absence of Zerg and Protoss campaigns in the initial release may rub some the wrong way but the multiplayer platform allows all Don't fix what isn't broken. Blizzard did the right thing: it modestly updated a great game. It almost feels like a patched re-issue of the original game -- which is a compliment, not a criticism. I am glad that Blizzard did not add a fourth race. The absence of Zerg and Protoss campaigns in the initial release may rub some the wrong way but the multiplayer platform allows all races to be played. Great work by Blizzard.… Expand
  38. TravisS
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Blizzard kept what worked and fixed what didn't. It isn't revolutionary, but it's Starcraft made perfect. After playing through Starcraft and Brood War recently, complaints that this is the same game with new graphics do not feel merited; the campaign is vastly improved, AI and unit interaction is vastly improved, and the interface is nearly flawless.
  39. edoardoT
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Blizzard did it again! This game is one of the most outstanding strategy games I ever tried, with an incredible campaign with a depth story, gameplay that provides hours of fun and tons of strategies, a multiplayer that challenges without frustrate, and an editor that allows to create a totally new game, Starcraft II is my GOTY undoubtedly.
  40. Teli
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Played this during Phase 1 and without a doubt this game will impress. The 3 races are very well balanced, and each feels distinct. Find the one that suits your playstyle. See you in space.
  41. Dougdou
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Believe the hype. This game is incredibly polished, addicting, and it's balanced. Not only that, but the map editor and other campaign make it the best RTS i've ever played. Buy it without hesitation.
  42. DougC
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Epic and immersive singleplayer the likes of which I havn't seen in an rts for a long time. Challenges are something fun to tinker around with and then you've got multiplayer. Not that many custom maps are out yet but the ones from the beta were good enough for many hours of gameplay alone. Ranked matches seem fairly well balanced to but thats something blizzard will be fighting Epic and immersive singleplayer the likes of which I havn't seen in an rts for a long time. Challenges are something fun to tinker around with and then you've got multiplayer. Not that many custom maps are out yet but the ones from the beta were good enough for many hours of gameplay alone. Ranked matches seem fairly well balanced to but thats something blizzard will be fighting with over the next few years with patches and expansions anyway. This in my opinion lived up to the hype and is well worth the price considering there are 3 elements (Custom maps, singleplayer and multiplayer) which are large enough to be a game by themselves.… Expand
  43. JohnJ
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Excellent single player campaign, enticing multiplayer which is surprisingly balanced. Clearly all the months of beta testing and carefully tweaking paid off. If only the original StarCraft had been anywhere near this balanced when it released. To top it all off it runs like a dream on my 4 year old computer - on ultra settings, at that.
  44. JabobV
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    I loved the original starcraft. That is why I like the fact that they kept to the original style of play and not adopting all of the other strategy games out their. Game play is epic fun.Graphics is Awesome! Story is awesome.(I like that fact that they have graphical cut scene's and not a bunch of dumb actors making it Epically lame!) I guess the only thing i can criticize they game I loved the original starcraft. That is why I like the fact that they kept to the original style of play and not adopting all of the other strategy games out their. Game play is epic fun.Graphics is Awesome! Story is awesome.(I like that fact that they have graphical cut scene's and not a bunch of dumb actors making it Epically lame!) I guess the only thing i can criticize they game on is the fact that they made it to good :D and they left my favorite Terran anti-air unit out . The Goliath.… Expand
  45. StefanS
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    A very good game! It's too bad that so many folk are using their magnifying glass to find faults with this game when compared to its competition is completely brilliant! The campaign has a grand depth, and the multiple achievements and game modes online makes for infinite playability. 10 out of 10 from me :D
  46. TamlinS
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    SC1 had thirty missions split into three "campaigns". SC2 has 27 missions in one campaign, each with at least three additional goals for added replayability, plus another 6 special challenge missions. So, 1/3 of a game?? Ha! I think not! Also: I have a three year old computer and I can still play this game smoothly with almost all settings on Ultra. Just don't listen to all the silly SC1 had thirty missions split into three "campaigns". SC2 has 27 missions in one campaign, each with at least three additional goals for added replayability, plus another 6 special challenge missions. So, 1/3 of a game?? Ha! I think not! Also: I have a three year old computer and I can still play this game smoothly with almost all settings on Ultra. Just don't listen to all the silly haters. Seriously, this is a bloody fantastic game!… Expand
  47. GabrielM
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Starcraft 2 features easily the most enjoyable RTS campaign I've ever played. A beautiful, more "down to earth" continuation of the story of SC1, full of variety, fun twists, intense battles and multiple objectives. The online is fairly well balanced, it could use a few more touches here and there but no race is at a huge disadvantage, and it feels fast, tight, fun and easy to Starcraft 2 features easily the most enjoyable RTS campaign I've ever played. A beautiful, more "down to earth" continuation of the story of SC1, full of variety, fun twists, intense battles and multiple objectives. The online is fairly well balanced, it could use a few more touches here and there but no race is at a huge disadvantage, and it feels fast, tight, fun and easy to control. All in all, this is the most complete, refined and fun Action RTS ever made, better than Dark Crusade, better than Brood War by miles.… Expand
  48. RG
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Game is great, makes me happy I bought it on launch day even though I was thinking about waiting. I also vote Gary K is a moron - you can't give a game a zero because your computer is a piece of crap. Time for an upgrade if your computer can't handle 30 units onscreen at once. I have seen it running on a 5 year old computer with no issues.
  49. ChrisB.
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    A refinement of the classic RTS formula to a state of pure fun. There is no reason to not own this game.
  50. Qkumba
    Nov 20, 2010
    7
    The single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at howThe single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at how archaic and inept WOW is graphically. This game was made and adjusted prior to full retail release for the seasoned starcraft player, and I as a casual gamer stood to lose out 70% of the games online, and it was a boring and unrewarding experience to say the least. Needless to say, and reiterated numerous times, the price tag is a total rip off for what it offers in only a terran campaign. I never knew a such a software giant such as Blizzard had the low in them to bully us consumers.… Expand
  51. CBZ
    Mar 8, 2011
    6
    The graphics are impressive (if the game came out in 2004) I dont see what the big deal about this game is. The gameplay is not that good, its pretty much one attack and the result can be a big win or a big fail. If you like strategy games i recommend you try Company of heroes.
  52. Shanked_Salt
    Jan 24, 2011
    6
    The single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that haveThe single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that have pre-imposed and arbutary time limits. Achievements, medals and challenges are a novel addition. Graphics are quite nice for a rts on a good PC but you cannot zoom out very far which is frustrating and limits battlefield awareness. Like looking through a narrow funnel. I appreciate that alot of the little annoyances from the original have been fixed up in the sequel and the AI works better when left to it's own devices that it did traditionally. This isn't to say that some legacy issues are not still present. On mulitplayer - this is more about perfecting build orders, hoarding resources and spamming units than genuine strategy. A shame given some of the new creative unit types on offer. Without significant time invested into practice It's all too frantic to be truly enjoyable. Doesn't feel as balanced as the orignal SC but also feels less likely for games to end in locked stalemates. Find an opponent equal in skill and it will probably be a blast - just as the original was. SC2 remains an enjoyable though somewhat regressive game which has it's place amongst other more evolved and deeper RTS games - shame that mutliplayer is still a shallow dog for novices and there is no Zerg or Protoss campaign included. As a final note I do not care that this game was released in 2010 - needing to be logged onto the net to play "single" player is a joke.… Expand
  53. BananaPuncher
    Jan 30, 2011
    5
    I once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I canI once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I can see the future. I was playing Starcraft 2.… Expand
  54. mongoosedog
    Aug 5, 2011
    6
    I really liked this game, but it was so expensive and the campaign was so short. I know a lot of people that never even played the campaign and swear by the online games... but I still really feel let down. Oh well.
  55. choppy
    Oct 12, 2011
    5
    As a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayerAs a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayer mission focuses on microing some new unit, against a clock. You have to play it their way, and in a hurry, or you will lose. There's no time to play around or adapt your own style or strategy. It's all about using Reapers or some other unit in a rush against a game board that has been artificially tilted to necessitate lots of Reapers. So, the shackling of the personal singleplayer experience (every mission must teach you how to play multiplayer!) is problem number one.

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

    In short, the singleplayer was completely ruined for me. I don't care about multiplayer, and I definitely won't be buying the sequel. Great job, Blizzard, I hope it was worth it to you.    … Expand
  56. ScreamingWargod
    Sep 18, 2012
    7
    I waited over a year after release to buy this game when it went on sale for 50% off. I was a fan of the original game, and decided to give this one a shot when the price hit my "sweet" spot. Gameplay is right where it should be; great. The only negative was no real support for LAN play like the original Starcraft offered. Graphics are good, but not great for what I would consider to be aI waited over a year after release to buy this game when it went on sale for 50% off. I was a fan of the original game, and decided to give this one a shot when the price hit my "sweet" spot. Gameplay is right where it should be; great. The only negative was no real support for LAN play like the original Starcraft offered. Graphics are good, but not great for what I would consider to be a modern game. Overall worth a buy if you are an RTS fan, if you can find it for a good price.… Expand
  57. MistoRennies
    May 15, 2012
    10
    This is the best game known to man! i play this game as much as possible and once i started playing SC2 i just couldn't play any other game. I highly recommend this beautiful game but SC2 heart of the swarm is coming out soon this fall you might wanna wait for it, WARNING THIS GAME IS HIGHLY ADDICTIVE! IT IS THE BEST GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!
  58. 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.
  59. Latrec
    Sep 10, 2012
    5
    Overall a disappointment. I've notched off a rating for everything I found wrong.

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

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

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

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

    5. Noob-Friendly: This is an issue Blizzard really wanted to solve. As I see it there are two ways to handle it: a) Provide in-depth help explaining all the features and game mechanics, allowing the player to review this easily whenever he/she desires. Also could have given scenarios with computer scripted responses based on real players so that noobs could learn what a rush is or fast expand, and which is good for which. OR b) do what blizzard did and make guys like me dislike the game further.    … Expand
  60. TodorS
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    That's not only the ultimate RTS, not only the ultimate challenge for your mental skills, but the best computer game ever to exist! It has absolutely no flaws - the graphics are gorgeous, the sound is stunning, the story beats most of the blockbuster movies and the multiplayer... the multiplayer cannot be described in words. That's absolutely the most fun you can have with 45 That's not only the ultimate RTS, not only the ultimate challenge for your mental skills, but the best computer game ever to exist! It has absolutely no flaws - the graphics are gorgeous, the sound is stunning, the story beats most of the blockbuster movies and the multiplayer... the multiplayer cannot be described in words. That's absolutely the most fun you can have with 45 euros. Mind that I do not usually play games, let alone the first Starcraft. But this thing is in a league of its own!… Expand
  61. 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.
  62. 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
  63. JashinS
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Amazing game! Marries together storytelling, cinematics, gameplay, multi-player, and beautiful graphics together for one of the most robust and satisfying RTS experiences ever!
  64. JamesP
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Simply the most satisfying RTS experience in years, doesn't do much new but what it does is that it takes the Starcraft experience at an enormously amazing level. The multiplayer is as solid as ever but the improvement on the single player makes this games more than a must have.
  65. JamesT
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Having played the multiplayer beta I can happily say that it is well balanced and a ton of fun! Playing the single player now is an engaging treat, the level of polish and detail is just wonderful. Bravo Blizzard! Its been worth the wait!
  66. MaxP
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    This game is just incredible and well worth the wait. The single player campaign is engaging and and no effort has been spared in the making of this game. Blizzard has done it again.
  67. AlexV
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    This game is the pinnacle of RTS balancing and gaming. This game is pure fun. Anyone who doesnt give it a good rating is solely basing it on things that dont matter in the actual game. They complain about things like how on ultra mode the game lags, or gets low fps. Or how the campaign only applies to the terran. But if you like RTS games, and like balanced play and lots of depth. Buy this game
  68. Nathan
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Finally after all these years... I got it last night at the midnight release and I just stopped playing(14 hours later!!). Well balanced through and through and have had to rework tactics. It is like I am back being a kid again. The campaign is story driven and forces one to rethink the Huge Mob rush, as some have time basis and require micro management to get awards. If you never tried Finally after all these years... I got it last night at the midnight release and I just stopped playing(14 hours later!!). Well balanced through and through and have had to rework tactics. It is like I am back being a kid again. The campaign is story driven and forces one to rethink the Huge Mob rush, as some have time basis and require micro management to get awards. If you never tried it before this is the RTS to give a try, but be warned you will probably lose more often than not in multiplayer.… Expand
  69. JohnA
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    After more then a decade of waiting this actually lives up to the hype! Loved the first game but this surpasses it in gameplay, options, storytelling and what I can see - even in longevity!
  70. DanielB
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    I didn't even like the first Starcraft much (only Blizzard game I disliked). StarCraft II is fantastic however. The story and the way it is presented is really fantastic and unexpected for an RTS. I can't wait to finish off the singleplayer and then head online for some matches!
  71. BenF.
    Aug 3, 2010
    9
    OK lets get this straight this IS a full game. you can play 3 fractions and you do infact play 2 fractions in the campaign. There are 26 missions all together each mission about 20 mins in lenght ranging to a 1 hour mission i clocked up and that was me "blitzing it" there are 9 challenge remminisant of the mini games in rise of nation if not a full blown copy of it and then there's OK lets get this straight this IS a full game. you can play 3 fractions and you do infact play 2 fractions in the campaign. There are 26 missions all together each mission about 20 mins in lenght ranging to a 1 hour mission i clocked up and that was me "blitzing it" there are 9 challenge remminisant of the mini games in rise of nation if not a full blown copy of it and then there's the terrifying multiplayer and i was getting beat in beta all time so i'll stay away from it untill all the hardcore players have gone through the beginner leagues. The gameplay is amazingly balance for a newly release product clocking maybe a little to easy to use since the ai doesn't twat you every time you use it like in starcraft 1. the audio is amazing you'll never hear a better sounding real time strategy (right up with napoleon TW) from the retro music down to the the people say "slam'n'". Bg question is it worth the inflated price only just. and depending if your the person who expects the next ps3 blockbuster to be the best looking game available. As for the people giving it 1 2's ect just read there comments there all about only 1/3 of a game. as i said 26 missions with amazing story telling is not 1/3 of a game these days. and they will all say so i'm not getting it. well there missiong out and well they havn't played the game all way through so how can they review it. sorry about grammer, puntuation, spellings ect i'm dyslexic and lazy. very nasty combo when writing long stuff.… Expand
  72. ClaudS.
    Aug 4, 2010
    9
    This game was worth the wait, it is extremely polished with smooth gameplay. It manages to capture the glorious essence of it's predecessor while adding new units, abilities and features creating a nostalgic, awesome effect. The graphics are beautiful and clean, with amazing cinematics. My complaints are of course the lack of lan-support, and the $60 price tag, which will go up as This game was worth the wait, it is extremely polished with smooth gameplay. It manages to capture the glorious essence of it's predecessor while adding new units, abilities and features creating a nostalgic, awesome effect. The graphics are beautiful and clean, with amazing cinematics. My complaints are of course the lack of lan-support, and the $60 price tag, which will go up as the other 2/3 are released. A slight betrayal in my mind(why it doesn't deserve a 10) but still worth absolutely every penny. It stands up to the original and even more, it'll be an RTS staple and must have for almost every gamer.… Expand
  73. 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
  74. CK
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    This is what RTS and Starcraft is all about. Blizzard found a really amazing balance between the things that worked in the original and improving or changing things. The campaign is really fun as it almost feels like it has small bits of rpg elements within an rts. This means selecting upgrades, research, and hiring special unit mercs, and even making choices in the story with This is what RTS and Starcraft is all about. Blizzard found a really amazing balance between the things that worked in the original and improving or changing things. The campaign is really fun as it almost feels like it has small bits of rpg elements within an rts. This means selecting upgrades, research, and hiring special unit mercs, and even making choices in the story with consequences. Don't buy into the usual internet crap that will probably blast this game for very minor things, it's really something special and definitely the best rts blizzard has ever made.… Expand
  75. LarryMay
    Aug 14, 2010
    9
    One thing about this game is that the balanced nature of all the sides. With so many sides competing on such a large scale, man o man. Starcraft 2 strategies are formed by the minute. I am currently taking professional help at http://starcraft2-strategies.com
  76. Junk
    Oct 11, 2010
    8
    The thing that makes this game great is the fact that it is an old school RTS game, they did not jump on the no base building hero unit trend which is great. Overall a good game. No problems running the game at all even on ultra.
  77. Coldspyros
    Mar 11, 2011
    9
    Very fun game. The online play is great, requiring a lot of skill and constant effort to actually get anywhere. The graphics are great, and all of the animations are very smooth. The game play is amazing, although I wish they could've added more units to online play, such as Black Archons, Medics, Dragoons, etc etc.

    Still, amazing game.
  78. thirdspaced
    Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Another great game from Blizzard! The story is engaging from start to finish. The character interaction between missions add to the immersion of the story. To criticize this game as not having evolved enough, is not giving this game any credit. I think many modern RTS games are just trying to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to prove they are different. They are adding features thatAnother great game from Blizzard! The story is engaging from start to finish. The character interaction between missions add to the immersion of the story. To criticize this game as not having evolved enough, is not giving this game any credit. I think many modern RTS games are just trying to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to prove they are different. They are adding features that are not always better. It is like if a company came alone and tried to improve basketball by making four hoops and three balls the standard.… Expand
  79. nopistons420
    Apr 19, 2011
    9
    this game is the real deal. its what a pc game should be; tons of user content, long and challenging single player experience, ranked competative online play, pushes the limits of even the best computers, highley tuned and tested, i was in the beta for over 7 months

    there is a reason blizzard is king of pc gaming
  80. Phoenixeuhouai
    Nov 30, 2011
    10
    Really good game, nice gameplay, great graphics. The only downside is this competitive thinking of most of people on the ladder online. It pushes the fun away whereas if you play with a friend or two, the game gets another dimension of fun! Campaign is alright and help you to get into the multiplayer quite quickly. But you can skip it, the game is worth for the multiplayer on its own.
  81. vortex10
    Oct 30, 2013
    3
    A stupidly fast paced over hyped mediocre RTS with no real creative flair or potential. Unless your a die hard fan of Starcraft don't waste your time or money. Play CoH 1 Instead.
  82. charlesischuck
    Jul 20, 2016
    0
    People who think this is a good strategy game are those who have never played strategy games. There is no climax to matches, your are 100% completely upgraded by around 10 mins of gameplay. There is no battle between upgrading and speed it has very short and numb games. A good strategy game is something like supreme commander even though it's old it is far superior to this.

    If anything    People who think this is a good strategy game are those who have never played strategy games. There is no climax to matches, your are 100% completely upgraded by around 10 mins of gameplay. There is no battle between upgrading and speed it has very short and numb games. A good strategy game is something like supreme commander even though it's old it is far superior to this.

    If anything download the free try version and nothing else, it's worth nothing but not 20$.    … Expand
  83. KhalrulA
    Jul 28, 2010
    9
    10 for great game play, though not many changes from sc1 cuz they didn't need to, great graphics, soundtrack and voice acting. -1 for trying to expand the storyline too much outside what was already established in sc1. The campaign didn't feel as epic as sc1, company of heroes, or even old classics like age of mythology.
  84. AnttiA
    Jul 30, 2010
    9
    I'd feel bad if I gave lower rating to game which does so much right. Practically Starcraft 2 is "only" a graphics update. It still feels just like Starcraft since none of the things which made it so great really haven't been changed at all. But if it is almost perfect so why to change it? I felt however that Blizzard wasn't able to make it any better. Not a bad thing I'd feel bad if I gave lower rating to game which does so much right. Practically Starcraft 2 is "only" a graphics update. It still feels just like Starcraft since none of the things which made it so great really haven't been changed at all. But if it is almost perfect so why to change it? I felt however that Blizzard wasn't able to make it any better. Not a bad thing necessary since it works so well. I kind of felt that campaign was too long. It was fun yes but it was few missions too long. I guess they're trying to make up for not including Zerg and Protoss campaigns. Original Starcraft had maybe 30 missions split between the factions. So Terrains had maybe 10 missions in original game. In Starcraft 2 Terrains have that about 30 missions just for them. Its full game and it's very good game. However I didn't give perfect score since it's practically stuff we have already seen and it isn't exactly perfect by any means but it is the best realtime strategy game in years.… Expand
  85. FredP
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    The sequel to the best RTS ever is now the best RTS ever. When you look at E-sports, you have a handful of FPS games and StarCraft. Nothing has had the staying power of Blizzard's genre defining game since it launched in 1998. SC2 picks up right where SC left off. Is the campaign epic? yes... Are the races completely different, yet balanced? yes... Is the storyline one fit for the The sequel to the best RTS ever is now the best RTS ever. When you look at E-sports, you have a handful of FPS games and StarCraft. Nothing has had the staying power of Blizzard's genre defining game since it launched in 1998. SC2 picks up right where SC left off. Is the campaign epic? yes... Are the races completely different, yet balanced? yes... Is the storyline one fit for the big screen or some 12 book novel series? absolutely... This game is a 10/10 on even the most harsh of critics scale.… Expand
  86. MaxDestruct
    Jul 27, 2010
    10
    Such a quality game in every aspect. This is possibly one of the best purchases I have ever made with respect to computer gaming and believe you me, I have made a lot of purchases in the past. Glad to see Blizzard have not slipped, they still make great games.
  87. TomM
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Without doubt one of the games of this year, and a brilliant sequal to the hit from so many years ago. By far the best RTS to grace the gaming world in years. Ignore the negative feedback, some people shouldn't be able to rate if they moan that they're stoneage pc's can't perform to what they expect.
  88. ZenM
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    It was a long time coming, but for fans of Blizz and SC I think this is just what we asked for. Only downside is that Battle.net isn't all it could be. No chat, no real support for tournaments, etc. Hopefully that will change in time. Thanks to the amazing beta the game is well-balanced for multiplayer even at lunch, and the campaign is well done. I'm looking forward to seeing It was a long time coming, but for fans of Blizz and SC I think this is just what we asked for. Only downside is that Battle.net isn't all it could be. No chat, no real support for tournaments, etc. Hopefully that will change in time. Thanks to the amazing beta the game is well-balanced for multiplayer even at lunch, and the campaign is well done. I'm looking forward to seeing how the story goes.… Expand
  89. 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.
  90. TrueGamer81
    Nov 28, 2012
    10
    This is, and without a doubt, the greatest RTS game ever made.

    Those who try very hard to be cool and buck the mainstream would beg to differ, but morons like that beg to differ about everything.

    This game is popular for a reason, people. There simply isn't a better RTS game available right now.

    Not an opinion. Fact.
  91. AlvaroV
    Jul 28, 2010
    10
    Direct to the point. The gameplay is great (single and multiplayer), you can make your own maps, you can play alone, simple and intuitive interface, very good performance for any actual machine configuration. I gave 10 because there is no weak point on the game.
  92. PacManP
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Turns out the 12 year wait WAS worth it. SC2 is immediately familiar to old school fans and yet still up to date with the visuals and improvements to the RTS genre that have occurred since the last Starcraft was released. The addition of the RPG elements only enhances the experience.
  93. AlanG
    Jul 29, 2010
    10
    Epic. Like other reviewers have said this game lives up to the unusually high expectations, and exceeds them in many areas. Look forward to frequent support and patches from Blizzard, as well as loads of new content, both official and from the fan community.
  94. SaikoM
    Jul 30, 2010
    10
    A game that has (currently) a 96 critic rating and an 86 user rating? It's sad that people will just vote the game a 0 if: 1) Their computers can't handle it (looking at you, Gary K); 2) They don't know how to get around real ID; 3) They think the single player is short or they're getting shafted because it's only the terran campaign. I'm not a fanboy but A game that has (currently) a 96 critic rating and an 86 user rating? It's sad that people will just vote the game a 0 if: 1) Their computers can't handle it (looking at you, Gary K); 2) They don't know how to get around real ID; 3) They think the single player is short or they're getting shafted because it's only the terran campaign. I'm not a fanboy but I'm going to sound like one, other than TF2 I don't think there is any game on the market that has as much replayability and 'bang for the buck' as this. The single player alone will take you 20 something hours if you have to retry a couple of missions, the multiplayer sets you up with people of your level after the 5 placement maches, and if you're an achievement whore, you'll literally be playing the game at least a year before you get all of them. 10/10 easily, game of the year… Expand
  95. CoryL
    Jul 30, 2010
    10
    Awesome game indeed. Well worth waiting for, and I love the graphics. Gary K, you must be quite the character to give a game a 0 for not having a good enough computer to run it. You say the balancing is way off... I have to congratulate you. You must be one of the smartest men alive to by a few moments of playing the game, you can tell it's unbalanced, and that the team of Awesome game indeed. Well worth waiting for, and I love the graphics. Gary K, you must be quite the character to give a game a 0 for not having a good enough computer to run it. You say the balancing is way off... I have to congratulate you. You must be one of the smartest men alive to by a few moments of playing the game, you can tell it's unbalanced, and that the team of intelligent, dedicated people balancing this game in every aspect for several years are all wrong. I suggest you sign up for a job at Blizzard.… Expand
  96. JordanB
    Jul 30, 2010
    10
    Back in 1998, I was playing Warcraft II before Starcraft came along. Starcraft really swept me off my feet. The story had a surprising level of depth. The game play was addictive, both online and off. The graphics were quite good. This game had everything going for it, and I wanted more, even after the Broodwar expansion. Twelve years later, Blizzard delivers. The story is somewhat Back in 1998, I was playing Warcraft II before Starcraft came along. Starcraft really swept me off my feet. The story had a surprising level of depth. The game play was addictive, both online and off. The graphics were quite good. This game had everything going for it, and I wanted more, even after the Broodwar expansion. Twelve years later, Blizzard delivers. The story is somewhat predictable at times, but the ride is enjoyable regardless. All the units, even the new ones, feel somewhat familiar (a pro and a con). The game runs on a ton of different computer specs., but it's important to check to see if you meet them before purchasing. The graphics are superb, and the cut scenes, in game and pre-rendered, pull you into the universe. The multiplayer is challenging, yet fun. There is no LAN support, sadly; I know many friends that refused to by it because of this. The campaign focuses primarily on the Terrans. The Zerg and Protoss campaigns will release in separate expansions later on. This may be a con for some people. If you like Starcraft, you… Expand
  97. BrettK
    Jul 30, 2010
    10
    I remember when I first played Starcraft, and how I was absolutely addicted to it, and I think this is the first sequel that I've played that has actually matched the original experience. It actually made me feel like a kid again, especially when I realized it was 10 at night and I hadn't eaten supper yet.
  98. Claytality
    Sep 27, 2012
    5
    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

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

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock to Blizzard's remake of SC:BW. They know not that Blizzard is owned by some dumbass French company.    … Expand
  99. AlecB
    Aug 2, 2010
    9
    Given a 9 because no game is perfect, graphics are amazing, story is amazing, CGI is beautiful, missions are diverse and never boring- only daunting at times on harder difficulties, Battle.Net 2.0 gives you just about every possible way to become better at multilayer and league matchmaking is a long overdue blessing and the attention to detail in everything is way beyond the norm for Given a 9 because no game is perfect, graphics are amazing, story is amazing, CGI is beautiful, missions are diverse and never boring- only daunting at times on harder difficulties, Battle.Net 2.0 gives you just about every possible way to become better at multilayer and league matchmaking is a long overdue blessing and the attention to detail in everything is way beyond the norm for games today. All with a amazing map editor tool to extend the longevity of this game with custom games. Only thing I could ever complain about is the occasional sporadic matching, the slightly cartoonist look of things and the requirements to obtain any kind of unit decals is a little obsessive- but all are just minor complaints in an other wise truly epic game.… Expand
  100. 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.
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 »