User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 3006 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Jul 11, 2016
    8
    Original Starcraft is legendary and to this day one of the best RTS games of all time, combining 3 completely different, yet perfectly balanced races. SC2 is a nice revival of this classic for younger generations, in case of Wings of Liberty with very nice terran story campaign. Every single mission is fun and with different flavour, intermissions on Hyperion, research, interacting withOriginal Starcraft is legendary and to this day one of the best RTS games of all time, combining 3 completely different, yet perfectly balanced races. SC2 is a nice revival of this classic for younger generations, in case of Wings of Liberty with very nice terran story campaign. Every single mission is fun and with different flavour, intermissions on Hyperion, research, interacting with other crew members etc. is a cool addition. I'm looking forward to other chapters and I hope they will keep or even improve on this quality. The only complaint is separation into 3 parts, forcing you to buy main game and 2 DLCs, there were times in history when this wasn't needed, SC1 had all 3 campaigns from the start, so it's just a sad observation of where the gaming industry went. 8/10 Expand
  4. Jul 19, 2011
    8
    Overall the longevity of SC2 is as good as it ever will get, millions will be playing this game for years to come which is a stupendous achievement and makes Blizzard a master video game company. The multiplayer side of Starcraft 2 is almost flawless (perhaps only for the lack of LAN support). More than any other recent release, Starcraft 2 is incredibly fun and is both easy to play butOverall the longevity of SC2 is as good as it ever will get, millions will be playing this game for years to come which is a stupendous achievement and makes Blizzard a master video game company. The multiplayer side of Starcraft 2 is almost flawless (perhaps only for the lack of LAN support). More than any other recent release, Starcraft 2 is incredibly fun and is both easy to play but hard (very hard) to master and is continuing the momentum of E-sports. The custom maps as always are brilliant, provide endless amounts of content for pros and the noobs and will likely continue to evolve in the years to come. The art and sound design of SC2 are fantastic. Blizzard has some of the best artists in the industry and it really shows in its visuals. The UI and gameplay are also next to flawless. And for the singleplayer side of SC2, Blizzards decision to split the Starcraft racial campaigns across 2 expansions is a tricky divided one. On the one hand I certainly want a lot of content for Starcraft 2 and the promised two expansions are great and exciting, the idea of having long Terran, Zerg and Protoss stories are great, solely focusing on the Terran story for SC1 provides an awesome opportunity to REALLY get a good satisfying, memorable story rather than the short 10 mission Terran campaign in SC1. However the execution of Starcraft 2s single player is a mix. Dont get me wrong the gameplay is great, production values are outstanding, many levels are memorable and awesome, and the characters at times are interesting but the overall story that holds it all together, while not too bad, lacks the captivating and satisfying awesome factor that made up Starcraft 1. The story does have some moments; the upgrade system is a good idea but not truly realised and by the end feels a bit empty. It will take the promised 2 expansions to reveal Starcraft 2s true worth, but as it stands in The Wings of Liberty, the game is great in all accounts but for its lacking story. Expand
  5. Oct 4, 2011
    10
    A game that I sitll play once a week, after more then an year after its release is an amazing thing!
    Campaign was fun! but multiplayer got me hooked! great game!
  6. Mar 28, 2013
    10
    Been playing this off and on for 2 years and I can say for sure that there is virtually no limit to the amount there is to learn about it. It's huge, it's a lifetime game, getting to know it feels like I'm getting a small Degree for a university course. I would say getting to know the technical (controls/interface) is bigger than some entire games, and then getting to know the technicalityBeen playing this off and on for 2 years and I can say for sure that there is virtually no limit to the amount there is to learn about it. It's huge, it's a lifetime game, getting to know it feels like I'm getting a small Degree for a university course. I would say getting to know the technical (controls/interface) is bigger than some entire games, and then getting to know the technicality of each race (builder order/units/uniqueness) is like 3 full other games (3 races), and then actually getting good at the game is like 10 full other games. So you're basically getting 14 games worth in this one game. That's actually not even an overstatement because I'll be playing this for 5 years and I'll probably get 14 times the number of hours I get out of most games. Wow, I just realized that I'm not in hyperbole. Expand
  7. Mar 3, 2012
    9
    Blizzard have taken the usual "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach and even though the graphics and gameplay haven't changed much, the epic and immersive sci-fi story more than makes up for it. Bring on the expansions (hopefully at a decent price)!
  8. Sep 10, 2015
    10
    I was bought this for my twenty seventh birthday by my friends and initially I thought the mechanics were weak - throw down some 'rax and hold 'a'... follow this up with an all in at 5 or 6... This tactic was applied by and against us successfully until we became able to defend and give a proper account.
  9. Dec 7, 2012
    8
    First and foremost, I am an avid Starcraft fan and have played the original Starcraft as well as Brood War countless times for many days worth of hours played. That said, I was also a little skeptical at first about how the new Starcraft game would turn out. The campaign was... not as great as I thought it would be. The story was somewhat blah and predictable. As far as presentation andFirst and foremost, I am an avid Starcraft fan and have played the original Starcraft as well as Brood War countless times for many days worth of hours played. That said, I was also a little skeptical at first about how the new Starcraft game would turn out. The campaign was... not as great as I thought it would be. The story was somewhat blah and predictable. As far as presentation and graphics, the game gets an A+ (at least compared to the old Starcraft; in terms of comparisons to other games today, it's about average I'd say). Multiplayer is still fun, but one thing I really did not like was the inability to have local LAN play instead of having to connect to the Blizzard servers all the time. The greatest thing about Starcraft's continued replayability all these years was that you could get a bunch of your buddies together or go to an internet gaming cafe (anywhere besides the US) and play Starcraft on a local network without having to deal with lag or server downtimes or malfunctions. You used to be able to play offline, even though it was supposed to be a online-only experience. Now it appears they've taken away offline play, so that docks more points from the rating. You shouldn't need an internet connection in order to play the game, it's that simple.
    To conclude, I am happy with the game but not as happy as I expected to be. Still would recommend getting this game, and hopefully with Heart of the Swarm they will have made a better game.
    Expand
  10. Jan 31, 2012
    9
    Warcraft 3, and Starcraft 1. Starcraft 2 surpasses both in every aspect from the campaign to the balanced multiplayer to map editing tools. The amount of custom game types that can come out of the custom map tools is simply staggering. One can lose thousands of hours in this iteration of starcraft. Buy it if you are a true pc gamer!
  11. Mar 15, 2014
    9
    This is the best RTS game I have played. The gameplay is amazing with the best SP of any RTS game I have played. The multiplayer is also very good with the three different races that play differently and unlock a whole lot of strategic potential. It is very fun, satisfying and rewarding to learn to use all three. The plot is very well done and the characters are great and there is lots ofThis is the best RTS game I have played. The gameplay is amazing with the best SP of any RTS game I have played. The multiplayer is also very good with the three different races that play differently and unlock a whole lot of strategic potential. It is very fun, satisfying and rewarding to learn to use all three. The plot is very well done and the characters are great and there is lots of humor in this game. Expand
  12. Feb 16, 2012
    7
    Blizzard is quite good at getting something that worked, and then tweaking it into something slightly evolved in the best way possible. You either like this incremental approach, or you don't. I don't. However me simply saying I don't like this games approach to evolution and then slapping a 0 on it, is exactly the kind of critic I don't want to be. Besides, I am a huge fan of diablo 2 -Blizzard is quite good at getting something that worked, and then tweaking it into something slightly evolved in the best way possible. You either like this incremental approach, or you don't. I don't. However me simply saying I don't like this games approach to evolution and then slapping a 0 on it, is exactly the kind of critic I don't want to be. Besides, I am a huge fan of diablo 2 - and while I know that they will do the same thing they did with starcraft II - for diablo 3. I am fine with that. So it would be a double standard to simply dismiss starcraft 2 because A: It's a genre that I don't prefer. and B: Because it's incremental, when that's exactly what I want from the genre I DO prefer. (Action rpg).

    So in that light. Starcraft 2 is reccomended for people who enjoy two things, a well balanced and tightly playing rts, and a superb online competitive mode. And while the story is well presented, well written, and relatively engaging. It's not the long term highlight of this package. Frequent online play is. If you do end up enjoying this game competitively - This is a 10. I enjoyed playing singleplayer, and since I am not a competitive person - I did not enjoy the hardcore requirements or thought processes of multiplayer. So I judge the part I can judge. And it's a 8.
    Expand
  13. Nov 24, 2013
    9
    Starcraft 2 is really a great game. Story mode is really great and multiplayer is old Starcraft with better controls. I was really hoping for some new race, but in the end it does not matter and old races are enough.
  14. 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 andI 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
  15. Dec 20, 2011
    6
    I've played and completed the game, but I wouldn't call myself a Starcraf2t fan. The pace of the game and the actual combat is so quick that you can't really see how each unit is getting along. Typically the enemy will build and send a mixed party of units right at you. You hear some bangs, see some quick and brutal deaths, then it's back to the business of buiding more units. No matterI've played and completed the game, but I wouldn't call myself a Starcraf2t fan. The pace of the game and the actual combat is so quick that you can't really see how each unit is getting along. Typically the enemy will build and send a mixed party of units right at you. You hear some bangs, see some quick and brutal deaths, then it's back to the business of buiding more units. No matter how many times I've played the maps, it always boils down to scenarios that are either way too easy, or way too hard. I either end up being completely overwhelmed or the other way round. I'm comparing this to my two favourite real-time RTS games at present - RUSE and World in Conflict. Maybe my brain just is a tad slow, or I just hate having to do so much high-octane multi-tasking .. not sure, but for me I have to sit on the fence. Expand
  16. Jul 29, 2011
    10
    A good return to the Starcraft universe. The three races that made SC1 such a huge success are back and better than ever. Blizzard has done a very good job of giving each race new strategies and units. As for competitive matches, this game excels. The online functionality is for the most part excellent, but occasionally there are bugs. Fortunately they are usually quickly resolved. TheA good return to the Starcraft universe. The three races that made SC1 such a huge success are back and better than ever. Blizzard has done a very good job of giving each race new strategies and units. As for competitive matches, this game excels. The online functionality is for the most part excellent, but occasionally there are bugs. Fortunately they are usually quickly resolved. The online custom maps are another reason why I'm giving this game a high rating. The editor is amazing, and even more amazing are the things the map-making community is creating. Even though the online competition and the campaign are good, I feel that the custom maps are the best part about the game. Highly recommended to any PC gamer since this game can provide almost endless entertainment. Expand
  17. May 31, 2012
    6
    This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20This is Blizzard's first epically disappointing game, in its plunge to activision mediocrity. It's a remake of starcraft 1 with better graphics. The custom map system is horrible because of the "popularity" system, so if you invent a map you will never be able to play it with anyone because it isn't popular. If you aren't a map maker and just want to play maps, you 'll play the same 20 over and over, because the system kills creativity. It feels like Blizzard itself is now enemy to creativity, it's a big ball-less, slow, boring company which issues remakes and cashes in money. Warcraft III was superior in every way, ten years earlier. Expand
  18. Sep 1, 2010
    10
    This game is unabashed and honest about what it is. It's an old school base-building fast paced rush heavy RTS. If you like that kind of game, stop reading and go buy it right now, because this is the best of that type of game that we've seen in a long time.

    If you don't like that type of game, then you won't like this game and you should move on.
  19. May 29, 2011
    10
    This is basicly Starcraft 1 with modernized graphics. There are minor enrichenments to the gameplay, but overall is nearly identical as in the previous game. Campaign is great, I can safely say its greatest single player campaign in any RTS ever.
  20. Nov 18, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

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

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

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (2/2)

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

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

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

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (-1)

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

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

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

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

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  21. 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 retailIf 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
  22. 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 mathematicsWhere 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
  23. 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 rankingA 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
  24. Mar 22, 2014
    8
    An all-around great game that is also the poorest strategy game I ever played.

    Wonderful cutscenes, characters, voice acting, clearly above what the gaming industry gives, make it a game that I love to watch as much as I should love to play it. Fine graphics and somewhat lame sounds(I can't recall a single non-cutscene song of the game, but the sounds and noises are fine with nothing
    An all-around great game that is also the poorest strategy game I ever played.

    Wonderful cutscenes, characters, voice acting, clearly above what the gaming industry gives, make it a game that I love to watch as much as I should love to play it.

    Fine graphics and somewhat lame sounds(I can't recall a single non-cutscene song of the game, but the sounds and noises are fine with nothing special) make it a very, very acceptable game despite its lack of memorable music in any way.

    The problem is with the gameplay.
    Fast-paced as all hell, it gives no defenses because it wants to keep being at top speed.
    It has a very tiny, if existent at all, growth curve and you can beat a super-army with basic units, since the game works on a painfully simplistic principle of "this unit kills that unit".
    Almost no consequential use is made of the terrain or the size of units or the size of armies: you can turn around an entire 150 population army instantly, no movement jams or slowdowns when you have 50 tanks turning around together at the same time. You can get to a high vantage point to shoot enemies and it can be proven useless in less than 5 seconds as enemies will just rush to you from an easily-accessible way up...

    The complexity of the game is quickly shown to be about knowing what units to use and where to send them. While sufficient to make Starcraft II a fun game, it makes its complexity suffer terribly and come off as a simplistic, almost boring RTS. Actually, it IS a boring RTS.
    The element that saves it is the incredibly fast pace it has.

    You will spend all your time micromanaging units cause the AI is too dumb and things such as formations, lines, organisations, or the like, simply don't exist in this very poor RTS. But micromanaging does keep you busy and you're never idle.
    You will have to constantly go back and forth between bases and front lines to direct every unit or group of units and constantly spend time changing your units or forces to fight the enemy with its current weak point. Again, poor and simplistic, but it keeps you busy.
    You will have to keep trying to amass all the resources you can and spend them in units and tech, but you will almost never decide of a good offensive or defensive position as even the hugest possible army can be wiped out in less than a minute and your main job is not to strategise or fool the foe but to keep mashing buttons so that you get all your units in their spots where you need them for attack or defense...

    Every unit's capacity has to be micromanaged and you'll have to shift between them to use them all, adding even more stuff to do, which keeps you busy, but taking away even more capacity for complex thinking or setting up intricate strategies as AGAIN, this game isn't, and doesn't even try to be, a strategy game, as much as it tries to be the fastest-paced "unit creation and control" game there can be.

    Best example I can find to define this game's problem as a strategy game is the missions: you'll have tons of varied and fun objectives and some nice bonuses in all of them, but in almost every single mission without exception, your strategy will be: learn their units, get the units that kill them, keep getting resources and don't stop till victory.
    All the missions are nice and varied, but all the strategies are the same, save a few very rare cases.

    While indiscutably fun and memorable thanks to its great cutscenes and characters, SCII WoL is also the poorest strategy game I've played in my life, and compared to the Command and Conquer series, the Total War series, or other non-"Blizzard RTSes", this is truly the worst strategy game I've played.

    Still loved the cutscenes and effort, still finished it several times, still think it's an all-around very fun game. But it has sucked the soul out of strategy to become another look-at-me-I'm-so-fast-I'm-so-fun game, with simplistic gameplay and functionalities, way less elements of growth or complexity, and way less long-term value than many real strategy games.
    Expand
  25. Jan 1, 2012
    9
    Release Date Jul 27, 2010 and i just take notice that i finished the campaign only one single time in this one and a half year and still do not feel like starting a second round. Honestly a bit unusal for a blizzard game. Anyways if you like rts just go and get it. Rts sure doesnt get much better than this. Problem about this game most likely only is that its standing in the huge shadow of SC1.
  26. Nov 26, 2010
    9
    After years of development, it's finally here. The visuals are sharp, the sound is punchy and the plot at the heart of the single player campaign does a fine job of setting the scene for the next installment in the planned SC2 trilogy. The multiplayer aspect of the first game remains one of the most highly competitive RTS titles in history and Blizzard saw fit to craft a sequel whichAfter years of development, it's finally here. The visuals are sharp, the sound is punchy and the plot at the heart of the single player campaign does a fine job of setting the scene for the next installment in the planned SC2 trilogy. The multiplayer aspect of the first game remains one of the most highly competitive RTS titles in history and Blizzard saw fit to craft a sequel which measures up to the lofty standards set by its predecessor. Fast, fun and functional... the only issues stem from some minor balance issues pertaining to the weakness of the Zerg species. However, Blizzard has already released numerous patches to address this issue and looks to continue supporting SC2 for the forseeable future. Starcraft 2 is here... and it's about time! Expand
  27. Jul 8, 2011
    9
    StarCraft 2 must be in every single top 10 strategy game of all time or else the writer is lying. Now what makes this game so great? Balance.
    That's right, not graphics, not gameplay (though they are pretty good) but it is Balance that makes StarCraft 2 the most greatest strategy game. Unfortunatly my only critique is the lack of races to play in Campaign and no LAN option.
  28. Mar 7, 2016
    9
    The proof that RTS games can still be good nowadays. It's not as good as Starcraft : broodwar, gameplay-wise or story-wise but it's definetely really cool visually, very entertaining and it's a lot of fun to learn to master all 3 races, also the multiplayer is extremely competitive.
  29. Sep 29, 2014
    9
    A really good game, a sequel to my favorite rts, they kept the competitive feel while adding more features making the game a lot better than the one in my past. It's probably the only game from Blizzard that I had zero issues with.
  30. Jan 20, 2012
    8
    A very well balanced, fast-paced RTS game with a whole lot of depth. Too bad that the multiplayer side of the game focuses so much on remembering build orders and multitasking, instead of real strategy. The singleplayer campaign is quite fun too, mostly because of the variations in the map design. Overall, I'd say that the game is more fun to watch than to play though.
  31. Mar 28, 2015
    8
    I bought this game for the single player and wasn't disappointed. Story is decent enough, the combat is really fun and it's technically well made all around.
  32. 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 otherOutdated 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
  33. Mar 17, 2013
    8
    I was introduced into the gaming world when I was very young with the original Command and Conquer and have been casually playing RTSs for the past 20 or so years. With so much hype, I got S2 Day-One as I had never played the original. To be honest, I thought it was slightly above mediocre. I had more fun with the single player than playing competitive multiplayer. The graphics are nice,I was introduced into the gaming world when I was very young with the original Command and Conquer and have been casually playing RTSs for the past 20 or so years. With so much hype, I got S2 Day-One as I had never played the original. To be honest, I thought it was slightly above mediocre. I had more fun with the single player than playing competitive multiplayer. The graphics are nice, menus are slick, and the three classes are very distinct and balanced. There's no one obviously 'better' class, which is something I cannot say for just about every game out there. Overall, the game feels polished. The menus and game have been updated for added intuitiveness. Despite this, I just couldn't play it for long hours. There was just no 'hook' for me to get sucked in and want to learn all the strengths and weaknesses of all the units, etc.

    The DRM with Blizzard games really don't bother me. The games have such a good community surrounding them that I think I may even prefer it. I can log in anywhere that has the game downloaded and play my account. For less than $40, I think it is well worth a try. RTSs and this game in general has a very wide demographic. It is widely loved, so I think just about anyone can get some enjoyment out of it.
    Expand
  34. Oct 18, 2010
    10
    Best strategy game ever created!!! Love it to death!!! Graphics and voice acting is Macnificent!!!Story line is also really great really loved it!!!Wow!!!
  35. 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
    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
  36. 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...
  37. Apr 22, 2012
    6
    This game is good, and kind of fun, but it didn't really seem special to me. It felt very outdated and required way too much micromanaging for my taste, and everything was a bit more stressful than fun. I can see why people enjoy this game, but for my part, I actual like watching Starcraft II competitive matches on youtube much more than I like playing the game myself.
  38. Jan 16, 2015
    0
    Without a doubt the worst game I ever bought. The game itself is ok-ish, but the effort you have to go through to play is ****ing insulting.

    Currently I can't even play it because it wants me to connect but the connect button is greyed out. I can't play. Anyway the story goes like this. Installed it from the DVD copy. Wanted to install Battlenet, which I though no I only want offline
    Without a doubt the worst game I ever bought. The game itself is ok-ish, but the effort you have to go through to play is ****ing insulting.

    Currently I can't even play it because it wants me to connect but the connect button is greyed out. I can't play.

    Anyway the story goes like this. Installed it from the DVD copy. Wanted to install Battlenet, which I though no I only want offline mode, because I don't play online. No choice, either install Battlenet of don't play. Then it makes me click lots of conditions I don't want like its anti-cheat software must be installed or I can't play offline single player.

    Then it updates about 3GB. Then when I try to launch it won't but sends me to an online Battlenet account page. It says I have no games to play. WHAT! After lots of stress I think I work out here I must put in the key-code from the game DVD case, ie the licence key. I do it thinking I have used my only code and attached it to another copy and not the one I bought. I then click on the link in the Battlenet online account page hoping that will now launch game.

    Then it gives me a link to download the whole game, but I have it all installed on my PC. Anyway I close this page, but I keep getting sent back to it. This is after I have installed it and updated it, which it won't even attempt to launch if you don't update.

    After lots of screaming I get rid of that page. and worked something else out, and launched it from the Battlenet installation on my PC. Then it wants to do a 15GB update. 15 ****ing gigabytes.

    After that I can't log in by the connect screen. I close that and reload it and this time it works and lets me log in. I load the game. It's slow, not very good and talks to you far far too much. Cut-scene waffle and waffle and then in game every time you click an unit it speaks to you. Service bots even say, "Oh you scared me."

    Then after all this of the couple of hours I have played it has crashed four times. I gave up and came back to play again and I can't log in by the connect coz it's greyed out. 24 hours to get it going, and was it worth it, NO! 2 hours play, four crashes and I have to fight with it again to try to launch it now.
    Expand
  39. CBZ
    Mar 8, 2011
    6
    The graphics are impressive (if the game came out in 2004) I dont see what the big deal about this game is. The gameplay is not that good, its pretty much one attack and the result can be a big win or a big fail. If you like strategy games i recommend you try Company of heroes.
  40. 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
    "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
  41. Sep 12, 2014
    7
    Decent campaign mode good multiplayer lackin Graphics and material for how long fans have bin waiting for this game, and how long it was in development, it lacks a lot of anything new. A pretty big disappointment for a fan waiting years for it to finally come out.

    Worth $50 Bucks only if your multiplayer fan if not than i think the games only worth $17 max.
  42. 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 clickI 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
  43. 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.
  44. Jul 5, 2011
    10
    Starcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting greatStarcraft is another one of Blizzards legacy games it will be around for while just like Diablo and WOW you have to appreciated these games for what they are if your not into them well that's too bad because Blizzard polishes there games with TLC unlike other great games out there which are buggy beyond belief. Starcraft II is a great strategy game and the mechanics are setting great examples for future Strategy games. As far as the story goes, well you have to know the older game stories to appreciate this continuing story which i think is just perfection. Expand
  45. Aug 3, 2015
    8
    It's okay. The campaign's story is exceedingly poorly written. The plot is hackneyed and dumb. But it had some good levels and the multiplayer is fun if you put the effort into it... but holy **** that writing is just embarrassing.
  46. Aug 31, 2010
    10
    i wuoldn't say dat this is the best game ever made, but it's like 124 times better than the first one because the story is more intense like and the strategy gets like so crazy you can't even count your fingers in front of your own hands, it's as if you got like 5 hits of some crazy pomp and you got no sense about you - and plus the zerg is like EKA EKA EKA EKA EKA
  47. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    Best game ever made period, if i could score it an 11 i would.
    In all my years of gaming i have never played a game as addictive as this.
    This game literally created a new hobby for me and i will continue to play it for the rest of my life, absolutly incredible game.
  48. Nov 19, 2011
    7
    Very addicting, only worth it if you play the multi player alot, and I mean alot. If it aint broke, dont fix it, I totally agree, the reason why rehashed games like COD suck is because their formula is broken and they release more without fixing it. But Starcraft was almost perfectly balanced. So is starcraft 2. really though, the one thing that would make me buy this game over starcraft 1Very addicting, only worth it if you play the multi player alot, and I mean alot. If it aint broke, dont fix it, I totally agree, the reason why rehashed games like COD suck is because their formula is broken and they release more without fixing it. But Starcraft was almost perfectly balanced. So is starcraft 2. really though, the one thing that would make me buy this game over starcraft 1 is the abillity to select more than 12 units at once. Expand
  49. Mar 17, 2011
    10
    Dear everyone complaining about this game, OF COURSE it is just Starcraft with some polish, Starcraft is one of the best games of all time! Why would they make any radical changes? I mean THINK for once in your "I'll divert from the crowd and hate this game" life.
  50. Jul 30, 2011
    9
    A worthy successor to the Starcraft series....The single-player campaign uses a new system that offers development and individual gameplay style progression with caters to RPG fans and RTS fans alike. The story was slightly drab but the mission scenarios were enough to keep the game entertaining. Combined with Blizzard's infamous map editor tools, this game's multiplayer functions areA worthy successor to the Starcraft series....The single-player campaign uses a new system that offers development and individual gameplay style progression with caters to RPG fans and RTS fans alike. The story was slightly drab but the mission scenarios were enough to keep the game entertaining. Combined with Blizzard's infamous map editor tools, this game's multiplayer functions are almost as limitless as Minecraft's creativity. Expand
  51. Oct 3, 2010
    7
    It looks a bit better than StarCraft 1, and it's a nice RTS.

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

    Don't believe the hype.
  52. Jan 22, 2012
    10
    StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is the sequel to the big eSport ever made, and what a sequel. It features modern graphics, new units, new maps, classic maps reworked, all this makes the best eSport ever. And i'm just talking about multiplayer. The campaign have great missions, beautiful cinematics, and a great plot. Waiting for Heart of the Swarm :P
  53. 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 notSo 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
  54. 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 getEven 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
  55. Dec 3, 2014
    6
    "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." Wings of Liberty does this with improved graphics. My breakdown is as follows:

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

    Overall, average game.
  56. May 26, 2012
    8
    Starcraft 2 is a refreshing sequel with tons of action to enjoy! To start Blizzard this time added relationships between the main characters which is fun to follow. I personally like all the new units in the game and new features to go with (example: Thor unit which is like a Mech Warrior and more variety of flying units for all races). If your a strategy action fan you'll love the newStarcraft 2 is a refreshing sequel with tons of action to enjoy! To start Blizzard this time added relationships between the main characters which is fun to follow. I personally like all the new units in the game and new features to go with (example: Thor unit which is like a Mech Warrior and more variety of flying units for all races). If your a strategy action fan you'll love the new take. Blizzard also added some roll playing elements to the game. You can select which mission to do next, interact with objects on your ship and talk to your crew on your ship between missions. The ship your stationed on has 4 sections to browse through (lab, armory, lounge and control room). You can upgrade your units, hire mercenaries, and even upgrade your overall tech while on your ship between missions. There is the main story and side missions where you gain funds to improve your force. The interface of the game has similar characteristics as its previous predecessor. Simple controls makes for a fun experience and 5 different difficulties for everyone to try. While I didn't experience multi-player this time I know that Battle.net is world class for gamers. The only reason why I didn't give Starcraft 2 a 9 or better is because personally I don't like all the timed missions (race against time to complete goals). This doesn't mean that those specific missions didn't have same excitement. But for me the frustration was sometime at its peak. That's the only major negative I can report at this time. There is some reputation, but that is said for most things in life. Reputation is not always bad especially when it's a Blizzard created game.This one is a buy. Enjoy this one! Expand
  57. Jan 25, 2016
    10
    Impressive.
    Gameplay is fast and fun ..Blizzard manage to cut out some of the boring time consuming task in old rts game # stunning animated sequences # good story # choise driven plot.
    It's really a good work.
  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 itReal 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. Jan 22, 2011
    10
    Arguably the best stratagy game of all time starcrft 2 just brings a great story and a huge multiplayer will with a great chat system and profile system.. The make/game making is just fantastic and possibilitys are endless this game Diserves a 10
  60. 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 reallyI 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
  61. Jun 21, 2012
    6
    I want to enjoy and savor the moment when playing an RTS, not click like a madman in some pointless E-sports game. Battlenet 2 is designed around E-sports where every online game is on super-fast speed and nobody cares about having fun, just moving up on some pointless E-sports ladder.
  62. Jun 3, 2015
    5
    A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends,A 10/10 Starcraft in 3D with more options and modding possibilities, its only problem is its lack of LAN mode... the mode that I enjoyed more and they can say that is the same because today all people has internet, well is NOT, but even being the same is unacceptable a game with less features than its predecessor. So yes, is the best SC, but with the half of the fun to me and my friends, so it has the half note too. Expand
  63. 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 wouldThis 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
  64. 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 callCorporate 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
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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" thatPretty 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
  68. 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 bePolished, 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
  69. Dec 31, 2011
    9
    An excellent strategy game with a excellent gameplay and mechanics and a fantastic story. Blizzard has never done a revolution to the genre but he know hot to create a game.
  70. Nov 15, 2012
    6
    This game is a poor mans Warcraft 3 in terms of the custom games. Based purely on competitive 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 games I found command and conquer 3 to be more enjoyable.
  71. Apr 14, 2013
    8
    Good game, but falls short in comparison to legendary StarCraft: Brood War. Even though Blizzard improved a lot of things from their original title, they failed to make a great competitive great Brood War was.
  72. 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 andWTF 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
  73. 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
  74. Aug 22, 2010
    10
    First, lets get one thing straight: This is a sequel. Hence the 2 after the, "Starcraft". It will bear a similarity to the original. Blizzards intent is to take the original game, refine it, tune it, add new content, spruce it up, and keep the story moving. It has succeeded on every count. There are a large number of new units: Certainly more then enough to completely alter the playingFirst, lets get one thing straight: This is a sequel. Hence the 2 after the, "Starcraft". It will bear a similarity to the original. Blizzards intent is to take the original game, refine it, tune it, add new content, spruce it up, and keep the story moving. It has succeeded on every count. There are a large number of new units: Certainly more then enough to completely alter the playing field, and add in a wide number of new strategies while still feeling like that Starcraft we know and love at its core. New units are neither a hackneyed add-on, nor an overpowered new addition: They fit into the new game seamlessly in clever, interesting new ways. Level design is varied, interesting, and quite open to user content

    The single player is a real treat. As long as any previous Starcraft game, and there is actually a lack of, "Race A here, Race B there, now kill each other" scenarios. I started missing this standard, cliche level design, but the overwhelming variety of mission objectives is impressive. One mission your robbing a train using quick, mobile units, another your hunkering down for a zombie wave, while rapidly destroying the infestation mostly undisturbed by day, and suddenly you playing an almost puzzle-esque level of priority assassinations and planning. The variety is astounding. Achievements are interesting, and add a good deal of re-playability, and challenge missions add that little something extra

    The Cons are pretty negligible. An extra 10 dollar price tag is a bit insulting, but Id finger point at Activision, and you are paying for quality. Loss of LAN will hurt only a very small percentage of people, thanks to the friend system: My internet is extremely unreliable, along with all the people I live with, and I have yet to observe any appreciable difference from traditional LAN play. Menus can get a bit confusing, and adding a friend manually is a bit annoying, and while the Facebook integration is interesting, but doesn't seem to be very reliable. Also, Protoss fans only get a brief glimpse of there single player, while Zerg get no single player outside of challenges, which may be annoying, but make no mistake: You get a full games worth of content here. Lastly, thanks to the 3 separate releases, don't get to attached to medics, fire bats, science vessels, or a number of other units: They do not yet carry over into Multiplayer. It's an understandable balance issue, we need to hold off until other races get there shiny new units, but its a tad annoying.

    Sequels are a problem when they are pushed out constantly without much improvement to the overall design. SC2 took what, 12 years, and has the maximum possible new content without feeling like it's covering the core experience. Blizzard hasn't created a new life form, it has just taken a giant step forward in its evolution, with hardly a vestigial tail or wisdom tooth in sight. Perfect no, but I think it rounds up to a 10.
    Expand
  75. Nov 21, 2010
    10
    Just an complete, quality, fitting, and epic improvement upon the original, StarCraft is the frontrunner for Game of the Year along with God of War III in my eyes.
  76. Jan 13, 2011
    8
    Starcraft was one of the only games i played years ago, i have been waiting for Starcraft 2 for a LONG time. I ended up spending $60 on the game the day after it came out. Now i was greatly satisfied at first, i really liked the storyline, the cinematics were awesome, the graphics and gameplay were great, but SC2 was lacking in a few different areas, First off, LAN, i love playing LAN andStarcraft was one of the only games i played years ago, i have been waiting for Starcraft 2 for a LONG time. I ended up spending $60 on the game the day after it came out. Now i was greatly satisfied at first, i really liked the storyline, the cinematics were awesome, the graphics and gameplay were great, but SC2 was lacking in a few different areas, First off, LAN, i love playing LAN and just hanging out in a room playing PC games with my friends, But i was extremely dissapointed when i found out that for me and 2 of my friends to play LAN we would have to pay $180, on top of that, i am not able to play singleplayer on my laptop unless i make sure to sign in online on my laptop before i take it somewhere (i play SC2 mostly on my desktop), now i understand the need for anti-piracy, but it is getting to the point where it is pissing me off so much that i almost want to go pirate the game, put it on a CD and give it out to all my friends. Because we all know these protections are easily bipassed. Other than that, the multiplayer is great, lots of good custom maps (a lot are very similar to the first Starcraft) The game has almost all the same units, plays almost exactly the same as the first SC but with better graphics and more features for units and buildings, (some of the units look the same as original ones, just renamed example:Dragoon=Stalker) Fun trying to get all the achievments, this game can last hours if you are really into competative RTS games! Expand
  77. Apr 28, 2011
    7
    I was a huge huge fan of the starcraft 1 series and expected big things from starcraft 2. in the end, it didnt live up to its hype. the story was predictable. the characters hollow. the plot timing was bad. the voice acting average....but worst of all it was very very cliche. dont get me wrong...i still have hope in blizzard but i think their quality is starting to degrade here.
  78. 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. ThisStarcraft 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
  79. Vio
    Nov 20, 2011
    8
    The Good: SC1 + graphics upgrade + a dash of innovation. The Bad: No LAN support, learning curv/required playing ability. I love this game I really do, I love the way it plays, the way it looks its story, its sounds, I really love it. I just wish I could play as insanely fast with all the insane amounts of knowledge necessarily to play competitively in the back of my head. In short thisThe Good: SC1 + graphics upgrade + a dash of innovation. The Bad: No LAN support, learning curv/required playing ability. I love this game I really do, I love the way it plays, the way it looks its story, its sounds, I really love it. I just wish I could play as insanely fast with all the insane amounts of knowledge necessarily to play competitively in the back of my head. In short this game's ultimate problem is it's 'professional success'. As a casual player I find it hard to enjoy this game due to the amount of things you need to be able to do per second in order to fill the minimum requirements to enter into the lowest ranked multiplayer legues. On the other hand watching people play this game and having good commentry on whats happening (aka day9) is awesome. For me at least it seems this game I will be delegated to spectator/fan rather than player. Ok - tacticaly the battles in this game are intense with any mistake meaning winning or losing, strategicaly you need to have your story together with options or you will just be out played. Is it a good strategy game? YES. Did I like it? Yes!!!!!!(and No ;) - I got rushed too much) Expand
  80. Feb 28, 2012
    9
    Technically the best classic RTS now. Best custom game platform too.
    But it lacks SC1 atmosphere=(. Also there is very stupid campain (storywise) with very interesting (IMHO) custommaps-like missions.
    Anyway, this is the state of art classic RTS.
  81. Jul 21, 2012
    9
    I am amazed by all the negative reviews saying it is similar to the first.. OF COURSE IT IS, its a sequel. I enjoyed the single player and have probably sunk about 40ish hours into it, but remember this is primarly not a single player game. Community made content (UMS games) kept the first starcraft alive and Blizzard actually did an alright job showcasing user made games. Ladder gamesI am amazed by all the negative reviews saying it is similar to the first.. OF COURSE IT IS, its a sequel. I enjoyed the single player and have probably sunk about 40ish hours into it, but remember this is primarly not a single player game. Community made content (UMS games) kept the first starcraft alive and Blizzard actually did an alright job showcasing user made games. Ladder games have kept me coming back to this over 2 years, any game that can do that has done a good job. It looses a point because blizzard seems a bit over zealous wit no LAN, but it is way more free than Diablo, mainly because (my opinion) this was made before activision got their hands in the pile. Good game, great multyplayer, huge player base, 3 different yet equal races, and an amazing community. Expand
  82. Jul 13, 2011
    7
    I don't understand the diversity of the ratings. It IS a good game...unfortunately it is NOT as good as SC. Does that make it a 1? No, just like how it can't be a 10 because it's a step back. The cut scenes are over long and uninteresting, and maneuvering about the ship for console style "reward" upgrading is silly as well. That being said, the game is a nice visual upgrade. It isI don't understand the diversity of the ratings. It IS a good game...unfortunately it is NOT as good as SC. Does that make it a 1? No, just like how it can't be a 10 because it's a step back. The cut scenes are over long and uninteresting, and maneuvering about the ship for console style "reward" upgrading is silly as well. That being said, the game is a nice visual upgrade. It is not WC3, which I think myself and many others are quite happy about. Unfortunately, it's not SC either. The campaign missions all feel unique and interesting, but we could have done away with all of the cutscenes and shipboard pre-mission elements. Overall there are too many units. The most complex strategy games are based on the most basic of elements. No one ever tried to develop Chess 2 with the selling point of 3 times as many types of units would make it better. Wouldn't every type of poker be better and more complex if instead of 13 cards per suit there were 50?! No. As much as BroodWar overstepped the line with the addition of units that actually ruined game balance, SC2 has overstepped the line and simply included TOO MANY units for any sort of strategic balance.

    I know I am digging into this game a bit, but that's only because I expected a lot more of the creators of WC2 and SC. WITHOUT that pedigree on it's heels, its actually quite a fun little single player campaign, and decent online. Definitely a step back for the franchise though. Less is more, but blizzard was apparently more interested in excess in all areas: unit variety, theatrical cutscenes, dull expositions on a done to death unoriginal storyline, PRICE. Still a good game simply because it was based on a great game, but definitely a huge gaff on Blizzards part.
    Expand
  83. Sep 29, 2012
    8
    I played the original Starcraft and spent many late nights playing, only to be made aware of how long I was playing by the sun coming in through the window. LOL! I was very impressed with the quality of this game. The updated graphics retain the quality and feel of the original and the addition of achievements and portraits give you some added incentive to keep playing in Multiplayer.I played the original Starcraft and spent many late nights playing, only to be made aware of how long I was playing by the sun coming in through the window. LOL! I was very impressed with the quality of this game. The updated graphics retain the quality and feel of the original and the addition of achievements and portraits give you some added incentive to keep playing in Multiplayer. Fortunately, Blizzard gives new players of the franchise several flashbacks of what happened in the original game, so you won't be completely lost. If you get bored with multiplayer, there are many player-made arcade versions of the game that are high quality and ingeniously made. My only gripe is the cheating in the multiplayer leagues - diamond/platinum players who play professionally deliberately qualify for lower leagues so they can farm portraits and achievements, so it makes it more difficult for people in the bronze/silver leagues to progress as far as standings/achievements go, but hopefully that will end once these players with insane talent get their achievements and move on. LOL! Overall, a fantastic game. Expand
  84. Dec 10, 2012
    5
    I'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off itsI'm seeing a lot of idiotic user reviews here. Truth is this isn't a horrible game and it doesnt deserve anything less than a 5.... but its a **** RTS compared to Starcraft: Brood War. Singleplayer-wise, the story is god awful (seriously blizzard just hire a good writer) and the dialogue is pitiful. But the gameplay is a fun blend of RTS and RPG. If you turn your brain all the way off its decent singleplayer, nothing to write home about though. Now the multiplayer is frought with problems. According to Dustin Browder the design plan in this game was to "make cool units" and worry about the numbers later. This is pretty apparent in the multiplayer where its a circus of stupidity with units. Also, because the engine makes units clump, there tends to be big balls of units that smash into each other in an A-moved orgy. Add in a lot of cheesing, and you get one of the messiest multiplayers around. Sorry Blizzard, this game is average. Expand
  85. 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 II 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
  86. Oct 26, 2010
    8
    It's an alright game, it's not as perfect as some would describe it, but still definitely one of the better games in existence. Singleplayer is dull. Multiplayer is pretty nice. Custom multiplayer is just great.
  87. Oct 12, 2011
    5
    As a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayerAs a single-player, two words: vastly disappointing. I played and loved the original Starcraft purely for its singleplayer experience. I like taking my time and playing it my way. I have no interest in being 'pwned' by rude kids online. Apparently, that is totally unacceptable to Blizzard. Everything about the new game is about forcing you into multiplayer. Almost every singleplayer mission focuses on microing some new unit, against a clock. You have to play it their way, and in a hurry, or you will lose. There's no time to play around or adapt your own style or strategy. It's all about using Reapers or some other unit in a rush against a game board that has been artificially tilted to necessitate lots of Reapers. So, the shackling of the personal singleplayer experience (every mission must teach you how to play multiplayer!) is problem number one.

    Problem number two is that Blizzard killed the epic story. You have to choose what tone you want your story to take - is it epic or serious, or is it jokey? Blizzard tries to mix both - cartoonish characters who are constantly overacting, being goofy, acting ridiculous, mixes in with moments of maudlin sentimentality and high seriousness. I just can't take a poorly-animated man with shoulders bigger than his head who suddenly starts crying over the horrors of battle seriously. You can have an epic story with light moments and dark humor, but you can't have characters that seem ridiculous or are "in on the joke", winking and riffing on the series itself. This ruins the immersion.

    In short, the singleplayer was completely ruined for me. I don't care about multiplayer, and I definitely won't be buying the sequel. Great job, Blizzard, I hope it was worth it to you.
    Expand
  88. Oct 10, 2012
    9
    Just what I wanted from the sequel to Starcraft, this installment is basically the old game with new graphics and a few minor improvements. The campaign isn't that great but the multiplayer is good fun especially if you got friends who play. The worst part about this game is the terrible match making and ranking system... as with all Blizzard games your rank means nothing and hidden matchJust what I wanted from the sequel to Starcraft, this installment is basically the old game with new graphics and a few minor improvements. The campaign isn't that great but the multiplayer is good fun especially if you got friends who play. The worst part about this game is the terrible match making and ranking system... as with all Blizzard games your rank means nothing and hidden match making value is all that matters which is annoying. The ranking system promotes time played and not skill as with all Blizzards games unfortunately. Still a good game though but I am very much against the multiple releases for the different campaigns and am not so sure if I will get the expansions. The campaign is not really worth the cost of the game. If multiplayer is not your thing, there are much better games then this for you. Expand
  89. Feb 15, 2014
    6
    Major probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it afterMajor probleme of this episode is the lack of identity of creativity. Story didnt have the charm of Starcraft 1, and looked like a cliché story of a american hero saving the world. Also, gameplay should have been more easy and casual friendly. Starcraft 2 asks to much commitment to be enjoyedin multiplayer, and fails to attract average players. This is why people stop playing it after finishing campaign. Expand
  90. Sep 29, 2010
    7
    Starcraft II keeps the integrity of the original while expanding on the story(though its not that great) however its still a great choice for multiplayer RTS though the choice to remove LAN play is disappointing. Considering that Starcraft II is only on the PC Blizzard could've developed the graphics more considering the fact that it is a high profile title. Its a good game for multiplayerStarcraft II keeps the integrity of the original while expanding on the story(though its not that great) however its still a great choice for multiplayer RTS though the choice to remove LAN play is disappointing. Considering that Starcraft II is only on the PC Blizzard could've developed the graphics more considering the fact that it is a high profile title. Its a good game for multiplayer but thats about it. Expand
  91. 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
  92. Jan 27, 2013
    9
    This is easily my favorite RTS of all time, and I've played most major RTS games released in the past 20 years. All three races are very well balanced while still being extremely different, and as an E-sport this game is amazing to watch other people play. On top of a well balanced and entertaining multiplayer experience the single player campaign is also very well done. Choosing missionsThis is easily my favorite RTS of all time, and I've played most major RTS games released in the past 20 years. All three races are very well balanced while still being extremely different, and as an E-sport this game is amazing to watch other people play. On top of a well balanced and entertaining multiplayer experience the single player campaign is also very well done. Choosing missions and customizing your own forces gives an RTS campaign some of the feel of an RPG experience. On top of a great out of the box experience tons of player designed maps are available through Battlenet, providing players with an endless supply of additional content at no extra cost. As long as you enjoy RTS games this is a must have, and is a worthy successor to what I previously considered the greatest RTS of all time.

    The one downer is the lack of LAN play, which can be a pain for many players and ought to have been included to tournament play and for friends at LAN parties who shouldn't have to experience lag when playing against each other in the same room.
    Expand
  93. 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 areAfter 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
  94. Nov 8, 2011
    8
    Starcraft was one of the first games I've ever played next to Final Fantasy which brought me into the world of gaming. So I had high expectations for Starcraft II - especially since it took so long to release. Starcraft II is not a bad game, but definitely has room for improvement. In terms of the Single Player, they have made it a lot more interesting - taking multiple routes, upgradesStarcraft was one of the first games I've ever played next to Final Fantasy which brought me into the world of gaming. So I had high expectations for Starcraft II - especially since it took so long to release. Starcraft II is not a bad game, but definitely has room for improvement. In terms of the Single Player, they have made it a lot more interesting - taking multiple routes, upgrades and achievements - which all help enhance the playability of the Single Player. The original story was interesting and the Starcraft II story doesn't disappoint. (Not surprising since there is an entire series of novels...) The voice acting was pretty good and I didn't expect much character development for an RTS so it was a bit lacking in that area. They also assume that you're familiar with Starcraft lore and have played the first game. Single player was nicely done, especially for an RTS with a predecessor. The efforts to make it original paid off. Lots of new units, new buildings, new functions and a completely new balance. Which allows for new strategies to be created. This brings us into the multiplayer. I actually liked the single player more because of the customization, and it would have been cool to move this aspect over to the multiplayer but I guess that would complicate the balance of team games rather drastically. The difference in units from the original Starcraft made the multiplayer experience brand new. They seem to have upped the pace of the game so that it wouldn't take as long but the fundamentals of building a sound economy are still there. I played a lot of the multiplayer during Beta and found the existence of some balancing issues still there, but I know they'll be fixing these with patches. The matching and ranking system are a nice addition as well as the improved co-op vs. AI. Achievements made playing SC2 more fun and less of a chore. I found the game to be a bit newbie centered, as in some newbies were able to beat some veteran RTS players because of unit composition, even though the veteran had superior micro and macro management. I noticed this trend to decrease over time through the patches Blizzard has been periodically implementing. Overall a very solid game, but perhaps lacks some of the innovative features of new RTS games that make it exceptional. Splitting the game into 3 games (one for each race) is also very annoying. I don't like that way of marketing even though it increases sales. But I will wait till the other two parts are released and reserve my judgement. Depending on the price tag and the changes it might be justified. Expand
  95. 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 onlineReally '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
  96. Aug 16, 2011
    10
    F@#k you all who said that this game sucks. 82 game critics raved about this thing, and 82 million people raved about this thing and you have the balls to say that it sucks? This games in game graphics are amazing, the story is like an effing blockbuster movie, and the game play ranks among this generations best. Do yourself a favor you no talent hacks. Just admit that you suck at rating games.
  97. Jan 9, 2011
    10
    It was totally worth waiting the ten years of development, I believe this game to be one of the best strategy games to ever be produced by Blizzard Entertainment.
  98. Jun 11, 2012
    9
    One or if not the best rts games of this generation and will be so for a very long time.
    The story is pretty good single player is fun, Online is where it shines being one of the most competitive games of Esport's. This is the Juggernaut of Esport's.
  99. Dec 3, 2012
    10
    Outside of SC:BW, it's the best RTS out there. I've put hundreds of hours into this game and enjoyed almost every minute of it. Right now zerg is super imba, (I play random), and the game seems to suffer from waves of imba ness.
  100. 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 thingsStory: 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
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. PC Zone UK
    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. PC Format
    Dec 24, 2010
    93
    Perfectly balanced multiplayer with old school elements intact, and rich and dynamic single player campaigns. [Issue#244, p.102]