I just don't get it. The story is boring and doesn't grab you, the graphics are nothing amazing and the game is lacking a number of important features, e.g. LAN play. Sure this is a decent game if you want the same gameplay you had 12 years ago, but no way does it deserve the kind of perfect scores it's getting.

Twelve years in the making and the release of this game winds up similar to COD: Modern Warfare 2. While less features are considered such as no LAN, possibly few add-ons, a constant Internet connection and similar Facebook content are something I would NOT like to see in a PC game. Sure 30 missions in a game may be quite convincing for one campaign along with the looks of improved graphics. If this game is released with all three campaigns with at least as much missions and lasted as long as Grand Theft Auto IV and the acquired features I am looking for, I would own this game for $100. Therefore this game isn't by far unique and worth the price on features from what Relic's Company of Heroes had.… Expand

A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.

If this game was released 5 years ago, it would have been wonderful. Oh wait, it was basically release 5 years ago with all the beta testing that was happening year after year... I don't know, feels kind of anticlimactic now.

Starcraft is a fun game, if you're into Starcraft. That's about it. This game feels like a rehash of the Starcraft the first, just with updated graphics and interface. Quite frankly, that's not enough to compel me to buy this when their are other great RTS's still out there, like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.

Anyone giving this game a 10 needs to take a look at this game without buying into hype. Pretend it's called Blarghraft and re-assess it. It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc. There is nothing about this game that feels fresh or intriguing. It's an SC expansion that could've been released a decade ago and been decent at the time. Now it's just an average generic RTS with nothing that stands out from the myriad of RTS clones devoted to its own namesake. Except for a cliched story with middling voice acting there's nothing to rate SC2 on. It feels like Activision just put an old title through the assembly line to churn out something to put on the store shelves with the only innovation coming in ways to milk money off the title.… Expand

A one for expenditure, but no points for effort. They took all the points that made SC 1 good, and removed them, and tried to cover for it with some prettied up graphics, and then split the game into three to make an even more obscene profit by releasing the same game engine again and again and call them new games rather then expansion packs. Activision is the devil.

Highly overrated. Almost exactly the same as SC1 with only updated graphics and an expansion's pack worth of content and tweaks. Plus Blizzard is being extremely greedy forcing you to buy 3 separate full price games instead of just one. Would not buy again.

One of the greatest RTS games I have ever played is in my hands and installed on my computer. I have the original Starcraft and Brood War and those games have nothing compared to Starcraft 2. STORY: Everybody complains about no Protoss and Zerg campaigns in Wings of Liberty but there is no need . 26 missions (plus a bonus mission that I played) makes up for a long single player and really engaging story. The story was awesome. You do get to play some Protoss missions but overall the story is so engaging it is hard to stop playing and go get some sleep! SOUND: Sound is amazing! The original Starcraft nostalgia is there with some of the music being remixed to the newer setting. Even the units pretty much sound the same if not better. Great Sound. Graphics: One of the best for an RTS game. Do expect to play this game on some integrated graphics at decent frame rates with more than a couple of dozen of units. Some level are just plain beautiful and worthy of high praise. Blizzard has done a quality job in the graphics department. GAMEPLAY: A lot of people are saying this game is a rehash of the original but they are so wrong and I don't even think they played it. Now remember those cliffs that helped create a natural defense that would only be conquered by air units, well now some units like the Terren Reaper can fly up those cliffs with ease. This changes the gameplay up a bit and it is refreshing . But it does have the same Starcraft feel and isn't hat supposed to be what we all wanted in the first place? Why change the formula up when it has been proven to work? New units replace some of the old units from Starcraft and Brood War and to say I like these better than the old units.Multiplayer is such a blast and even better than the original. Too bad for no LAN support but I won't miss it. I don't live in South Korea anymore playing in the PC game rooms that is better with LAN. Most people won't miss it and the same goes for me. If your a fan of the original Starcraft then you gotta get this one. All others some play and see for yourself. I wouldn't really judge this game by what other people are saying, especially all the negative ones that give this game a 0 or a 1 because I feel they wanted features they wanted and since it doesn't include it they bash the game. You can't review what is not there. Best just to go out there and try it! Find someone who has it and ask if you can get their guest pass that was included with the game and see for yourself. You won't regret it!… Expand

I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. Lowest common denominator anyone? The business model is pure greed. Won't be too long before MW is integrated into Battlenet and we'll all have to pay subs for the privilege of using the service. The graphics could pretty much be sprites and viewing angle (especially compared to Total War, SupCom, CoH and the Dawn of War series) only allows for a small amount of the pretty small maps to be seen at once. Online is completely unbalanced (even if the units are fairly well-balanced), seeing as Blizz decided who was going to be good at it months/years ago and gave them alpha + beta access while the rest of us will have to play SC1 or dry as dust skirmish maps against the PC to even learn the names of Zerg or Protoss units. Of course the potential reviewers were included in the beta as well. So glad they all had a good time.… Expand

Meh. 10 years. Blizzard spent the better part of a decade working on the next installment of the Starcraft franchise and this is all they came up with? A boost to the graphics, fancy CG cutscenes, no apparent change in gameplay, and a total reliance on micro-management. Whoop-dee-do.

First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP. 9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really shouldn't: MP - various cheats are already in use, very little is done against them. Balancing is a joke at best in every other playmode than 1v1. The SP part is OK, but nothing you haven't seen so far. Story? Eric Cartman would say: lame! If I take all of this I can only say I am very dissappointed, a game made for money and not for the gamers - 1 pts for greed and lack of inspiration.… Expand

After 12 years of waiting it is finally here. Having just started playing the campaing and already a beta vet, i can say that this game delivers on all its promises and even adding some surprises. So, fan or not, totally check this game out.

One word: Ugh. Once again blizzard shows us how far a franchise can fall. Stunningly beautiful cinematics that still fall short due to the poor story. The campaign is decidedly weak, and the multi is so micro-oriented it's painful. SC2 was the game I was most anticipating this year (perhaps this decade), and it falls so short of expectation that words can't express the magnitude of it's failure.… Expand

After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 games related to the mario franchise in that amount of time. The C&C franchise has released 12 titles (xpacs incl.) since 1998. In March 1998 the Backstreet Boys were at the peak of their careers, there was a new show on TV called South Park that had been causing controversy since its first episode 7 months earlier, and something called a "Justin Beiber" had just celebrated its 4th birthday. This is basically a first generation RTS re-packaged, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to play Broodwars.… Expand

I'm very dissapointed with this game. WC3 made several improvements over SC, notably adding heroes and a 4th race. Many SC fans weren't enamored with the hero concept, but SC3 easily could have improved on WC3 by going up to 5 races and making individual units gain xp. Blizzard did neither, they cut back to 3 races, added/changed a few units, and "upgraded" to a 3D engine. Big whoop. I am honesty not even sure if other than the bnet upgrades this game is even better than the original SC.… Expand

"If it aint broke, don't fix it". This game changes very little from SCI, but it doesn't really need to. It is fresh enough to warrant having a "2" put on it, and still it feels alot like "1", enough to bring back great memories from the first game. I dunno how many hours I have played this game, but one thing is for certain, it was never dull. The campaign I liked, alot (first campaign I have ever finished for an RTS, I never really played SC1's campaign, I just played skirmishes), the multiplayer (as always is awesome). All in all, its a great game.… Expand

Also, the menu setup is beautiful. It's different than any other Blizzard game, which is slightly disappointing, but it is beautiful.

I played the beta for months, and just finished the single player storyline after about two weeks of play. It's the most balanced RTS I've ever played, and the graphics, gameplay, and storytelling are top-notch. Best game of the year so far.

The only reason that this game will get high scores will be a strong fan base. But in my opinion, this game just doesn't worth it. 60 Euros even for digital download, and I expect that we'll be charged at least another 80 (40+40) euros for the expansions. You won't be able to play with Zerg / Protoss campaign till they're out and you get them. Only Terran campaign is available, and this is a big (-) for / from me. So far, it just looks like Starcraft 2010, with a graphic overhaul, removing/adding some units, and crippling the single-player, dividing it to 3 seperate games. Bad move in my opinion. Bad move Blizzard. Very bad move. It's a shame that 99% of the buyers will jump to the game blindfolded, and it's a shame that many of the reviewers give this game 85+ not considering the pricing of lack of the story.… Expand

A worthy successor to Starcraft 1. The length of singleplayer is almost the same, and longer with the amount of extra missions. Multiplayer is more accessible to both hardcore and casual players, and allows more tactical gameplay. A must-try for both RTS fans and other gamers.

Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the mission's fun and you will easily get your money's worth in just the campaign alone which is something that's rare to find nowadays. But prepared to be unimpressed by the story which is told not in nice little discussions pregame but instead in bland 30 second conversations between characters and it lacks the scope of the first as half of the missions feel like side quests and don't advance the plot. I'll say this again EVERY mission except like four of them are extremely fun so don't worry about feeling bogged down in grind like the original tended to do. The multiplayer, at least the Battlenet multiplayer is solid and flawless the game groups you based on skill into different ladders and you usually only fight people in that group which makes well matched games, plus there is a newb ladder to help you get a hang of things early on so don't worry about being out classed by psycho crazy players and never learning. The teams as usual are perfectly balanced and each fun to play, plus Blizzards mapmaker makes it so you can just play custom maps (like DOTA spin offs and Tower Defenses) and not even bother with traditional play. As of now just looking at the games features it easily warrants a 9 only losing one point for the poor story, but now we get to the real problem at hand, the corporate bull crap. This game has no LAN! There is no way to play it with a few buddies without them each spotting $60 which is disgusting, but if you don't have friends who do that sorta thing then who cares. Also you get one profile, that's it, you can't go back and restart at lower ladders or have an account for a buddy to use if u don't want your record wreaked. Finally there are going to be two expansions, set in stone! that's at least $50 dollars more of investment to keep up, which sucks. All of that combined makes this game drop from nearly flawless to a mere 7 which is below its quality. If that last paragraph didn't faze you then get it if it did then I'd mooch off another guys copy until you figure out if it's worth the money.… Expand

A excellent art work as every game from Blizzard. Sadly it was shipped with a poor story as all recent games released. True good games dont need a restrictive DRM to make a profit. We was hoping to buy a great sequel of the original Stracraft not a multiplayer client. I would not play in Battle.net even for free. Blizzard is surely losing his touch.

Cliche history, short campaign, overpriced, 1/3 of a game for the price of a full game, graphics doesnt scale well (i have a radeon4870, playing int on max at 1920x1200 the game drops to 15 fps when there is 5 or more units doing shit on the screen), pathetic attempt to please the casual masses with a bullshit history line. i wish my money back.

It's rather sad to see how far this franchise has fallen. What you're getting is 1/3 a game with a 5 hour campaign and a buggy multilayer experience bloated with horrible DRM. You must be online 24/7 even for single player or you aren't awarded achievements. No LAN and No CGI Cutscenes are only some of the few of many things not in this game. And if you want to be able to play the protoss and zerg campaigns then you better get out your credit card! They're being sold separate at a later date. No doubt only about 3-5 hour campaigns as well.… Expand

Compared to the original games, this is a mockery. Battle.net 2.0 is redundant and limited, the world editor has scripting limits and other non-useful things. And the campaign is cliched enough to seem like an old cowboy movie. This is not a good game. This is WoW in space.

I was going to write a lengthly review on SC2, but I decided to save you and me some time: You MUST have this game, your life is not complete without it.

Absolutely amazing. SC2 had a big shoe to fill due to the overwhelming success of its predecessor, and it far exceeded my expectations. Just like the first SC, I'll be playing this for years to come.

This is a bog-standard RTS. But given that it's Blizzard there was never any doubt that it was going to be an AWESOME bog-standard RTS. Beautiful design, great graphics, engaging storyline. Highly recommended.

Normally i would rate this game with a 6, but since fanbois are rating it with 10s based on hype i have to rate it with a 0 to counter it. This game is not bad, but it does not deserve the hype. First of all, while it is a polished game, it doesn't justify so many years of developement. Its campaign is short, boring, and most missions require no strategy at all, just spamming the specific unit each mission provides. Gameplay is pretty much the same with the original. Same or slightly different units, same buildings, same techs, same controls, same stats. Providing an existing game with just an updated graphics engine shouldn't take so long... Company of heroes is way better... We only get 1 campaign, which no matter how the fanbois justify it is short and boring, we get no lan, and the price is higher than usual. Blizzard is milking players because it can... Stop supporting this company!… Expand

Good things: 1. It's a StarCraft game. Blizzard did an excellent job of staying with the tried and true formula that made the first SC so legendary, and while the game isn't going to revolutionize RTS gameplay, it is incredibly entertaining and effective as it is. 2. It has very addictive gameplay. You could very well find yourself losing some sleep with this one. 3. The competitive online matchmaking is wonderful. Other games have tried implementing matchmaking systems with varying success, but SC2 is the first game that I feel "got it right." It makes sure that no matter your skill level, you will always have a good and close game. 4. Gameplay is very streamlined. The controls make sense and are relatively easy to pick up, even if you've never played an RTS before. Bad things: 1. The single-player campaign is rather lackluster. The story isn't bad, but it isn't gonna turn any heads either. If you're looking for superb storytelling of Mass Effect proportions, you will be disappointed. 2. The graphics aren't the greatest. While this isn't all that important to me since I generally don't judge a game by how shiny it looks, I still have noticed that I was never really impressed by the visual and aesthetic style in general. 3. While the new matchmaking part of the new Battle.Net is a real achievement, there really isn't all that much else going on online. The lack of a lobby where players not in a game could chat it up made the system feel rather incomplete. There is a friend list and you can chat with people, but the new Bnet is light on the social aspect. Closing remarks: Let's face it; if this wasn't a StarCraft game, it would not have been all that noteworthy. It would have been viewed as a solid entry in the RTS genre, but it still would have been brushed off for failing to bring anything new to the table. However, it IS StarCraft, so it gets special dispensation. Indeed, people would even get mad if they changed anything major. While certain things are holding it back from being "The Greatest Game Ever Made," it provides an excellent form of entertainment, which is what SC is about at its core, and as such, Blizzard did exactly what they needed to do.… Expand

As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed. The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were doing. People try to make the excuse that 'so what if it's 1/3 of a game, you still get 29 missions for race, that's more than the original or brood war". Well, the main storyline is really only made up about ten missions or so, the rest are filler. The entire storyline including the other races could have been done for 30 to 40 missions. The gameplay itself is also quite disappointing after an extended play through. So much more could have been done with the technology that so many other games have taken advantage of, such as cover. The developers even admitted that they kept the game the way it was in order to preserve the e-sports leagues surrounding it. Talk about the greed factor :/ It's strange that age of empires 3 and command and conquer 3 were criticism and their game scores lowered for being behind the times, Starcraft 2 is being praised for it for the most part. If this wasn't called STARCRAFT 2, say Space Wars, it'd be getting alot more criticism for being behind the times. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not worth $60, and is the most overrated game of 2010, and my biggest gaming disappointment.… Expand

The sequel to the best RTS ever is now the best RTS ever. When you look at E-sports, you have a handful of FPS games and StarCraft. Nothing has had the staying power of Blizzard's genre defining game since it launched in 1998. SC2 picks up right where SC left off. Is the campaign epic? yes... Are the races completely different, yet balanced? yes... Is the storyline one fit for the big screen or some 12 book novel series? absolutely... This game is a 10/10 on even the most harsh of critics scale.… Expand

I can't give this one any less than a 10. Fans of the original will not be disappointed, as Starcraft II brings back all of the core elements of the first game, yet builds upon it in a way that should satisfy any fan of RTS. As time goes on, this game will only get better, with Blizzard's frequent patching and the upcoming expansion packs. If you enjoy real time strategy games, this is definitely worth checking out.… Expand

That's not only the ultimate RTS, not only the ultimate challenge for your mental skills, but the best computer game ever to exist! It has absolutely no flaws - the graphics are gorgeous, the sound is stunning, the story beats most of the blockbuster movies and the multiplayer... the multiplayer cannot be described in words. That's absolutely the most fun you can have with 45 euros. Mind that I do not usually play games, let alone the first Starcraft. But this thing is in a league of its own!… Expand

It was a long time coming, but for fans of Blizz and SC I think this is just what we asked for. Only downside is that Battle.net isn't all it could be. No chat, no real support for tournaments, etc. Hopefully that will change in time. Thanks to the amazing beta the game is well-balanced for multiplayer even at lunch, and the campaign is well done. I'm looking forward to seeing how the story goes.… Expand

Very disappointing, but not because of the core gameplay. The load times are ridiculous, the menu is confusing and messy, the newsflash cutscenes try to be 'funny' but end up like something that would be in a show for 7-year olds. Worst of all are the regional locks.... making online play with international friends nigh-on impossible. You can't even add people from other regions to your Battle.NET friends list. The game itself, once started, is not so bad.... but woefully uninteresting. It's changed from StarCraft quite a bit, notably units won't just run around in a single file and get killed one by one when assaulting a base, which was never fun. However, some problems that were bad already in StarCraft still exist, such as SCVs getting stuck behind buildings if they are built too close to something else. There is less micromanagement, but in the end it's mostly just a graphical update with a few different units and few interesting features. Overall, the problems don't necessarily stem from the game itself but rather its presentation. The single-player campaign isn't bad, and it has a few attempts at original and good missions while still leaving in nods to the original game, but it doesn't really shine as an outstanding example of story-telling and originality. I got the collector's edition, which is quite impressively designed but beware; the art book has several pictures that are clearly just scaled up from a low resolution, and as a result they look pixelated in the final product. This is extremely poor work on their part. I cannot honestly give this a high score. With some luck, Blizzard will fix their menus and optimize the load times, while also removing the regional locks. That would go a long way to making the game more playable both offline and online. The lack of LAN play, the requirement to stay connected to Battle.NET and regional locks all contribute to making this game inferior to the set standards and expectations.… Expand

The game is undoubtedly awesome, and coming to the end of the campaign here shortly, it did not let me down! The online side on the other hand has a lot to be desired. Lack of chat rooms, lack of Lan, lack of cross region play, something that has been pabundant in previous titles has been removed from this game. With thousands of users asking for the ability to chat "in game" and being ignored, thats why im giving this a 7. Though to be fair, a 9 for the gameplay/story, a 3 for their failed battle.net experience...it really brings it down.… Expand

The single-player takes a long time to start swinging but the instant-on multiplayer action more than makes up for it. Not quite at the level of the original yet, but tactics are constantly evolving and with the base provided it's pretty hard to see this game as anything other than pure awesome.

Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for battle.net. The time spent on making videos for the single player campaign should probably have been spent on improving the graphics engine. Good fun, if a little underwhelming.… Expand

If you loved the original Starcraft, I have no reason to believe you won't be amazed by Starcraft II unless you're really nitpicky. Starcraft II's new multiplayer is absolutely addicting and the new battle.net makes it fun to gather all kinds of achievements. The campaign might Terran only but it has enough content to justify a $50 price tag. That's where the problem comes in. The retail price is $60 (I believe is $50 now on Amazon as of this writing) and the online authentication is absolutely annoying. There is also no LAN, which isn't a problem for me because unfortunately my friends don't play anymore but I can see how it would be an enormous problem. I'm hoping these are just changes wrought by the Activision side of things (seeing as how they raped Infinity Ward). Nonetheless, this is an absolutely fun and addicting game which belongs in any Starcraft lover's hands.… Expand

Ok here is a very late review of Starcraft 2 =) Simply an amazing game. One of the most, if not THE most, polished game to have ever been released. The attention to detail in this game is very noticable and appreciated. Awesome singleplayer campaign, even if some might call the storyline cheesy I think it is quite alright and it succeeds very well in putting you in position to enjoy the strategy/tactical parts of the game which is what it is all about anyway. Multiplayer is of course best in the world. Excellent balance of units/races and exciting matches both to play and to watch. Although not the best in the genre the graphics are beautiful. Sound is even better. The only downside I can think of is that the game only offers a terran campaign and leaves the zerg and protoss campaigns for future releases. I think you still have to say the original Starcraft and it's expansion is the better game throughout gaming history but Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty has definitely made a good start. WIth equally good expansions/releases it could very well become the best Starcraft experience ever. Perhaps even the G.O.A.T. of all games!… Expand

Played this during Phase 1 and without a doubt this game will impress. The 3 races are very well balanced, and each feels distinct. Find the one that suits your playstyle. See you in space.

Believe the hype. This game is incredibly polished, addicting, and it's balanced. Not only that, but the map editor and other campaign make it the best RTS i've ever played. Buy it without hesitation.

Epic and immersive singleplayer the likes of which I havn't seen in an rts for a long time. Challenges are something fun to tinker around with and then you've got multiplayer. Not that many custom maps are out yet but the ones from the beta were good enough for many hours of gameplay alone. Ranked matches seem fairly well balanced to but thats something blizzard will be fighting with over the next few years with patches and expansions anyway. This in my opinion lived up to the hype and is well worth the price considering there are 3 elements (Custom maps, singleplayer and multiplayer) which are large enough to be a game by themselves.… Expand

Amazing game! Marries together storytelling, cinematics, gameplay, multi-player, and beautiful graphics together for one of the most robust and satisfying RTS experiences ever!

Blizzard did it again! This game is one of the most outstanding strategy games I ever tried, with an incredible campaign with a depth story, gameplay that provides hours of fun and tons of strategies, a multiplayer that challenges without frustrate, and an editor that allows to create a totally new game, Starcraft II is my GOTY undoubtedly.

Blizzard kept what worked and fixed what didn't. It isn't revolutionary, but it's Starcraft made perfect. After playing through Starcraft and Brood War recently, complaints that this is the same game with new graphics do not feel merited; the campaign is vastly improved, AI and unit interaction is vastly improved, and the interface is nearly flawless.

A refinement of the classic RTS formula to a state of pure fun. There is no reason to not own this game.

Excellent single player campaign, enticing multiplayer which is surprisingly balanced. Clearly all the months of beta testing and carefully tweaking paid off. If only the original StarCraft had been anywhere near this balanced when it released. To top it all off it runs like a dream on my 4 year old computer - on ultra settings, at that.

Having played the multiplayer beta I can happily say that it is well balanced and a ton of fun! Playing the single player now is an engaging treat, the level of polish and detail is just wonderful. Bravo Blizzard! Its been worth the wait!

I loved the original starcraft. That is why I like the fact that they kept to the original style of play and not adopting all of the other strategy games out their. Game play is epic fun.Graphics is Awesome! Story is awesome.(I like that fact that they have graphical cut scene's and not a bunch of dumb actors making it Epically lame!) I guess the only thing i can criticize they game on is the fact that they made it to good :D and they left my favorite Terran anti-air unit out . The Goliath.… Expand

This game is the pinnacle of RTS balancing and gaming. This game is pure fun. Anyone who doesnt give it a good rating is solely basing it on things that dont matter in the actual game. They complain about things like how on ultra mode the game lags, or gets low fps. Or how the campaign only applies to the terran. But if you like RTS games, and like balanced play and lots of depth. Buy this game

This game is just incredible and well worth the wait. The single player campaign is engaging and and no effort has been spared in the making of this game. Blizzard has done it again.

A very good game! It's too bad that so many folk are using their magnifying glass to find faults with this game when compared to its competition is completely brilliant! The campaign has a grand depth, and the multiple achievements and game modes online makes for infinite playability. 10 out of 10 from me :D

SC1 had thirty missions split into three "campaigns". SC2 has 27 missions in one campaign, each with at least three additional goals for added replayability, plus another 6 special challenge missions. So, 1/3 of a game?? Ha! I think not! Also: I have a three year old computer and I can still play this game smoothly with almost all settings on Ultra. Just don't listen to all the silly haters. Seriously, this is a bloody fantastic game!… Expand

Starcraft 2 features easily the most enjoyable RTS campaign I've ever played. A beautiful, more "down to earth" continuation of the story of SC1, full of variety, fun twists, intense battles and multiple objectives. The online is fairly well balanced, it could use a few more touches here and there but no race is at a huge disadvantage, and it feels fast, tight, fun and easy to control. All in all, this is the most complete, refined and fun Action RTS ever made, better than Dark Crusade, better than Brood War by miles.… Expand

Without doubt one of the games of this year, and a brilliant sequal to the hit from so many years ago. By far the best RTS to grace the gaming world in years. Ignore the negative feedback, some people shouldn't be able to rate if they moan that they're stoneage pc's can't perform to what they expect.

Game is great, makes me happy I bought it on launch day even though I was thinking about waiting. I also vote Gary K is a moron - you can't give a game a zero because your computer is a piece of crap. Time for an upgrade if your computer can't handle 30 units onscreen at once. I have seen it running on a 5 year old computer with no issues.

Direct to the point. The gameplay is great (single and multiplayer), you can make your own maps, you can play alone, simple and intuitive interface, very good performance for any actual machine configuration. I gave 10 because there is no weak point on the game.

Simply the most satisfying RTS experience in years, doesn't do much new but what it does is that it takes the Starcraft experience at an enormously amazing level. The multiplayer is as solid as ever but the improvement on the single player makes this games more than a must have.

Incredible game, I hate all those people who rank 0 just for a random fault or because they didn't read the system req. in the box, this game is awsome, and even if it didn't have as much inpact as its precestor, its always good to have a sequel. Best RTS game IMO in a long time, pretty more enjoyable than my all time favourite RON. Sorry if my English isn't that good, so please pardon my mistakes. … Expand

To me it feels like a kids game. I'm not seeing the depth that everyone else seems to notice. Also not seeing what is so great about it. I definitely wasted $60. I'll go back to playing SupCom and Company of Heroes (which are both much better).

Don't fix what isn't broken. Blizzard did the right thing: it modestly updated a great game. It almost feels like a patched re-issue of the original game -- which is a compliment, not a criticism. I am glad that Blizzard did not add a fourth race. The absence of Zerg and Protoss campaigns in the initial release may rub some the wrong way but the multiplayer platform allows all races to be played. Great work by Blizzard.… Expand

10 for great game play, though not many changes from sc1 cuz they didn't need to, great graphics, soundtrack and voice acting. -1 for trying to expand the storyline too much outside what was already established in sc1. The campaign didn't feel as epic as sc1, company of heroes, or even old classics like age of mythology.

Epic. Like other reviewers have said this game lives up to the unusually high expectations, and exceeds them in many areas. Look forward to frequent support and patches from Blizzard, as well as loads of new content, both official and from the fan community.

Turns out the 12 year wait WAS worth it. SC2 is immediately familiar to old school fans and yet still up to date with the visuals and improvements to the RTS genre that have occurred since the last Starcraft was released. The addition of the RPG elements only enhances the experience.

A game that has (currently) a 96 critic rating and an 86 user rating? It's sad that people will just vote the game a 0 if: 1) Their computers can't handle it (looking at you, Gary K); 2) They don't know how to get around real ID; 3) They think the single player is short or they're getting shafted because it's only the terran campaign. I'm not a fanboy but I'm going to sound like one, other than TF2 I don't think there is any game on the market that has as much replayability and 'bang for the buck' as this. The single player alone will take you 20 something hours if you have to retry a couple of missions, the multiplayer sets you up with people of your level after the 5 placement maches, and if you're an achievement whore, you'll literally be playing the game at least a year before you get all of them. 10/10 easily, game of the year… Expand

Back in 1998, I was playing Warcraft II before Starcraft came along. Starcraft really swept me off my feet. The story had a surprising level of depth. The game play was addictive, both online and off. The graphics were quite good. This game had everything going for it, and I wanted more, even after the Broodwar expansion. Twelve years later, Blizzard delivers. The story is somewhat predictable at times, but the ride is enjoyable regardless. All the units, even the new ones, feel somewhat familiar (a pro and a con). The game runs on a ton of different computer specs., but it's important to check to see if you meet them before purchasing. The graphics are superb, and the cut scenes, in game and pre-rendered, pull you into the universe. The multiplayer is challenging, yet fun. There is no LAN support, sadly; I know many friends that refused to by it because of this. The campaign focuses primarily on the Terrans. The Zerg and Protoss campaigns will release in separate expansions later on. This may be a con for some people. If you like Starcraft, you’ll love this game. If you're an RTS fan, you'll probably like this game. If you’re unfamiliar with RTS’s, I’d encourage you to purchase Starcraft ($20.00) if you’re feeling reluctant to jump into Starcraft II. As a disclaimer, I’m a decent RTS player that has some positive bias towards Starcraft. Starcraft released when I was nine, so I have many fond memories playing it. I’ve played RTS’s such as Age of Empires II, Age of Mythology, Supreme Commander, Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun, Command and Conquer 3, Dawn of War I + II, and I’ve played Turn-Based-Strategy games such as Civilization II and Civilization: Test of Time. I’m giving Starcraft 2 a 5/5 because it refines everything that made Starcraft great. No, it isn’t an entirely new game, but the polish on this game is impressive and makes it worth purchasing.… Expand

I'd feel bad if I gave lower rating to game which does so much right. Practically Starcraft 2 is "only" a graphics update. It still feels just like Starcraft since none of the things which made it so great really haven't been changed at all. But if it is almost perfect so why to change it? I felt however that Blizzard wasn't able to make it any better. Not a bad thing necessary since it works so well. I kind of felt that campaign was too long. It was fun yes but it was few missions too long. I guess they're trying to make up for not including Zerg and Protoss campaigns. Original Starcraft had maybe 30 missions split between the factions. So Terrains had maybe 10 missions in original game. In Starcraft 2 Terrains have that about 30 missions just for them. Its full game and it's very good game. However I didn't give perfect score since it's practically stuff we have already seen and it isn't exactly perfect by any means but it is the best realtime strategy game in years.… Expand

I remember when I first played Starcraft, and how I was absolutely addicted to it, and I think this is the first sequel that I've played that has actually matched the original experience. It actually made me feel like a kid again, especially when I realized it was 10 at night and I hadn't eaten supper yet.

Awesome game indeed. Well worth waiting for, and I love the graphics. Gary K, you must be quite the character to give a game a 0 for not having a good enough computer to run it. You say the balancing is way off... I have to congratulate you. You must be one of the smartest men alive to by a few moments of playing the game, you can tell it's unbalanced, and that the team of intelligent, dedicated people balancing this game in every aspect for several years are all wrong. I suggest you sign up for a job at Blizzard.… Expand

It's not groundbreaking, but it doesn't need to be and (perhaps most importantly) it doesn't TRY to be. It is faithful to it's source material and an example of a PROPER sequel. Prospective owners of this excellent piece should take no heed of those who naysay the fact that there is only a Terran campaign and that it crawls on a modern system: The "Terran" campaign is 30 missions long, which is all three of the campaigns from the first game put together. The missions are shorter but much more varied, and thus the entertainment value is increased. And though it does look great on my system (e6300 and a radeon 4870) it will run on damn near anything that was built in the last half-decade when settings are tuned correctly. And all that without mentioning the multiplayer! Battle.net 2.0 is an amazing thing. No more lobbies to sit in, no more spam with comments from your friends mixed in. On the fly matchmaking that is quick and actually works! True the units do need some balancing, but Blizz spent 10 years perfecting the original, and it shows - the balance isn't terrible, it just needs some tweaking. The game isn't broken by any stretch of the word.… Expand

Amazing game. Lengthy campaign with plenty of replay value in trying to get all the achievements, amazingly addictive multiplayer, and potentially infinite mods changing the game in every way possible. This has more value than almost any other new game release.

This version of Starcraft has got so much more to it than the original ever had. For one updated graphics that look -amazing- when on Ultra high. The battle.net system is better than ever apart from the lack of chat rooms. If you're a newbie like I was you'll find that the matchmaking system is perfect for newbies and veterans alike. You'll always have a close battle unless it's your very first game etc. The storyline in the campaign is very deep, and while some idiot reviewers complain we have to pay for two expansions just to see the Protoss/Zerg storylines they forget to mention that we have 26 missions in SC2 for Terran and probably will be the same for the Zerg/Protoss Expansions. Whereas SC1 did let you do all three race's storys in one game, they each only had 10 missions a part. I'd prefer 90 missions apart 3 games than 30 missions in one. Don't be swayed by all the reviewers here bashing it when you see them bring up Bobby Kotick or Activision. They have nothing to do with Blizzard's games. Read all the truly positive reviews and enjoy this game for what it is. It's an amazing RTS with a great story mode, badass graphics, and a never ending fun online experience. And contrary to some reviewer's beliefs, the critics who gave this a high rating aren't being paid. They just know a good game when they see one which is rare these days since everything else is crap. Also yes it does cost $60, but that's expected and fine. Games stayed at $50 for the past 15 years while people were paid more so in reality it's the same price it always has been.… Expand

Game will melt down your PC will also cause intrusive DRM ttat will require you to log in to play the game. Match making system is flawed. You always get matched with inexperienced players if you are inexperienced like me. Various features removed from blizzard.

Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll get better next map", but that never really happened. And when you're still thinking "it'll get better" after 10 hours of play... then... that's a massive fail. I'm not going to get into the MP of this game, I know it's the big draw of a game like this, but I'm just not going to get back into it. It's the same as it was 12 years ago, when the playerbase of online games were at about 18-20 years average. Now I'm 12 years older, don't have patience for kids and their insults, and don't really care much about pwning nabs in a retro RTS.. If you liked SC1 and played it a lot back in the day, it might be worth buying it when it hits the cheap bin just for the nostalgia. Definitely not worth the 60bucks I paid. I bought Warhammer 40k Dawn of War II Chaos Rising 2 days after I bought sc2. It's just a better game. Metascore of 85, but that's not a bloated 85. Starcrafts 94 is just a testament to how many reviewers get paid these days.… Expand

When I heard that the new Starcraft II was coming I was so happy, but when I bought the game I realized that this game is just a copy of a Starcraft I. I was very disappointed because the only new things are some abilities and a few new units. For me this is the Disappointment of the decade. I used to love games coming from Blizzard games factory but now I get the real picture...

"StarCraft 2" is a blast. Despite the fact that you need a damn membership, the game is slick with awesome graphics. The gameplay's the same thing, but its managaeble. They really didn't fix or improve anything necessary (except for adding in several more units to the game) but still it's impressive and addictive just like the first one.

Such a quality game in every aspect. This is possibly one of the best purchases I have ever made with respect to computer gaming and believe you me, I have made a lot of purchases in the past. Glad to see Blizzard have not slipped, they still make great games.

Finally after all these years... I got it last night at the midnight release and I just stopped playing(14 hours later!!). Well balanced through and through and have had to rework tactics. It is like I am back being a kid again. The campaign is story driven and forces one to rethink the Huge Mob rush, as some have time basis and require micro management to get awards. If you never tried it before this is the RTS to give a try, but be warned you will probably lose more often than not in multiplayer.… Expand

This game is a great successor to Starcraft. Running on ultra settings it's gorgeous. Despite the lack of LAN support, or the ability to spawn extra copies, this game is still well worth the price of admission. And as far as Gary K. says regarding the game bringing his rig to a crawl, it sounds like it's his hardware more then anything. I rock an AMD Phenom II x4 and a geforce 9800 card and have no issues. Stop reading and start playing.… Expand

The game itself is fun, with overall fun missions for single player, fairly well balanced units, and fantastic graphics. It severely lacks in quality storyline, story telling, and character acting/dialogue. I'm very dissapointed with both the storyline and the dialogue during the single player campaign. It comes off as cheasy, and the love-story with Raynor and Kerigan is completely unnecessary after looking back at the SC1 storyline. An example of the bad character scripting happens during an early cutscene with Captain Matt and the Convict. The player [Raynor] tells Matt that him and the Convict go way back and they're good friends and he trusts him. Then when talking with the convict he starts warning the convict that he better not be leading them into a trap with his deals for the Protoss relics. If they were friends wouldn't he be asking the Convict if they were walking into a trap? Or tell the Convict that they had better plan for this being a trap? Rather than subtly threatening him? That's not even a very good example, especially when you start looking at the rest of the cheasy dialogue... You might be thinking "why do you care about the dialogue"? Because if you're going to make it into a major portion of the game, and spend eleven years making said game, you think someone in their QC department would have said "wait... this is really pretty bad acting. We can do better..." The game itself offers a ton of new units, and some oldies. I was pleased to see the Vulture replaced by a powerful-when-upgraded dune buggy. Firebats were upgraded to be walking fortresses, and my favorite marines are still all-around great units (love rushing with them). The game was complicated more by the addition of more types of infantry and I was surprised to see the Goliath back (always disliked making that unit, and the experience hasn't been improved since it dies easily and takes forever to produce). The missions are usually a hoot, and have been more complicated than SC1's typical "destroy the enemy base" mission. I've especially enjoyed how several missions have been added to make a defensive player happy - the "survive thirty minutes" style games. In all I would purchase this again, but have lost respect for Blizzard for dropping the ball on a storytelling experience that had great potential. I look forward to reading reviews for expansion packs before I purchase them.… Expand

After more then a decade of waiting this actually lives up to the hype! Loved the first game but this surpasses it in gameplay, options, storytelling and what I can see - even in longevity!

I didn't even like the first Starcraft much (only Blizzard game I disliked). StarCraft II is fantastic however. The story and the way it is presented is really fantastic and unexpected for an RTS. I can't wait to finish off the singleplayer and then head online for some matches!

Incredibly fun, in every aspect. Matchmaking in multiplayer keeps those of use in the mid-range skill level from being stomped too often, and from being bored to tears fighting opponents with no chance of competing. I can't begin to applaud the single player campaigns as well as they deserve. One of those games that really makes you sit back and wonder, "Why is this just now being included in these games?" The campaign truly lets you play your way, upgrading your units and building to customize the things you personally choose to use most often. I'd give it an 11 if I could, I strongly advise anyone who likes RTS games or has wanted to try one to play this game.… Expand

Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about multiplayer and the millions of Koreans.… Expand

This game is nothing but a cash cow. Here is my review: Pros: --Runs pretty well --Decent art on the static screens in the ship --Resembles old Starcraft somewhat Cons: --Boring, trite story that is less interesting than your average Saturday morning cartoon, with even worse dialog: (things like: "the end of all things is nigh!!" "It is your destiny!!" and "Your efforts are futile!"...) 9 year olds will eat it up, and so will the legions of mouth breathers and diabetics who will spend time with this game. --No LAN play...seriously?!? --Facebook and Realname? Wow I can smell the corporate parties already as their bank accounts fill. Glad I got the collector's edition and sold off the pieces to pay for the game, as it wasn't worth it.… Expand

Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, save the flashy but poorly written and schizophrenic single player campaign. Blizzard has become a subsidiary of Activision, and they just want your money now. Mutiplayer for this game was slapped together before the server was even finished. There's not even a chat room as of August 4th.… Expand

If I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. Say Goodbye to tournaments outside of Blizzard's authorization; if you read the EULA you'd realize how many things you simply can't do. Just like how Activison screwed the multi-player on Modern Warfare 2 by porting XBox live to the PC now they've ruined one of the greatest games of the PC gaming Golden Ages by removing the very things that made the game great.… Expand

Tried to enjoy it but it's still a bad bad game. A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.

I was disappointed with this game. I'm a long time Blizzard fan going back to the mid 90's. I played the original Starcraft for hours and hours. After 12 years I expected that there would be some grand story to tell, turns out there wasn't. The game itself is glitch free and plays seamlessly. It's supposed to, I take points off for things not working, I don't add them. That's really the only good thing there is though. The single player campaign is just a small part of a larger marketing campaign that was really a huge let down. The maps are boring and the storytelling is disjointed. They attempt to make it nonlinear but if you do the missions in different orders some parts of the story don't make sense. There is definitely the "right" order, though you're not forced to do it that way. Multiplayer is not my bag personally, but there is nothing new and exciting here. You will play on a map with fewer units than in the campaign against other people in exactly the same way I did 12 years ago against my friends. Except now, you can't spawn a copy to their machine, everyone has to pay $60 or you don't play. Blizzard has become the same as the other major game companies like Activision and EA and is only about the almighty dollar now. Skip this unless you absolutely have got to have more Starcraft multiplayer like it used to be, because that hasn't changed.… Expand

This is a horrible successor to the first game. The balancing is way off, and even at the lowest settings more than 30 on-screen enemies brings my computer to an absolute crawl. What a waste.

There are too many counters in the game, every time I feel like I have the infrastructure to begin putting up a fight, I produce a few types of units in great numbers and several others in smaller numbers, then get steamrolled as my opponent has built all the exact counters to my units. Also the Light/Heavy armor system is completely broken, allowing for uninhibited trolling of entire armies by a few cheap units, which is not only extremely unbalanced, it isn't fun. This coupled with the extremely competitive ladder system, in which people new to the game stay bad at the game because they aren't allowed to play with players who are good, and keeps highly skilled players playing solely against other highly skilled players, segregates the SC2 population into cutthroat pools of angry players. This makes player abuse not only something that creates negative and unhappy attitudes among the people on the "new" battle.net, it is something that players who are at a skill level any lower than that of the competitive Korean leagues of SC1 will encounter on a basis something on the order of nearly every match. I will say that the graphics are a major improvement over SC1, and that will make SC1 fans rejoice, including a system that allow a player to select an nearly unlimited number of units at a time, and a system which allows players to select buildings as if they were units, allowing players to queue up many units at a time without clicking on each individual building. These new features, which should have been included in the first game, aren't enough to redeem Starcraft II enough to live up to the name of its predecessor.… Expand

Blizzard doesn't try to change the gameplay from the original Starcraft. Blizzard polishes its tried and true formula and creates another addicting Real Time Strategy game. From the beautiful graphics to the fast pace gameplay. Blizzard also adds a nice feature that allows new gamers, or gamers out of touch with the Starcraft universe, to play practice games so that not affect your competitive score. Great for Blizzard to bring the RTS scene back from an industry flooded with First Person Shooters.… Expand

This game is great, it is simple to play and hard to master, campaing is not boring at all, every mission is different, and storyline is equal to those of Starcraft and Warcraft 3 - almost perfect.

This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for very high price 6/10 is fair rating in my opinion… Expand

12 years and all we get is the same game, with better but not current graphics, and a lot of features removed: fundamentally LAN support and spawn CD, which are what made StarCraft and Blizzard what they are today. Thanks, Blizz, but I won't buy the game when all you're interested in is me signing in into your facebook clone and giving you my RL details. Shame on you.