User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2646 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. Oct 24, 2011
    10
    "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
  3. meh
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    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.
  4. Mar 12, 2011
    10
    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
  5. 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
  6. Apr 19, 2011
    9
    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
  7. Oct 18, 2010
    8
    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
  8. Nov 8, 2011
    8
    "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.
  9. 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
  10. 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...
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. Nov 28, 2012
    10
    This is, and without a doubt, the greatest RTS game ever made.

    Those who try very hard to be cool and buck the mainstream would beg to differ, but morons like that beg to differ about everything.

    This game is popular for a reason, people. There simply isn't a better RTS game available right now.

    Not an opinion. Fact.
  16. May 9, 2011
    6
    Suffers from being designed for high level professional tournament play, not enough creativity and effort is put into making the game fun and diverse
  17. May 15, 2012
    10
    This is the best game known to man! i play this game as much as possible and once i started playing SC2 i just couldn't play any other game. I highly recommend this beautiful game but SC2 heart of the swarm is coming out soon this fall you might wanna wait for it, WARNING THIS GAME IS HIGHLY ADDICTIVE! IT IS THE BEST GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!!
  18. Mar 9, 2013
    10
    Even though the campaign story was a bit disappointing this is still one of my favorite games of all time. The campaign though having a bad story is still quite fun the first couple of playthroughs. The multiplayer is fantastic and even though the constant cheesing can be annoying, the macro games are so much fun and very different from game to game. The arcade is also much fun if you get tired of melee matches, and even though the maps aren't nearly as good as the ones in Warcraft 3, they're still pretty good. I will be playing this game for years from now on so even though the story was poor i'm still gonna give it 10/10. Expand
  19. Jul 5, 2012
    7
    Star Craft II: Wings of Liberty is the first part of Starcraft II. Blizzard is planning on releasing several Star Craft II games with each of them having a a different story. They decided to do this to make more money. Instead of buying one game with a lot of campaigns you will have to buy multiple games. A lot of people love this game. Game Informer gives it a 10/10 (the last one given in three years). They way I look at it is that if you don't already have this game and are planing to play online you should not get it. I got it about a month after release and I am do terrible online. The game give noobs like you and me fifty warm up rounds (I skipped them and did the five games that places you in a bracket). I some how managed to win one of the five games. Now when I play online I usually lose in fifteen minutes. In other Real Time Strategy games like Age of Mythology and Age of Empires it usually takes at around twenty minutes for the first attack. In Starcraft II you are attacked after ten minutes of playing the game. As for me, I like to make an empire, get resources, get all the upgrades, and so on. Maybe RTS games online are not my cup of tea. The graphics are good along with the campaign. What I like most about the campaign is that in between missions you are on a ship and you can get upgrades and talk people. (This is unheard off in an RTS). I also liked when you are on a mission you get people communicating with you about the mission of the left side of the screen. The story was okay but I never played the first Starcraft (that may have helped me understand it). The graphics are good but I have seen better. With this game being pushed and pushed for a release date you would expect the graphics to be at least as good as Red Dead Redemption. One positive thing was that you did not have to pay a monthly fee like World of Warcraft. I would have played even less of this game or may have not purchased it if had Like I said, if your not already playing online then expect to get you smashed in. Expand
  20. Sep 27, 2012
    5
    If you like an RTS that requires no strategy-- literally the best strategy is massing any unit and overwhelming your opponent-- then this game is for you.

    If you want an RTS that requires strategy-- aka military units to take out certain enemy units and siege to take out infantry-massacring buildings, then any of the Age of Empires games are for you. Unfortunately stupid masses flock
    to Blizzard's remake of SC:BW. They know not that Blizzard is owned by some dumbass French company. Expand
  21. Aug 14, 2010
    9
    One thing about this game is that the balanced nature of all the sides. With so many sides competing on such a large scale, man o man. Starcraft 2 strategies are formed by the minute. I am currently taking professional help at http://starcraft2-strategies.com
  22. Aug 17, 2010
    9
    Now I don't understand people CONSTANTLY whining about "$60? omgwtf??" and "its the same game with better graphics". I agree LAN is important and with it this game would have been a 10/10 but why the whining about the price? If you can't afford it, don't buy it and shut up. If you havent noticed, everything and everyone in this world is driven by profits. It's that simple. And yes, the gameplay is a lot like SC1 but its not the same game. There are many new units which completely change the old strategies, upgrades, and a pretty impressive campaign (compared to most of the RTS games out there). SC1 was a great game and I bet if they had made a totally different SC then these same people would have been whining "They destroyed StarCraft QQ". What do really want from SC2? Bikini clad girls jumping out from the screen and into your laps? If you havent played this game please do not give it a low score and then justify your stupidity by saying things like "I gave it a 0 to offset all the 10s" .. Bottomline - SC2 is a fun RTS game and blizz has done a great job with BNet 2.0. Yes it may not deserve a 10 but its certainly not a game worth "0" points. Get a life. Expand
  23. Aug 19, 2010
    9
    Polished, balanced and very detailed game. Everything is just good. The only problem is that SC2 is very repetitive and old-school. Nothing really new comparing to the first game. Anyways, it's a new cybersport discipline for a long time now. That is what Bliz aimed for. If you're nostalgic - buy w/o thinking. If you're SC1 multiplayer fan - buy w/o thinking. Others probably will be disappointed. I would prefer something where more thinking and less clicking required. Expand
  24. Sep 25, 2010
    10
    This game has got to be the best PC game ever made. Amazing graphics and improved gameplay has blown all those series that get yet another game every year to the sky. The wait for this game has really paid off. Continuing with the unfinished story from the first games, Starcraft 2 has refitted itself with new units, structures,characters and map editor. The prologue at the installation point tells you the story so far, so new players of starcraft do not have to buy the first games to get whats going on. Starcraft 2 now has an achievements centre where you earn achievements for something you did while playing. you can see the achievements board in your profile. This is one of the best real time strategy games ive ever played Expand
  25. Oct 11, 2010
    8
    This game is not as good or at least it did not have the same impact Starcraft had on me and my friends when it came out. Still, this game is a must buy if you are a fan of the genre. Single player is fun and the achievements might keep you hooked for a while. Multipayer is great, blizzard made sure to make battle.net work well for it, at least to try and compensate for no LAN support.
  26. Oct 11, 2010
    8
    The thing that makes this game great is the fact that it is an old school RTS game, they did not jump on the no base building hero unit trend which is great. Overall a good game. No problems running the game at all even on ultra.
  27. 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
  28. Mar 11, 2011
    9
    Very fun game. The online play is great, requiring a lot of skill and constant effort to actually get anywhere. The graphics are great, and all of the animations are very smooth. The game play is amazing, although I wish they could've added more units to online play, such as Black Archons, Medics, Dragoons, etc etc.

    Still, amazing game.
  29. Mar 15, 2011
    9
    Another great game from Blizzard! The story is engaging from start to finish. The character interaction between missions add to the immersion of the story. To criticize this game as not having evolved enough, is not giving this game any credit. I think many modern RTS games are just trying to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to prove they are different. They are adding features that are not always better. It is like if a company came alone and tried to improve basketball by making four hoops and three balls the standard. Expand
  30. Mar 25, 2011
    10
    Best RTS ever played. I'm a old RTS gamer since Dune I, Dune II, C&C and etc.
    It's brand new (some imbalance appears as normal in RTS world) and is already awesome. The next expansions and patches for sure will lead this game to the top #1 as most played RTS in world. Getting error: Score (4.0) id must be a floating point number.
  31. Apr 19, 2011
    9
    this game is the real deal. its what a pc game should be; tons of user content, long and challenging single player experience, ranked competative online play, pushes the limits of even the best computers, highley tuned and tested, i was in the beta for over 7 months

    there is a reason blizzard is king of pc gaming
  32. Nov 30, 2011
    10
    Really good game, nice gameplay, great graphics. The only downside is this competitive thinking of most of people on the ladder online. It pushes the fun away whereas if you play with a friend or two, the game gets another dimension of fun! Campaign is alright and help you to get into the multiplayer quite quickly. But you can skip it, the game is worth for the multiplayer on its own.
  33. 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
  34. Nov 4, 2012
    10
    In one word: Amazing! The anticipation for Heart of the Swarm is killing me. I love the game, watch all the professional matches, and this from a guy that never even played Starcraft 1! Every gamer needs this in his staple of classics.
  35. Aug 15, 2010
    6
    Starcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothing but an upgraded experience. Sorry, I'm just fine with original Starcraft... Expand
  36. 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
  37. Jun 28, 2011
    10
    Pretty fantastic game. Very smooth and polished. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign mode, and eagerly await the next installment. Sadly the community that surrounds it is not conducive to enjoying the game experience. Great fun to play with friends, but as usual you should avoid the pubbies. Most of them haven't learned to act like decent human beings yet, or play very robotic "strats" that if fail, they immediately leave. The computer opponent is more challenging and inventive than most of the players you'll find online. Also the major league gaming component is entirely ignorable. You can have a much better time with this game without paying any attention to the elitist buffoonery that surrounds it. Expand
  38. Apr 13, 2011
    5
    Its your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort that Blizzard put into this game, every campaign mission always adds some interesting element with every level, but over all, game is nothing new or interesting, how it got over 12 million sales is beyond my comprehension. Expand
  39. May 20, 2011
    9
    Fun game, and I don't even enjoy multiplayer RTS. I just played through the campaign, which I enjoyed a lot. The only complaint I have is that the campaign wasn't longer. It was well done, but it could have been longer. That's why I give it a 9 instead of a 10.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Jun 23, 2011
    5
    Starcraft 2 is a bit of a hit and miss. yes, the gameplay is fun. The campaign is well written. And the visuals are very impressive for the most part. but it has so many issues. The constant fixed camera angle is so out of date. One has to ask how little effort it would have been to make a rotateable camera. I felt cheated of a basic tenement for when I want to see a little bit more. This also made a perspective problem (Strictly artistic point of view). I shouldn't have been able to see certain object angles from the fixed camera point. The space combat was, pardon the phrase, ridonculous. The ships were stuck on a 2 dimensional plane and relative to size, battleships had a weapon range of less than a mile. Also its a very lazy sci-fi universe. The aborted child of games workshop's warhmmer, it still has problems with who it is. All of the races and designs are a copy of someone else's fantasy. And then the killer. The game is too easy. There is no inherent strategy. Strategy is the art of forcing the opponent to your schemes and outmanouvering him. This is button spamming rushes. Its fun, but there is no tactics needed. All in all it is a fun game, but it has lazy lore, unreallistic space combat and a lack of strategy. I'd buy the game, but not for full price. I'll wait for a preowned copy. Expand
  43. 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.
  44. Sep 2, 2011
    6
    Pros: Like most blizzard games, Starcraft II ships with a lot of replay value. One of the main strong points of the game is that the races and units have always been very well balanced leading to a lot of room for skill in the game. The ease of joining multiplayer games and custom games is quite easy as well. Cons: They havn't really changed anything from Starcraft 1. It's still 2.5D, same units, same resolution, same everything. If you adored the first one, maybe that's not a con, but considering the price tag on it, it seems a little overrated. You can't change the defaults of the game outside a narrowly defined set of rules from blizzard (game speed, AI Difficulty, races, etc), and it takes forever to load maps, even for single player.

    Conclusion: On the whole, it's not a bad game, it's just a little weak for what you pay for. If you like Starcraft 1, you'll love Starcraft 2, but otherwise it's not really a panty dropper. I gave it a 6 because it's more good than bad IMO, but bare in mind, were this school, that would still be a "D".
    Expand
  45. 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
  46. Dec 6, 2011
    9
    This game is amazing. Unlike a lot of the troll complaints, the story is awesome, far advanced from the previous one, and much more advanced then I've ever seen from an RTS. I had to play through the story mode the first day I got it becuase I had to know what happened. I love how they worked in the unit customization so I was not forced to just use whatever new unit they gave me, and I could use a consistent strategy throughout the maps. I also like how they worked in doing protoss missions, and the last protoss mission was an epic level, probably one of the best in the history of any RTS ever. This game has everything going for it, but I give it a 9 for being a bit choppy still online. I was in the beta testing, and it worked fine, but when the full version came out, it was not working as well anymore, so they have to add more servers or something to compensate for the amount of players on B-net. Expand
  47. Sep 5, 2012
    10
    I will have to admit I was extremely skeptical that this game would be better than the original Starcraft. After its release and playing for an extraordinary amount of time, I can say that SC2 is an amazing game. It is fair to also assess that it is the same level of quality as the original. This is an exceptional level of quality because Starcraft is truly in my opinion Blizzard's gem and a revolution in pc gaming. Let it be known that there are people who devote their lives to this game, expect to get schooled in multi-player. If you do play for a while though, practice makes perfect, you will improve significantly over time. SC2 is remarkably flexible and balanced and every battle is a fight to the end. There are so many different strategies at your disposal, and even if you don't want to fight others you can team up against the computer or join one of the HUNDREDS of AWESOME UMS games that are provided. UMS for those who don't know means USE MAP SETTINGS, and is pretty much where the players create a map for others to play. I absolutely love defense UMS games such as turret defense, they are so simple yet totally satisfying. You will need a good PC to run SC2 on FULL settings, but if you qualify the reward is terrific. Blizzard truly did an excellent job making this game a successful predecessor to one of the best games ever made, too bad that didn't happen with Diablo 3 :) Expand
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Jul 16, 2013
    10
    Well balanced strategy game (like Sc1 and Bw). The single player Campaign was excellent! Even thou the story does`nt "top" the original SC1 story, its a good continue, and the game itself has renewed the way the campaign is build up. You can develop in different directions, between missions, and have to live with the choices you make. It has different difficulties, which makes it fun no matter the level your on. (my friend has to play it casual to enjoy the game, i need more challenge and go hard, and if hard is to hard, then i can take this one mission easier, and go back to hard on the next mission again). The game also has 3 alternate challenges within each mission, which you don`t have to take to succeed, but which makes it fun to play the same mission again several times to reach this goal as well.. And of course, the graphics is up to date Excellent game, MANY hours of fun, even after single player campaign is through, you can play it again, or enjoy the best multiplayer strategy game of all time Expand
  51. Jul 20, 2013
    10
    10/10. This game was great. There is a great multiplayer ranking system. Each game lasts about 10-25 minutes on average. I would often play 2 games after work and then I was able to put it down. Many games got my heart racing. The single player campaign is excellent.
  52. Jul 22, 2013
    10
    Positives: - looks cartoony but appealing and still serious enough to enjoy - most unit portraits are well made and have a good design - Multiplayer! This is about Multiplayer - frequent balance patches - Modability! This is a great plus for me. You can make basically everything in the GalaxyEditor. One can make entire new games within Sc2. Awesome! - active Community: be it Forums or the constant flow of new custom maps. With a community that big that has access to advanced moding tools such as the fabulous editor this game won't get boring too fast :)
    - the campaign missions are designed fun and diverse

    Negatives:
    - Music. Except for the Terran music I consider the soundtrack of part 1 to be the superior one. The great terran music in Sc2 is en par with the terran music in Sc1. They even captured the whole 'space cowboy' theme a little better this time around.
    - Story: The campaign didn't touch me or anything. The whole atmosphere wasn't as unforgiving, cold and gruesome as in Sc1. In Starcraft 1 the cold depth of space was present. The terrans were rugged, slightly degenerate nihilist basterds in Sc1 and it suited them. They were space dark, weird space humans. In the multiplayer of Sc2 everything feels alright about the terrans but in the campaign they're all too shiny and perfect at times. The dark awesome feel of part one is absent during Sc2's campaign. Still, the missions were fun and diverse (see above)
    - Protoss: when have the protoss become singing moral elves? Really they once were awesome radical superbeings who felt superior to everyone because they were. They had awesome big ships and erased entire planets with their radical advanced technolgy if it served their interest. Besides they had other faces and looked way more awesome. Now they just look... I don't know. Their faces are to edged, the eyes to little. I preferred the design in Sc1. It was simpler but it looked way more natural. The way an intelligent alien race should look. Besides, in Sc1 Protoss didn't wear shiny cute crystals everywhere. What happened to the Protoss? They were cool once...

    Conclusion:
    This is a multiplayer game so the minus of the story is a relatively unimportant one. The protoss problem is a question of personal preference of course. Don't like them? Play another faction. Overall they fit in with the other 2 (way more badass) factions well enough. So this minus is rendered rather meaningless, too. The music, while not as good as in part one at some points (again the Protoss music is my least favorite...) overall is still a solid piece of work and the terran theme is awesome. Zerg is cool, too, sounding very organic and aggressive which suits this race perfectly.
    Expand
  53. Aug 6, 2010
    9
    I had a chance to watch someone play this game and it looks amazing. Blizzard did not make the mistake of overhauling gameplay for the next chapter in the story. An upgrade in graphics, engaging storyline and the introduction of new units is plenty to spike the interest of a RTS fan.
  54. Aug 11, 2010
    9
    Not many games made me spend so much time there - this does. Single player is really nice, mult really much fun. Only bad thing is high price but well, blizzard know how to make profit...
  55. Aug 11, 2010
    7
    They did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and they unrealistically cluster together like crazy, as if they do not really occupy any physical space. They line up in a circle around enemies they're attacking, and there is no cover system, formations, or any other kind of advanced, realistic tactics. It's a bit silly and cartoonish. But that's just what it is, and if you're into that type of thing, with the ultra-micromanagement and all, go for it. Expand
  56. Aug 11, 2010
    10
    Changes from SC1: --Added queen/comstat/chrono boost to the races to add another component to your strategy. Huge CHANGE from SC1. --Buildings addons can be used interchangeably with other buildings with terran race. --Can hotkey all buildings together to cutout some micromanagement. --Group sizes are limitless now unlike 12 units from the first game. --New abilities, such as blink/corruption/changeling/can move while burrowed/ --can rally workers straight to minerals, which again cuts out unneeded micromanagement from SC1 which are all HUGE and great changes. --With SC2 came a completely new Battle.net, which has been the same since SC1, but I guess, you know, that doesn't matter. --High yield resources. --High ground units can not be attacked unless you have sight up there. HUGE change, which completely differs from SC1. --All the new units. --Creep plays a lot more role, such as spreading it out with either your overlords or creep tumors, which increases your zerg units speed while they're on it. UNLIKE in SC1.

    I mean, how are these not changes? What in the world could anyone possibly ask for? Everyone on here that gives it a bad rating always says that. I don't understand, they aren't specific. "Same game as SC1". If you don't like the game that's fine. I can understand why people (younger) have gotten used to modern day RTS. SC has always been about mineral/map control. If you don't like the game fine, but please explain why you feel it's the same as SC1.
    Expand
  57. 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
  58. Aug 12, 2010
    10
    Real time strategy games just don't get any better than this. They took what worked in the original and expanded upon it creating a universe that not only puts you in the driver seat but shocks and awes along the way. The units are balanced, the gameplay is fun, and the multiplayer is fantastic as ever. I was afraid that my aging PC wasn't going to be able to handle the graphics, but it can. My PC is 3 years old with an upgraded 9000 series nvidia geforce card and it plays it fine on medium. My buddy has an even older computer and plays it fine on low. So, don't be afraid if your PC isn't up to snuff. Expand
  59. Aug 12, 2010
    9
    It kills me when people promise an objective review, yet slap the work in question with a 0. But I digress. The title in question, SC II, is a superlative piece. Is it revolutionary? No. However, if you were even remotely interested in this product before its release, you probably already knew this. What you get is a refined game that gets a lot of things right, and is unapologetic about retaining an established format. Is this a bad thing? In my humble opinion, no. It's refreshing to play a strategy game that isn't desperate to skew its perspective, or mimic other recent RTS', for the sake of innovation. Is it safe? Perhaps. But the product is so refined, who cares?

    In regards to the campaign, it gets a lot of things right. This is what the original DoW II campaign should have been like. The missions are diverse, the story is strong (albeit cheesy at times), and the experience, as a whole, is very entertaining. The productions values, per usual Blizzard, are excellent. The game world is vibrant and detailed.

    MP, per usual, is good. However, unlike a majority of games that toss fresh meat into the fray with no support, SC II goes out of its way to accommodate inexperienced players; even assigning them to specific leagues. Is the absence of LAN or chat a big deal? I didn't care, but maybe some one else will. Also, the game ships with a intuitive map editor that is fun to toy around with, even if you aren't creating anything. I can only imagine the works art members of the community will present in the near future.

    The big question is the game worth $60! YES! Rarely do games come this refined and bug free.
    Expand
  60. Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I played the first and although it was good was far from great, what the second improves on 12 years later is graphics and some gameplay thats about it. The strategy for all these RTS games is still missed on trying to execute some real tactics. What we are left with is building fast under the same BS rountine that everyone learns then is just a monkey see monkey do mouse click competition. It defeats the purpose of Real time strategy and with 12 years from 1 to 2 I would have expected a lot more. Expand
  61. Aug 12, 2010
    9
    Really 'effin polished. Great strategy, I always wanted to start starcraft but was never motivated as everyone was so good and I hated the graphics. Now SC2 is the only game I'm playing. You don't need to play the first but check the summary of the story if you want so that you'll understand the story more for the second. Better than average cinematics, solid gameplay and lots of online fun. Polished to hell, no bugginess! What a relief. Expand
  62. Aug 13, 2010
    9
    Starcraft 2 started out a bit slow but picks up the pace very quickly. Game play is pretty much exactly the same as Starcraft with just a few new features and improvements for the most part. The game feels very balanced and the single player campaign has a host of different difficulty settings for amateur to hardcore players. Soundtrack is great and the game really feels like starcraft and not simply a pretender. Story is excellent continuation of the saga although some of the dialogue is a little "action movie" like, this is what you would expect from a terran only campaign. The new features such as the ability to move around on your command ship and speak to characters, different mission choices which influences some of the sub plots and overall cinematic feel really add something extra to the game from the previous one. The game isn't perfect though but it is a great continuation of the starcraft series and a worthy sequel. Now there is only one frustration left. When is Heart of the swarm coming out?! Expand
  63. 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
  64. 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).
    Expand
  65. Aug 13, 2010
    10
    The last ten years has mostly been console gaming for me. Starcraft 2 reminded me why I used to play PC games. Games like this just don't work on consoles! C&C is a travesty on a console and Halo Wars was v simplistic. Starcraft 2 has great balancing, top notch production values and tweaks that old nostalgia nerve just enough to make it feel like home. This is a masterful recapturing of yesteryear brought to a new generation of PCs and gamers alike. Do yourself a favour and check it out - at least on a trial basis. (The retail edition comes with free, time-limited trial cards to give to friends, so just ask around!) I cannot wait to see what Blizzard do with Diablo 3! Expand
  66. Aug 14, 2010
    9
    This game is fun. Plain and simple. Sure there's no LAN for all the crybabies, sure, and I did hear it was rehash-y (StarCraft, the original, doesn't work on my computer). But come on! It's a good game. It's well designed and generally entertaining. Also, the people complaining about the expansions are plain stupid. Expansion packs are fun! No one's forcing you to buy it! So, I ask you people to stop being wet blankets and embrace what Blizzard has given us. Expand
  67. Aug 14, 2010
    6
    Competently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament play than the original, and it strips many features away from the original in the process (with the absence of LAN being sorely missed, and in an incredible level of greed, adds region locks to screw countries with high game prices like Australia)

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

    Starcraft 2 is the worst kind of cynically marketed products, a completely unimaginative paycheck of a game that took no risks and learnt nothing - designed to sell on **** hype and nostalgia; and shame on us for falling for it.
    Expand
  68. Aug 15, 2010
    10
    This is exactly what a sequel should do: keeping what works while adding enough changes to make it fresh. The in game graphics and cutscenes look amazing without the obvious difference between them like most games. The gameplay is the classic SC but with modern tweaks and upgrades to make it even better. I don't understand why some people complain about that. Those same people would complain that Blizz should have kept things the same if they had radically altered the gameplay. If you go into SC2 expecting DoW or WiC then yeah you'll be disappointed. And if that's what you want then go play those games instead. Expand
  69. Aug 14, 2010
    7
    While StarCraft II remains an incredibly fun game with a fun storyline, people who have never given two craps about RTS games, aren't starting to care here.
  70. Aug 15, 2010
    10
    When something like SC2 gets released by a developer like Blizzard people expect the absolute best, and will criticize it with that in mind. The story could be a little more serious, and the MP still has some slight balancing needed, but realistically compared to the other games on the market its amazing.
  71. Aug 15, 2010
    10
    !!ALTHOUGH NO REAL SPOILERS - THIS WILL SAY A LOT ABOUT THE FEATURES OF THE GAME!!

    I've read many reviews saying it's just a rehash of starcraft 1 , and the graphics havn't changed much, but that's completely wrong. There are many more new units to choose from , more depth into upgrading them, the graphics are fenomenal for an rts making it look gorgeous to play and the maps are
    thouroughly detailed. The campaign will give you entertainment for 10+ hours, even more if you want to challenge yourself to do the achievements( Yes , achievements! , very similar style to blizzard's World Of Warcraft.). The cutscenes are spectacular which you expect of blizzard from their past cutscenes such as the wow ones. The story is deep with lots of great depth and is grabbing from the off. Multiplayer is addicitvie. There are many subcatergory's (1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 FFA) , and with all apart from FFA , after 5 placement games you get placed into a division (Bronze Silver Gold Platinum Diamond). You are constently motivated to progress higher!. You can go into a team game as random , or with a friend, and if you go in with a different friend later on , you will start from placement matches , so it tracks your members in multiple teams of the same catorgory. This game is certainly worth a purchase. You may see Korean gamers who are mighty impressive players with fast hands playing this game, but it matches you to players in your region so no need to panic. There are to be 2 new campaigns set for release most likely at the end of the year or next, so content will keep coming towards you with new maps. Once more, this game features an intergrated Real ID system , which lets you talk to friends playing other Blizzard Games (WoW ofcourse!) and friends who are perhaps in the campaign while you play multiplayer. If you like to have some sort of bragging rights (We all do) then you can showcase your best achievements which will be seen to any member viewing your profile and along with achievements come portraits to put a picture next to your ingame name. These portraits can say a lot about a player IE beating the game on the hardest difficulty (Brutal).

    Best RTS currently on the pc market in my opinion.
    Expand
  72. Aug 16, 2010
    10
    This game totally worht the wait!! I bought the collector's edition at midnight on july 27 and it's worht the price too!! I love this game. Awsome characters and awsome game experience. The multyplayer part of the game is the same in every way it should be the same like in SC1 but it has all the improvements i miss from that game!
  73. Aug 18, 2010
    9
    The years of waiting worth it all the way.Everything is just the way a gamer,loving the first version.Starcraft 2 is the right successor.The cinematics,the way they are part of the game,not the boring motions we are used to watch,tapping the Esc button for them to stop getting us bored.No other words from me.Complete 10,just like the good old Starcraft.
  74. Aug 19, 2010
    7
    This game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; but it's not like they'll miss the numbers. having said that, the single player campaign was substantial and challenging, the cutscenes were cool, and no-one (certainly not me) is going to say they didn't get value for their money. Expand
  75. Aug 19, 2010
    6
    If you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interested in this game casually, you should give it a pass. The gameplay is hardly different from the original, and it is more of a large patch than a new game entirely. It is sad to see that the game is even more micro intensive than before, forgoing skill for memorized cookie cutter strategies and quick hands. Unless you like to spend hours perfecting you ability to multitask, I would suggest choosing another game. Expand
  76. Aug 19, 2010
    6
    Though the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less and less acceptable. Expand
  77. Aug 19, 2010
    10
    The negative comments are just hilarious. The game is fantastic in every single way, it surpasses the original so much it's not even funny.
    Sure, some balance issues have come, but is that something new and unexpected? The first one wasn't balanced enough for years and SC2 came out with almost perfect balance. You have an expansive campaign with unparalleled multiplayer. I can't wait for
    the expansions - this is by far the best RTS campaign ever. There's so much more to say about the game but I'll only say this - it's the best RTS you will have for the next 10 years. Deal with it and enjoy it! 10/10. Expand
  78. Aug 20, 2010
    10
    this is a great game i never played he first but the second looked great and its a great game its not a game you sit down your first time and are just good you do have to put some time in and practice multiplayer is well done. i recommend having a good cpu a quad core is a good choice or a really fast core 2 duo both would play fine
  79. Aug 20, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would give it a 8 if there was a tournament option (with a party of 8, P1 v P2, P3 v P4, P5 v P6, P7 v P8 all at the same time with 2 people battling on each map. Then the winners face off, and those winners face off etc.) I would give it a 9 if it had the tournament option, and it also didn't require you to be online to do almost everything. There are times when my internet is down, and I want to just play against A.I, but Blizzard won't let me do that. Finally, it would get a 10 if it had the two prior features, and the races were balanced. Not only did the races lose their defining traits (Zerg can no longer swarm, and Protoss is weaker than Terran HP-wise) but the races are now just plain imbalanced. Zerg is underpowered compared to both races, and no I'm not saying this just because Zerg is my main. Even the professional Korean players are starting to complain that Zerg is too weak especially after the Roach and Ultralisk got nerfed. Fix all these things, and Starcraft 2 gets a 10. Expand
  80. Aug 20, 2010
    10
    The wait was well worth it. Everything about this game satisfies me in every single way imaginable. Single player campaign was great, absolutely cannot wait for the second installment to come out. It's just too bad we'll have to wait!

    100% Recommend to any RTS lover. Starcraft is second to NONE!
  81. Aug 21, 2010
    5
    Graphics aren't too great compared to previous rts releases, story isn't that immersive and get's a little silly at points, same old sh** I suppose for a rts, gets old fast! I will admit I'm not a real fan of rts style games, but all this hype is ridiculous.
  82. Sep 4, 2010
    8
    It's a prettier starcraft, you play it just like the 1st one, only you can have unit groupings as big as you like. Oh, and terrans get very different equipment in Campaign mode, so when you switch over to multiplayer, you've got to rethink all your strategies.

    Love the music and the new layout of in-between mission area.
  83. Aug 24, 2010
    6
    The game is great, it's definitly Blizzard and a great balanced STR... but how sad that they have not renewed a little bit more the universe, the units, the gameplay... I'm looking foward to an extention pack with more differences !
  84. Aug 25, 2010
    9
    There's a reason why renowned critics have given universally favorable reviews for Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. It is simply one of the best PC gaming experiences out there, ever. With the "selling out" of many games to the more popular console system, there are very few companies left which truly devote the resources which the PC deserves above a console game. Blizzard, along with a few other developers such as Sid Miers, are the last standing frontier of PC gaming out there.

    The campaign from Wings of Liberty throws thirty-some missions at the player, with several additional mini-games or challenges thrown in the mix. There are a plethora of achievements. Although some users might complain that it's not "complete" since it only features thirty missions, the story and plot come to a climactic close, not just some cliff-hanger to sell the next expansion.

    Graphics are good, but not anything great; Blizzard, for most part, caters to hard core gamers, except here, where they allowed WoL to run on a range of specs. Music and sound effects are grade A, it doesn't sound recycled from the past game and the sounds as well as voices are unique to the units and the characters you meet throughout your adventures.

    Multiplayer is what truly caters to the needs of the hard-core. It's been intensively balanced, and has a new style of match making as well as a revamped Battle.net 2.0. Leagues and points systems attempt to ensure that players play against those of equal skill level or so, with the chance to play greater skilled opponents in order to promote into another league. Starcraft 2 has a great community; as of now, much of the DotA company (rude and mean) has not moved over into Starcraft 2. There are many new players who picked up the game who were dedicated WoW fans, but generally, they are mannered. The forums, as well as spin-off fan sites, offer a plethora of ways to communicate with the community. A rising phenomena is the commentary of the Pro-gaming series, as well as novice and amateur commentary of one's own replays, or replays of friends. After the release of Starcraft 2, there was an increase in scamming and phishing attempts however.

    As for cons, there is no LAN, but fortunately there is offline play. You can have guests play on your computer, but only one battle.net account is allowed from a CD-Key. Zerg is never handled by the player; this leaves many new players playing Terran in multiplayer. You cannot change the set-up of the default keys (but there are four different sets including the original Broodwar setup) , but this is mainly to ensure an equal gaming environment.

    In the end, if you are a PC gamer, it's almost unlikely that you've never heard of Starcraft. I suggest any PC gamer play this game, as it truly is the sequel to the best RTS of all time.
    Expand
  85. Sep 1, 2010
    9
    very good game.
    one of the best RTS games I played lately. It is designed for players whp like fast action RTS games. I'm a turtle player but still like the game. The graphics and sound are good. The single player story is good. The missions are fun to play and have divers goals (not every time kil everything on the map). The multiplayer is as good as the original.
  86. Sep 5, 2010
    9
    An Amazing game that fans of the first game will love. The game plays very similarily to the first one but with a wide array of new features and units. Amazing story and cinematics as is to be expected from blizzard is always a plus. 9/10 for an amazing come back to one of the greatest games ever made.
  87. Sep 7, 2010
    8
    SC2 is all about the online multiplayer. It was a disappointing campaign compared to previous Blizzard games. The matchmaking system is okay, but overly simplistic. A brand new player may end up playing against veterans of hundreds of games in the Platinum league simply by winning all their placement matches.

    The races are not yet balanced. In 1v1 terran > zerg, zerg > protoss. Zerg has
    a definite disadvantage in team games as well. Hopefully this will change when the expansion comes out. The game gets an 8 because of the terran imbalance, the lack of LAN play, and the lack of many battlenet 1 features that they stripped out. Expand
  88. Sep 9, 2010
    9
    Finished this game right down to all 3 achievements per mission - point is I really played this game. And the verdict? PROS: Excellent game and a worthy successor to Starcraft 1. It retains enough of the original Starcraft 1 look and feel so as to make you feel comfortable - and yet it is still different enough to be challenging and exciting. Graphics are bigger, more detailed and sparkle, especially if you have a good video card (I use a 9800GT). There are 29 missions overall and they are balanced excellent, always challenging, and the achievement system makes for great replay. Also, many new units added for all races, other units have evolved, lots of new stuff to learn. And you can rotate the game left and right a bit by pushing Insert & Delete buttons - definitely a much more 3D look to the game. Loved the plot, loved the cinematics. A lot of work put into this title - the usual Blizzard level of quality. CONS: Why I didn't give a ten is because of the need to always be online to play this game. I think maybe Blizzard has gone overboard in its efforts to stop piracy. Playing this game is like when you play a game thru Steam. Warning: If you are playing the game and Battle.net goes down, be aware that you can only get achievements if you are connected to Battle.net. And I wish they had allowed LAN play, but you can still play with friends or someone else at home thru Battle.net, you just create the game non-public and you each need your own battle.net account. Hoping the next installments to this title won't be too expensive, and am sure they will be excellent campaigns also. Expand
  89. Sep 15, 2010
    6
    Over 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find it somewhere else before. Technically, the graphics and sounds etc are just average, nothing special. The only good thing, is probably the so called 'map editor', with which we may see some fantastic innovations in the future. Expand
  90. Nov 19, 2010
    9
    I love this game. It has all of the fundamentals of an RTS while still keeping originality. Multiplayer is totally epic and the single-player campaign is even more brilliant. It's one of those games that you just have to pick up whether you are or are not an RTS gamer. It got me into RTS games and I recommend it to everyone. My only gripe is the battle.net 2.0. It is region locked so, as I have, if you buy a game from overseas then you will have to connect to the overseas battle.net. Also no LAN support which got me really angry. Other than that, a great game. Expand
  91. Sep 24, 2010
    8
    The criticism is from most people is understandable. Battle.net 2.0 is nothing but restrictive, the campaign was okay (in an old-school rts type of way) but had a terrible plot, and you get the chance to pay for two expansions with similar, lacking content. But the multiplayer in SC2 is just really, really solid and fun. New players may find it a bit daunting, and rts fans may complain that the little change in 12 years is nothing but a rehash, it is still a great multiplayer game. The strategies in 1v1s are very diverse, and the old school system may be hard to learn, but really interesting once you've mastered it. The new unit additions add more depth, or revamp some of the lacking choices and opportunities of the factions that occured in Brood War. Expand
  92. Sep 29, 2010
    9
    While all turn based games lack the big adrenaline rush you get from 1st person shooter types, in its category Starcraft II lacks nothing. The missions are challenging, some very much so, and the growing stockpile of mercenaries and weapons allow for multiple and variable solutions to each episode. The story line is compelling and the action is moved along by the A.I. fluidly. Once play begins you are engrossed in completing the mission(s) and the hours slip by unnoticed. This is an extremely satisfying game. Expand
  93. Dec 4, 2011
    10
    To those like me who had not played Starcraft, first of the name what I can say is that Starcraft 2 is a really enjoyable RTS set in a dystopian futuristic universe. The campaign is a well-crafted way to get into the story but maybe a little short (although alternative missions and achievements makes it a re-playable game). There is a great diversity of units with unique playing style for each race, so lots of strategy to try in Battlenet: the core of the game.
    The criticisms I could make: no out of the box possibility to play LAN so better have a good internet connection and then lots of trouble playing a multiplayer game online without constant lagging. Also I agree with those saying that the music, voice acting etc. could have been better.
    Expand
  94. Oct 8, 2010
    9
    A great game, another great product made by blizzard.I wish the solo campaign was longer but it just makes me want the next one even more. Be prepared to constantly multitask when playing online matches, I would advise reading up on strategies and watching videos on you tube it helps. There is a custom made game for anyone online.
  95. Oct 12, 2010
    9
    Tries too hard to be better than the 1st one and the multiplayer doesn't really do it for me. Don't get me wrong, i think it's a great game and I gave it a 9, but as a sequal, the multiplayer was a little dissapointing. They took away most of my favorite units and replaced them with less powerful units. The single player is fantastic, i really like how they set it up, so that really saves them for my score, but the multiplayer just doesn't seem as fun for me as the original...which is the only reason i docked a point. i'd give 8.5 if i could though. Expand
  96. Oct 14, 2010
    9
    Ok so Starcraft 2 Wings of Liberty aint anything new for RTS but hell do any of you know what it takes to creat flawless gameplay? I mean you all got to remember Starcraft was and still is one of their best works there wasn't a real need to change much. The graphics alone is what people wanted out of Starcraft and Broodwar. And not to mention Blizzard sets standards to the highest and makes games that don't need tons and tons of patches. All those that give the game less than a 7 need to realize you put your standards too high. Why recreate the wheel on this beautiful game? ALL RTS's are just about the same no matter what. Look at all the Diablo games not much changed from Diablo to Diablo 2 or that matter of Diablo 2 LOD. Diablo 3 is going to be just about the same just better graphics, new characters, and maps. Starcraft 2 Wings of Liderty should get at least a 7 but I give it a 9 for the fact its beautifuly made flawless and the few new things it brings to the table for other RTS's out there need to compete with. Blizzard is the best company out there hands down and I barely play anyother games out there from other companies. In fact I want to work for Blizzard once I get out of collage because I want to set a new bar with RPG's/MMORPG's. Blizzard themselves ARE THE BEST! Expand
  97. Oct 21, 2010
    10
    I am a big fan of RTS games and well i can say that this game is awesome! I played SC:BW for some time and loved (despite its outdated graphics, still awesome).
    The game-play i would say is somewhat different from BW but it isnt a drastic change. The campaign is great and will take some time to complete and is quite challenging on higher difficulties. And as i said, single-player is great,
    but multi-player. Now that is a different story :)
    Battle.net 2.0 can be described with one word: Awesome. I mean you could just spend your whole day in SC2 either by playing 2v2/3v3 against computers with a teammate, playing some league matches, or the best part: custom games. Custom games are just incredible. Basically you have around 100 different games(and i think many more actually) in SC2 so you will not get bored easily.
    The balancing is great when playing league matches: you always get to compete against a player who is pretty much at your level. I have yet to actually see some sort of idiot on Battle.net, everyone behaves and there are no retarded people online.(Trolls/spammers/anything like that)
    So my advice: If you like RTS games, or you have thought about which one should be your first one, then you should definitely buy this game! Thumbs up 10/10. High Five Blizzard!
    Expand
  98. Oct 24, 2010
    9
    SC2 is the best multi-player RTS game out today. If you are looking for a fast strat game look no farther.
    It beats the socks off of C&C 4 which is a only half a game.
  99. Feb 14, 2011
    9
    Over 10 years ago I was introduced to Warcraft II. Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty is one of the best RTS money can buy but that doesnâ
  100. Nov 20, 2010
    7
    The single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at how archaic and inept WOW is graphically. This game was made and adjusted prior to full retail release for the seasoned starcraft player, and I as a casual gamer stood to lose out 70% of the games online, and it was a boring and unrewarding experience to say the least. Needless to say, and reiterated numerous times, the price tag is a total rip off for what it offers in only a terran campaign. I never knew a such a software giant such as Blizzard had the low in them to bully us consumers. Expand
  101. Oct 9, 2010
    0
    Nothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game is based almost entirely on multiplayer. It felt as if I were playing a "remastered version of Starcraft" rather than its sequel- as far as my expectations went, it didn't surprise or impress me too much, and of course this game took far too long to develop. 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]