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 It's at best a 7 if you're in to terribly outdated gameplay, graphics, music, story, etc.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

Excellent production values? Yes. Anything original and fresh? No. Bad game? No. Overrated? Yes. Starcraft 2 is the game without soul. 12-years old core gameplay. 3D graphics that almost looks like high-res 2D, so what's the point in making sophisticated graphics engine? Story is extremely predictable and cheesy. "Non linearity" is fake and leaves no chance for coherent storytelling. Choices you make don't really do much. Too much "magical" fantasy stuff for a sci-fi game. Still too much micromanagement for 2010 game. And price is really to high for a one chapter of a game you basically don't even own. I believe this game deserves 7 or 8 but something has to be done to offset fake fanboy ratings.… Expand

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

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

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

Blizzard had 12 years to think about this game and this was all they came up with? I was a huge fan of the first. I wasn't expecting them to just release the same game with a coat of paint splashed on it but handicapping it by removing LAN game capability and requiring the always on internet connection. I don't see any innovation at all. The graphics would have been impressive 5 years ago. I don't see how anyone could justify giving this game a 10/10. Perhaps they should be disclosing some sort of compensation they are receiving from Blizzard.… Expand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Game is shit totally not worth the 60 usd hate the music the ui the gameplay is so bad controls are crap campaign is really bad (havent finished it and not planning to do so) bottom line is ill sell it on ebay and hope i get a good price on this shitty game my advice is dont buy it if u want something a littel new than the old game cuz this is almost the old one in 3d.

So 12 years and the only thing blizzard could come up with is a graphics update straight out of 2005? You've got to be kidding me. Only a sucker would pay 60 dollars for this boring RTS. Spending your money on Company of Heroes is a much better idea.

Technically superb, but otherwise I don't feel like getting my money's worth with this one. The multiplayer is, as expected, just a horrible korean zergfest. Single player dishes out nothing new and is as dull as the first game back in the day. Even with the Blizzard logo on the game's cover, I just can't bring myself to like this game.

Seriously, do all these reviewers get paid for over glorified reviews of this game? Sure it's good, but nothing more than pretty graphics and some new units. 1/3 the campaign, when I'm going to have to shell out yet another $40+ for every other campaign that comes out. Right now, it's at 96, giving it a tie with all the other greatest PC games ever made. While SC2 may be good, it's not great and it's far from being the greatest.… Expand

A complete rehash of SC1. Single player is dull, multiplayer is even worse. There is no strategy involved. All you need to do to win is hoard one type of unit, select all, hit CTRL+A and click the other side of the map. It pales in comparison to RTS games released even 5 years ago. The only reason this game is receiving good reviews is because of Blizzards huge marketing campaign.

A bit disappointed in this price gouging product from Blizzard. No LAN support is a huge turn-off as this has been in the past one of the single-most played LAN games. Single player is good, multiplayer still needs some tweaking.

In the last 12 years, video games have evolved. The gameplay has evolved. You can think of "Company of Heroes" or "World in Conflict". Theses games bring something new, something fresh. Not StarCraft 2. It's exactly the same gameplay as 12 years ago! Imagine a publisher that put on market a "new" hi-res version of Pac-Man. Nobody will enjoy that. Pac-Man was very good in the '80s, not anymore. Same thing with StarCraft 2. Why it get so much high scores from reviewers? Maybe because they got a lot of money from Blizzard for the publicity of StarCraft 2. That can explain a lot of things. There's an expression in french that says: "Don't bite the hand that feed you!".… Expand

A crude, blasphemous, xenograhic mockery of the real thing. The "Zerg" look nothing like actual Tyranids and the "Protoss" look ..... ridiculous. This game is nothing more than an expensive and ultimately, futile, attempt by agents of the Ruinous Powers to corrupt the minds of Imperial Youth drawn to absurd, sentimental portrayls of Witchery, Heresy and Mutation. The ending *actually* portrays a NAKED MUTANT in the arms of a Terrorist Rebel walking off together into the sunset. Utterly disgusting. Report all those who play this game to your local Imperial Youth Brigade leaders. Those who denounce their peers and siblings before the local Peoples Imperial Commisariat in writing shall be shown leniency and understanding in the form of extra bread rations. The first 300 registered Imperial Youths informing on a parent shall receive a Meat Ration. Remain true to the EMPEROR of MANr and the everlasting Revolution! Resist this foul, bland game!… Expand

Remember when warcraft 3 came out back n 2002? That was six years after its predecessor and that game was truly revolutionary (2D to 3D graphics and completely revamped gameplay mechanics and two extra races!). It was beyond my expectations. Now Starcraft 2 finally comes out in 2010 and it is exactly what I expected-- a rehash of the first made back in 1998-- which should be a shame to any die-hard Blizzard fan. It's kind of like what Valve did to Counterstrike: Source; they just took the original game, tweaked it with the Source engine, and slapped a price tag on it. As I am playing Starcraft 2, I keep asking the same question: So what? What does this game actually prove that the first one didn't prove? That Blizzard made a new (and now very dated) engine. That Blizzard added some extra units. That Blizzard made one "cool" campaign (the original had all three, by the way . . .). C'mon people. The answer quite simply is: there is nothing special. The game is just "okay." After seeing marines shooting at a bunch of incoming hydralisks without taking cover, I said to myself: "you've got to be serious." The fact that marines can't shoot while running is also pathetic. The game feels very mechanical and static, which is acceptable for the first-- not the second. The fact that warcraft 3 added two extra races and Starcraft 2 added none also pissed me off. I already uninstalled the game and will not waste $120 on two expansions that will add a handful of zerg and protoss missions. I refuse to get cheated by Blizzard. I am back to playing Starcraft and the other fine RTS games that were made in the past few years like Company of Heroes and dawn of war to name a few. It's like Blizzard has lost all of its creative juice-- as if Starcraft 2 was taken over by a bunch of guys with marketing majors, wanting to make billions of dollars rather than make an interesting game. Starcraft was (and still is) a superb game, simply because there was nothing like it back in 1998. I can go play plenty of other games like Starcraft 2.… Expand

It is exactly like the first StaCraft and as a result it is extremely bad due to being dated. It has reincarnated workers harvesting minerals, frantic ganking, and fixed game speeds, all of which should have been left dead to the RTS genre. The graphics are terrible and have a cartoon based artistic style that destroys the original gritty feel StarCraft had. To make things worse, most of the reviewers are saying it is the best game of all time but none of them explain what elements actually make it good and why.… Expand

Great game. But horrible-and I do mean HORRIBLE-online features. The new Battle.net 2.0 is so restrictive, so backwards, so lacking in even the most basic features like chat and a coherent map publishing system that it truly dampens the whole experience. What a disappointment. A wonderfully fun and fast-paced game ruined by online features that could have so easily been remedied.

I must admit I was expecting quite a bit more bang for my buck, especially with many years between games 1 and 2. The graphics are good yes and the storyline solid if a little uninspired. What chafes the most is the extra squeeze being put on us to buy 2 expansion packs to round out the main offline storyline, a bit of a joke really! I guess I am one of the few people who plays solely offline so it also rubs I have to log into battle net every time I start my computer to verify my game account; I verified my game by paying for it!! If Diablo 3 follows a similar pattern I won't by buying.… Expand

$140 ($60+40+40) for what was originally a $50 game. Minus LAN. Minus up-to-date graphics. Minus originality. I would support this if it seemed they actually took the past 12 years to perfect this, rather than just seeming like they're being lazy- releasing an out-dated game that they stripped into parts so that they could try and grab more cash out of it since they're not going to get that $15/mo they do from other sub-par graphic games that people spend money on. People will buy it, they'll keep releasing it. I imagine Diablo 3 will be of a similar fate. Welcome to the Wii "Meh, as long as people buy it, we'll put it out there" generation of mediocrity.… Expand

Pros + Retains faithful to the original in every aspect (gameplay, graphics, accessibility, etc). + Plethora of units to choose. + Very well balanced units and maps. + Single player campaign is pretty awesome, and much more interactive then the first. + Ladder system is cleaner and offers competitive play at all experience/skill levels. Cons + Rehash of the original. Nothing new has been introduced to the game. + Storyline is very linear. + Blizzard gauging its fans by providing 3 installments of the same game but to access the 3 different campaigns. + No LAN support means the local gaming community takes a big hit. + Graphics is dated (5 years behind the curve). + B.Net gameplay is localized, which is disappointing (cannot play with my european and asian friends).… Expand

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

I've never been a big starcraft fan, but I am definitely and RTS fan: The best RTS game ever made is the Original Command and Conquer 95 produced by westwood studios (which was eaten by EA ruining the franchise at Generals). The best modern RTS game is Company of Heroes, these games require extreme skill and intelligence to play, you can win on COH with a single tank supported by infantry with grenades and an anti-tank gun - against 4 assault tanks and 4 teams of mechanized infantry if you are smart about where and how you fight (and im not talking subversive warfare or hit and run tactics). At the very bottom of the RTS pile you have your Starcraft, Warhammer, and all the EA C&C's - games tarnished with plain bordem, uselessly complicated oversized maps, rock paper scissors gameplay, unit spamming, and rushing.… Expand

Utter disappointment. Felt more like Starcraft 1.5 than a true sequel. Twelve years of waiting for the exact same game, just with shinier graphics and a few new units, definitely not worth it. The writing was almost offensively bad, as well (though Blizzard hasn't had any good storytelling in its games since Diablo II). If I had bought a physical copy of this game, I'd have already returned it. Definitely not going to waste my time on the next two.… Expand

A 12 year old game with a new engine. Nothing new nothing interesting 3 points are for pretty CGI the rest is just the same **** all over again. Also COST. Also cliche'd story. Also lack of 2 more stories. Basically time to play SC:BW some more.

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

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

It's basically a tutorial for each othe new units. Every stage will have a new unit that specializes on that map. Mass that unit and win. If the game were a full game that would be ok, but since its so short its a terrible game. Sure it looks good, but is empty in game play. Everything else is (besides some corny dialog) was ok. Sometimes it felt like they borrowed too much from WC3.

Really? It does seem incomplete. Needs work done- and its released with core features not implemented. Release a game thats completed please. Blizzard has had plenty of experience making thease games, they should know better then to say 'wait for patches' Not to mention the resolution problems, give the users some more view of the battle, and give them more control over the UI.

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

game is basically starcraft with updated graphics and missing 2 campaigns. 1 third the game for a very expensive price. rated good for 3d vision put performs poorly. after playing modern rts's starcraft's same old micromanagement gameplay just doesn't stack up.

WTF? So when Ruffian put out Crackdown 2, it was horrible because it was just like the first, but with better textures, critics bashed it, but now that Blizzard does the SAME THING, it is ok because it is Blizzard? That is a bunch of trash. This is the SAME game as the first with few enhancements and less balance. The ONLY REASON this got good reviews is Blizz has WoW as a cash cow and can pay off the reviewers. (I don't think Crackdown 2 is a great game either, I was using it as an example.)… Expand

This game is only for Starcraft pros and for people who played the beta. Never before have I been at such a disadvantage when player the multiplayer. This is not a RTS where everyone starts at the same level and some will become better than others, on it's release there were already starcraft 2 pros. I think There is something really wrong with this.

This game is the biggest piece of overated crap ever to have tarnished the single player and storyline sc1 was so famous for. There is very little thought put into the story. Metzin, what were you thinking? From what I see here, you do not appear to write at all well! Pacing is abysmal. It seems they are trying to please everyone at once, focusing on flashy gameplay than the story that creates it. They also killed all the old characters from the sc1 by putting them in situations that are not identical to the mood of sc1. Like choosing sides! The ending ought to leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths.… Expand

Yet another rehash from the kings of rehashes themselves. Only this time it's not even a full rehash, but a third of it, stripped of tonnes of features like LAN support to appease gaming 2.0 business design models and pie graphs so Robert Kotick can renovate his kitchen. Almost a billion hours of CGI to distract neckbeards from their looming diabetes, an epic tale of cliche' revenge killing and redemption that has nothing to do with what is supposed to be a tournament game. Facebook integration so all your cousins and parents can see why your friends list hasn't reached double figures yet. A taste of things to come from Blizzbooktivision.… Expand

this game is so overrated its sad i notice how so far all the pro reviews has NOT been under 90. I must wonder how much money blizzard paid to reviewers to make sure so far there are no reviews under 90... or 9 out of 10. even some of the other user reviews here i wonder.... This game is a game thats 15 years old with new graphics. There is nothing new or innovative to it. In fact some of the dated elements distract from gameplay. the dated Ui: the dated camera. (you cant even ROTATE the camera!) the very start of the campaign has a boring introduction ( a guy sitting in a bar? COME ON!) and i think the game relys too much on its flashy CGI scenes rather then the actual gameplay. The campaign might be fun.. but its nothing that hasnt been done before 10 times over in RTS...games. there is no deep strategist with the game its basically gather as much resources as you can and build your stuff as fast as you can and attack? I think they are just spending so much time on Catacyslm that they just half did Starcraft 2 ... the next wow addon will be in my opinion ten times better and then times more interesting then Starcraft 2 is. Starcraft 2 feels more like a dated title with improved graphics. Heck i bet Red Alert 3 will be more fun for me! (i should reinstall it!). Next!… Expand

It's not just the Warcraft 3 quality graphics that would have been embarrassing 5 years ago, not just the terrible clichéd story in single player, nor just the fact that online hasn't even made an attempt at being anything but SC1 with some new units. No, it's the fact that activision dare ask you 60 bucks for this junk and it's REGIONLOCKED, a PC game that is regionlocked. You can only install this to ONE computer 3 times. That's it. It doesn't have any LAN either, which means you will never play this without lag. There is no excuse for buying this other than the hype machine behind it.… Expand

Its an rts that was outdated 10 years ago... I can't fathom why any of these reviewers are giving this above a 5, the graphics are sub-par, the mechanics are boring, the units are boring and uninventive. (Not to mention the whole franchise is a ripoff of 40k) This game is a 10 year step backwards in the rts genre. There is no new mechanics, nothing groundbreaking, the single player feels like questing in world of warcraft, and the campaign ending was uneventful. Not to mention that you need to pay another 120 bucks(?) to see the other 2 campaigns. Yay? Starcraft 1 was better. I'd rather play the eye rape that was cnc4 than this pile of blizzard ****.… Expand

People claim it's the best because it's one of the original templates for what RTS' are today, but I think anybody with a brain of their own will know that just because something is a classic, doesn't mean it's the greatest game of all time. Again, Blizzard is beaten out by more creative games like Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld 2, and Sins of a Solar Empire-- Games that share the same genre, but expande on it and create something deeper, more involving, and ultimately, more exciting than this cookie-cutter piece of junk. A true eyesore to anybody who appreciates true games, Starcraft 2, like any of other Blizzard's games, is a plague on the gaming industries, and the company will probably continue to contribute to the downfall of the gaming industries for years to come-- God help us all.… Expand

Thoroughly dissapointed. They literally just remade Starcraft 1 with new, shiny graphics and a couple new units. This is more befitting of an expansion than a whole new game.

The RTS aspect has been handled as expected almost flawlessly, extremely polished and already fairly balanced. However, after 12 years to think up a story and to go with this idiocy as the best they could think of was shameful. A 12 year old after smoking a pound of skunk would've done better. Shame on you blizz.

Looks and feels exactly like the first game, resources are still a pain to gather and the cinematic are long and unnecessary. Blizzard must've spent the years of development on this game counting their WoW cash cause SC2 feels 14 years old.

Starcraft II may as well just be called "STARCRAFT HD" Besides some different aspects, such as trashing the idea of medics and adding in drop ships that sprinkle magical healing fairy dust and ultimate units that are reminiscent of Age of Mythology's titans concept (which was executed way better in AoM than SC2) I'll keep my 60 bucks. Blizzard has lost its way. This game doesn't even deserve a 1. It's starcraft with a higher resolution and 100 times the requirements.… Expand

Although this game was decent, it was sorely overpriced for a third of a game and no LAN. Story wasn't good and multiplayer is imbalanced. Quite frankly, this was the most over-hyped game of the decade.

Save yourself some money. Buy the Starcraft 1 Battlechest and get the same game + two extra campaigns and LAN play. That's $10. Then buy the Firefly boxed set to get a much better story that SC2 wasn't too coy in cribbing from. That's $25 more. That leaves $25. Use that to go buy a game that has some post 1998 RTS innovation, like Dawn of War. Don't get me wrong. I loved the first Starcraft. The problem is, I haven't been on a desert island for the last 12 years.… Expand

This was the most expensive box of shit that I have ever purchased. Requiring internet to play is the most retarded thing I have ever seen for people who enjoy to play these games in a solo environment. If I wanted to play an MMO, I'd go play it. I mean hell, I can't even let my little brother play the game because all you get is 1 character. Blizzard needs to take this game, and put it back where they pulled it out from.… Expand

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

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

Pretty much what anyone with a brain can come to expect from a big-name company these days: pure fanboy service that would get worse (fair) scores if it came from any other company. Cliche story, style over substance, and a step backwards for RTSs after such games as Company of Heroes. Not memorable, just old Starcraft with new paint. And as appears to be a sad trend in gaming, single-player takes a huge backseat to multi. But it'll get rave reviews solely because it has "Blizzard" on the box, just like anything from Bioware or Nintendo.… Expand

No LAN play, only 1 campaign for the price of 3, already out-dated graphics, not much new from Brood War. Sadly, Blizzards army of mindless drones will think this is the greatest thing ever. This is what we get because of WoW... the dumbest game ever.

It's still an RTS, which means that if your idea of fun does not include herding a bunch of uncooperative cats around a virtual battlefield through the use of rapid-fire keyboard and mouse commands that make you appear to be having an epileptic seizure, then you should find another game to play.

Ugh.... Basically a pretty version of the original. If you're into the exact same tactics and game play from over a decade + ago then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for innovation then look elsewhere. After playing company of heroes I was expecting more from this game considering how long it's been in development. It takes a bit from DoW2 and that's about where it stops. Once you get online and have more than 20-30 units in a spot expect even the most heavy rigs to drop frames and begin to crawl. Not to mention the $10 price hike just cause they could get away with it, or the fact they've split up the game into 3 just to make more money. That's $180 if you'd like to see the entire story....rofl. Thanks Activision for making the gaming world just a bit more cynical place.… Expand

-$60 for PC game no thanks, not about to feed this new trend of price jacking(CoD:MW2 I'm looking at you) when the cost to produce a game on PC hasn't gone up. -Original allowed you to play as all 3 factions. In this you have to wait for 2 more "expansions" that will cost a currently unknown price to play as other 2 factions. Don't get me wrong I liked the beta, but I'm not paying $60 for an incomplete game. About 12 years between StarCraft and StarCraft 2 and you can't give me all 3 factions off the bat? I can wait until the other two factions are released as a combo, in the meantime I'll go back to playing the original while waiting.… Expand

An utterly terrible game. The AI is atrocious even on the hardest setting. The graphics are very poor apart from the overused CGI cutscenes. Only one race has its own storyline... save your money and get another game. This is a terrible excuse for a "game" and an insult the StarCraft legacy.

Sc2, same crap, different day with shinier graphics. Gameplay from last decade that is extremely boring. Where are the tactics from the RTS's we have come to love like Company of Heroes. SC2 SP campaign is only interesting because of the story, you dont play it because the missions are engrossing, you play it to get to the next cutscene.

Let's get one thing straight. This game is good. However, playing this game feels like Starcraft crossed with Warcraft 3 more than an original game in its own right. From the first time I played the beta, there was a distinct feeling I'd been here before. For all the perfect scores this is getting, it's certainly not groundbreaking like the two games I just mentioned. The fact that there really isn't anything new is disappointing. This is a rehash of Starcraft 1 for the new generation and those nostalgic ones who can't handle a little pixelation. If making a more polished remake of old games was all there was to it, we'd have a top 10 list populated by EA sports games they churn out every year. Doing the same thing with more gloss is just not good enough. Starcraft II doesn't deserve a spot among the likes of Half-Life at the top of the PC heap.… Expand

-not realy playable offline. -many crashes, battle net needed. -just remake of Starcraft 1 -comic graphics -end disappointing -no LAN modus -not playable worldwide Overall this game is pretty bad. I cant understand the scores from magazines. It is bad implementation of first part with better graphics. It can't reach Starcraft or WC3. There are also many better RTS. It is just hyped.

I bought this game from Amazon about a week ago for the price it usually is for a brand new PC game.
Installed it, etc...
Cutting to the main part of the review, I didn't really like this game, it didn't have the look and feel of the original game. Sure, the original Starcraft was made in 1992 and 10 years or so later it made an epic come back with this game. But, I don't see what the big fuss is about. It's trying too hard to be like C&C which it shouldn't be. The original Starcraft was in it's own league from C&C but now it's a dissapointment that this game is similar to the newest C&C game. Sorry, but I have uninstalled this game and don't want to touch it again. I played a few missions and gave it a fair few chances. It resembles C&C so much is unbelievable. I prefer SC and SC2. I'll stick to what I know. All in all, bad job from Blizzard.… Expand

First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

9-10 pts is an exaggeration par excellence. If you take into account what ressources, what experience Blizzard has its just a shame what they serve us with Starcraft 2. Zero innovation and your own personal data collection plattform aka B.Net 2.0 are just two let downs with this one. Additionally it fails where it really shouldn't: MP - various cheats are already in use, very little is done against them. Balancing is a joke at best in every other playmode than 1v1.

The SP part is OK, but nothing you haven't seen so far. Story? Eric Cartman would say: lame!

If I take all of this I can only say I am very dissappointed, a game made for money and not for the gamers - 1 pts for greed and lack of inspiration.… Expand

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

A disappointment. The campaign might be good - I didn't try it. However, multiplayer is flat out boring. Limited builds, little actual strategy, unless you're really good it comes down to memorising a good build and clicking very quickly. And why would you invest time getting good if the game is boring? It feels old all around. Realism and common sense go out the window. And despite having the same number of races and units as SC1, it's highly imbalanced - try and use a mothership for a serious purpose.

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

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

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

Warcraft 3 survives to this date by virtue of DotA. But custom games in SC2 - an important reason to buy War3 or SC1 for many people - are completely useless.… Expand

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

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

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

This is what I waited 12 years for? Multiplayer is top notch, but so was the original SC. Single player is technically fun, but... so badly written that I can't bring myself to even enjoy it.
blizzard should kill thier writing staff or fire thier editor. No company with half a brain would let things like "No! This vision! Stop!" be published.

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

I played this game just enough to know that it is practically identical to the first one, albeit an unimpressive graphics overhaul. It is sad that the "highlight" of this game for most reviewers is how similar it is to the previous one. "Don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!". If it doesn't need to be fixed, then why bother making a sequel? If people are so happy with this game's similarity to Starcraft I, why don't they just go play the original, rather than waste $60 on this overhyped, unnecessary sequel? The original had more campaigns to play through and was (obviously) DRM-less. The pros? The cinematics are good.… Expand

It's a awesome and cool game,good graphics,good story,good soundtrack,good game play,good menu,a lot of achievement's and awesome Multilayer who's needed to be played all days all nights.

The game is pretty nice, although repetitive and after some time boring and stressing, many people play not for fun but for achievements and then you find that they play in a way that makes matches go for around 2 mins and then someone already loses. Blizzard by the way, only cares about money, so while you find yourself wondering why you're unable to play you'll see cracked versions of the game running flawlessly, but you have to stand Blizzard because you paid them and now they're laughing at you. You can't play without an internet connection at all times, even against AI, and when you login your real life friends receive a notice, so if you have a girlfriend o real friends that play you can't play by yourself any time, they'll always know you're there and will most of the times feel offended if you don't join them.… Expand

The original Stracraft set the bar really high. This sequel doesn't really come close to its predecessor...here's why:

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

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

Third: Battlenet is still not working correctly for me. Not sure why, and their customer support is terrible. I can't even play local offline games vs A.I. . It's pretty sad.… Expand

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...

Let me start by saying I was eager as hell to pick this title up but from stills and vids., the short campaign, battle.net 2 limit on custom maps, and high price I waited till it dropped to $40 (through deals) and played the "demo" till then.

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

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

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

The only reason I would buy Starcraft 2 over other tittles (dawn of war 2, company of heroes (CoH online will be free), world in conflict, or any other soon to be released tittle, Warcraft III) would be because the user group currently is much higher CURRENTLY, POTENTIAL custom map support.… Expand

Well lets start off by saying yes.. i did have high expectations. and for me they were dashed. if i was 10-15 years younger and just wanted to build a bunch of units and throw everything i got at someone then yes id like the game. but when i see every good player throw up barracks and supply depots at the top of there ramp into there base to defend there base instead of there.. "Defences" which would be the point of a "Defence" because they have more hitpoints and cost ratio is better, then yes someone screwed up. as far as balancing... well its not. the old starcraft the old war horses of blizzard knew. protoss; high power low output on units. terran medium power, medium output on units, zerg; low power high output of units.... pretty simple. the game is not balanced when a good protoss player can take a probe into the enemys base and set up photon cannons and win the game in 5 mins before a half decent player can get any units up. sry blizzard but i think your failing. and this aside, no LAN? not only that but there were SOOO many more options in the old starcraft in multiplay that allowed for cooperative play on the same team why cant the A.I. have an option to build defences and turtle the game. and the campaign story line that was.. ehh.... Two words for me sums this all up, extreme disappointment. as a hardcore gamer i loved the long played out matches i played 12 years ago. well this makes no difference to blizzard im sure. but this long time SC2 fan will not be buying those expansions… Expand

You cannot review Starcraft 2 without comparing it to Warcraft 3. The review is as follows: if you liked Warcraft 3, you will like Starcraft but get bored with it after a few days. If you disliked Warcraft 3, your interest will be maintained. Starcraft 2, like Starcraft 1, is a clusterf*** of stuff that is hard to differentiate. I think the game is exceptionally boring and frankly, stupid. But single player story line was fun and likeable. However, its replay value is low, because its multiplayer is not for me. Have fun with it if you like it, though.… Expand

12 years since the first game and I'm a little underwhelmed. That game old blizzard formula is back and the default generic blizzard art design too! (you know everyone is really stalky, wide, ugly and colorful). The campaign is a scant 25 levels and really doesn't go anywhere. The plot is hackneyed as hell (and maaaan are the hybrids dumb).


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

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

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


I guess all in all this isn't a bad game .. if it was 40 bucks. I bet the "expansions" with the other race's campaigns will be that much though!… Expand

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

And it's more expensive than other games on the market.… Expand

This is 2010...a decade ago (or maybe 2, i dont know, im getting old -Dune anyone?- :) ), this might have been awesome. As it is, it's just the same old basic rts with souped up graphics and fancy presentation.
If i think of the things i have played since SC1, like Battle for Middle Earth 1 & 2 and CoH, i can only say: Blizzard, please don't take us for fools.
Although maybe i am just that for buying it....as even their marketing department couldn't really come up with good points on why to buy this. If you love the evolution of rts games and praised before mentioned products because of that, steer clear of this....you will not be impressed.… Expand

Starcraft. A category for itself in game industry. Which can pretty much sum it up. But let`s start out methodically.
First things first. I will immediately come out front about my attitude towards Starcraft in general.
I don`t hate SC per se. The first game was good. Immersive, playable and sufficiently interesting to keep you playing for some time. In 1998. It had everything that good RTS needed. It had even more, what with different but perfectly balanced races and gameplay that required little time to get used to, but a lot to master. Story too was interesting, and since I had no idea what Wh 40k was back then, it had an air of genuine originality about it.
Starcraft 2 is both very similar and very different game. It`s immersive. Interesting missions that keep you on your toes. Inrteresting units too, and character interactions on the ship. But that`s where the list ends (for me anyway). For someone who played Starcraft a lot, but was not obsessed with it, the second installment didn`t at all stand out from the other games on the market in the way that the original did in `98. Why you ask? Well it`s a bit opened to interpretation, but I will represent my view of it.

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

Story? Ahhhhhh for crying out loud, how many "the end times are nigh" rehashes the Blizzard has to do? I mean, the story is, in broad sense, very much like the one of Warcraft3. Not to mention other games that are running by the same "Armageddon" routine. Well, the characters can be interesting, but when Zeratul starts uncovering more, things get cheesy. Almost pathetic, really. I played a lot of games and watched a busload of movies (US, Japanese, Russian...) and I appreciate surprises. SC2 has none. You have interesting universe, so much potential for good story that keeps you guessing... but in the end, Blizzard achieved very, very little with very much.
And how the game reviewers gave positive reviews, not berating the lack of innovation (I remember how Red Alert 2 got neg points for it 10(!!!) years ago)... SC2 is put simply, a piece of that brown, smelly stuff
you see every day, wrapped up in silk. And it sells real, damn good. After 12 years. Go Blizzard, Yay!… Expand

Is this game made by experimental college students? This is just plain sad.
Not a single improvement over Brood War - nothing worth noting atleast.
This is just far behind our time.

I'm pretty disappointed in SC2, I must say. After all this time waiting for it, getting the game ended up being a very poor decision and pretty tough on the wallet as far as games go. I have a few reasons and many have them have already been mentioned, but I will state why I personally didn't like SC2 anyway. First thing was that it didn't really feel any different from BW. Sure there is an update in unit types and a relatively minor update in graphics/physics, but it ended up feeling like an unnecessary upgrade, if you could call it that, to BW. Otherwise the gameplay itself was great, as to be expected since BW was a great game. However, the biggest let down of the SC2 release wasn't really SC2 because it will probably, but hopefully not, be involved with WC and Diablo releases. That huge, gigantic, enormous flaw is B.net 2.0. Some may say the B.net system requires its own review and for the most part I agree, but seeing as how you *must* be logged on to the system to play SC2 there is, in my opinion, no divorcing the two. B.net 2.0, I believe, is a failure of a system. The greatness of B.net 1.0 was in the ability for other players to meet each other and maintain contact with each other before you decided to /f add. The old system also provided chat rooms for groups of like minded or like skilled individuals to gather. Bots did not effect that experience for me. This new system is very cold and unfriendly. You log on to the system forcibly, select a multiplayer mode, get matched with some others, play your game, and go your separate ways. Want to add someone? You better hope you have their player ID number to do that. Then there is the custom map settings. Players can only upload 4 or so maps to the server in total. Sure it keeps crummy maps from getting onto the server, making sure it is not overloaded, but then you ask two things: 1) Why should we have to use your server? and 2) crummy maps get rooted out because their crummy, there would be no need to worry about them if we were not forced to use your server. Also, custom map designing teams/individuals will have a more difficult time because now if they reach the 4 map limit and want to put up a new map, well, they'll have to take an older map down. Then there is the set up of finding a custom map to play. Only the most popular maps are immediately visible. Want to play a map that is great but not yet popular? Well scroll down 6 pages and find it. Want to get a great map you made popular, good luck... Then of course there is the issue with LAN, effectively killing LAN party setups for SC2. If I had known about the issues this game had before hand, I would not have bought it in the first place, even though I was a staunch supporter of SC and SC:BW. I can only hope B.net 2.0 gets a patch to B.net 3.0 and that Diablo III does not suffer the same development issues.… Expand

This is a ridiculous game i was expecting this game but when i finally played it i was like WTF?!? They took like 4 years to develop this crap??!! It is horribly outdated gameplay, i mean i understand this is Starcarft but this is exactly my point. Put another name to the game , not made by Blizzard and everybody would says this is an prehistoric sh**. But hey this is starcraft so it deserves a 10....Stupid people...… Expand

Outdated graphics, some overly-simplified HUD controls so basic that average gamers can't figure, a game-play made to satisfy competitive game in Korea with a huge demand on micro-management causing actual stress in order to gain the upper hand, lag and hamstring of the custom games functions (Only prompting people to play the most popular ones which involve generic Tower Defense and other re-re-replayed junk) and you'll get Starcraft II. It's like eating a really tasty looking eye-appeal pie that has no filling besides the bread crusts for anyone that isn't Korean along with the beautiful cinematics accompanied by some silly storyline.… Expand

While a classic that will please gamers for years, what is on shelves of stores everywhere is not what twelve years of work should look like. Blizzard seems like a child procrastinating on a project for school while teachers commend him for the prettiness and previous works. An extremely large population of players, slightly improved yet unsurprising graphics, a bunch of units scattered here and there, and a decent story should not be factors that make people rate this game a perfect 10. Simplistic LAN is removed, and in its place stands a requirement for constant internet connection and repetitive updates. Blizzard is all for the money. The game costs $60 for multiplayer and a third of the campaign. Those who wish to purchase the game should not base thoughts on those who rate highly.… Expand

No direct B-Chat.... When you enter this game you feel alone... It has northing to do with Online Gaming. You got not real direct contact to your enemies or friends

To be fair, this game kept me entertained for a good while. It falls short in a number of places however. The battles are high speed, short and very difficult to manage for anyone without years of RTS experience. The resource gathering method is a little... how do you say... outdated? Managing workers is more of a hassel than anything else in this game. Microing them when they are under attack is not fun, and you can lose them all in a matter of seconds, which completely ruins your chance of winning the game. Also not fun. Scouting is near impossible in this game. You will find yourself most of the time simply trying to make educated guesses on what your opponent is building. An incorrect guess can lead you to a loss. This is especially irritating when one or two stealth units kills your entire army and base. The early tier units completely overpower anything late tier. It is not surprising to see even a top level player build 10-15 barracks or gateways and just pump mass garbage units. Stategic element is lacking. The most strategic thing you will do in this game is drop units on an enemy mineral patch. It's all about speed. You see the same build orders game after game. No real variants on the ladder. Some units just aren't worth building. The SC2 battle.net forum is catered for little kids and Christians. Perhaps the worst part of the game however, is the fact that you spend most of the game staring at your base. Active engagements seldomly take place, and the god awful ramp mechanics make penetration into the enemy base more irritating and frustrating than anything else, and also highly favor the defender. Save the money. Buy new brake pads or something.… Expand

The worstest thing in the game is by far, the locked game speed on hard and brutal in campaign and the forced default high game speeds. This make the game annoying and boring, ruined it. At casual and normal difficulties, the player can control the game speed, but the AI is not strong enough to be a challenge. On hard or brutal, the AI is a challenge even for skilled players, but the micromanagement is impossible at such speeds, so, the game become one arcade game, not a RTS. Idem on multiplayer, players just rush, so, we cannot see here great tactical and strategic abilities, only fast button push (the player who have a better computer, a more responsive keyboard and mouse is in great advantage from start) The designed by default hotkeys-based gameplay make the game experience more sluggish, and frustrating, not more smoothly. The mass cast abiltities lack entirely, also many players regrets the units from Starcraft I and Broodwar. For that causes, Starcraft II, despite the 3D graphic and other improvements, is very far from SC I and Broodwar at their time. Somebody from the game-stuff imposed with obstinacy a wrong personal vision about to way to play the game, and from that point are resulted all game failures and lack of game joy for many players. The game have good parts too, and other bad parts too, but even just for the reasons mentioned above the game deserve the score 0!… Expand

This game is no goodzorz. I played it, but I did not enjoy my time. If I had a nickel for every time this happend, I would be like WTF. But seriously. There is nothing special about this game. You might as go play age of empires.

StarCraft II is easily the biggest gaming disappointment ever. After 12 years, one of the best games of all time still has no worthy successor. The graphics are pretty, yes, but it plays almost exactly like the original StarCraft. The story was meh at best, and Blizzard/Activion's decision to do an episodic thing is both disappointing, and reminiscent of Valve's Episode 3/Half Life 3 mess. The new league system is also terribly bad - mediocre players who want to learn and improve get stuck in the lower leagues, losing to the rushing tactic of the week, and rarely does some shining new star rise to the top ranks to compete with the pros. Rregardless of what Blizzard/Activision say, StarCraft should not be a spectator sport, and how they can honestly claim that people should enjoy sitting and watching other people play video games is utterly beyond me. It could be worse, sure. But like so many sequels before it (most made in a fraction of the time, I might add) it simply can't compare to the original.… Expand

As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

The story line is terrible with boring cliches and poor dialogue combined with ridiculous retcons and reinterpretations of characters and events. You'd think that since they had 10 years they'd have at least had a better grasp of what they were doing. People try to make the excuse that 'so what if it's 1/3 of a game, you still get 29 missions for race, that's more than the original or brood war". Well, the main storyline is really only made up about ten missions or so, the rest are filler. The entire storyline including the other races could have been done for 30 to 40 missions.

The gameplay itself is also quite disappointing after an extended play through. So much more could have been done with the technology that so many other games have taken advantage of, such as cover. The developers even admitted that they kept the game the way it was in order to preserve the e-sports leagues surrounding it. Talk about the greed factor :/

It's strange that age of empires 3 and command and conquer 3 were criticism and their game scores lowered for being behind the times, Starcraft 2 is being praised for it for the most part. If this wasn't called STARCRAFT 2, say Space Wars, it'd be getting alot more criticism for being behind the times.

It's fun, don't get me wrong, but it's not worth $60, and is the most overrated game of 2010, and my biggest gaming disappointment.… Expand

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

After hearing so much praise for the Starcraft series, I decided to pick it up. Turns out, all the praise seems to have been merely hype generated by Starcraft fans. Now the game is good, but no to the degree of hype given. The overall graphics are alright but remind me too much of previous generation games. Cut scenes are well rendered and look amazing but the gameplay graphics are lacking. Still a decent game and worth checking out if your a RTS fan but don't fall into the "hype trap" generated by overzealous fans.… Expand

I cannot for the life of me fathom this game's reception. Starcraft II is a cobwebbed relic of the 90s, absolutely identical to Starcraft save updated graphics and a few replaced units. Starcraft II is a game that ignores every single innovation to the RTS genre over the past decade: squad-based units, cover systems, lessened emphasis on base building, progressive unlockable abilities, directional damage and flank attacks, and a much scaled back system of resource gathering. None of these excellent innovations are present or even alluded to in Starcraft II, which is sad given that some of them were present even before the original Starcraft hit the shelves. This is literally a game from a decade ago, and plays exactly like a game from a decade ago. If that's what you want, come on down!

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

There is simply nothing memorable about this game. In twenty years, the only thing I will remember about Starcraft II is that it was a Starcraft game. The very name appears to require praise. It does get me thinking though, as I mentioned before: is this really what RTS gamers want? They just want more of the same 1990s RTS games that involved little more than a build order and mass production of three units clumped together in a ball which will die en masse before victory is won? This game seems to suggest this, or else Blizzard's Fan Legion is far more formidable than anyone had realized. But I don't believe that. I suppose I'm just the new-fashioned person, and the other 1,295 reviews are the old-fashioned guys. Well, admitting a difference in taste is never a bad thing. However, that does not change the fact that Starcraft II is an embarrassing chronoburn, an ancient artifact of a bygone era which laughs in the face of its own genre while simultaneously championing it, but somehow managed to achieve widespread acclaim today from gaming establishments which have spent the past ten years bemoaning the lack of creativity and innovation in the RTS genre and subsequently grading down countless RTS games for their lack of either. But - Look! - here comes Starcraft! We just HAVE to give it a 100%, because it's STARCRAFT! We need to toss out the RTS grading rubric we have used for the past decade, because STARCRAFT is here!! Oh boy!… Expand

Bad, bad, bad. Rehashed game, just graphics have been improved. Less features (e.g. LAN). Boring gameplay, no tactical usage of the enviroment such as cover, etc. Dull missions. There are better RTS out. Don't buy this one.

the most over-hyped sequel of all time to the the most overrated game of all time. the fixed some UI gripes, and updated the graphics........ but it is if anything worse. the original had the excuse of poor hardware to run it but this? its almost the same. the gameplay is still over intensive and far too small. unit AI is almost non-existent. there is still no physics to speak of, not even three dimensional gameplay (no heights, just "land" or "air" a ranged unit can attack from the base of one side of a hill to the opposite side, firing THROUGH the hill). still massively restrictive unit caps. No LAN play, which even starcraft one had.. at most it is an expansion to the original, 10 years late and twice the price. all polished up but bland, repetitive gameplay.… Expand