User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2607 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. Aug 12, 2010
    0
    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
  2. Apr 7, 2011
    4
    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
  3. Aug 13, 2010
    0
    If I really rated this it would get maybe a 5 or 6, but I'm counter-averaging all the biased perfect 10's. Anyone rating this a perfect 10 obviously doesn't care about the subtle nuances that made Starcraft a great game. No LAN play, the inability to play players from other countries, and a $60 price tag just shows how Activision/Blizzard are content with screwing consumers over. 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
  4. Sep 14, 2010
    2
    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...
  5. Dec 9, 2012
    3
    Where should I start. Most BW fans were disappointed with the game and Blizzard just did a horrible job with this game. BW has a far higher skill-cap and feels more fun, WoL is a watered down version of the game. Even as a non Starcraft/RTS player, you'll probably easily understand the advantages, vulnerabilities and mechanics of WoL, it's just really simple and barely requires mathematics unlike BW. So... you have to pay for another account in a different region...if you're playing on a foreign region then your ping is terrible even though the ping was perfectly fine in the beta. The lack of social interaction is a big issue which they are only now coming to address. They removed units from the game itself from BW and changed the meta to encourage turtling. That being said, it is more balanced than BW and it is better spectator-wise which was the main problem with BW. Now the single-player...is the single-player, with a bad story and less memorable characters than in SC1/BW. All in all, Blizzard tried to capitalize on old franchise (as they did with Diablo 3) and it was just a waste of space. Expand
  6. Aug 14, 2010
    0
    Tried to enjoy it but it's still a bad bad game. A rehashed 12 year old game with hardly any changes (especially visually) in order to make sure that the Korean tournament crowd will be pleased. A ridiculous relic to put it mildly. PS: I am particularly amused by the cut scenes that -naturally- have nothing to do with the actual game.
  7. Aug 18, 2010
    0
    12 years and all we get is the same game, with better but not current graphics, and a lot of features removed: fundamentally LAN support and spawn CD, which are what made StarCraft and Blizzard what they are today. Thanks, Blizz, but I won't buy the game when all you're interested in is me signing in into your facebook clone and giving you my RL details. Shame on you.
  8. Apr 26, 2011
    4
    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
  9. Sep 30, 2011
    3
    To be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are under attack is not fun, and you can lose them all in a matter of seconds, which completely ruins your chance of winning the game. Also not fun. Scouting is near impossible in this game. You will find yourself most of the time simply trying to make educated guesses on what your opponent is building. An incorrect guess can lead you to a loss. This is especially irritating when one or two stealth units kills your entire army and base. The early tier units completely overpower anything late tier. It is not surprising to see even a top level player build 10-15 barracks or gateways and just pump mass garbage units. Stategic element is lacking. The most strategic thing you will do in this game is drop units on an enemy mineral patch. It's all about speed. You see the same build orders game after game. No real variants on the ladder. Some units just aren't worth building. The SC2 battle.net forum is catered for little kids and Christians. Perhaps the worst part of the game however, is the fact that you spend most of the game staring at your base. Active engagements seldomly take place, and the god awful ramp mechanics make penetration into the enemy base more irritating and frustrating than anything else, and also highly favor the defender. Save the money. Buy new brake pads or something. Expand
  10. Jun 23, 2011
    4
    I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

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

    There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!
    Expand
  11. Apr 11, 2012
    4
    Outdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and other re-re-replayed junk) and you'll get Starcraft II. It's like eating a really tasty looking eye-appeal pie that has no filling besides the bread crusts for anyone that isn't Korean along with the beautiful cinematics accompanied by some silly storyline. Expand
  12. Mar 17, 2011
    3
    StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original. Expand
  13. Feb 10, 2012
    4
    After hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics are lacking. Still a decent game and worth checking out if your a RTS fan but don't fall into the "hype trap" generated by overzealous fans. Expand
  14. Sep 2, 2011
    1
    Bad, bad, bad. Rehashed game, just graphics have been improved. Less features (e.g. LAN). Boring gameplay, no tactical usage of the enviroment such as cover, etc. Dull missions. There are better RTS out. Don't buy this one.
  15. Aug 21, 2012
    0
    So my account just got blocked because of suspicious activity, because blizzard wants me to buy their authenticator. This is mainly because if you join a public game in D3 it gives people your ip etc so its really easy to hack your only numbers and character password..Not to mention the fact the blizzard has completely destroyed so much game play at the expense of balance when not necessary ghost/reaper/the list goes on and on hellion as a result of the queen and on and on. Then they have this huge update for custom games that people who play the game don't even care about. All we want is land and other gaming ladders stuff that was supported way back in 1998 but by all means they can't do it now because that would be too difficult. Also They start updating units to bring them back from when they were destroy because of balance in WOL for 40$ and they're going to add other types of competitive match making to fix problems that were created by themselves with battle.net 2.0, They still haven't realized how seriously they are **** up or they just don't care because they are getting infinity money from wow and daiblo and people are just going to buy their games regardless how much the customer is getting **** over. Expand
  16. Dec 9, 2012
    0
    Story: Huge letdown. Terribly cliched. You could tell the writers were too used to working on Warcraft fantasy when they started work on SC2. Too many things come down to space magic. Storyline is not engaging whatsoever and lack of CGI cutscenes made the game less enjoyable as it had in SC1 & Broodwar. All the characters from Raynor to Mengsk are extremely boring. Lorewise lots of things don't make sense such as: What the hell happened to the UED? They are never mentioned whatsoever.----------------------------------------------------------------------Multiplayer: Worst ever. One of the greatest things I loved about SC1's replayability was UMS maps. Players would design some extremely fun & popular maps you could download ingame by joining. In SC2 there is a terrible quasi-matchmaking system ranked by popularity that just doesn't work. Games autolaunch when they have a certain amount players & there is just no feeling of community anymore. Its a good example of "Do not attempt to fix what isn't broken". The games created by players coming up in a server list worked perfectly and there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Somewhere someone decided they knew better. They didn't.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: Ripoff. Played for a few weeks after launch, have never touched it since which is a telltale sign something is wrong considering I played SC1+BR for countless years. Expand
  17. Jun 30, 2013
    4
    It was easy to predict Blizzard's downfall the moment of SC lls first revelation.
    Cartoonish graphic that doesn't fit at all the attempted sincerity of SC universe.
    Dumbed down, uninteresting, cliché story with disgustingly dumb simpletons as protagonists with outrageously flat lines. It is so embarrassing you want to unhear/unsee it.
    Game itself is not bad, it's that the single
    campaign is so bad it hurts physically. Expand
  18. Aug 12, 2010
    2
    I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
    Installed it, etc...
    Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the
    big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard. Expand
  19. Aug 13, 2010
    2
    A disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite having the same number of races and units as SC1, it's highly imbalanced - try and use a mothership for a serious purpose.

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

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

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

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

    I already wasted my $60 and can only hope the time I spent writing this will save at least 1 poor soul from the emotional letdown that is: Starcraft 2, "Universally Acclaimed" based on critic reviews. They get +1 point from me because they at least spelled the name of the game correctly (the only thing they did right unfortunately).
    Collapse
  21. Feb 27, 2011
    0
    This game is no goodzorz. I played it, but I did not enjoy my time. If I had a nickel for every time this happend, I would be like WTF. But seriously. There is nothing special about this game. You might as go play age of empires.
  22. Aug 19, 2011
    1
    the most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not even three dimensional gameplay (no heights, just "land" or "air" a ranged unit can attack from the base of one side of a hill to the opposite side, firing THROUGH the hill). still massively restrictive unit caps. No LAN play, which even starcraft one had.. at most it is an expansion to the original, 10 years late and twice the price. all polished up but bland, repetitive gameplay. Expand
  23. Sep 18, 2011
    3
    When I was 15 I nearly flunked 2 years of high school playing Starcraft. I stayed up drinking coca cola playing Big Game Hunters with infinite resources, fine tuning my economic build and learning how to make people miserable. I had been looking forward to this game for over a decade.

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

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

    If you liked Starcraft 1 and already matured and move on from its gameplay, this game is not worth it. PS: Blizzard, Hire some professional writers who have credits in literature and cinema that have won awards. Whoever you have doing it needs to be sent to get their MFA or something, this $#!7 is bad.
    Expand
  24. Sep 15, 2011
    0
    This game doesn't make me to play it for a long time. Played SP once, play ladder once. And that's it. Nothing new. Story-wise it is very very so-so, the gap is closed a little with hollywood style angle. And the region-lock is very annoying. I play at SEA region, and the custom map here is very little.
  25. May 12, 2012
    3
    Lo, how the mighty have fallen. I was a huge original Starcraft/Brood War fan and wanted to love SC2. What a major disappointment it was though, and in no way worth the long wait. Rather than repeat in full what the other detractors have noted, I would just say that what bothered me the most were how little gameplay had improved since the original Starcraft, and how awful the story was. It was like some cheesy action-adventure movie, and inventing that whole Tychus Findlay backstory was incredibly lame. It's very sad really. Back in the day when Blizzard was small they were innovative and seemed to respect their fans. The fame and success obviously went to their heads though, and big money translated into big egos and accountants, and as a result SC2 was nothing more than a sop for the masses. Expand
  26. Oct 13, 2011
    4
    A little over a year after SC2's release, Blizzard have yet not added clan support, LAN (which leads to massive problems during tournaments) or Gateway selection. You are also still limited to one account per cd key, which means that if you step away from the game for a couple of months or want to try a different race you will have to get stomped for many, many games until your ranking plummets to where it's supposed to be. They are also reacting in a tragically slow manner to balance concerns, and usually in the wrong direction, as if they are incapable of fixing the game or don't really care about WoL's balance, since they have two more games on the horizon.

    As for the single player, it's widely viewed as terrible. The story, characters and dialogues were absolute rubbish, and its only saving grace was the relative variety of the mission objectives. Even so, I know many people who have played SC1 and Brood War's campaigns >10 times, but never bothered with SC2's campaign again after they were done with the achievements, which is not a good sign.

    Its graphics are still bad and not much effort has been done to improve them or optimize them. Even 5 year old games like SupCom and C&C3 look much better than SC2, but you still need a **** quad core CPU and a good GPU to run SC2 with everything maxed, for disappointing results, and still have it lag when maxed armies collide. Unacceptable for an e-sport, every professional player out there plays on low settings to avoid graphical lag that could cost him the game.

    Still, even though it doesn't offer much to the casual player, SC2 is a rapidly growing e-sport with hundreds of shiny tournaments going on. It is also amazing to watch, unfortunately much more enjoyable to watch than to actually play. I do enjoy watching SC2 tournaments, even though, like everyone else, I often get bummed out by imbalances that Blizzard timidly attempt to address once every 6 months, but always end up short.

    If you would like an e-sport to watch and be entertained, I would recommend buying SC2, it does have potential and maybe 2 years after Legacy of the Void it will actually be balanced. I can't however recommend it to casual players who don't play a lot, or people who expect a unique and immersive single player experience like Brood War had.
    Expand
  27. Jan 20, 2012
    2
    Corporate Greed 101. Take a beloved franchise and table it for a decade. Then, spread the sequel across 4 years (2010 - 2013) and charge full price for each "episode." This game should be titled Starcrap II: Part 1. This is part multi-player fiasco, part 3 episode single-player campaign that for some reason will take 4 years to release in full NOT counting any expansion packs. I call shenanigans on Activision. And there's no way I'm buying parts 2 or 3 simply out of principal. Expand
  28. May 15, 2012
    0
    Huge disappointment, bad graphics, boring gameplay. activision blizzard killed developer we all knew and loved. go to hell bob kotick. The game is cheap, the game story is abomination to original.
  29. May 20, 2012
    0
    This "story" of Starcraft 2 is butcher with hollywood-cowboys in space- kind of feel I can use up all 5000 characters and I did on my native language but in english I will just say that this game hurt my feelings I loved StarCraft 1 and Broodwar but this "Starcraft II Rednecks in Space" is huge dissapoitment, Multiplayer is somewhat fun to watch on youtube but to play its just to much hollywood for me big downgrade Fun - 1/10
    Gameplay - 7/10
    Controls - 9/10
    Graphics Design - 1/10
    Story - 0/10
    All Time Graphics - 9/10
    Sound - 3/10
    Music - 0/10
    Replayability - 0/10
    Graphics for its time - 9/10
    39/100
    Expand
  30. Jun 16, 2012
    0
    if you can get past the blizzard fanboy lovefest that people have who are blinded by their brand of bull...
    ...then maybe you made it here where the reviews are a bit more critical
    I am happy to see the 3/5 rating on Amazon.com, as that is what I gave it on ebay, where it has a 4.5/5 rating, of course (they think they are reviewing the seller, generally, lol

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

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

    that is all

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

    ;}
    Expand
  31. Oct 26, 2012
    4
    This game has great graphics and detail to each unit being used and also good map designs. But I did not like the single player campaign at all. The missions are very short and almost every mission had a time limit on it. So this limits me on what units I can use that are cheap and can do the job in completing that particular mission. The original starcaft game, including the add on Brood Wars, rarely had a time limits and I could take my own pace in completing a mission. The new one is no fun at all, you are too much in a hurry to finish the mission to enjoy any part of the game and the extra units that are playable are a waste, because I never get enough time to use a new unit to their full Potential. It seems the new units were only created to be used for multi-player and were just added to single player for their introduction. I never did like multi-player because I die to fast and I never have enough units to defend my base. The first game will alway be my favorite because you do have to be online to get the ok from Blizzard that I can play my game on my PC. Furthermore, the units on the first game had more uniqueness that they don't look out of place and actually help the player in winning a game. This will be my last starcraft game until blizzard makes a more compelling game that is fun to play like their old games were. Very disappointed about this game. Expand
  32. May 16, 2013
    0
    I often hear people say, "Hitler was a good guy, he built a lot of roads." I also have heard people say, "Starcraft II is amazing, the gameplay is fun and very balanced".
  33. Oct 30, 2013
    3
    A stupidly fast paced over hyped mediocre RTS with no real creative flair or potential. Unless your a die hard fan of Starcraft don't waste your time or money. Play CoH 1 Instead.
  34. Oct 24, 2013
    0
    Their hardest mode is called "Brutal" mode. It is EASY. Not even what you would expect from a normal mode. The story isn't as bad as I expected, but nowhere near as good as SC1. My biggest issue is multi-player. It rewards spamming single units with no real strategy or mixed unit combat. The very little strategy it has is rock-paper-scissors type stuff. They also cut down on units so that they can add them back in expansions. Half the units in single player aren't even in multi-player... In addition to that half of the units you are given are just useless because they are too weak or too expensive in any situation. This game is terrible. Why does it have so many good reviews on here? Expand
  35. Aug 25, 2010
    0
    This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
    blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.
  36. Aug 20, 2010
    0
    I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good. Expand
  37. Aug 25, 2010
    1
    The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them. Expand
  38. Aug 27, 2010
    3
    The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

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

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

    Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.
    Expand
  39. Sep 6, 2010
    3
    Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

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

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

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

    The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.
    Expand
  40. Sep 9, 2010
    2
    Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences" which would be the point of a "Defence" because they have more hitpoints and cost ratio is better, then yes someone screwed up. as far as balancing... well its not. the old starcraft the old war horses of blizzard knew. protoss; high power low output on units. terran medium power, medium output on units, zerg; low power high output of units.... pretty simple. the game is not balanced when a good protoss player can take a probe into the enemys base and set up photon cannons and win the game in 5 mins before a half decent player can get any units up. sry blizzard but i think your failing. and this aside, no LAN? not only that but there were SOOO many more options in the old starcraft in multiplay that allowed for cooperative play on the same team why cant the A.I. have an option to build defences and turtle the game. and the campaign story line that was.. ehh.... Two words for me sums this all up, extreme disappointment. as a hardcore gamer i loved the long played out matches i played 12 years ago. well this makes no difference to blizzard im sure. but this long time SC2 fan will not be buying those expansions Expand
  41. Sep 13, 2010
    3
    You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though. Expand
  42. Sep 17, 2010
    4
    12 years since the first game and I'm a little underwhelmed. That game old blizzard formula is back and the default generic blizzard art design too! (you know everyone is really stalky, wide, ugly and colorful). The campaign is a scant 25 levels and really doesn't go anywhere. The plot is hackneyed as hell (and maaaan are the hybrids dumb).


    The only real interesting thing is the editor.
    Looks extremely powerful and already players are making things WC3 could only dream of or just half simulate on a good day. However this may scare players away. One unit can have as many as 30 different CATEGORIES of options. I couldn't even figure out how to down scale the units on my own, a veteran of SC1/WC3 editors. A lot of these options could have been hidden behind an "advanced" tab.

    But it is not without limitations. The largest map size is really small compared to WC3. I should think maybe 15-20 percent or more smaller than the largest in WC3 (guess why I wanted to adjust unit scale). Too the maximum allowed diskspace for a map is too low.

    Now I'm sure the map related stuff is adjustable if there is demand (or even moddable as we saw with WC3) but time will tell.


    I guess all in all this isn't a bad game .. if it was 40 bucks. I bet the "expansions" with the other race's campaigns will be that much though!
    Expand
  43. Sep 18, 2010
    0
    The game itself is not the same as its predecessor. And that is ok; after all, they are not just doing a graphics update here. But, everything outside of the actual game play is completely borked. -Many issues coming up just trying to install/update/troubleshoot the game. Many more than are excusable for any new release. -Limitations on single player play... cmon... really? -Limitations on Multiplayer Play (No LAN). -No unique Screen Names. -Extremely Vague Ladder System. -Can't Kick People from games if you don't want to play with them. -30 second waits for game starting. -Lack of any way to describe special rules before joining a custom game. -IM type interplayer communication. -No Chat Rooms. -Feels lonely despite 1.8 million copies sold. -Restrictions on how many UMS maps can be posted per game key. -Restrictions on file size of UMS maps loaded to the server. -Games listed by popularity. -No way to see special rules for UMS maps. -Hard to start a game for a less popular map. -Hard to make a new map popular. -Need personal information to make friends (aka playing the game). -Very hard to join a game with one particular player that isn't on your friends list. -Game maker needs to assign slots to players in a UMS game. -AFK Game makers holding down UMS games (no way to make the game) -Radical shift in game design according to how damage is calculated. -Combining units instead of introducing new ones. -Unbalanced.

    And it's more expensive than other games on the market.
    Expand
  44. Sep 24, 2010
    3
    This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
    If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
    Although maybe i am just that
    for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed. Expand
  45. Oct 14, 2010
    4
    Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
    First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
    I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good
    RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
    Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

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

    Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
    And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
    you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!
    Expand
  46. Mar 20, 2012
    0
    Is this game made by experimental college students? This is just plain sad.
    Not a single improvement over Brood War - nothing worth noting atleast.
    This is just far behind our time.
  47. Oct 30, 2010
    4
    I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues. Expand
  48. Nov 3, 2010
    0
    This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people... Expand
  49. Nov 23, 2010
    4
    While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly. Expand
  50. Dec 22, 2010
    2
    No direct B-Chat.... When you enter this game you feel alone... It has northing to do with Online Gaming. You got not real direct contact to your enemies or friends
  51. Feb 20, 2011
    0
    The worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but the micromanagement is impossible at such speeds, so, the game become one arcade game, not a RTS. Idem on multiplayer, players just rush, so, we cannot see here great tactical and strategic abilities, only fast button push (the player who have a better computer, a more responsive keyboard and mouse is in great advantage from start) The designed by default hotkeys-based gameplay make the game experience more sluggish, and frustrating, not more smoothly. The mass cast abiltities lack entirely, also many players regrets the units from Starcraft I and Broodwar. For that causes, Starcraft II, despite the 3D graphic and other improvements, is very far from SC I and Broodwar at their time. Somebody from the game-stuff imposed with obstinacy a wrong personal vision about to way to play the game, and from that point are resulted all game failures and lack of game joy for many players. The game have good parts too, and other bad parts too, but even just for the reasons mentioned above the game deserve the score 0! Expand
  52. Feb 11, 2012
    0
    I'm dissapointed that zero is the minimum, because I would have given this game -19 out of 0.00001. I played the single player and completed it, but it didn't prepare me for the **** that is it's online, specifically, the Starjeweled official mod. I used to be part of the Starjeweled pro scene, before it got infested by people who don't know how to play seriously. Now, it's all roach cheese tactics, and lucky combos. I keep waiting for a patch to fix this, but Blizzard seems to have forgotten all about the Starjeweled community. Giving a zero until they learn from their mistakes. Expand
  53. Aug 5, 2012
    0
    Starcarft 2 WoL, has a good story. The always online DRM is a very bad idea and I hate it very much! The only good thing starcraft had going for it was the custom maps. And now even that has been killed off thanks to bean counters at Blizzard. Thanks you greed corporate AssHats! The only reason I am giving at a low score is because of the replay ability factor is low. This game gets very boring after you beat it a few times. I hate the online play and I hate the lack of good maps due to the fact that the Editor is very limited now compared to what it was ones before. So this piece of trash gets a very nice 0 out of 10 from me! You failed yet again Blizzard! Expand
  54. Dec 12, 2012
    0
    After so many years all, this company, has to offer is better grafics...? This games gentre is Not rts. Its probably fps just because the only the player has to have lighting reflexes. The strategy negligable and is repeat it again and again. Well the funs must be happy because in terms of gameplay nothing have changed. For old school strategists AVOID this game.
  55. Dec 18, 2012
    0
    The game has several technical issues not related to the actual gameplay. The installer and updater are very complex and bug prone, after my first install off dvd, the game auto updates. However the auto update is huge and if it fails mid way your install may be broken to the point where you have to uninstall. The uninstall will fail as the updater is a background process that you will have to quit using the task manager, this auto updater also installs to a location on your hard disk other than the one you tell starcraft to install to. Your best bet is to install from the weblink provided by Blizzard, however that requires several hours and a good internet connection as the game is quite big. Which brings me to my second point that since you are unable to play the game without internet you can forget about sitting in the yard with your laptop, or playing it in the summer cottage. This also has the implication that you can't borrow or trade your 60$ game to a friend after you are done playing it. The good news for all this is if you happen to loose your disk you can download the game from blizzard, however I can't say I've EVER lost a DVD I paid for. A good game wrapped in very brittle and overbearing installers and drms, in the end I spent just as much time installing as I did playing.

    Lets talk a bit more about the game, it really feels like starcraft 1 with slightly improved graphics. SC2 completely misses all the great game play advances other RTS's have made in the last 15 years. Graphically you need at minimum the recommended graphics card to play the game, I have something slightly below the recommended and it looks terrible. This is due to the shadows, I can have all settings maxed out, but as soon as shadows go from low to medium the game is choppy(20-30fps). The low shadow quality runs fast but has horrendously poor quality. Rise of Nations looks better on an old computer than Starcraft does on my much newer computer.

    I had high hopes for this game as the first Starcraft had groundbreaking game play and graphics for the time, so many other RTS's have come since then and made valuable additions to the genre, SC2 cannot hold a candle to them and I am very disappointing.
    Expand
  56. Mar 25, 2013
    1
    This game is beautiful. And that's it. If that's enough for you, I'm fine with it. I for one can't believe one can actually give credits for the story. It defiled the legacy of the previous games, period. Shallow characters, meaningless battles, nightmare-ish story, and so forth. Blizzard can't care less.
  57. Jun 29, 2013
    1
    Starcraft 2 was a geat game at the beginning, could run max graphic, then the updates started, cant play it anymore now at lowest graphic. So at start i would give this game a solid 8, now i give it 1
  58. Dec 22, 2013
    0
    WTF was dat O_o How people calling RTS game that even don't have any strategy mechanics inside, it's more third person shooter then RTS, Blizz what you did with Starcraft, where are freedom, hard game, unit uniq systems Just good visual game, with quite boring gameplay system, and too way EASY, still can't get how Blizaard making so easy game started from Diablo II... Warcraft and Starcraft waws so amazing games so what happened with them nowdays... Great graphics will never hide boring gameplay, and more: Good Graohics all the time stealing place from in game freedom and flexible gameplay...
    Sorry to all of you, but more people who like SC 2 didn't play SC in original so for me it's big fail after so many years of wating, more when you pay so much for it...
    sry for bad english.
    Expand
  59. Feb 6, 2014
    3
    Starcraft 2 is a very bland, and overrated game. The graphics look pretty, and the controls flow like water, I love being able to use shortcuts to micro my tasks. Even though this game has its perks, I see more negatives with this game than positives. My list of positives would be the graphics, controls, fluid gameplay, Very well balanced, great mod tools, great UI. The negatives however, in my opinion outweigh this. My list of negatives are as follows. The game lacks varieties of units, even with the expansion pack the game has a depressing selection of bio units, tanks, and aircraft. The game has only 3 factions, as opposed to nearly all other strategy games having 4 or more. The game has replay value to an extent, and major replay value if you want to become professional, and set yourself a goal, however for casual gamers this has little replay value due to its uninspired map design, lack of units and factions as stated above, and slightly repetitive gameplay (If you play custom maps on arcade mode this can hold your attention longer than regular gameplay at times). Another con to this game is the matchmaking, early on you will be facing incredibly strong opponents, this will not be so much of a problem as you progress and increase in rank, however for early SC2 players this can be troublesome.

    If you want a good strategy game, try Age of Empires 2, Supreme Commander 1, or Battlezone 2.
    If you want a strategy game that has more fighting, and commanding than base building and factional differences, then you want Starcraft 2.
    Expand
  60. Aug 13, 2010
    0
    First off, I would like to address my friend Gary K. His 1998 Emachine couldn't handle SC2, sad. But, what is even more sad than Gary P's testimonial is the fact that people DEFEND this game by saying they run it on a Pentium 4 machine with 1GB ram and integrated gpu. What kind of defense is that for a game released in 2010? I know a game isn't all about graphics, but for $60 I wouldn't expect a product that can run on a system I could find at my 92 year old grandmother's house or my local junkyard. I could probably run this on my Gameboy Color, by honestly, I would rather play Pokemon Red/Blue than SC2. When I started to play this game, I thought I had been pranked. When I found out I was indeed playing Starcraft 2, I was pretty disappointed. I honestly thought I was playing some kind of BW patch. Pretty much everything about SP was bad. Even on hard-mode you just need to build 10-15 depots, max your favorite unit, bind to '1' and attack. A few levels were clever; the lava, day/night, fire, etc. But for 12 years of development, it is a struggle to see where all that time went. The graphics, if anything, feel nostalgic and take me back to 2005. All these critics must have been bought out or work for Blizzard. MP is flawed. I used to think Battenet 1.0 needed to be tweaked a little, but 2.0 makes me wish on every 4 leaf clover I see for good ole 1.0. No LAN support and restriction to regions really makes MP pretty worthless. I have no idea where my $60 went. Mediocre SP (at best) and a watered down and 2 step backwards version of Battlenet really ruin both aspects of the game. All this WoW fanboy Blizzard worship is pretty sickening. All Blizzard accomplished was making me want to go down to the nearest bargain bin and buying a SC1 Battlechest for $9.99 because the $50 difference (+ another $80 for the next "expansions") can be spent much wiser. For an eventual $130 you will get 2005 graphics (at best), a couple new units, SLIGHTLY better AI, NO LAN, REGION ONLY, Facebook support (by far the most sellout thing I have ever seen), having to log in to **** ass Battlnet 2.0 (even for SP), and 1/3 proven **** lazy campaign, and the other 2/3 of the campaign will be called "expansions" even though you will be getting the same 2005 graphics and **** ass Battlenet 2.0.

    I already wasted my $60 and can only hope the time I spent writing this will save at least 1 poor soul from the emotional letdown that is: Starcraft 2, "Universally Acclaimed" based on critic reviews. They get +1 point from me because they at least spelled the name of the game correctly (the only thing they did right unfortunately).
    Collapse
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 82 Critics

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