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. SteveR
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for very high price 6/10 is fair rating in my opinion… Expand
  2. paketep
    Aug 18, 2010
    0
    12 years and all we get is the same game, with better but not current graphics, and a lot of features removed: fundamentally LAN support and spawn CD, which are what made StarCraft and Blizzard what they are today. Thanks, Blizz, but I won't buy the game when all you're interested in is me signing in into your facebook clone and giving you my RL details. Shame on you.
  3. HenryP
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    It's rather sad to see how far this franchise has fallen. What you're getting is 1/3 a game with a 5 hour campaign and a buggy multilayer experience bloated with horrible DRM. You must be online 24/7 even for single player or you aren't awarded achievements. No LAN and No CGI Cutscenes are only some of the few of many things not in this game. And if you want to be able to It's rather sad to see how far this franchise has fallen. What you're getting is 1/3 a game with a 5 hour campaign and a buggy multilayer experience bloated with horrible DRM. You must be online 24/7 even for single player or you aren't awarded achievements. No LAN and No CGI Cutscenes are only some of the few of many things not in this game. And if you want to be able to play the protoss and zerg campaigns then you better get out your credit card! They're being sold separate at a later date. No doubt only about 3-5 hour campaigns as well.… Expand
  4. ChristosK
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the specific unit each mission provides. Gameplay is pretty much the same with the original. Same or slightly different units, same buildings, same techs, same controls, same stats. Providing an existing game with just an updated graphics engine shouldn't take so long... Company of heroes is way better... We only get 1 campaign, which no matter how the fanbois justify it is short and boring, we get no lan, and the price is higher than usual. Blizzard is milking players because it can... Stop supporting this company!… Expand
  5. OwenS
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    To me it feels like a kids game. I'm not seeing the depth that everyone else seems to notice. Also not seeing what is so great about it. I definitely wasted $60. I'll go back to playing SupCom and Company of Heroes (which are both much better).
  6. kenstarkun
    Aug 13, 2010
    0
    If I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. SayIf I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. Say Goodbye to tournaments outside of Blizzard's authorization; if you read the EULA you'd realize how many things you simply can't do. Just like how Activison screwed the multi-player on Modern Warfare 2 by porting XBox live to the PC now they've ruined one of the greatest games of the PC gaming Golden Ages by removing the very things that made the game great.… Expand
  7. CyrusR
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    Compared to the original games, this is a mockery. Battle.net 2.0 is redundant and limited, the world editor has scripting limits and other non-useful things. And the campaign is cliched enough to seem like an old cowboy movie. This is not a good game. This is WoW in space.
  8. JohnS
    Jul 27, 2010
    6
    The game is polished to an insane level, following Blizzard's best standards. Sadly, the absence of LAN play ruins what I thought to be the very essence of this RTS series.
  9. steven
    Aug 6, 2010
    9
    I had a chance to watch someone play this game and it looks amazing. Blizzard did not make the mistake of overhauling gameplay for the next chapter in the story. An upgrade in graphics, engaging storyline and the introduction of new units is plenty to spike the interest of a RTS fan.
  10. WeeBee886
    Aug 11, 2010
    7
    They did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and theyThey did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and they unrealistically cluster together like crazy, as if they do not really occupy any physical space. They line up in a circle around enemies they're attacking, and there is no cover system, formations, or any other kind of advanced, realistic tactics. It's a bit silly and cartoonish. But that's just what it is, and if you're into that type of thing, with the ultra-micromanagement and all, go for it.… Expand
  11. Maciech42
    Aug 14, 2010
    7
    While StarCraft II remains an incredibly fun game with a fun storyline, people who have never given two craps about RTS games, aren't starting to care here.
  12. medun412
    Aug 18, 2010
    9
    The years of waiting worth it all the way.Everything is just the way a gamer,loving the first version.Starcraft 2 is the right successor.The cinematics,the way they are part of the game,not the boring motions we are used to watch,tapping the Esc button for them to stop getting us bored.No other words from me.Complete 10,just like the good old Starcraft.
  13. ColinB
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    If you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interestedIf you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interested in this game casually, you should give it a pass. The gameplay is hardly different from the original, and it is more of a large patch than a new game entirely. It is sad to see that the game is even more micro intensive than before, forgoing skill for memorized cookie cutter strategies and quick hands. Unless you like to spend hours perfecting you ability to multitask, I would suggest choosing another game.… Expand
  14. Beerit
    Aug 19, 2010
    6
    Though the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less andThough the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less and less acceptable.… Expand
  15. RMW_Critic
    Nov 19, 2010
    9
    I love this game. It has all of the fundamentals of an RTS while still keeping originality. Multiplayer is totally epic and the single-player campaign is even more brilliant. It's one of those games that you just have to pick up whether you are or are not an RTS gamer. It got me into RTS games and I recommend it to everyone. My only gripe is the battle.net 2.0. It is region locked so, as II love this game. It has all of the fundamentals of an RTS while still keeping originality. Multiplayer is totally epic and the single-player campaign is even more brilliant. It's one of those games that you just have to pick up whether you are or are not an RTS gamer. It got me into RTS games and I recommend it to everyone. My only gripe is the battle.net 2.0. It is region locked so, as I have, if you buy a game from overseas then you will have to connect to the overseas battle.net. Also no LAN support which got me really angry. Other than that, a great game.… Expand
  16. Omegawolf8
    Apr 5, 2011
    10
    This is possibly THE best game ever. The multiplayer is smooth, The campaign is unique, The game is VERY, VERY balanced. There is nothing bad about this. The only people giving this bad reviews are people who have honestly played it before.
  17. Pomornik
    May 29, 2011
    10
    This is basicly Starcraft 1 with modernized graphics. There are minor enrichenments to the gameplay, but overall is nearly identical as in the previous game. Campaign is great, I can safely say its greatest single player campaign in any RTS ever.
  18. Olivander
    Jun 28, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really think, this game is the best multiplayer game, i have ever played! It is really funny to play alone ladder or you can also play with your friends. There are also a lot of games made by players which have nothing to do with the original gameplay. Of course to creat maps and games with the editor is at the beginning very hard, but with a bit of time, it also makes a lot of fun. Last but not least, is there a really big online community and so many cups, casts, and replays to watch, it is unbelieveble how funny it is to watch pros playing the game. All in all I think starcraft is with all his tactics and diffrent possibilitys to game, also after 50 hours of playing and watching so interresting as in the first minutes. It is just an awesome game!… Expand
  19. Hoooooooar
    Jul 6, 2011
    9
    SC2 is rock solid, there is nothing more you can say about it. The gameplay is fun, the mods coming out are great, b.net is fantastic (although it is populated by a bunch of mutes, b.net use to be the true internet hate machine) I deducted one point simply because the story-line and graphics have been all asianed up. I think the jap animation graphics and story are hideous, was reallySC2 is rock solid, there is nothing more you can say about it. The gameplay is fun, the mods coming out are great, b.net is fantastic (although it is populated by a bunch of mutes, b.net use to be the true internet hate machine) I deducted one point simply because the story-line and graphics have been all asianed up. I think the jap animation graphics and story are hideous, was really hoping it wouldn't turn out looking like world of warcraft or warcraft 3, but it did. I suppose Korea is where their money and base is, so whadya gona do. Still gets a 9.… Expand
  20. snowshreder
    Jul 5, 2011
    10
    Starcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting greatStarcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting great examples for future Strategy games. As far as the story goes, well you have to know the older game stories to appreciate this continuing story which i think is just perfection.… Expand
  21. DarthMang
    Apr 2, 2012
    10
    It takes everything you loved about Starcraft and makes it bigger, better, and more beautiful. The most notable addition, though, is the campaign. Instead of upgrading on a mission to mission basis, between missions you are essentially playing a point and click adventure that not only looks beautiful, but allows you to get additional information on the story, but it is from here that youIt takes everything you loved about Starcraft and makes it bigger, better, and more beautiful. The most notable addition, though, is the campaign. Instead of upgrading on a mission to mission basis, between missions you are essentially playing a point and click adventure that not only looks beautiful, but allows you to get additional information on the story, but it is from here that you can upgrade your arsenal and it stays with you throughout each mission. At first I was upset about only getting the Terran campaign with this single game, but the 30 missions and the promise of at least two more equally large expansions more than makes up for it when they are this good.… Expand
  22. njkk
    Nov 15, 2012
    6
    This game is a poor mans Warcraft 3 in terms of the custom games. Based purely on competitive 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 games I found command and conquer 3 to be more enjoyable.
  23. Alu
    Dec 3, 2012
    10
    It was hard for me to read low scores from users - I dont understand it at all - Are people really that intentionally destructive ? Do you do it for shock value? what makes you tick? This is a great game in every way it was meant to be. The storyline - not the most riveting - but not terrible as some of you shock turkeys suggest. Campaign was great - I had a blast playing it - again,It was hard for me to read low scores from users - I dont understand it at all - Are people really that intentionally destructive ? Do you do it for shock value? what makes you tick? This is a great game in every way it was meant to be. The storyline - not the most riveting - but not terrible as some of you shock turkeys suggest. Campaign was great - I had a blast playing it - again, I dont know what the rest of you turkeys felt was wrong with it. Finally, Multiplayer - what it basically all comes down to for Starcraft players - It is perfect in my opinion - Balanced and full of depth. This game is not about leveling up your "character"/"force" so it should not be rated poorly because of this. You will find yourself fine tuning your "build" in conjunction with your matchups constantly. This is the beauty of Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 - Blizzard has done a great job with this game. Some of you wanted more races - and for each race to have a complete campaign. You feel everything should come in one installment. Whats great about starcraft 2 is it does not give into this idea - It preserves its quality over quantity guarentee. And I for one look forward to buying each expansion (most likely 2 more) with campaigns for zerg and protoss on the horizon; each packed with quality. Honestly, rate a game accurately. If you played this game and have half a brain you know its just deceptive to others.… Expand
  24. ComBrandon
    Feb 6, 2014
    3
    Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however,Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however, in my opinion outweigh this. My list of negatives are as follows. The game lacks varieties of units, even with the expansion pack the game has a depressing selection of bio units, tanks, and aircraft. The game has only 3 factions, as opposed to nearly all other strategy games having 4 or more. The game has replay value to an extent, and major replay value if you want to become professional, and set yourself a goal, however for casual gamers this has little replay value due to its uninspired map design, lack of units and factions as stated above, and slightly repetitive gameplay (If you play custom maps on arcade mode this can hold your attention longer than regular gameplay at times). Another con to this game is the matchmaking, early on you will be facing incredibly strong opponents, this will not be so much of a problem as you progress and increase in rank, however for early SC2 players this can be troublesome.

    If you want a good strategy game, try Age of Empires 2, Supreme Commander 1, or Battlezone 2.
    If you want a strategy game that has more fighting, and commanding than base building and factional differences, then you want Starcraft 2.    … Expand
  25. MadnessisRising
    Dec 19, 2020
    10
    Starcraft 2: WoL has by far the best campaign of all 4! Also the multiplayer was something new back then. Fantastic game!
  26. Atomics
    Jun 23, 2011
    4
    I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities,I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

    It's a shame that exceedingly average games like Starcraft II steal all the press and attention, when truly excellent and forward-thinking RTS games like Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander get pushed to the side and hardly noticed. Do gamers really want the same thing, over and over again? Starcraft II seems to suggest they do. (Rhyme!)

    There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!    … Expand
  27. franny2k
    Aug 14, 2010
    0
    Tried to enjoy it but it's still a bad bad game. A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  28. dc42
    Feb 10, 2012
    4
    After hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics areAfter hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics are lacking. Still a decent game and worth checking out if your a RTS fan but don't fall into the "hype trap" generated by overzealous fans.… Expand
  29. genericreviewer
    Jun 30, 2013
    4
    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it. Game itself is not bad, it's that the single    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it.
    Game itself is not bad, it's that the single campaign is so bad it hurts physically.    … Expand
  30. michealq
    Aug 5, 2010
    0
    Game will melt down your PC will also cause intrusive DRM ttat will require you to log in to play the game. Match making system is flawed. You always get matched with inexperienced players if you are inexperienced like me. Various features removed from blizzard.
  31. JasonC
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, single-player takes a huge backseat to multi. But it'll get rave reviews solely because it has "Blizzard" on the box, just like anything from Bioware or Nintendo.… Expand
  32. Failshipdown
    Mar 26, 2011
    10
    One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win. One hundred percent win.
  33. NGResonanceFan
    May 12, 2012
    3
    Lo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the storyLo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the story was. It was like some cheesy action-adventure movie, and inventing that whole Tychus Findlay backstory was incredibly lame. It's very sad really. Back in the day when Blizzard was small they were innovative and seemed to respect their fans. The fame and success obviously went to their heads though, and big money translated into big egos and accountants, and as a result SC2 was nothing more than a sop for the masses.… Expand
  34. LordOFdestructN
    May 15, 2012
    0
    Huge disappointment, bad graphics, boring gameplay. activision blizzard killed developer we all knew and loved. go to hell bob kotick. The game is cheap, the game story is abomination to original.
  35. MagicHAT
    May 20, 2012
    0
    This "story" of Starcraft 2 is butcher with hollywood-cowboys in space- kind of feel I can use up all 5000 characters and I did on my native language but in english I will just say that this game hurt my feelings I loved StarCraft 1 and Broodwar but this "Starcraft II Rednecks in Space" is huge dissapoitment, Multiplayer is somewhat fun to watch on youtube but to play its just to muchThis "story" of Starcraft 2 is butcher with hollywood-cowboys in space- kind of feel I can use up all 5000 characters and I did on my native language but in english I will just say that this game hurt my feelings I loved StarCraft 1 and Broodwar but this "Starcraft II Rednecks in Space" is huge dissapoitment, Multiplayer is somewhat fun to watch on youtube but to play its just to much hollywood for me big downgrade Fun - 1/10
    Gameplay - 7/10
    Controls - 9/10
    Graphics Design - 1/10
    Story - 0/10
    All Time Graphics - 9/10
    Sound - 3/10
    Music - 0/10
    Replayability - 0/10
    Graphics for its time - 9/10
    39/100    … Expand
  36. jackel79
    Oct 26, 2012
    4
    This game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on BroodThis game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on Brood Wars, rarely had a time limits and I could take my own pace in completing a mission. The new one is no fun at all, you are too much in a hurry to finish the mission to enjoy any part of the game and the extra units that are playable are a waste, because I never get enough time to use a new unit to their full Potential. It seems the new units were only created to be used for multi-player and were just added to single player for their introduction. I never did like multi-player because I die to fast and I never have enough units to defend my base. The first game will alway be my favorite because you do have to be online to get the ok from Blizzard that I can play my game on my PC. Furthermore, the units on the first game had more uniqueness that they don't look out of place and actually help the player in winning a game. This will be my last starcraft game until blizzard makes a more compelling game that is fun to play like their old games were. Very disappointed about this game.… Expand
  37. Woundheir
    Oct 24, 2013
    0
    Their hardest mode is called "Brutal" mode. It is EASY. Not even what you would expect from a normal mode. The story isn't as bad as I expected, but nowhere near as good as SC1. My biggest issue is multi-player. It rewards spamming single units with no real strategy or mixed unit combat. The very little strategy it has is rock-paper-scissors type stuff. They also cut down on units so thatTheir hardest mode is called "Brutal" mode. It is EASY. Not even what you would expect from a normal mode. The story isn't as bad as I expected, but nowhere near as good as SC1. My biggest issue is multi-player. It rewards spamming single units with no real strategy or mixed unit combat. The very little strategy it has is rock-paper-scissors type stuff. They also cut down on units so that they can add them back in expansions. Half the units in single player aren't even in multi-player... In addition to that half of the units you are given are just useless because they are too weak or too expensive in any situation. This game is terrible. Why does it have so many good reviews on here?… Expand
  38. Chris
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    game is basically starcraft with updated graphics and missing 2 campaigns. 1 third the game for a very expensive price. rated good for 3d vision put performs poorly. after playing modern rts's starcraft's same old micromanagement gameplay just doesn't stack up.
  39. AlexeyM
    Aug 5, 2010
    3
    A 12 year old game with a new engine. Nothing new nothing interesting 3 points are for pretty CGI the rest is just the same **** all over again. Also COST. Also cliche'd story. Also lack of 2 more stories. Basically time to play SC:BW some more.
  40. Coeco
    Apr 11, 2012
    4
    Outdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and otherOutdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and other re-re-replayed junk) and you'll get Starcraft II. It's like eating a really tasty looking eye-appeal pie that has no filling besides the bread crusts for anyone that isn't Korean along with the beautiful cinematics accompanied by some silly storyline.… Expand
  41. brand_eins
    Sep 2, 2011
    1
    Bad, bad, bad. Rehashed game, just graphics have been improved. Less features (e.g. LAN). Boring gameplay, no tactical usage of the enviroment such as cover, etc. Dull missions. There are better RTS out. Don't buy this one.
  42. Foam
    Dec 9, 2012
    0
    Story: Huge letdown. Terribly cliched. You could tell the writers were too used to working on Warcraft fantasy when they started work on SC2. Too many things come down to space magic. Storyline is not engaging whatsoever and lack of CGI cutscenes made the game less enjoyable as it had in SC1 & Broodwar. All the characters from Raynor to Mengsk are extremely boring. Lorewise lots of thingsStory: Huge letdown. Terribly cliched. You could tell the writers were too used to working on Warcraft fantasy when they started work on SC2. Too many things come down to space magic. Storyline is not engaging whatsoever and lack of CGI cutscenes made the game less enjoyable as it had in SC1 & Broodwar. All the characters from Raynor to Mengsk are extremely boring. Lorewise lots of things don't make sense such as: What the hell happened to the UED? They are never mentioned whatsoever.----------------------------------------------------------------------Multiplayer: Worst ever. One of the greatest things I loved about SC1's replayability was UMS maps. Players would design some extremely fun & popular maps you could download ingame by joining. In SC2 there is a terrible quasi-matchmaking system ranked by popularity that just doesn't work. Games autolaunch when they have a certain amount players & there is just no feeling of community anymore. Its a good example of "Do not attempt to fix what isn't broken". The games created by players coming up in a server list worked perfectly and there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Somewhere someone decided they knew better. They didn't.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: Ripoff. Played for a few weeks after launch, have never touched it since which is a telltale sign something is wrong considering I played SC1+BR for countless years.… Expand
  43. AndyD
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire armies by a few cheap units, which is not only extremely unbalanced, it isn't fun. This coupled with the extremely competitive ladder system, in which people new to the game stay bad at the game because they aren't allowed to play with players who are good, and keeps highly skilled players playing solely against other highly skilled players, segregates the SC2 population into cutthroat pools of angry players. This makes player abuse not only something that creates negative and unhappy attitudes among the people on the "new" battle.net, it is something that players who are at a skill level any lower than that of the competitive Korean leagues of SC1 will encounter on a basis something on the order of nearly every match. I will say that the graphics are a major improvement over SC1, and that will make SC1 fans rejoice, including a system that allow a player to select an nearly unlimited number of units at a time, and a system which allows players to select buildings as if they were units, allowing players to queue up many units at a time without clicking on each individual building. These new features, which should have been included in the first game, aren't enough to redeem Starcraft II enough to live up to the name of its predecessor.… Expand
  44. hootis
    Aug 21, 2012
    0
    So my account just got blocked because of suspicious activity, because blizzard wants me to buy their authenticator. This is mainly because if you join a public game in D3 it gives people your ip etc so its really easy to hack your only numbers and character password..Not to mention the fact the blizzard has completely destroyed so much game play at the expense of balance when notSo my account just got blocked because of suspicious activity, because blizzard wants me to buy their authenticator. This is mainly because if you join a public game in D3 it gives people your ip etc so its really easy to hack your only numbers and character password..Not to mention the fact the blizzard has completely destroyed so much game play at the expense of balance when not necessary ghost/reaper/the list goes on and on hellion as a result of the queen and on and on. Then they have this huge update for custom games that people who play the game don't even care about. All we want is land and other gaming ladders stuff that was supported way back in 1998 but by all means they can't do it now because that would be too difficult. Also They start updating units to bring them back from when they were destroy because of balance in WOL for 40$ and they're going to add other types of competitive match making to fix problems that were created by themselves with battle.net 2.0, They still haven't realized how seriously they are **** up or they just don't care because they are getting infinity money from wow and daiblo and people are just going to buy their games regardless how much the customer is getting **** over.… Expand
  45. raefon
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse clickI played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse click competition. It defeats the purpose of Real time strategy and with 12 years from 1 to 2 I would have expected a lot more.… Expand
  46. robbo
    Aug 14, 2010
    6
    Competently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament playCompetently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament play than the original, and it strips many features away from the original in the process (with the absence of LAN being sorely missed, and in an incredible level of greed, adds region locks to screw countries with high game prices like Australia)

    I ask then, what reason does this game have to exist? If a game adds nothing over an original in the way of plot or gameplay, then why make it? The game is fun and well built, sure, but then I can crack out my old copy of Starcraft and have the exact same experience and save myself $90 AUD.

    Starcraft 2 is the worst kind of cynically marketed products, a completely unimaginative paycheck of a game that took no risks and learnt nothing - designed to sell on **** hype and nostalgia; and shame on us for falling for it.    … Expand
  47. Aironas17
    Aug 24, 2010
    10
    It's a awesome and cool game,good graphics,good story,good soundtrack,good game play,good menu,a lot of achievement's and awesome Multilayer who's needed to be played all days all nights.
  48. jamvaru
    Jun 16, 2012
    0
    if you can get past the blizzard fanboy lovefest that people have who are blinded by their brand of bull...
    ...then maybe you made it here where the reviews are a bit more critical
    I am happy to see the 3/5 rating on Amazon.com, as that is what I gave it on ebay, where it has a 4.5/5 rating, of course (they think they are reviewing the seller, generally, lol this game is the same as    if you can get past the blizzard fanboy lovefest that people have who are blinded by their brand of bull...
    ...then maybe you made it here where the reviews are a bit more critical
    I am happy to see the 3/5 rating on Amazon.com, as that is what I gave it on ebay, where it has a 4.5/5 rating, of course (they think they are reviewing the seller, generally, lol

    this game is the same as the 1999 game, except for better graphics, and a few interface improvements, like being able to control more than 8 units at a time
    the gameplay boils down to a sort of machine like formula that takes about 5 minutes to pull off; so for 5 minutes you are basically jerking off, then you shoot your load at the 'enemy' and hope they don't shoot you first, or whatever... possibly the game goes beyond 10 minutes, but basically it is the loser refusing to quit while the winner has to chase them down to kill their last building;

    if you don't win in the first 5 minutes, you lose

    that is all

    lol, stupid blizzard, stick to wow, quit milking your oldschool bs (have you SEEN the new diablo? lol)

    ;}    … Expand
  49. noop
    Aug 3, 2010
    1
    Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Choices you make don't really do much. Too much "magical" fantasy stuff for a sci-fi game. Still too much micromanagement for 2010 game. And price is really to high for a one chapter of a game you basically don't even own. I believe this game deserves 7 or 8 but something has to be done to offset fake fanboy ratings.… Expand
  50. BrendanM.
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 years ago. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this game a 10/10. Perhaps they should be disclosing some sort of compensation they are receiving from Blizzard.… Expand
  51. sudoscientist
    Mar 17, 2011
    3
    StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess.StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original.… Expand
  52. GaryK
    Jul 27, 2010
    0
    This is a horrible successor to the first game. The balancing is way off, and even at the lowest settings more than 30 on-screen enemies brings my computer to an absolute crawl. What a waste.
  53. vXxo0oxXv
    Sep 30, 2011
    3
    To be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are underTo be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are under attack is not fun, and you can lose them all in a matter of seconds, which completely ruins your chance of winning the game. Also not fun. Scouting is near impossible in this game. You will find yourself most of the time simply trying to make educated guesses on what your opponent is building. An incorrect guess can lead you to a loss. This is especially irritating when one or two stealth units kills your entire army and base. The early tier units completely overpower anything late tier. It is not surprising to see even a top level player build 10-15 barracks or gateways and just pump mass garbage units. Stategic element is lacking. The most strategic thing you will do in this game is drop units on an enemy mineral patch. It's all about speed. You see the same build orders game after game. No real variants on the ladder. Some units just aren't worth building. The SC2 battle.net forum is catered for little kids and Christians. Perhaps the worst part of the game however, is the fact that you spend most of the game staring at your base. Active engagements seldomly take place, and the god awful ramp mechanics make penetration into the enemy base more irritating and frustrating than anything else, and also highly favor the defender. Save the money. Buy new brake pads or something.… Expand
  54. Pahn
    Jan 20, 2012
    2
    Corporate Greed 101. Take a beloved franchise and table it for a decade. Then, spread the sequel across 4 years (2010 - 2013) and charge full price for each "episode." This game should be titled Starcrap II: Part 1. This is part multi-player fiasco, part 3 episode single-player campaign that for some reason will take 4 years to release in full NOT counting any expansion packs. I callCorporate Greed 101. Take a beloved franchise and table it for a decade. Then, spread the sequel across 4 years (2010 - 2013) and charge full price for each "episode." This game should be titled Starcrap II: Part 1. This is part multi-player fiasco, part 3 episode single-player campaign that for some reason will take 4 years to release in full NOT counting any expansion packs. I call shenanigans on Activision. And there's no way I'm buying parts 2 or 3 simply out of principal.… Expand
  55. JohnP
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player feels like questing in world of warcraft, and the campaign ending was uneventful. Not to mention that you need to pay another 120 bucks(?) to see the other 2 campaigns. Yay? Starcraft 1 was better. I'd rather play the eye rape that was cnc4 than this pile of blizzard ****.… Expand
  56. SuarezP
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    -$60 for PC game no thanks, not about to feed this new trend of price jacking(CoD:MW2 I'm looking at you) when the cost to produce a game on PC hasn't gone up. -Original allowed you to play as all 3 factions. In this you have to wait for 2 more "expansions" that will cost a currently unknown price to play as other 2 factions. Don't get me wrong I liked the beta, but -$60 for PC game no thanks, not about to feed this new trend of price jacking(CoD:MW2 I'm looking at you) when the cost to produce a game on PC hasn't gone up. -Original allowed you to play as all 3 factions. In this you have to wait for 2 more "expansions" that will cost a currently unknown price to play as other 2 factions. Don't get me wrong I liked the beta, but I'm not paying $60 for an incomplete game. About 12 years between StarCraft and StarCraft 2 and you can't give me all 3 factions off the bat? I can wait until the other two factions are released as a combo, in the meantime I'll go back to playing the original while waiting.… Expand
  57. Renge
    Sep 15, 2011
    0
    This game doesn't make me to play it for a long time. Played SP once, play ladder once. And that's it. Nothing new. Story-wise it is very very so-so, the gap is closed a little with hollywood style angle. And the region-lock is very annoying. I play at SEA region, and the custom map here is very little.
  58. csonkab
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is regionlocked. You can only install this to ONE computer 3 times. That's it. It doesn't have any LAN either, which means you will never play this without lag. There is no excuse for buying this other than the hype machine behind it.… Expand
  59. TropicanaJ
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, and put it back where they pulled it out from.… Expand
  60. DaveE
    Jul 28, 2010
    0
    It's still an RTS, which means that if your idea of fun does not include herding a bunch of uncooperative cats around a virtual battlefield through the use of rapid-fire keyboard and mouse commands that make you appear to be having an epileptic seizure, then you should find another game to play.
  61. BobbyK
    Jul 29, 2010
    0
    Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about where it stops. Once you get online and have more than 20-30 units in a spot expect even the most heavy rigs to drop frames and begin to crawl. Not to mention the $10 price hike just cause they could get away with it, or the fact they've split up the game into 3 just to make more money. That's $180 if you'd like to see the entire story....rofl. Thanks Activision for making the gaming world just a bit more cynical place.… Expand
  62. RogerB
    Jul 31, 2010
    1
    An utterly terrible game. The AI is atrocious even on the hardest setting. The graphics are very poor apart from the overused CGI cutscenes. Only one race has its own storyline... save your money and get another game. This is a terrible excuse for a "game" and an insult the StarCraft legacy.
  63. stinky
    Aug 19, 2011
    1
    the most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not eventhe most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not even three dimensional gameplay (no heights, just "land" or "air" a ranged unit can attack from the base of one side of a hill to the opposite side, firing THROUGH the hill). still massively restrictive unit caps. No LAN play, which even starcraft one had.. at most it is an expansion to the original, 10 years late and twice the price. all polished up but bland, repetitive gameplay.… Expand
  64. PatrickH.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the '80s, not anymore. Same thing with StarCraft 2. Why it get so much high scores from reviewers? Maybe because they got a lot of money from Blizzard for the publicity of StarCraft 2. That can explain a lot of things. There's an expression in french that says: "Don't bite the hand that feed you!".… Expand
  65. JerremyB.
    Aug 3, 2010
    3
    Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been introduced to the game. + Storyline is very linear. + Blizzard gauging its fans by providing 3 installments of the same game but to access the 3 different campaigns. + No LAN support means the local gaming community takes a big hit. + Graphics is dated (5 years behind the curve). + B.Net gameplay is localized, which is disappointing (cannot play with my european and asian friends).… Expand
  66. ChrisJ
    Aug 3, 2010
    0
    I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by infantry with grenades and an anti-tank gun - against 4 assault tanks and 4 teams of mechanized infantry if you are smart about where and how you fight (and im not talking subversive warfare or hit and run tactics). At the very bottom of the RTS pile you have your Starcraft, Warhammer, and all the EA C&C's - games tarnished with plain bordem, uselessly complicated oversized maps, rock paper scissors gameplay, unit spamming, and rushing.… Expand
  67. grok70
    Sep 18, 2011
    3
    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

    Why am I not playing Starcraft 2? I paid $60 for it. I Played through the entire campaign then I stopped playing. Starcraft 2 is Starcraft. It didn't feel any different. I still ended up setting up with siege tanks and marines, slowly grinding my way through all opposition while my base sat pretty. The goliaths were still worthless, and the bigger version of the Goliath...still worthless. It was easier to keep the base defended - my supply depots didn't have to be blown up in order to leave. The computer was the same AI I had dealt with in Broodwars. What does this game offer really? The whole campaign, except the cut scenes/ SS-pointless, could have been done using the old map editor. The campaign was trite, the character development non-existent, the plot movement utterly unsurprising. The animations weren't particularly good. The buildings looked cool - in 1996. The artwork was inappropriate for the quality of graphics that were possible. The economy was uninspired.

    Truthfully I knew this would be the case walking in. I watched the e-sport videos during beta. I kept thinking....there is nothing new here. NOTHING. What was improved upon in Starcraft 2? What was really innovation? Units that move up cliffs. That's it. Otherwise it's just an expansion. A boring one. Maybe it's the Korean gaming scene, or the just the outrageous nerdrage inherent in the fetishistic fandom that follows blizzard, but it seems like all innovation was squashed. I paid $60 dollars, and I don't think I will ever play the game again after getting through the trite storyline. Wikipedia is free, I could have just gone and read it. I will not be buying expansions.

    If you liked Starcraft 1 and already matured and move on from its gameplay, this game is not worth it. PS: Blizzard, Hire some professional writers who have credits in literature and cinema that have won awards. Whoever you have doing it needs to be sent to get their MFA or something, this $#!7 is bad.    … Expand
  68. BrotherLaz
    Aug 13, 2010
    2
    A disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite havingA disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite having the same number of races and units as SC1, it's highly imbalanced - try and use a mothership for a serious purpose.

    This is not Company of Heroes, a much superior RTS that failed because it wasn't by Blizzard so it wasn't supported or advertised well.

    And you can't play with people in other continents. Why not?

    The promised map editor/game creator fails to deliver due to the terribad custom game system. Basically maps are sorted by popularity and the interface makes it nearly impossible to play 'less popular' maps. New maps, with popularity 0, are doomed to languish on page 54 where nobody plays them; search and filter options are nonexistent. You can't publish maps across the pond. Also, you can't differentiate game types (like Dota's -ap) in the list, the hyped keyboard and mouse controls are either extremely laggy or simply nonexistent; and there is an irritating design flaw where if you are the last player to join a lobby the game will auto start and you can no longer quit even if you're on the wrong team or clicked the wrong map.

    Warcraft 3 survives to this date by virtue of DotA. But custom games in SC2 - an important reason to buy War3 or SC1 for many people - are completely useless.    … Expand
  69. KSHARPE
    Aug 13, 2010
    1
    First off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn'tFirst off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn't expect a product that can run on a system I could find at my 92 year old grandmother's house or my local junkyard. I could probably run this on my Gameboy Color, by honestly, I would rather play Pokemon Red/Blue than SC2. When I started to play this game, I thought I had been pranked. When I found out I was indeed playing Starcraft 2, I was pretty disappointed. I honestly thought I was playing some kind of BW patch. Pretty much everything about SP was bad. Even on hard-mode you just need to build 10-15 depots, max your favorite unit, bind to '1' and attack. A few levels were clever; the lava, day/night, fire, etc. But for 12 years of development, it is a struggle to see where all that time went. The graphics, if anything, feel nostalgic and take me back to 2005. All these critics must have been bought out or work for Blizzard. MP is flawed. I used to think Battenet 1.0 needed to be tweaked a little, but 2.0 makes me wish on every 4 leaf clover I see for good ole 1.0. No LAN support and restriction to regions really makes MP pretty worthless. I have no idea where my $60 went. Mediocre SP (at best) and a watered down and 2 step backwards version of Battlenet really ruin both aspects of the game. All this WoW fanboy Blizzard worship is pretty sickening. All Blizzard accomplished was making me want to go down to the nearest bargain bin and buying a SC1 Battlechest for $9.99 because the $50 difference (+ another $80 for the next "expansions") can be spent much wiser. For an eventual $130 you will get 2005 graphics (at best), a couple new units, SLIGHTLY better AI, NO LAN, REGION ONLY, Facebook support (by far the most sellout thing I have ever seen), having to log in to **** ass Battlnet 2.0 (even for SP), and 1/3 proven **** lazy campaign, and the other 2/3 of the campaign will be called "expansions" even though you will be getting the same 2005 graphics and **** ass Battlenet 2.0.

    I already wasted my $60 and can only hope the time I spent writing this will save at least 1 poor soul from the emotional letdown that is: Starcraft 2, "Universally Acclaimed" based on critic reviews. They get +1 point from me because they at least spelled the name of the game correctly (the only thing they did right unfortunately).    … Expand
  70. Nitroz
    Aug 12, 2010
    2
    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard.    … Expand
  71. CharlieL
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. Starcraft was a great game when it was released, now people just need to get over it.… Expand
  72. MarcelN
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    Poor sequel, overhyped and DRM-infested. Why, oh why, did I fell for the marketing BS and bought this?! I'm totally UNHAPPY with no LAN, no custom matchmaking, no custom map naming, 'premium content you'll need to pay for' and so on. Suck ass.
  73. DerekW
    Jul 28, 2010
    9
    First off the game is fast and fun. The game balance at launch is much better than the original game was at its launch, and with Blizzards track record of supporting their games well after release the game will continue to get better as time goes on. There are just enough user interface changes and new units to make the game feel fresh. The game scales well in terms of graphics for the First off the game is fast and fun. The game balance at launch is much better than the original game was at its launch, and with Blizzards track record of supporting their games well after release the game will continue to get better as time goes on. There are just enough user interface changes and new units to make the game feel fresh. The game scales well in terms of graphics for the older machines. The thing that causes the one point drop is battle.net 2.0 does not have the same level of polish as the game has such as lacking a text based large group chat. Yes the game has a friends list messenger. But it… Expand
  74. RandallO.
    Jul 28, 2010
    8
    I would love to give this game less than an eight, because that is what it deserves. However when looking at the bigger picture I realize i thoroughly enjoy the game itself so it warrants an eight. However, Blizzard F'ed up big time in many departments. 1) Battle.net 2.0 sucks horribly. 2) Blizzard tried to innovate and the UI (User Interface) is horribly like Dawn of War 2 and XBOX I would love to give this game less than an eight, because that is what it deserves. However when looking at the bigger picture I realize i thoroughly enjoy the game itself so it warrants an eight. However, Blizzard F'ed up big time in many departments. 1) Battle.net 2.0 sucks horribly. 2) Blizzard tried to innovate and the UI (User Interface) is horribly like Dawn of War 2 and XBOX Live. (Both Suck) 3) I can't add my Mexican friend because he plays in a different realm. 4)There's no chat channels. (OKAY????) 5) I played the BETA (thousands of complaints went unheard. 6) Custom games are joined by map title basis (Example. I join a popular custom game i. e. Dota. Host is afk. I leave and rejoin and it auto puts me back with that host. You can't specify custom game names like no rush, all random ettc..) and many other problems with StarCraft 2 besides the gameplay itself. I could rant on and on about more things that are messed up. Like the clan system in warcraft 3 was brilliant and the Tournaments were awesome. So far the Campaign is fun but i'm not that far into it. It is utterly better than any other rts i've played in terms of the game itself and will be a great E Sport. Blizzard needs to fix the UI.… Expand
  75. ThomasS
    Jul 28, 2010
    9
    For the kind of cash you have to shell out for a game of this caliber would it have killed you to include a proper game manual with the game! Seriously the docs are about the crappiest I have ever seen included with a game! Nice online docs sort of make up for this. Also have not found a way to start a second campaign, so if there are more than two people in your household does you For the kind of cash you have to shell out for a game of this caliber would it have killed you to include a proper game manual with the game! Seriously the docs are about the crappiest I have ever seen included with a game! Nice online docs sort of make up for this. Also have not found a way to start a second campaign, so if there are more than two people in your household does you probably have to shell out more cash if they both want to play. You can replay the missions but its not the same.… Expand
  76. JamesA.
    Jul 28, 2010
    9
    Conservative 9, because I don't like to give out 10's. The graphics are amazingly polished and definitely evoke that feeling that the game won't forget its lineage, the races are amazingly balanced, and the soundtrack is possibly the best to come from Blizzard (and that's saying something for the comppany with the best sound in gaming today). This "1/3 game" that the Conservative 9, because I don't like to give out 10's. The graphics are amazingly polished and definitely evoke that feeling that the game won't forget its lineage, the races are amazingly balanced, and the soundtrack is possibly the best to come from Blizzard (and that's saying something for the comppany with the best sound in gaming today). This "1/3 game" that the minority rails against is over 2 1/2 times larger than any prior campaign. All I can think of is if once the others are out and there's the inevitable SC2 Battle Chest, are all these 0's (who obviously never bought the game) going to turn into 10's?… Expand
  77. AnnaK.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing the players with new graphics and some simple fixes to UI and controls. The problem is that in perfecting the known schemes, Blizzard refuses to try anything new. After 12 years of waiting for a sequel, i think they wasted their chance to provide their fans with some new, exciting expierience. Similarly to WoW that took best thing from MMOs made prior to it, Starcraft 2 used all the knowledge of traditional RTS gathered ever since Westwood created Dune2 and polished it till it shines. Personally, i found the Terran campaign a little too much on the cliche side, and voice acting at moments is way below the standards of modern market. Splitting the experience into 3 parts, also seems to be hurting the overall reception. It's a good game, but not good enough to deserve a perfect score. It's all been done before, Blizzard took no risks to try to create something new. It's same old game with new looks. 7.5 Is all it can count on from me.… Expand
  78. StevieP
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have a third of a full game at full price, the lack of saves (only auto-saves), etc. etc. Honestly, this is poor value for money if you're not into the insanely-competitive online aspect. If it ever drops to … Expand
  79. Jexter
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and runs well on most machines. Cons: 1. Always need to be connected to the internet. No offline playability. 2. No LAN 3. No cross-realm / global playability. Many of my RTS friends are either from the US and Asia. Why does Blizzard want to kill global communities? 4. No chat channels. Hard to form a community. 5. Additional charges for "premium" maps and units. 6. No tournament / clan support. 7. No ownership of the product. If Battle.net is down, you cannot play. DRM going way over the top.… Expand
  80. john
    Jul 29, 2010
    2
    Game is shit totally not worth the 60 usd hate the music the ui the gameplay is so bad controls are crap campaign is really bad (havent finished it and not planning to do so) bottom line is ill sell it on ebay and hope i get a good price on this shitty game my advice is dont buy it if u want something a littel new than the old game cuz this is almost the old one in 3d.
  81. Tylerwhat
    Jul 29, 2010
    3
    So 12 years and the only thing blizzard could come up with is a graphics update straight out of 2005? You've got to be kidding me. Only a sucker would pay 60 dollars for this boring RTS. Spending your money on Company of Heroes is a much better idea.
  82. DavidB
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    In the past when asked for a release date for StarCraft II, Blizzard would proudly proclaim:
  83. JamesS.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Technically superb, but otherwise I don't feel like getting my money's worth with this one. The multiplayer is, as expected, just a horrible korean zergfest. Single player dishes out nothing new and is as dull as the first game back in the day. Even with the Blizzard logo on the game's cover, I just can't bring myself to like this game.
  84. CameronL
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be good, it's not great and it's far from being the greatest.… Expand
  85. Christoph
    Jul 30, 2010
    7
    Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2 and WarCraft 3 are all more modern than this game. StarCraft II throws RTS evolution back by several years. The Campaign is "OK", not very exciting so far, and multiplayer is basically the same it was 10 years ago.
  86. Zachary
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    A complete rehash of SC1. Single player is dull, multiplayer is even worse. There is no strategy involved. All you need to do to win is hoard one type of unit, select all, hit CTRL+A and click the other side of the map. It pales in comparison to RTS games released even 5 years ago. The only reason this game is receiving good reviews is because of Blizzards huge marketing campaign.
  87. JayS
    Aug 1, 2010
    3
    A bit disappointed in this price gouging product from Blizzard. No LAN support is a huge turn-off as this has been in the past one of the single-most played LAN games. Single player is good, multiplayer still needs some tweaking.
  88. AdeptusA
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* portrays a NAKED MUTANT in the arms of a Terrorist Rebel walking off together into the sunset. Utterly disgusting. Report all those who play this game to your local Imperial Youth Brigade leaders. Those who denounce their peers and siblings before the local Peoples Imperial Commisariat in writing shall be shown leniency and understanding in the form of extra bread rations. The first 300 registered Imperial Youths informing on a parent shall receive a Meat Ration. Remain true to the EMPEROR of MANr and the everlasting Revolution! Resist this foul, bland game!… Expand
  89. marko
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to any die-hard Blizzard fan. It's kind of like what Valve did to Counterstrike: Source; they just took the original game, tweaked it with the Source engine, and slapped a price tag on it. As I am playing Starcraft 2, I keep asking the same question: So what? What does this game actually prove that the first one didn't prove? That Blizzard made a new (and now very dated) engine. That Blizzard added some extra units. That Blizzard made one "cool" campaign (the original had all three, by the way . . .). C'mon people. The answer quite simply is: there is nothing special. The game is just "okay." After seeing marines shooting at a bunch of incoming hydralisks without taking cover, I said to myself: "you've got to be serious." The fact that marines can't shoot while running is also pathetic. The game feels very mechanical and static, which is acceptable for the first-- not the second. The fact that warcraft 3 added two extra races and Starcraft 2 added none also pissed me off. I already uninstalled the game and will not waste $120 on two expansions that will add a handful of zerg and protoss missions. I refuse to get cheated by Blizzard. I am back to playing Starcraft and the other fine RTS games that were made in the past few years like Company of Heroes and dawn of war to name a few. It's like Blizzard has lost all of its creative juice-- as if Starcraft 2 was taken over by a bunch of guys with marketing majors, wanting to make billions of dollars rather than make an interesting game. Starcraft was (and still is) a superb game, simply because there was nothing like it back in 1998. I can go play plenty of other games like Starcraft 2.… Expand
  90. JimB
    Aug 2, 2010
    1
    It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of the reviewers are saying it is the best game of all time but none of them explain what elements actually make it good and why.… Expand
  91. EddieZ.
    Aug 2, 2010
    2
    Great game. But horrible-and I do mean HORRIBLE-online features. The new Battle.net 2.0 is so restrictive, so backwards, so lacking in even the most basic features like chat and a coherent map publishing system that it truly dampens the whole experience. What a disappointment. A wonderfully fun and fast-paced game ruined by online features that could have so easily been remedied.
  92. JohnC
    Aug 2, 2010
    4
    I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely offline so it also rubs I have to log into battle net every time I start my computer to verify my game account; I verified my game by paying for it!! If Diablo 3 follows a similar pattern I won't by buying.… Expand
  93. markm
    Aug 2, 2010
    3
    $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going $140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going to get that $15/mo they do from other sub-par graphic games that people spend money on. People will buy it, they'll keep releasing it. I imagine Diablo 3 will be of a similar fate. Welcome to the Wii "Meh, as long as people buy it, we'll put it out there" generation of mediocrity.… Expand
  94. PaulF
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    I cant believe that there are so many people giving this 10 which is a perfect score because this is not a perfect game.Sound and graphics are outstanding but i was expecting more than just a graphics upgrade.It feels old not classic. RTS has moved on (i am so over base building). Having said that it is still fun but it doesn't draw me in like CoH or DoW.
  95. RamiroC.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    After 12 years waiting...they just appeared with the Best Game Ever. Amazing Campaign mode with a lot of different missions. New options between missions New amazing and well balanced units. The worst thing about the game? That you have to wait for the expansion to know what is going to happen!
  96. MikeG.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Everything you could hope for to the sequel to what many consider the best RTS game out there. All though battle.net 2.0 may be a work in process everything that is import about the game itself is wonderfully executed. Gameplay is as addicting as SC1, the Soundtrack seems even better, the graphics look wonderful for the style of SC, the campaign is an absolute blast. Even in spite of Everything you could hope for to the sequel to what many consider the best RTS game out there. All though battle.net 2.0 may be a work in process everything that is import about the game itself is wonderfully executed. Gameplay is as addicting as SC1, the Soundtrack seems even better, the graphics look wonderful for the style of SC, the campaign is an absolute blast. Even in spite of Battle.nets limitations the most important thing it needs to do works flawlessly, which is placing you in matches against players of your relative skill level.… Expand
  97. JamesY.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Starcraft 2 is all about the multiplayer. It's singleplayer is good, much better than MW2 where it's one go and done, whereas this will keep you coming back, because it's just so fun. Custom content is what makes me coming back and back.
  98. DF
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    The game is fantastic. I received it the day it came out and haven't really been able to put it down since. I'm a very casual gamer, so I was thrilled at the new multiplayer mode as it really helps work you into the game. First, there are "practice" levels with easier map layouts to help ease you into the game, you can play up to 50 of these matches before jumping into the real The game is fantastic. I received it the day it came out and haven't really been able to put it down since. I'm a very casual gamer, so I was thrilled at the new multiplayer mode as it really helps work you into the game. First, there are "practice" levels with easier map layouts to help ease you into the game, you can play up to 50 of these matches before jumping into the real thing. Second, placement matches- you will play 5 matches then get placed with people who are as terrible as you are! this is a big selling point for me because I'm not very good. Third, challenges- there are challenges you can try to master that really show the strengths and pros of each unit for each race and helps give you an idea of what you want to do. fourth-organized computer battles- in the original my friends and I really enjoyed playing computers, but we had to go to custom games set it up etc. Now its just a click away, get you friend and pick the game. fantastic. Th ere are also many different A.I. difficulty levels to make it fun. Fifth- Easy matching- You can quick start a game and don't have to try to join a game first, which is awesome. you can be playing in seconds. I've played a little of the campaign too (which is really why I bought the game in the first place, it says a lot about the game that it's MP has kept me so engrossed). It is fantastic, and the interaction with the environment between missions which highlights the story and lore even more is unlike any RTS I've ever played. That said it IS an RTS which really isn't for everyone, but if you like real time strategy this game is a must buy.… Expand
  99. AndreyI
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of Heroes. And that is 4 years old game. SGI are good but not that impressive as it were in Diablo 2. And those childish things like achievements and facebook integration. It's really making me a sad panda. Overall it's a good game but nothing like "brilliant sequel" or any other hollow words in all this 95+ score reviews. Today Blizzard is more about making money so we all "enjoying" this "the same old thing but 2x shiny". Sad but true.… Expand
  100. StefanD
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Wow amazing the hate from the trolls in this vote board. Starcraft 2 is excellent, if you loved the first one you will love this! Engaging story, excellent graphics (remember this is an RTS and not a FPS you TROLLS!), and great all around presentation!! Highly Recommended!
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 »