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. rockmosh
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Excellent game, been waiting for a decade and it was well worth it. I played since the beta and I havent had this much fun in years. This is a full game, dont fall for the illusion that its incomplete just because its part of a trilogy. It has 30 or so campaing missions and the full multiplayer experience.
  2. ErikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    I think most people need to step back and remember it's STARCRAFT 2, not some new game. Blizzard never has been known for their pushing of new innovated game play and I doubt they ever will. They take what they know works and throw it together into a bundle and polish it to near perfection. That is exactly what SC2 is, Starcraft with a nice new shiny coat of paint. If you don't I think most people need to step back and remember it's STARCRAFT 2, not some new game. Blizzard never has been known for their pushing of new innovated game play and I doubt they ever will. They take what they know works and throw it together into a bundle and polish it to near perfection. That is exactly what SC2 is, Starcraft with a nice new shiny coat of paint. If you don't like Starcraft then you shouldn't review this game because guess what it's Starcraft 2.0. There is nothing really new about Starcraft and I personally like that; I was able to jump right in and enjoy my old favorite game once again. If you wanted different game play then go play a different RTS franchise. The storyline wasn't deep but it was fun, I felt involved within the missions and look forward to the expansions. For all your people out there down rating for what it lacks it's time to look at what it has, and tell me what you find wrong with it then.… Expand
  3. GernR.
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    I don't know why everyone complains: "It's a new sc1". In my eyes, that's the best that could have happened. Starcraft 1 was the best strategygames for years, so why not remaking it, polished up, with a nice competition-system, new units, upgrades and abilities and an awesome editor? Blizzard really did a great job in those things, although the graphics aren't really I don't know why everyone complains: "It's a new sc1". In my eyes, that's the best that could have happened. Starcraft 1 was the best strategygames for years, so why not remaking it, polished up, with a nice competition-system, new units, upgrades and abilities and an awesome editor? Blizzard really did a great job in those things, although the graphics aren't really high end. I myself like that Blizz-comiclook, so I have nothing to complain. Great multiplayer experience, wonderful campaign, awesome game.… Expand
  4. SpendrikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    7
    It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just play a few games. I hope they have more robust privacy settings soon.… Expand
  5. Brian
    Aug 4, 2010
    2
    Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have already returned it. Definitely not going to waste my time on the next two.… Expand
  6. AlfonsoG
    Aug 5, 2010
    10
    Fantastic. I've spent plenty of time in the campaign and the multiplayer, both Custom and Ladder and I have to say, I'm completely impressed. Being an avid gamer, that doesn't happen often. Bravo, Blizzard.
  7. Erik
    Aug 6, 2010
    8
    It ain't perfect but nothing really is. I do really enjoy this reborn version of one of my favorit game, the campaign might be a bit cliché but still I feel hooked into it. The thing about being connected to Bnet all time is annoying but works very well and so does the matching system inside the game. But I would also like to point out that anything that is but into the game It ain't perfect but nothing really is. I do really enjoy this reborn version of one of my favorit game, the campaign might be a bit cliché but still I feel hooked into it. The thing about being connected to Bnet all time is annoying but works very well and so does the matching system inside the game. But I would also like to point out that anything that is but into the game Blizzard has approved of which is why they only get a 8 from me. Dropping LAN ain't ok Blizz!… Expand
  8. MatthewC
    Jul 27, 2010
    7
    Not enough has changed from the last game to warrant receiving a super high score from me. The game is pretty and has a nice soundtrack, but coming from the original game, there is practically no innovation and no surprises to be had. It's a shame to think that the original Starcraft was released in 1998 and still compares well with Starcraft 2, now in 2010.
  9. ColinR
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Compared to other RTs's this is just lacking. It is not as in depth as supreme comander or innovative as company of hero's. It is not as tactical as the total war series. It is a very basic rts with an ok story. The only reason it is so popular is based off the original. But it has been years couldnt they have done and changed more.
  10. BShum
    Jul 28, 2010
    4
    It's basically a tutorial for each othe new units. Every stage will have a new unit that specializes on that map. Mass that unit and win. If the game were a full game that would be ok, but since its so short its a terrible game. Sure it looks good, but is empty in game play. Everything else is (besides some corny dialog) was ok. Sometimes it felt like they borrowed too much from WC3.
  11. KostasI.
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both from the old days and the new ones. Sound is also at a very high standard. Intercace is also a notch above anything else i have seen in the genre. Gameplay is what you expect, nothing has changed from the old days WHICH IS GOOD and speaks loud at how far ahead was Starcraft 1 from the competition. What i did not like about the game. The engine is very unstable and does not seem to perfom as good as other engines even if the graficks are not nearly on the same level as current strategy games. The story is just not what i expected. I wanted it to be really epic with the characters being developed even more but no....Its not bad but it could have been so much better and so much "to the point", it feels like a blabbermouth is telling it. Keep it simple and focused people. Overall the game, while very good and very well done, fails to capture the essence and heritage of the old game and slows down the story much more than it should.… Expand
  12. OdinB
    Jul 28, 2010
    3
    Really? It does seem incomplete. Needs work done- and its released with core features not implemented. Release a game thats completed please. Blizzard has had plenty of experience making thease games, they should know better then to say 'wait for patches' Not to mention the resolution problems, give the users some more view of the battle, and give them more control over the UI.
  13. MarioS
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    Same gameplay are the old one with the worst battlenet in any blizzard game. Same it took them 7 year and it's still missing many things.
  14. Hendrik
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont become that happy… Expand
  15. JackJ.
    Jul 29, 2010
    4
    WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and can pay off the reviewers. (I don't think Crackdown 2 is a great game either, I was using it as an example.)… Expand
  16. RanoldC
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    While this game is a pretty good RTS by itself, it just doesn't feel right. It feels like blizzard tried too hard to make it as good as its predecessor which in my opinion just ruined the game. Making the game overpriced and splitting it up into 3 campaign also shows that they are trying to rip off people with the legacy of its predecessor. Honestly, I'm disappointed.
  17. JacobP.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Cinematics are great (although blizzard are still way behind square enix) but the rest of the graphics are just not up to 2010 standards, not by a long shot to be honest. The single player is entertaining but its nothing new at all so it just cant get higher marks from me. I was expecting something truly fantastic but its just not. Good game ? Yes Greamt game ? No.
  18. TannerB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is good. Not the best, not inovative at all. If you liked the original starcraft chances are you will also like this one. If you were looking for more than the first im sorry to dissapoint you. The scaling for starcraft is also really bad, some fps drops with 2 hd5870 crossfire even. I think dawn of war 2 is the better. Although i have to admit the menus are nice for sc2.
  19. BradK
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    It's sad to see that even reviewers are being sucked in by hype. The one reviewer gave it 100 and said the game is exactly the same as the first one with a new skin. Don't these people even think this through.
  20. JamesB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Considering the extraordinary length of time between the original StarCraft and SC2, this doesn't really show any signs of a game that's been in development for several years. It's a fun game to be sure, and any SC fan will absolutely love it, but it still seemed rather lacking to me, at least considering the lengthy development time.
  21. BenjaminG
    Jul 29, 2010
    1
    This game is only for Starcraft pros and for people who played the beta. Never before have I been at such a disadvantage when player the multiplayer. This is not a RTS where everyone starts at the same level and some will become better than others, on it's release there were already starcraft 2 pros. I think There is something really wrong with this.
  22. JeremyL.
    Jul 29, 2010
    1
    This game is the biggest piece of overated crap ever to have tarnished the single player and storyline sc1 was so famous for. There is very little thought put into the story. Metzin, what were you thinking? From what I see here, you do not appear to write at all well! Pacing is abysmal. It seems they are trying to please everyone at once, focusing on flashy gameplay than the story that This game is the biggest piece of overated crap ever to have tarnished the single player and storyline sc1 was so famous for. There is very little thought put into the story. Metzin, what were you thinking? From what I see here, you do not appear to write at all well! Pacing is abysmal. It seems they are trying to please everyone at once, focusing on flashy gameplay than the story that creates it. They also killed all the old characters from the sc1 by putting them in situations that are not identical to the mood of sc1. Like choosing sides! The ending ought to leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.… Expand
  23. David
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    This is one of those games that had a heavy investment into cinematics and marketing, while gameplay is only mediocre. It has been 12 years since SC1, you can't just remake the same game. A predictable and cliche ridden story doesn't help it, too. There is nothing particularly bad about SC2, it's just that it doesn't take any chances and ends up being too boring.
  24. SuciuM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    I like the menu and the cutscenes make you drool . However the overall graphics are bad. And I had expected to see a much massive game with thousands of creatures fighting for their survival . I mean the plot it`s happening in space I expected to see thousand of sprites on the screen.
  25. DD
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    This gameplay is old and busted. I prefer the new Dawn of War rts formula to the old Starcraft formula (for resource collection, unit control, reinforcement and upgrades, micro-macro ratio, a total of 8 unique armies, etc). There's nostalgia appeal in S2, but not enough *new* stuff.
  26. CJHenry
    Jul 30, 2010
    1
    Yet another rehash from the kings of rehashes themselves. Only this time it's not even a full rehash, but a third of it, stripped of tonnes of features like LAN support to appease gaming 2.0 business design models and pie graphs so Robert Kotick can renovate his kitchen. Almost a billion hours of CGI to distract neckbeards from their looming diabetes, an epic tale of cliche' Yet another rehash from the kings of rehashes themselves. Only this time it's not even a full rehash, but a third of it, stripped of tonnes of features like LAN support to appease gaming 2.0 business design models and pie graphs so Robert Kotick can renovate his kitchen. Almost a billion hours of CGI to distract neckbeards from their looming diabetes, an epic tale of cliche' revenge killing and redemption that has nothing to do with what is supposed to be a tournament game. Facebook integration so all your cousins and parents can see why your friends list hasn't reached double figures yet. A taste of things to come from Blizzbooktivision.… Expand
  27. FarSpace
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of Blizzard so called going with what so called works but I guess other don't want there game to get any more interesting but just have more options and better graphics is fine but lets some some big time stratagy that really getsmore interest, chess is way better even. sorry.… Expand
  28. KennethG.
    Jul 30, 2010
    3
    this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of the dated elements distract from gameplay. the dated Ui: the dated camera. (you cant even ROTATE the camera!) the very start of the campaign has a boring introduction ( a guy sitting in a bar? COME ON!) and i think the game relys too much on its flashy CGI scenes rather then the actual gameplay. The campaign might be fun.. but its nothing that hasnt been done before 10 times over in RTS...games. there is no deep strategist with the game its basically gather as much resources as you can and build your stuff as fast as you can and attack? I think they are just spending so much time on Catacyslm that they just half did Starcraft 2 ... the next wow addon will be in my opinion ten times better and then times more interesting then Starcraft 2 is. Starcraft 2 feels more like a dated title with improved graphics. Heck i bet Red Alert 3 will be more fun for me! (i should reinstall it!). Next!… Expand
  29. FrancoisV
    Jul 30, 2010
    6
    blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. some missions were fun but it didnt add anything to the story. considering it has only the terran campaign and it took so much time before they release this game, it's seriously is weak. dialogue were a bit cheasy too. as for the multiplayer, i havent played much so far, but most of the map seems the same thing, you start on a elevate floor with one entrance....the gameplay overall seems a bit slower too (haverster, gather less mineral and gas than the first game and most unit/building cost around the same as the first game :S ) the menu/battle net is confusing too, i will probably get use to it but so far it's a little bit annoying. overall i am disapointed. i'll probably wait til they release protoss game or a bundle and spoil myself a little and see if the next games are going to be worth it.… Expand
  30. JSewell
    Jul 31, 2010
    6
    Basically more of the same. Updated graphics from the original, however gameplay remains largely unchanged. Blizzard must not realize that there have been improvements to RTS games in the past decade. I'll take Supreme Commander any day over this game.
  31. RohokT.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire-- Games that share the same genre, but expande on it and create something deeper, more involving, and ultimately, more exciting than this cookie-cutter piece of junk. A true eyesore to anybody who appreciates true games, Starcraft 2, like any of other Blizzard's games, is a plague on the gaming industries, and the company will probably continue to contribute to the downfall of the gaming industries for years to come-- God help us all.… Expand
  32. StarCraft
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack first...if you don't you lose similar to paper-rock-scissors. I don't get the hype. The graphics are cool, sound is awesome but the game play isn't any different than the original. Strategy buffs need not apply..this game comes down to who can build and attack faster and hope like hell you chose the attack...no defensive strategy what so ever in this one.… Expand
  33. ValnakK.
    Aug 1, 2010
    1
    Thoroughly dissapointed. They literally just remade Starcraft 1 with new, shiny graphics and a couple new units. This is more befitting of an expansion than a whole new game.
  34. MockB.
    Aug 1, 2010
    2
    The RTS aspect has been handled as expected almost flawlessly, extremely polished and already fairly balanced. However, after 12 years to think up a story and to go with this idiocy as the best they could think of was shameful. A 12 year old after smoking a pound of skunk would've done better. Shame on you blizz.
  35. BrianN.
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Looks and feels exactly like the first game, resources are still a pain to gather and the cinematic are long and unnecessary. Blizzard must've spent the years of development on this game counting their WoW cash cause SC2 feels 14 years old.
  36. RobV
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game doesn't even deserve a 1. It's starcraft with a higher resolution and 100 times the requirements.… Expand
  37. JamesJ
    Aug 1, 2010
    0
    Although this game was decent, it was sorely overpriced for a third of a game and no LAN. Story wasn't good and multiplayer is imbalanced. Quite frankly, this was the most over-hyped game of the decade.
  38. serkanu
    Aug 2, 2010
    6
    I dont understand these reviews. THIS GAME HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INNOVATION. Gameplay is boring and 10 years old! What kind of industry has gaming become? Cool cinematics, good graphics and BLIZZARD trademark are not enough to make an excellent game!
  39. JamesG
    Aug 2, 2010
    0
    Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I loved the first Starcraft. The problem is, I haven't been on a desert island for the last 12 years.… Expand
  40. MikeO.
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    It's what was great about StarCraft but with additional dimensions added on (and I don't just mean gorgeous 3D rendering as compared to SC:BW isomorphic 2D). Play through the campaign on "Normal" for the story, then play through on "Hard" (or worse!) for a challenge; complete all the 'Challenges'; chase down interesting achievements; and that's all aside from the It's what was great about StarCraft but with additional dimensions added on (and I don't just mean gorgeous 3D rendering as compared to SC:BW isomorphic 2D). Play through the campaign on "Normal" for the story, then play through on "Hard" (or worse!) for a challenge; complete all the 'Challenges'; chase down interesting achievements; and that's all aside from the core of the game, multiplayer play. The ladder is still there, but the new BattleNet system prevents "smurphing", i.e. good players can't use a fake name to sneak into the Copper leagues and stomp on the n00bs. And they've improved the management of cooperative games. Twenty pounds of fun in a five-pound bag!… Expand
  41. ColinK
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    Anyone criticizing this game because it's only "one third" of a game obviously hasn't played it. While it's true that the campaign is Terran only, it's as big, if not bigger, than the 30 mission campaign that included all the races in the original game. The additions of mission choices; buying upgrades, research, and mercenaries; acheivements; and bonus objectives in Anyone criticizing this game because it's only "one third" of a game obviously hasn't played it. While it's true that the campaign is Terran only, it's as big, if not bigger, than the 30 mission campaign that included all the races in the original game. The additions of mission choices; buying upgrades, research, and mercenaries; acheivements; and bonus objectives in missions all build on top of the same formula that worked to make the original game so much fun. Add to that the new units and structures, and the fact that the missions are more varied than ever (still haven't played one where the goal was just to destroy the enemy, there's always some interesting twist), and this might have been worth the 10 year wait.… Expand
  42. Fluster
    Aug 3, 2010
    10
    After the disappointing C&C 4, this came as a most welcome change for a RTS fan like me. I loved Starcraft 1 and I love this game even more. The graphics are amazing and surprisingly the game runs smooth on High/Ultra settings on my 2gb, geforce9800 and 2ghz C2D PC. The campaign is fun and plays out at just the right pace. There are numerous upgrades, bonus units for you to play around After the disappointing C&C 4, this came as a most welcome change for a RTS fan like me. I loved Starcraft 1 and I love this game even more. The graphics are amazing and surprisingly the game runs smooth on High/Ultra settings on my 2gb, geforce9800 and 2ghz C2D PC. The campaign is fun and plays out at just the right pace. There are numerous upgrades, bonus units for you to play around with, and finally the Multiplayer totally blows you away. Ladders, perfect match making and a slick efficient Battlenet 2. The Terran campaign included is huge with around 30 missions, that would keep you busy for hours. Add to this achievements, excellent cinematics and voice acting and you have tons of stuff to fuel your bragging rights. My only complaint is the absence of LAN play. In conclusion the RTS game world sorely needed a game like this and Blizzard has delivered a masterpiece. Starcraft 2 lives up to the hype and more.… Expand
  43. FJ
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    This is just another example of how great games will remain good for eternity. The trend of bringing games back to their roots is really saying something here. The truth is games have not really improved since the golden ages of gaming. Most developers no longer have the gamer's heart and creativity which shows in their bland games of this generation. Great job Blizzard, this game is This is just another example of how great games will remain good for eternity. The trend of bringing games back to their roots is really saying something here. The truth is games have not really improved since the golden ages of gaming. Most developers no longer have the gamer's heart and creativity which shows in their bland games of this generation. Great job Blizzard, this game is breath of fresh air for us true gamers.… Expand
  44. DannyV
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    It would be nice if some people actually played this game before putting up a bogus 0 review about LAN play. The game is awesome. I can never really get hooked on rts games because they aren't fast enough or the missions are too boring. This game is fast and each mission is completely different. I've played about 30 hours and I haven't even completed the single player It would be nice if some people actually played this game before putting up a bogus 0 review about LAN play. The game is awesome. I can never really get hooked on rts games because they aren't fast enough or the missions are too boring. This game is fast and each mission is completely different. I've played about 30 hours and I haven't even completed the single player campaign yet. It's a long game. Can't wait for the other 2.… Expand
  45. JohnR
    Aug 4, 2010
    10
    Boohoo, interface issues exist. Anyone up to date knows that patches will remedy them (like chat functionality being announced for a future patch) - given this, the real issue is the actual core of a game, which has been honed to greatness. "Oh no, it didn't revolutionize the world!" - no game does that. There were FPSes before Counter-strike: true legends just do what they do Boohoo, interface issues exist. Anyone up to date knows that patches will remedy them (like chat functionality being announced for a future patch) - given this, the real issue is the actual core of a game, which has been honed to greatness. "Oh no, it didn't revolutionize the world!" - no game does that. There were FPSes before Counter-strike: true legends just do what they do extremely well, which SC2 does.… Expand
  46. PeterC
    Aug 4, 2010
    8
    I've heard all the arguments against this game, and it always, always, always comes down to one of 4 things 1) Its not as innovative as I thought it would be This is usually in reference to things associated with older RTS's, like base building. Well, its the second game in a series, if it were completely different, people would complain that they're simply trying to ride I've heard all the arguments against this game, and it always, always, always comes down to one of 4 things 1) Its not as innovative as I thought it would be This is usually in reference to things associated with older RTS's, like base building. Well, its the second game in a series, if it were completely different, people would complain that they're simply trying to ride the Starcraft name. The way I see this, it would be like people complaining that diablo 3 has too many dungeons. 2) There's no LAN play. Yes, this is a problem. This is also the reason I dropped the score a bit. I hope they come out with a patch that corrects this particular decision at some point. 3) battlenet is too hard Either you're really, really terrible at the game, or you haven't gotten through the placement matches. I find the game is quite good at putting you into somewhere you're competitive, neither dominating nor dominated. The lowest brackets allow people to start slowly and still have a good chance at winning the match, even without a clear strategy 4) Its only 1/3 of a game No, its not. Most non-rpg games run about 20-30 hours. Thats about what the story mode in starcraft 2 runs. Then there's the multiplayer on top of that. If this were the first game in the series, and blizzard simply announced 2 planned expansions for the other races, I doubt many people would complain about this at all. The other 2 games will be expansions, and so sold at a cheaper price (my guess would be somewhere around $30), and they'll be the same length Overall, I found the story engaging, the gameplay is challenging in the story mode and competitive in multiplayer. There are enough changes from the first game that it feels like a new game, but retains enough similarity that it feels somewhat familiar. A lot of the original strategies are still there, but i see a lot of room for new ones too.… Expand
  47. MaziM
    Aug 5, 2010
    10
    Blizzard has done it again! The anticipation for the arrival of Starcraft II was probably the only negative factor working against the game. However, upon its release, all has been forgiven and forgotten. This game is spectacular. It's vividness in its artistry and its fluidity in the game play together make for a highly addictive and impressionable experience. RTS gaming may not be Blizzard has done it again! The anticipation for the arrival of Starcraft II was probably the only negative factor working against the game. However, upon its release, all has been forgiven and forgotten. This game is spectacular. It's vividness in its artistry and its fluidity in the game play together make for a highly addictive and impressionable experience. RTS gaming may not be as popular today, but the Starcraft franchise continues to resonate in a powerful way within the genre.… Expand
  48. MM
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Great single player experience...can be great online too but follow this link: http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence This article is about how Activision want to control everything. No more lan party even online. Tournament? Not without Activision approval. It is a great game but you have too accept the Acti"vision" on your shoulder.
  49. Lolwut
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I would wait a few years down the road for all the games to be released in some kind of battlechest.… Expand
  50. MikeK
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, have no co-op in RTS for the campaigns is unforgivable. If it wasn't for the great cutscenes, and backstory for single player, would be a total loss. But, for a single player game, the story is nowhere near the likes of Mass Effect or Dragon Age. After I'm done with single player, don't envision myself playing this all too much. Be lucky to have this still installed in a few months from now.… Expand
  51. JM
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, why bother? They'll sell a ton no matter how little effort they put into it.… Expand
  52. JohnD
    Jul 28, 2010
    2
    No LAN play, only 1 campaign for the price of 3, already out-dated graphics, not much new from Brood War. Sadly, Blizzards army of mindless drones will think this is the greatest thing ever. This is what we get because of WoW... the dumbest game ever.
  53. TuanH
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 if you're not interested in paying for graphic updates. If you're moving from Warcraft 3 and never played Starcraft before, expect almost-to-nothing micro and lots of more emphasis on macro. If moving for modding purposes, expect a very long wait for modding artists to release loads of medieval models/icons to suit needs for fantasy genre custom games.… Expand
  54. JacobG
    Jul 31, 2010
    0
    Sc2, same crap, different day with shinier graphics. Gameplay from last decade that is extremely boring. Where are the tactics from the RTS's we have come to love like Company of Heroes. SC2 SP campaign is only interesting because of the story, you dont play it because the missions are engrossing, you play it to get to the next cutscene.
  55. DylanC
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The fact that there really isn't anything new is disappointing. This is a rehash of Starcraft 1 for the new generation and those nostalgic ones who can't handle a little pixelation. If making a more polished remake of old games was all there was to it, we'd have a top 10 list populated by EA sports games they churn out every year. Doing the same thing with more gloss is just not good enough. Starcraft II doesn't deserve a spot among the likes of Half-Life at the top of the PC heap.… Expand
  56. MaximB
    Jul 31, 2010
    3
    -not realy playable offline. -many crashes, battle net needed. -just remake of Starcraft 1 -comic graphics -end disappointing -no LAN modus -not playable worldwide Overall this game is pretty bad. I cant understand the scores from magazines. It is bad implementation of first part with better graphics. It can't reach Starcraft or WC3. There are also many better RTS. It is just hyped.
  57. TemplarGR
    Sep 9, 2016
    6
    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations. Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations.

    Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the beginning of the great RTS draught we are currently experiencing, back when it was released. But i expected much more. This game is archaic by modern standards.

    It has the usual Blizzard polish. Great art, not the most advanced engine though. Great cutscenes and cinematics. The story is somewhat corny but enjoyable, the campaign is enjoyable but won't make you think much.

    But ultimately, it was a game we had already played before. And the RTS genre had seen many advances that Blizzard chose to disregard to return to the 90s.

    All in all, this game was overrated. Worth a playthrough for nostalgia's sake, just for the story. Don't bother with the multiplayer unless you are a Korean.    … Expand
  58. madhat
    Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. TheI'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. The campaign itself isn't fantastic, but it balances an OK story with fun gameplay very well i found. Some new features for gameplay would have been nice though, just to mix things up a bit, I am glad they didn't add any superweapons though, which ruined C&C for me. (what about shifting maps? someone make them.) At least you can select more than 30 units at once now. :P It is not a realistic RTS by any means and shouldn't try to be, in my opinion. It has its own challenging tactics and strategies which are not bound by realism, not everyones cup of tea of course. (What were you expecting?) This isn't Axis vs. Allies, its space cowboys vs. psychic bugs vs. nigh immortal telepathic aliens.… Expand
  59. Ophenix
    Aug 25, 2010
    0
    This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
    blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.
  60. Bob_H
    Aug 20, 2010
    0
    I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game'sI played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good.… Expand
  61. Goosebump
    Aug 21, 2010
    6
    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original Cons: Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original

    Cons:

    Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real life friends and 'game only friends' where you really don't want to be sharing your real life name and such. Therefore their friend system is rubbish too.

    This game gets a six purely based on the drawbacks I've listed above. The region lock even on custom games is incredibly shortsighted by Blizz and their increasingly annoying push with where they are going with Battle Net is very off putting. No doubt Diablo will be poisoned with an even worse incarnation of the current social notworking crud.

    Quite disappointed with how blizz are changing as a company. I miss the old Blizz circa WC3 where they were not only loved for making superb games but because they also treated their customers much better than the current assumption where they think everyone is some sort of thief and everyone uses junk like Failbook.    … Expand
  62. altekki
    Aug 24, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detailStarcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detail models? I'm sorry but it is not enough. And how does the game get any better by the 3D when the view is fixed? It seem most of the game's success is only because of the hype and the name. If there was no SC1, this game had already be forgotten as a decent Xmas present candidate. When playing the game, it is hard to believe it has been released in 2010. Someone might say Starcraft 2 is a good game because it is so balanced. True, but does it actually matter but only for those top level players who have practised and practised for hundreds or thousands of hours. What is in for a casual player? I would rather play a RTS that amazes me with it's graphics and mechanics and challenges me intelligently from the very beginning.… Expand
  63. eduedu87
    Aug 25, 2010
    1
    The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions ofThe game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them.… Expand
  64. zeca
    Aug 26, 2010
    6
    I really dont consider this game the best of year. Why? The story is fair to poor, its Jim Raynor collecting artifacts to save Kerrigan. If she is devil, why save her? The gameplay is good with well structured graphics. The only thing thats good it's graphics, the gameplay, and the multiplayer mode. Starcraft 1 is much more intertsing with good story and cinematics.
  65. rremmy72
    Aug 27, 2010
    3
    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races. Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race?    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

    First: the original had 10 or more missions in each of 3 campaigns for the 3 races. This one only has 26 missions, some of which are short and lame, and they're for only 2 of the 3 races.

    Second: Why no new race or races? Why not add the Xel'Naga as a playable race? Or the Hybrid toss/zerg? We get tantalizing glimpes of these characters yet we're not able to play as them? Maybe they're saving those for an expansion pack...either way, it's inexcusable for such a highly-anticipated sequel.

    Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.    … Expand
  66. tech953
    Aug 16, 2011
    10
    F@#k you all who said that this game sucks. 82 game critics raved about this thing, and 82 million people raved about this thing and you have the balls to say that it sucks? This games in game graphics are amazing, the story is like an effing blockbuster movie, and the game play ranks among this generations best. Do yourself a favor you no talent hacks. Just admit that you suck at rating games.
  67. LambdaRed
    Aug 31, 2010
    6
    Pretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategyPretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategy gaming you will not be disappointed.… Expand
  68. Scubadave
    Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ),Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ), but this is not a game to be purchased for graphics, it is the addictive fastpaced arcade competitive style multiplayer action that gives it such a good score. Though... :) I think it's highly over rated!… Expand
  69. Heroine4Life
    Sep 6, 2010
    3
    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

    Graphically: Some people have been complaining about the graphics of this game and comparing them to other FPS games and other non-RTS games, and that is a bad comparison. But if we compare this game to other RTS games graphically (Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Dawn of War 2) we see it falls short and has the quality of Majesty 2. It is very pretty but not what I would expect form a game published in 2010, after a long production time, or a $60 release price.

    Gameplay: So yes there are new units that adds new strategy. I would hope in a brand new game this was doable. If I had bought an entirely different new game there would be a ton of new strategies. So this for me feels more like an expansion then worthy of a stand alone. The 'S' of RTS also seems to be missing in this. For a long time Starcraft has been about min/maxing and playing the spread sheet game, not about paper, rock, scissors, flanking, and general out maneuvering. Mass single units are still popular in high ranked matches, general disorganized rushes still work.

    Sound: It's good...I didn't know people really still cared about this or worried about it.

    The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.    … Expand
  70. dustin12345678
    Sep 8, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire game. The terran units themselves look very cartoonish. I like the ideas, but I think they look like toys/cartoonish/overly bulky. The protoss is even worse in my opinion. This is probably because of the 3-D aspect of the game.

    I would have given this game an 8 if it would have taken half as long to be released. This could have easily been realesed five or six years ago and still be the same. A lot of it reminds me of Warcraft 3, except you get to build big armies and there aren't stupid heros that harrass you to death!!! I would have given this game one more point if the gameplay was altered just a little more. Company of Heros set the bar for new RTS, especially the cover options and how the landscapes around you are incorporated into the strategy. I can't fault SC 2 too much though, as it is important to stay with the basics that made the original so great. The retail price is a little steep for not including the other two campaigns, but it's still worth it. Bottom Line:

    Great game, but its starting to get tired. Probably should have been released five or six years ago. Should have moved RTS forward a little bit more without comprising original. This game feels like WCIII and SC merged into one. 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  71. Bud5252
    Sep 9, 2010
    2
    Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences"Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences" which would be the point of a "Defence" because they have more hitpoints and cost ratio is better, then yes someone screwed up. as far as balancing... well its not. the old starcraft the old war horses of blizzard knew. protoss; high power low output on units. terran medium power, medium output on units, zerg; low power high output of units.... pretty simple. the game is not balanced when a good protoss player can take a probe into the enemys base and set up photon cannons and win the game in 5 mins before a half decent player can get any units up. sry blizzard but i think your failing. and this aside, no LAN? not only that but there were SOOO many more options in the old starcraft in multiplay that allowed for cooperative play on the same team why cant the A.I. have an option to build defences and turtle the game. and the campaign story line that was.. ehh.... Two words for me sums this all up, extreme disappointment. as a hardcore gamer i loved the long played out matches i played 12 years ago. well this makes no difference to blizzard im sure. but this long time SC2 fan will not be buying those expansions… Expand
  72. Dracongo
    Sep 13, 2010
    3
    You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly,You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though.… Expand
  73. Kommissar
    Sep 14, 2010
    10
    This game is by far the best game i have ever played. When compared to other RTS titles it beats everything else by miles; it is the best balanced game on the market and that is NOT debatable. The game runs smoothly on the amazingly new Battle.net 2.0; it doesnt need to have chat rooms as finding friends has never been easier and the matchmaking is brilliant. Offline the gameplay is fun;This game is by far the best game i have ever played. When compared to other RTS titles it beats everything else by miles; it is the best balanced game on the market and that is NOT debatable. The game runs smoothly on the amazingly new Battle.net 2.0; it doesnt need to have chat rooms as finding friends has never been easier and the matchmaking is brilliant. Offline the gameplay is fun; especially with units that don't exist online as they are OP (flame turrets ftw!). So smooth, so fast, so tactically diverse and challenging, and it looks sooo shiny! This game blows everything else out of the water!… Expand
  74. rareh
    Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations onThe game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

    And it's more expensive than other games on the market.    … Expand
  75. Ubermac
    Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed.    … Expand
  76. user1234
    Sep 27, 2010
    6
    They should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the artThey should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the art direction. As a bonus for the new game, it works on old hardware (integrated graphics), but that's all. They never pushed the sound direction, either. To sum it up, multiplayer is fun, but nothing worth mentioning in terms of what haven't been mentioned since the original.… Expand
  77. marqpas
    Oct 3, 2010
    7
    It looks a bit better than StarCraft 1, and it's a nice RTS.

    The "storyline" is for kiddies (i.e. rubbish), but the game is fun to play.

    Don't believe the hype.
  78. rabage
    Oct 5, 2010
    5
    Really just do not get the hype or the love for this game. I can understand the enjoyment of the game in a competitive field, but the single player is pretty terrible. I pretty much just rushed through it and tried to get it over with as there was just nothing to really enjoy about the boring story and just in general pathetic game play provided by Blizzard. The whole thing just felt uninspired.
  79. bishopknight
    Oct 7, 2010
    6
    Single player campaign owns. But multiplayer is imbalanced, even after patch 1.1 terran is still too strong. Zerg is too weak. Terran can counter everything and easily reveal any stealthed unit. EMP and PDD are OP vs Toss. They'll fix the imbalances but it will take a few months.
  80. Cptkovacs
    Oct 9, 2010
    6
    Nothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game isNothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game is based almost entirely on multiplayer. It felt as if I were playing a "remastered version of Starcraft" rather than its sequel- as far as my expectations went, it didn't surprise or impress me too much, and of course this game took far too long to develop.… Expand
  81. Gamingking007
    Oct 18, 2010
    10
    Best strategy game ever created!!! Love it to death!!! Graphics and voice acting is Macnificent!!!Story line is also really great really loved it!!!Wow!!!
  82. Rexus
    Oct 14, 2010
    4
    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
    Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

    Graphics... pretty good. Considering it`s an obsolete engine and all other jazz. No physics effects or changing the morphology of the terrain with hellish artillery barrages the likes of which we`ve seen in CoH (4 years ago, mind you). So no innovation, but still looks good. Is it demanding? Pretty much, which is ridiculous, really. Graphics IS NOT that good, nor are there that many units in the game at any given time for the game to drag its heels on a mainstream rig, 3 years old. And no physics, which usually taxes the computer to some extent. But still, you could say that designers achieved a lot with very little, using that old engine and somewhat cartoonish visual style in the game, because, to me, it was pleasing. Even unrealistic size comparisons between units (talking about realism in 26th century, heh...) are usually overseen, and that kind of stuff used to bother me even when Red Alert 2 came out some 10 years ago. Gameplay, mechanics, balance, and all that jazz... pretty good too. It`s the good `ol SC gameplay formula, refurbished with new units and some minor features. It works pretty good too, since you can find some use for all new and old units, even ones you are not used to, well, using. Balance... is fine. I will berate, the game`s insistence (especially in singleplayer), to force its own tempo upon you. There is barely a handful of missions where you can build your base and get things done at your own pace. I can understand the need for a bit of dynamic in the game, but in SC2 it feels a bit rushed, imposed upon you. True, I might be oldschool, laidback strategist, forged in the fires of old Steel Panthers and early C&C games, but I prefer not to be forced to act ALL THE TIME. They could at least mask it better, like, for example, Sins of Solar Empire does. You can build up slowly and not fight at all for hours. But then something happens and suddenly you have an epic clash of massive fleets, where distance of nearest shipyard and attrition often decides battles. Management. Control. Trying to be at dozen places at the same time and prevent things from falling apart. An ultimate strategic experience. Does SC2 with its small, skirmish-like battles and smartly conceived, albeit simple economy, feel like one?
    Or Company of Heroes. I admit, there you have to do something ALL the time, or you wind up FUBAR. But its immersive, addictive. Attacking and counterattacking, cutting off supply lines, retreating to shorten your defenses and build up... And all that strategy comes wrapped up with brutal, visceral, and near-realistic display of WWII warfare. SC2? The fact that I detected how the game forces its tempo on me speaks plainly of how exactly... cheap the methods for achieving this are. Summing it up, gameplay has its ups and downs, but it`s good.

    Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
    And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
    you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!    … Expand
  83. RealityChecker
    Oct 14, 2010
    5
    It's basically SC-1 with new graphics... So it starts with a 10 score... minus 1 point for no LAN... Minus 1 point for forcing battlenet on peeps... Minus 1 for making people wait 12 years for a new coat of paint... Minus 1 because the other 3 minus's were actually minus 1.3333333333333333 .... Minus 1 for having to have a constant I-net connection to play.
  84. oneclipleft
    Oct 15, 2010
    5
    Yes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highlyYes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highly recommend Company of Heroes. It's 2 years old now, but superior to Starcraft in all respects (as well as graphics would you believe? I guess SCII has to run on Korean PCs so that explains the disappointing visuals).… Expand
  85. KlassicKritic
    Dec 9, 2010
    7
    An incomplete game put on shelves, a one-time payment of $60 for something that ends as poorly as Halo 2, yet being able to entertain me, that's a difficult to rate game. This is a game, but it isn't a great game.
  86. Ccx55
    Mar 20, 2012
    0
    Is this game made by experimental college students? This is just plain sad.
    Not a single improvement over Brood War - nothing worth noting atleast.
    This is just far behind our time.
  87. C4K3
    Oct 26, 2010
    8
    It's an alright game, it's not as perfect as some would describe it, but still definitely one of the better games in existence. Singleplayer is dull. Multiplayer is pretty nice. Custom multiplayer is just great.
  88. Nanu
    Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure thereI'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues.… Expand
  89. unpronounceable
    Oct 31, 2010
    10
    Starcraft II is as perfect as an RTS can be. It doesn't have shiny new mechanics like a cover system (Company of Heroes), or customizable squads (Dawn of War), the depth of strategy and gameplay destroys all competition with ease. The only criticism I have for it is the lack of LAN support, but the amazing campaign and challenging multiplayer more than make up for it.
  90. Shaitan87
    Nov 2, 2010
    10
    While the campaign is fun, what sets Starcraft apart is the multiplayer. Extremely competitive fast paced action leads to a very entertaining experience. Getting a couple friends on vent and playing 3v3 is some of the most fun I have had in ages.
  91. Arrecho
    Nov 3, 2010
    0
    This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so itThis is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people...… Expand
  92. Egoecro
    Dec 23, 2010
    8
    Very nice game, a worthy successor to the previous chapter.
    A game that has been adapted to modern needs but with the same parameters as the old one, a lot of news even if the game remains the same as it was, so nothing new or particularly innovative.
    Excellent graphics.
    Beautiful sound.
    Gameplay almost identical to the previous chapter.
  93. ojinneal
    Nov 4, 2010
    6
    I'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, butI'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, but if your like me then it will be played once and then forgotten.… Expand
  94. BroLuk
    Nov 10, 2010
    10
    The best 2010 game for me. Really good campaign - continuation of StarCraft 1 story and most of all mission (really good made - there isn't 2 same mission in campaign). And the best multiplayer ever - this is true esport.
  95. DebanR
    Nov 17, 2010
    10
    The best RTS ever.
  96. DoctorKilla
    Nov 21, 2010
    10
    Just an complete, quality, fitting, and epic improvement upon the original, StarCraft is the frontrunner for Game of the Year along with God of War III in my eyes.
  97. 12dan4
    Nov 23, 2010
    4
    While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scatteredWhile a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly.… Expand
  98. Hax
    Nov 29, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It took them over twelve years to make this game and nothing has changed except more polished graphics and that's it. The storyline wasn't interesting what so ever. I just wanted to complete the game to understand whats going on but the game still doesn't grab a hold of me. The only ting I really enjoyed was the cinematic scenes. That was amazing.… Expand
  99. RobRoyZA
    Dec 2, 2010
    6
    Its hard to understand why this game took so long to make since it is basically a remake of the original with a couple of extra units and slightly updated graphics. However, if you liked the original you'll like this with the reverse being just as true. By itself, a good (not great) rts that relies to much on the success of the original.
  100. rev0lutions
    Dec 18, 2010
    8
    First off to all the idiots giving the game a "1" your idiots. I have been gaming for most of my life and while the storyline in sc2 has so far left me completely bored the graphics are good, the music awesome and fitting to the mood of the game and the online gameplay intense. you could never change a classic game like sc too much as the MILLIONS of hardcore fans would spit the dummy soFirst off to all the idiots giving the game a "1" your idiots. I have been gaming for most of my life and while the storyline in sc2 has so far left me completely bored the graphics are good, the music awesome and fitting to the mood of the game and the online gameplay intense. you could never change a classic game like sc too much as the MILLIONS of hardcore fans would spit the dummy so blizzard had a limited range as to what they could actually do with the game. Considering that little fact blizzard has done an amazing job. To all the idiots crying about not having new races... this is because sc1 was the best rts ever made because of the unique balance presented by having 3 different races, introducing any more races would have thrown in sc2 with the million other dime a dozen unbalanced rts games all over the market. those saying the the graphics arnt amazing probably dont have computers capable of running the game on "ultra" and thus miss out on the clean cut, beautiful graphics that keep sc2 a step above the competition.

    I am a diamond player on battle net and the new interface is great in many ways although i dislike not having chat channels or rooms in which to simply discuss things with other players, the chat in sc2 in general is not very good. all round its a quality game and is vastly superior to most other rts games on the market, however it does still have room for improvement, but then, what game doesn't? All up i give sc2 an 8.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

2
#2 Best PC Game of 2010
2
#2 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
5
#5 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 82 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 82 out of 82
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 82
  3. Negative: 0 out of 82
  1. PC Zone UK
    Jan 18, 2011
    95
    "Quotation Forthcoming"
  2. Video Game Talk
    Jan 18, 2011
    90
    If you are into real time strategy in any form, it's hard to ignore Starcraft II.
    Read full review
  3. PC Format
    Dec 24, 2010
    93
    Perfectly balanced multiplayer with old school elements intact, and rich and dynamic single player campaigns. [Issue#244, p.102]
See all critic reviews »