User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1371 Ratings

User score distribution:
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
  1. Feb 16, 2017
    7
    Second part of the Startcraft 2 story, now the Zerg campaign with Kerrigan as the main protagonist. It's very good for what it is and I liked the story mode, Kerrigan is cool and so are her other Zerg buddies, but I'm giving it a 1 point lower score compared to the first one. It was all a bit too easy, but the main problem for me is simply the fact that while in the 90's Starcraft you hadSecond part of the Startcraft 2 story, now the Zerg campaign with Kerrigan as the main protagonist. It's very good for what it is and I liked the story mode, Kerrigan is cool and so are her other Zerg buddies, but I'm giving it a 1 point lower score compared to the first one. It was all a bit too easy, but the main problem for me is simply the fact that while in the 90's Starcraft you had all 3 races and their story campaigns in 1 game, now they basically force you to buy 3 games to complete the full story. 7/10 Expand
  2. Mar 18, 2016
    7
    Good game, but single player is very short. Also, it feels like most of the game is a tutorial, getting a new unit every few levels, or a new mutation to a unit. It took forever to have the hydralisk available. The end credits are looooooooooong.
  3. Mar 9, 2016
    7
    Although being a fun campaign, i was hoping for a little more within this addon. Competitive gameplay needed balancing in the beginning but is okay by now. Nothing too spectacular in the "new stuff department" but still a good choice if you like SC in general.
  4. Sep 30, 2015
    6
    --Campaign rating only

    I must say: The story writing is awful. Don't want to spoil anything here, just state that it's really, really awful. And the gameplay isn't much better. The whole game plays like Warcraft 3 with dumbed down tactics. While in Warcraft 3 you actually had to make decisions and also had more options, like a wider variety of upgrades, tactics, importance of
    --Campaign rating only

    I must say: The story writing is awful.

    Don't want to spoil anything here, just state that it's really, really awful. And the gameplay isn't much better. The whole game plays like Warcraft 3 with dumbed down tactics. While in Warcraft 3 you actually had to make decisions and also had more options, like a wider variety of upgrades, tactics, importance of terrain, more decisions around your hero etc. you just have a dumbed down husk of that left for Heart of the Swarm.

    You run around with your group of units, including hero, and kill stuff. That's it. All the time. Everywhere.

    The mission design is annoying: It's so HEAVILY scripted that everything plays all the same every goddamn time. There's no real AI here. Just to a minor degree. Everything else is just scripted like hell. Even if you're not supposed to destory an enemy base they'll tell you to not do so and after you're done destroying the base you're not allowed to win because *hurr durr* you must still play all remaining events as we intended you to !

    Complete all tasks and the game ends the mission for you. You don't get to decide whether you want to continue until all enemies are dead. The game doesn't care what you'd like to do and is fun to you. Ressource management is as catastrophic as ever: Turbo mining with 3 workers per ressource node is still a thing instead of either a wider variety of ressources or a slower, but more enjoyable game, like Starcraft 1 was, with less troop massing and less damage spikes. Base managemant is also quite boring: Protect your base as necessary, else there's no managemant. You construct all tech buildings once for unit access and there's nothing useful you can do with them or any relevance as why you'd want a specific building in a specific spot, unless it's for defense. You can't research anything, except for +damage and +armor in one single building and that's it. Instead you choose some evolution stuff right before the mission starts. This is actually good, but taking away strategy and variety in each and every mission for that is far too annoying and only necessary because everything is scripted like hell - no time for actual gameplay / decisions here ! MUST GO FAST ! FAST IS FUN !

    This game is just out of control. Ressource gathering is either low or explodes, no healthy middle area, units are built in masses and also die in masses, thanks to the ressource flow and damage spikes. In the end you get a hero unit that can just blow up a whole base...
    Just... what were they thinking...
    Strategy game... ffs.

    At that point I'm just gonna pirate the last part of the trilogy, assuming that it just continues on it's path downhill from here. If it's any good or even better or like, real good, THEN I'll buy it.

    If I had anything to say it'd be this:
    1) Fire the idiot writing the story. Any school kid of any school at any age can do equal or better.
    2) Stop the heavy scripting. It's beyond annoying that the game tell's me how I should play in a strategy game or forces me to play a certain way. You're allowed to do that some time, if it adds to the game, is fun or any other good reason. But not all the time non-stop !
    3) The economy needs a redesign ! Mass harvesting as only tactical dimension for an economy is poor design. Past games already delivered good, fun, engaging ideas. Just because Starcraft 1 didn't have them doesn't mean Starcraft 2 would be less fun with them. Instead try those. C&C had ressource depots, base capture, ressource stealing, intel sabotage, tech stealing, power levels and actual harvesters out in the field. Starcraft 2 is shallow compared to just this one game, even if it's just economical options. And there are other examples. Just pick what works and is fun but stop this mass everything concept because it has no depth !
    4) Give tech structures a purpose besides existing. Because that's all the tech buildings are good for in the campaign.
    5) Tell story like you did in Starcraft 1: Let the other characters talk to the player instead of having them act as if the player doesn't exist. That just disconnects.
    6) Actually play your game and see if it's fun. And stop ruining it.

    --Campaign rating only
    Expand
  5. Feb 3, 2015
    5
    I waited until recently to pick this expansion pack up for only $20. They wanted $40 for this when it came out and I just laughed, I'm not paying Activision $40 every time they feel like reskinning their multiplayer games.

    They added a couple new units, completely changed the tech requirements for many units, and I feel like I'm not even playing the same game anymore. It's annoying to
    I waited until recently to pick this expansion pack up for only $20. They wanted $40 for this when it came out and I just laughed, I'm not paying Activision $40 every time they feel like reskinning their multiplayer games.

    They added a couple new units, completely changed the tech requirements for many units, and I feel like I'm not even playing the same game anymore. It's annoying to me, I spent months learning to play StarCraft II, I get this expansion and now the command centre queues the first SCV for me? Why? This is confusing, I am OCD as Hell and I can't stand when a game developer makes pointless changes like this. Well, I'm going back to Wings of Liberty since this is a dead game.
    Expand
  6. Dec 3, 2014
    6
    Heart of the Swarm is a decent expansion. More story. New units.

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

    Overall, average expansion.
  7. Oct 20, 2014
    7
    Well first I think this is the best RTS game we have currently however there are some major problems.
    1. No Lan (It’s pathetic that hackers have made it available but blizzard has not)
    2. Selling each game separately for more $$$ is Bull**** overall I like this game however the story is getting a little out there and not really making alot of sense but again its worth playing if you
    Well first I think this is the best RTS game we have currently however there are some major problems.
    1. No Lan (It’s pathetic that hackers have made it available but blizzard has not)
    2. Selling each game separately for more $$$ is Bull****

    overall I like this game however the story is getting a little out there and not really making alot of sense but again its worth playing if you like Starcraft
    Expand
  8. Sep 23, 2014
    6
    This game has gone down a bit in quality since Wings of Liberty.

    Game mechanics have been tweaked slightly. There isn't much of a story in the cut scenes between missions which is quite disappointing. Previous instalments of Starcraft used to have good stories.
  9. Sep 8, 2014
    5
    It's World of Warcraft but in space! *yawn* is a good summary of how I feel when I play this game

    Gamplay: Same as Wings of Liberty, nothing notable to point out. Great RTS, it is losing it's shine though, Story: This is where everything sort've downfalls. If you are tired of these "WoW writers" then get ready for the same old hubub when it comes to this game. Nothing original, not
    It's World of Warcraft but in space! *yawn* is a good summary of how I feel when I play this game

    Gamplay: Same as Wings of Liberty, nothing notable to point out. Great RTS, it is losing it's shine though,

    Story: This is where everything sort've downfalls. If you are tired of these "WoW writers" then get ready for the same old hubub when it comes to this game. Nothing original, not even close to following it's roots. Lots of retcon, lots of plot holes, lots of cliche dialog and generic actions scenes.

    After putting the original Star Craft on the back burner for so long, they lost everything that made a game unique. Now it feels like a "WoW" set in space of a story line everywhere you turn. Diablo 3 is another good example of this. WoW just bleeds into everything they do now, churning everything into a gray mush of mediocre game play and story.

    The casual game play is fun, but after 10 hours the game is now up a creek relying on the multiplayer, which has potential, but probably won't be fully engaging till the last expansion comes out. By then, SC2 will be outdated and forgotten because that what happens when you split a game up into 1/3's and make people wait 4 extra years to see the end of a story line.
    Expand
  10. Aug 18, 2014
    5
    Like many games, most reviews for this are useless. They either falsely praise the game due to the reviewer being a idiot and/or paid off, or they sweep the game under the rug as if the game is the worst thing ever. The reality is that this is a very fun, but poorly written and mediocre product.

    Firstly, if you played Wings of Liberty; you pretty much know what you're getting here. I'm
    Like many games, most reviews for this are useless. They either falsely praise the game due to the reviewer being a idiot and/or paid off, or they sweep the game under the rug as if the game is the worst thing ever. The reality is that this is a very fun, but poorly written and mediocre product.

    Firstly, if you played Wings of Liberty; you pretty much know what you're getting here. I'm going to compare this to Wings of Liberty; because I assume you played the last game or you probably wouldn't be playing this one.

    The biggest problem with Heart of the Swarm, which was also the biggest problem of Wings of Liberty; is the story. The story in this game is the worst thing you'll ever have seen since... well... Wings of Liberty. It's full of plot holes and meaningless made up crap for the sake of filler missions. I should mention that they ruin Kerrigan's character beyond belief, but is that surprising after they've shamelessly ruined Jim Raynor already? Someone needs to tell these that Jim and Kerrigan never even had a romance in the past. Blizzard pulled that right out of their ass for the sake of these games. They wanted to force in a needless romance with no idea how to even write it, just like Georgia Lucas with Episode 2. It also reminds me of when they revived Illidan for the Burning Crusade just so he could be a raid boss. I hate how Blizzard completely ruins everything previously established in order to just "do their own thing" in follow up games. If you were once a fan of their games; things like this are downright insulting.

    Here, for instance, Kerrigan goes right back to being Zerg, even though she was suppose to be "cured" in the last game, something that already made no sense.(Not a spoiler either; look at the box cover and read it) It's very clear they didn't write very far ahead. Also, Jim and Kerrigan's romance is almost as pathetic as Bell and Edward's. But did you really expect much, after playing Wings of Liberty? This was a follow up to that; and seeing as how that game's story was up in every possible way and full of plot holes, why shouldn't this one be too? The cutscenes are numerous and have a nice quality to them... but it's just hard to care when the game doesn't make any damn sense nor has any kind of competent story you're going to be invested in. Like Wings of Liberty; as soon as you finish the game, you'll not care about anything that happened in it. I could go on more about how awful the stories are in these games; but I think you get the point.

    Putting aside the awful storytelling; you've now got the actual gameplay... which is more or less the same as it was in the last game. The biggest differences are that the game is played 2-3x faster and Kerrigan is a main hero in most missions. Both of these are bad things. The faster pacing saps out most of the fun. By the time you get a hold of what you're doing in a mission; it's over. There's no time to actually enjoy it, think about what you're doing, or fool around. I hate how Starcraft has basically become an action genre. Why does it have to be so fast? Wings of Liberty was fast, but not "this" fast, and the originals were snails by comparison. But that's not to say that the game is hard. It's quite easy on the first 2 settings; especially since Kerrigan is a 1 woman army that can pillage and plunder forces with little to no help. That's more fun sapped right out of the game, because an RTS isn't suppose to revolve around 1 walking demi god. Warcraft 3, which I loved, had heroes, but they couldn't solo half an army this effectively. Kerrigan is better than a level 10 hero in Warcraft 3; and much so, even right away.

    I should add that the game features pointless upgrade choices and filler missions to unlock more. It's very clear that they had almost no content to work with; so they just filled it up with all this This is what happens when you break 1 game into 3 pieces. But while they managed to fill out Wings of Liberty with a nice campaign; the Zerg got the short stick. The campaign feels disappointingly short due to how fast the missions unfortunately are; and everything not in a mission, is just overly obvious padding or window dressing. You've then got the multiplayer... which didn't do much except add a few new units. They want 60$ for this BTW. So you basically paid 120$ just to play SC2 online. Good for you if you did that, but I didn't.

    In summery it's tough to recommend this. It does have a campaign that can be some fun, but once again is drowned is terrible cutscenes that do nothing but fuel a totally nonsensical story. And since you already got multiplayer with the first game... you're basically paying for that again. I leave this one up for you to decide.
    -Drain (Steam)
    Expand
  11. Jun 22, 2014
    7
    Campaign and story was a huge disappointment, WoL was much better not even mentioning BW which are is different league.

    Other than that it is still good SC, so multiplayer is superior to anything in the market (RTS wise).
  12. Mar 29, 2014
    5
    As much as I love Starcraft, they've turned it into a super cheese fest where the only viable strategy is to go one unit and go one unit hard. Gone are the days of variety and the epically big battles in place of small, 5 minute smashfests. Their attempt to e-sport Starcraft more than it already was really took the heart out of it.
  13. Mar 22, 2014
    6
    I expected it to be worse than WoL, but not this bad.

    Characters have this horrible division where you feel like half of them are Zerg(Dehaka, Zurvan, Abathur) and the other half behave like humans in a Zerg disguise(Izsha, Zagara). Izsha is particularly painful to listen to as every single line she has just reeks of a human being and not a Zerg. Put together with Abathur, it's really
    I expected it to be worse than WoL, but not this bad.

    Characters have this horrible division where you feel like half of them are Zerg(Dehaka, Zurvan, Abathur) and the other half behave like humans in a Zerg disguise(Izsha, Zagara). Izsha is particularly painful to listen to as every single line she has just reeks of a human being and not a Zerg. Put together with Abathur, it's really glaring and kills the atmosphere entirely. Also why doesn't the Leviathan talk?! It's a Zerg creature, thinking and understanding, not a machine!

    The story is extremely lackluster. If WoL had lots of side missions with their own small reward and one 10-mission main quest(which was ultimately a fetch quest of 6 missions and then just fighting Kerrigan and a few missions devoted to harming Mengsk's reputation), HotS is literally nothing but one main mission: assemble the Horde-I mean the Swarm. It gets very old very fast. Too simple a plot, it's also not really helped by the side missions since very few of them bring any sort of plot advancement. Ultimately, you spend 20 missions assembling the Swarm, then you (spoiler alert, watch out this'll blow your mind you'll never see it coming!) kill Mengsk. Which means that you literally had all this buildup about Hybrids and the world's end in WoL and no follow up at all in HotS where it's just Kerrigan being mad at Mengsk and getting stronger so she can kill him...
    It's not even lackluster, it's just lame in comparison.

    Music is still meh. Still can't recall a single tune, apart from WoL's cutscenes. And even those were not that memorable, despite being well-conceived along with their cutscene. When the cutscenes music appears in HotS, it's nice but unfitting.

    Cutscenes are really great, all of them, but since none of them are ever in a good story, they just aren't that likeable.

    Then you've got the gameplay. Well, just like WoL, very little strategy, tons of spamming keys to get resources and units ASAP. Lots of exciting fun, almost no thinking, and a game that ultimately fails to be interesting, despite being entertaining until a certain point.
    The new units are fine, Zergs get a base defense/base siege unit akin to the Terran Siege Tank. Nothing really different, if you liked WoL you will like this.

    But really ultimately, if you liked the story in WoL and the gameplay was just ok and not particularly satisfying to you, or not at all satisfying if you like real strategy, HotS will feel like a step down in every aspect to you.
    The missions, the way they're chosen, the units and ways to upgrade them, the characters, the plot, the storytelling, the diversity of missions, which was one of the strongest points of WoL and added a lot of value to a game with virtually no strategy, all of that is either the same, or worse. 90% of the diverse missions of WoL are just copypasted here. Characters, mission choices, upgrade missions which appear here instead of credits to get unit upgrades, plot value, they're all clearly one hard step below Wings of Liberty.

    It's still playable just like the last one, and still has value as a game or a story, but it's so pathetically weak an expansion, compared to its predecessor. It also, unsurprisingly, does absolutely nothing to try to help the lack of complexity and lack of strategy of Starcraft as a whole(yes, I'm counting SC1 and BW).
    Just another super-fun-super-fast game with poor strategic elements and a story that will make you yearn to play WoL for the first time again.
    Expand
  14. Nov 22, 2013
    6
    It has been proved a terrible idea to force a trilogy release structure on to Starcraft 2. HOTS forced "new" units to be made which were "cool" and "different" enough to make people want to upgrade to a sequel of Wings of Liberty. Unfortunately, while there are some nice ideas, medivac boost being one of them, units such as the swarmhost have made what was a fast-paced and exciting game toIt has been proved a terrible idea to force a trilogy release structure on to Starcraft 2. HOTS forced "new" units to be made which were "cool" and "different" enough to make people want to upgrade to a sequel of Wings of Liberty. Unfortunately, while there are some nice ideas, medivac boost being one of them, units such as the swarmhost have made what was a fast-paced and exciting game to watch a very, very dull game to both play and spectate. The game has got worse over time and unfortunately the strongest tactics for each race are now also the most boring ones to watch. I wished they had stuck with WOL for a few more years, and added the best units from HOTs in one at a time... Blizzard's marketing experiment has ultimately failed. Expand
  15. Nov 18, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

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

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

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (2/2)

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

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

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

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (-1)

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

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

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

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

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  16. Sep 10, 2013
    7
    Playing SC since 98' the single player campaign is so so i do understand this is a RTS and there is only so much you can do in a single player setting some of the cut scenes blew me away however the over all experience left me kind of hallow I did give the game a 7 mostly due to the online competition bottom line don't buy for the single player if you enjoy playing "chess on crack"Playing SC since 98' the single player campaign is so so i do understand this is a RTS and there is only so much you can do in a single player setting some of the cut scenes blew me away however the over all experience left me kind of hallow I did give the game a 7 mostly due to the online competition bottom line don't buy for the single player if you enjoy playing "chess on crack" this is the game for you online that is. Expand
  17. Jul 18, 2013
    6
    I was really looking forward to this game since I loved Wings of Liberty but unfortunately I was disappointed. Not to say that it's a bad game, it certainly isn't..but in my opinion it doesn't even come close to WoL.

    Good: Graphics Some fun missions (Although very few) Multiplayer Cutscenes Bad: Writing, Dialogues Story progression (Many "wtf did I miss an episode or something"
    I was really looking forward to this game since I loved Wings of Liberty but unfortunately I was disappointed. Not to say that it's a bad game, it certainly isn't..but in my opinion it doesn't even come close to WoL.

    Good:
    Graphics
    Some fun missions (Although very few)
    Multiplayer
    Cutscenes

    Bad:
    Writing, Dialogues
    Story progression (Many "wtf did I miss an episode or something" moments)
    Boring and easy missions (Many of them were different versions of WoL missions)
    Pointless evolution missions (And they feld soooo out of place, Kerrigan seemed like a whole different person during those missions)
    0 strategy, just take Kerrigan with you and kick ass
    Expand
  18. Jul 9, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A definite step-down from Wings of Liberty. The campaign is really too short to be worth the cost. I like to play through things nice and slow, and even still finished this over the course of two days. The victory over Mengsk feels really empty when it's so quick to be obtained. Half the work of the swarm is done via unchallenging "evolution missions" and an occasional defection by a brood mother. Beyond that, this really simplifies (and butchers) the nonlinear fun of WoL. I enjoyed being able to play off in one direction for a while and then returning to another thread later on. And finally, the new characters are really not that interesting, the dialogue unmemorable, and the story doesn't have the interesting twists that WoL does.

    All of that said, this game is not a total flop. If there was ever a perfect sequel to a game, Starcraft II was it. It takes nothing away from the original game and only adds to it. And as in WoL, the gameplay here is terrific. The story, although not on par with WoL, is still fairly decent.

    The real failure here is that the game's designers seem to have intentionally set it up for failure, by intentionally reducing gameplay time and the nonlinearity that helped make WoL so appealing. As this product stands, it's definitely fun but also something of a rip off.
    Expand
  19. Jun 28, 2013
    5
    I was very disappointed with Heart of the Swarm. The story was okay and the art direction was pretty good but I found the gameplay lacking. I played through it on Normal difficulty and didn't die once during the entire campaign. That's not Normal, that's Easy, or even easier. I'm no Starcraft expert and couldn't remember what any of the units did when I came back to play thisI was very disappointed with Heart of the Swarm. The story was okay and the art direction was pretty good but I found the gameplay lacking. I played through it on Normal difficulty and didn't die once during the entire campaign. That's not Normal, that's Easy, or even easier. I'm no Starcraft expert and couldn't remember what any of the units did when I came back to play this expansion. It shouldn't have been this easy. I'm not paying good money to walk through it like it was an RTS for kids. Total snore fest. It certainly wasn't like that when I played the first Starcraft game or even Warcraft 2. Come on guys, add some tactics in make me work for it. Hard should be hard. Normal should be normal. Easy should be easy. Expand
  20. Jun 3, 2013
    6
    This review is for the single player, because the if you want to play a multiplayer RTS, you already know that SCII is about as good as it gets.

    The campaign is just atrocious. It's polished, as blizzard games always are, but it's about as relevant to multiplayer or RTS elements as I am related to a tuna. It's essentially a nonstop flow of new, gimmicky map ideas, and while I'm okay
    This review is for the single player, because the if you want to play a multiplayer RTS, you already know that SCII is about as good as it gets.

    The campaign is just atrocious. It's polished, as blizzard games always are, but it's about as relevant to multiplayer or RTS elements as I am related to a tuna. It's essentially a nonstop flow of new, gimmicky map ideas, and while I'm okay with mechanics that supplement the RTS elements, I don't like how many levels were DOTA-esque and central around the hero. Starcraft and warcraft 3 just don't blend well together, and it might make new players think that the hero concept has anything to do with the game, where it doesn't. I can count on one hand the number of missions where I felt like I could play proper zerg (I'm a terran player and still felt like zerg got cheated) and the number of departures from multiplayer zerg is almost frightening (queens are completely changed, all the mutations and different attributes of each unit make them feel completely different to how they do in multiplayer)

    The character arc for kerrigan is bipolar at best. She starts out just right, but almost immediately, goes completely bananas. They really could have paced her arc better, instead of wildly bouncing around. And pacing the story around what happens in the very first mission just doesn't set a good tone for the rest of the game.

    Interacting with your crew is pretty awful, as well. WoL's crew was equally as varied, but they were human, and thus, relatable. The zerg characters were just goofy and camp. Tychus and Matt in WoL were central, driving characters that you felt invested in. I went through every piece of dialogue in HOTS, and I absolutely hated almost every word spoken. I wanted nothing more than to not listen to those irrelevant sidekicks. Starcraft is dark and a very human story, and the zerg campaign made it feel goofy and completely inconsistent in tone, bouncing between drama, cliche, and humor with all the smoothness of falling down a flight of stairs.

    The game is also just brokenly easy. I breezed through it on brutal, and I'm by no means a great starcraft player.

    Cinematics are as good as video game cinematics can get. But unfortunately, and this feels unique in a blizzard game, they feel completely detached from the game that I was playing.

    If you're looking to play some multiplayer RTS, buy this game without even batting an eye. But if you're only looking for a top notch single player RTS, I'd suggest you go to teamliquid.net and find the starcraft brood war mod done in SCII graphics.
    Expand
  21. May 15, 2013
    7
    I played the single player campaign mostly to see all the cool upgrades and evolutions for each of the zerg creatures. That alone made the game rewarding- the campaign is pretty mundane (the writing is not very good) and fairly short (about 20 missions? Right?), but overall: it was the various evolutions that made me keep playing.
  22. May 10, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What I used to love about Blizzard was they knew how to tell a story...well I wonder where that talent went because there isn't one here. WoW and SC have seemingly melded into the same story but just different worlds. There's something super evil coming so Horde and Alliance must join together to defeat it. There's something super evil coming so Terran, Zerg, and Protoss must joing together to defeat it. Awesome? I also hate Jim Raynor by the way, he's the reason a lot of people are dying by saving Kerrigan. I wish Tycus had finished the job in Wings of Liberty. OR I wish Arcturus Mensk had just finished the job at the ending of this game. But no he had to give Kerrigan a stupid damn speech about how awesome and cool he is instead of just shooting her point blank while she was writhing on the floor. Everyone seems to be hailing Blizzard's cinematics, which of course, are very nice but so useless. For example in the launch trailer I believe it was, a Viking drops in front of a Brutalisk and gets owned, I doubt he would have done that or maybe he's just that stupid.
    But alas, the review also needs to tell of the gameplay. Which is your typical RTS and certainly fun however, for a singleplayer enthusiast such as myself, it falls short (the story is the main part of that). The leveling up system is back from Wings of Liberty which I think is pretty cool but otherwise didn't add a lot in the way of new ideas. Additionally, just something that has to be said, Kerrigan's walking animations are just hilarious. It looks like she always has to poo or maybe something is just stuck up her bum but it's very funny. Anywho, multiplayer of course seems to be the focus here for Blizzard and it's pretty obvious. Tournaments and what not have become a big thing so it seems Blizzard would like to appeal to that crowd. This unfortunately makes the story driven, single player driven folks at a loss. Where StarCraft and WarCraft once had great stories they've taken a backseat to what seems like $moneygrabz$ for Blizzard. 'Tis a shame, I say!
    Expand
  23. May 4, 2013
    6
    Zerg Campaing story is very unattaching of interest bringing back the queen of blades seems to be a wasteful twist they could of just used a new Master Zerg which could of been more compelling and yes there is one point where they could of even killed off Queen of Blades and made a new Protaganist

    Game Play is very easy compaired to Star Craft II and its shorter it seems to be a
    Zerg Campaing story is very unattaching of interest bringing back the queen of blades seems to be a wasteful twist they could of just used a new Master Zerg which could of been more compelling and yes there is one point where they could of even killed off Queen of Blades and made a new Protaganist

    Game Play is very easy compaired to Star Craft II and its shorter it seems to be a complete hold your hand Experience and what is up with the Huger UI am I just crazy?

    I Do believe the Protoss Expansion will rectify this
    Expand
  24. Apr 24, 2013
    5
    Really just a money grabbing expansion. Starcraft 2 the original game is good, but i would not say that the expansion really improved the gaming experience. I have played other rts expansions that i thought were just as good if not better than the original game i do not get that opinion from the starcraft 2 expansion unfortunately.
  25. Apr 23, 2013
    6
    It's the exact same as starcraft 2 part 1. I had a good laugh at all the "reviews" from the professionals to the right. The script and story are cliche and predictable which was probably the worst part of solo mode. The multiplayer is the best party by far for this game. If you want a great experience with hundreds of different games made by players jump on in. However if you want a wellIt's the exact same as starcraft 2 part 1. I had a good laugh at all the "reviews" from the professionals to the right. The script and story are cliche and predictable which was probably the worst part of solo mode. The multiplayer is the best party by far for this game. If you want a great experience with hundreds of different games made by players jump on in. However if you want a well told story best look else where. The camp mode is incredibly easy even on the hardest modes and you may (if you are a reader) find yourself bored with this retold story. Expand
  26. Apr 19, 2013
    7
    Im very fair in all of my reviews and the industry does seem to be in a downward spiral however I thought that sc2 hots was very well done. I wouldnt say single player was great, the story was downright absolute trash, but the gameplay and units are great. A lot of people think that starcraft is only a single player game but its not, its mainly about multiplayer and esports. Dont get meIm very fair in all of my reviews and the industry does seem to be in a downward spiral however I thought that sc2 hots was very well done. I wouldnt say single player was great, the story was downright absolute trash, but the gameplay and units are great. A lot of people think that starcraft is only a single player game but its not, its mainly about multiplayer and esports. Dont get me wrong I loved sc1 and its single player and neither sc2 single or multi can hold a candle to it, but it is still very well done and a good solid game. If you feel you didnt get your money for singleplayer only, you are right, because the game is a multipart package, like taking a slice of cake and saying the cake is too small, its your own damn fault for not playing multi isnt it.

    Blizzard failed in the areas of wow and d3, they are trying to fix starcraft for multi imo, but the campaign story was frankly absolute trash. They made it into a cheesy soap opera and took "queen of the universe" and make her good and shallow, damsel in distress. They turned kerrigan from a cunning cutthroat evil respectable and feared dictator to a weak emotional woman. Now dont get me wrong I hate feminism and all that trash, but this is a joke, they basically destroyed what she was, like sarah conner going back to being a waitress... well I really could go on and on about how everything in sc1 was essentially tossed out for primal zerg wow clone nonsense you can find long posts about it if you look around. Its just so disappointing... the potential sc2 story could have had... WoL had the same problem but at least Jim Raynor and Zeratul seemed in character, at least partially.

    So overall its still a 7 because its a good game, but if I were to rate this on "what blizzard is capable of" or their old standard I would give it around a 4 or 5, because this is shody work. And the campaign story is literally about a ZERO because of how terrible it was, negative even for the lore they spit out and stomped on.
    Expand
  27. Apr 14, 2013
    5
    It doesn't require a review, the credits at the end of the game says it all.
    10% game designers and story builders 90% marketing.

    A 5 from my part. Don`t want to waste my time on detailing the good and bad of this game.
  28. Apr 12, 2013
    6
    It's fun to go back to playing more SC2 after it's been close to 3 years since Wings of Liberty came out. Although, I feel like the story hurt the game a lot. Most of this game consists of you destroying what you worked so hard to accomplish in Wings of Liberty. Because of that, I felt as a player that I did not want to do the mission objectives that I was given. When I as a playerIt's fun to go back to playing more SC2 after it's been close to 3 years since Wings of Liberty came out. Although, I feel like the story hurt the game a lot. Most of this game consists of you destroying what you worked so hard to accomplish in Wings of Liberty. Because of that, I felt as a player that I did not want to do the mission objectives that I was given. When I as a player don't want to do the mission objectives, then how am I really supposed to have that much fun? With that aside, it's still SC2, they didn't do anything to the gameplay to make it worse, it's just the story really hurt the game for me. Expand
  29. Apr 6, 2013
    6
    While the RPG Multiplayer strategy is still solid, I would like to point out that the campaign is abhorrently terrible. The writing is bad, extremely bad. The cinematics are excellent and high quality but the storyline has taken a turn for the worst. Starcraft II has turned into a glorified love story. While in Starcraft 1, where Raynor and Kerrigans flirtation took a sidestep beside theWhile the RPG Multiplayer strategy is still solid, I would like to point out that the campaign is abhorrently terrible. The writing is bad, extremely bad. The cinematics are excellent and high quality but the storyline has taken a turn for the worst. Starcraft II has turned into a glorified love story. While in Starcraft 1, where Raynor and Kerrigans flirtation took a sidestep beside the sector's politics, this entire game is based around their story and they throw around whole armies for that love.

    Behind that story is a revenge plot, but you need to have played Starcraft 1 to understand it. As well, this coming darkness that Zeratul predicted in Wing's of Liberty is barely addressed in this story, when it should have been the primary concern.
    Expand
  30. Apr 3, 2013
    5
    A good game but still further from what original Starcraft was where I could play it for hours each time differently and still after years I do like to play it. Starcraft 2 is the same story but a different game they added many flashy things upgrades new units and so on just the missions are not what I would like personally. Too many missions are way too short with time limits very limitedA good game but still further from what original Starcraft was where I could play it for hours each time differently and still after years I do like to play it. Starcraft 2 is the same story but a different game they added many flashy things upgrades new units and so on just the missions are not what I would like personally. Too many missions are way too short with time limits very limited in what you can actually do differently next time. Old Starcraft was get a base get the enemy big map and slowly progress. Blizzard has focused too much on making it intense but everything is so quick most missions just over 20 minutes I have just started and its over someone still telling me you have 5 minutes for this and that and one evening Heart of the Swarm it is finished. You really dont have to fix what isnt broken and this is bit too far from what I like about first Starcraft and it is not a good direction Expand
Metascore
86

Generally favorable reviews - based on 68 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 66 out of 68
  2. Negative: 1 out of 68
  1. PC Master (Greece)
    Jun 10, 2013
    90
    The tutorials and the A.I have been improved, giving newcomers the chance to calmly try new tactics… before playing against experienced players that will go straight to their jugular. [April 2013]
  2. Games Master UK
    May 9, 2013
    85
    Accomplished, if not exactly groundbreaking. [June 2013, p.80]
  3. Hyper Magazine
    May 9, 2013
    90
    Heart of the Swarm is ScarCraft made better. Welcoming to newcomers, but never dumbed-down, the franchise at its best. [June 2013, p.66]