User Score
8.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 3123 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. CharlieL
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. While the graphics have improved vastly, the gameplay remained mostly the same as the original game over a decade ago. The genre have moved beyond since then. And in some ways this is reflected from the changes seen in single player campaign. But if Blizzard is going to take some aspects of Relic games, then they should have took more instead of sticking to the confine of the original. Starcraft was a great game when it was released, now people just need to get over it. Expand
  2. SteveR
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for This game is milestone for Blizzard. Sadly a negative one. Blizzard said shipping an unfinished product is devastating for developers. While starcraft 2 is quite polished game, battle net 2.0 isnt. Thousands of people have issues with it. Considering gameplay is almost same like 12 years ago with new graphics which is not with today standards and you will get only one third of story for very high price 6/10 is fair rating in my opinion Expand
  3. ScottK
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is undoubtedly awesome, and coming to the end of the campaign here shortly, it did not let me down! The online side on the other hand has a lot to be desired. Lack of chat rooms, lack of Lan, lack of cross region play, something that has been pabundant in previous titles has been removed from this game. With thousands of users asking for the ability to chat "in game" and being The game is undoubtedly awesome, and coming to the end of the campaign here shortly, it did not let me down! The online side on the other hand has a lot to be desired. Lack of chat rooms, lack of Lan, lack of cross region play, something that has been pabundant in previous titles has been removed from this game. With thousands of users asking for the ability to chat "in game" and being ignored, thats why im giving this a 7. Though to be fair, a 9 for the gameplay/story, a 3 for their failed battle.net experience...it really brings it down. Expand
  4. MarcelN
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    Poor sequel, overhyped and DRM-infested. Why, oh why, did I fell for the marketing BS and bought this?! I'm totally UNHAPPY with no LAN, no custom matchmaking, no custom map naming, 'premium content you'll need to pay for' and so on. Suck ass.
  5. Mike
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about Pretty meh, all over. Western setting with a cowboy jukebox mixed with boring conversations written by 10 year olds... what just happened to my Sci-Fi war story? There is nothing new to this, since the first. Just shinier and cheesier. I guess it plays well enough, but good lord there are some awful design choices with the characters and story. I guess they really did only care about multiplayer and the millions of Koreans. Expand
  6. PeterR
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 What this game does well is its story. If that's all the game is about it should get a perfect 10. But RTS's are in part about commanding large armies and creating a feeling of being a general. It's in this regard that SC2 gets a 5. The game plays exactly as it was 12 years ago with the addition of a badly executed order queuing ability (bad because if you mess up order 4 or 5 you need to re-issue all orders). Without changing the core gameplay Blizzard could have added any number of features that truly make modern RTS's very fun and engaging. Some such features would be: Zoom engines, Dual monitor support, group attack commands (being able to issue a command to attack an entire group and not just 1 individual in a group), formations, a low profile UI, etc. This is why this game gets a 7. While the gameplay isn't bad, it sure isn't good. It's simply antiquated. So if you're looking for story absolutely buy this game. If you're an RTS fan you may want to look elsewhere. Expand
  7. KarstenF
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given SC2 is a decent game. You get some nice story told in wing commander mannor that is not too deep. You get many really different missions that get some replay value as you could go for the achievements. And thats it. Was fun playing it but nothing that has a deeper impression than a good towerdefense flash game. The AI is basically absolent throwing enemies at me based on time and given paths. I don't really have to develop a tactic. Multiplayerwise I am not a fan of a wild click orgy. There is basically no helping AI for movement. Your Units will frequently block each other. But hey its starcraft and the wild clicking is called esports. Be quick and anywhere on the map and replace the missing AI. Not my kind of game. We get what we expected. A game over 12 years old with an graphics update. Still works but really won't blow my mind or reinvents the RTS genre. Expand
  8. Dokk
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it Ultimately I gave it an 7, but I'm honestly kinda conflicted about it overall. It deserves at least a 7 because of the bottom line - it's a shit load of fun. OTOH, it deserves a lower score for lack of innovation. It really makes you appreciate just how great SC1 was in 1998 and remains to this day. I haven't played the original for quite a while now, but I would revisit it regularly over the years and it was always like seeing an old friend. I'm having a blast with Starcraft 2 but 12 years is too long to wait for this to be honest. It could just have easily come out 5 years ago. After all this time, we should have something new and innovative while still maintaining the high level of polish and fun we've come to expect. And sometime during that 12 year hiatus, I wish they would have given us the original with a new coat of paint - ie higher resolutions, etc - just to whet the appetite for SC2. I guess they have been working on the whole "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. But that's where they went with the sequel as well. The gameplay was awesome fun 12 years ago and is still plenty of fun all this time later. Unfortunately, given the next 2 expansions as well as the very long development cycle, it seems Blizzard is leaving innovation to more creative companies. Like I said, that's not such a bad thing given how much fun there is to be had. But if we're still zerg rushing in 2025 or so (when SC3 is released). Expand
  9. BenA
    Aug 5, 2010
    6
    Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and Campaign is amazingly fun, lots of options, varied mission design. Normal difficulty devolves into spamming as many of your chosen unit as possible. Hard difficulty actually involves thought, though the difficulty of a "hard" mission can vary greatly. The new battle.net interface has a lot of changes, unfortunately they're almost entirely focused on leaderboards, ladders, and starcraft as an e-sport, leaving little room for casual players. Playing the campaign in no way prepares you for playing normal matches. Defensive structures are practically useless, and get flattened quite easily. Unit ranges have been shrunk overall, so that the difference between say the range of a siege tank and the range of a marine is quite small. On the whole Campaign is fun, but the new battle.net, the multiplayer balance, and lack of much in the way of user generated content at this point combine to kill any interest I had in playing online. Expand
  10. AndyG
    Aug 5, 2010
    5
    This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was This game is not bad, but surely its not that miracle many reviewers seem to sell us. Starcraft II is the same game as the original with the same plus and issues, with better, but yet outdated graphics. But now is not 1998 and what was "acceptable" at that time now is no more. Its like thinking an improved graphic version of pacman released now must be a blockbuster cause the original was so acclaimed (btw never liked pac-man at all personally). The reason of this low rating is cause the game is overpriced ( Expand
  11. MickoW
    Aug 5, 2010
    7
    Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for Good game, missions are well thought out and fun. Besides that, its Starcraft 1with a face lift. Thats not a bad thing, just over hyped. The graphics are nothing special for 2010, you cant even change the cameras angle, just zoom in and out. The downsides are that you dont own the game, just a license to use it, no LAN play, must be online to play singleplayer and must sign up for battle.net. The time spent on making videos for the single player campaign should probably have been spent on improving the graphics engine. Good fun, if a little underwhelming. Expand
  12. PLib
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft is a fun game, if you're into Starcraft. That's about it. This game feels like a rehash of the Starcraft the first, just with updated graphics and interface. Quite frankly, that's not enough to compel me to buy this when their are other great RTS's still out there, like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes.
  13. JohnS
    Jul 27, 2010
    6
    The game is polished to an insane level, following Blizzard's best standards. Sadly, the absence of LAN play ruins what I thought to be the very essence of this RTS series.
  14. AnthonyC
    Jul 28, 2010
    6
    The game itself is fun, with overall fun missions for single player, fairly well balanced units, and fantastic graphics. It severely lacks in quality storyline, story telling, and character acting/dialogue. I'm very dissapointed with both the storyline and the dialogue during the single player campaign. It comes off as cheasy, and the love-story with Raynor and Kerigan is completely The game itself is fun, with overall fun missions for single player, fairly well balanced units, and fantastic graphics. It severely lacks in quality storyline, story telling, and character acting/dialogue. I'm very dissapointed with both the storyline and the dialogue during the single player campaign. It comes off as cheasy, and the love-story with Raynor and Kerigan is completely unnecessary after looking back at the SC1 storyline. An example of the bad character scripting happens during an early cutscene with Captain Matt and the Convict. The player [Raynor] tells Matt that him and the Convict go way back and they're good friends and he trusts him. Then when talking with the convict he starts warning the convict that he better not be leading them into a trap with his deals for the Protoss relics. If they were friends wouldn't he be asking the Convict if they were walking into a trap? Or tell the Convict that they had better plan for this being a trap? Rather than subtly threatening him? That's not even a very good example, especially when you start looking at the rest of the cheasy dialogue... You might be thinking "why do you care about the dialogue"? Because if you're going to make it into a major portion of the game, and spend eleven years making said game, you think someone in their QC department would have said "wait... this is really pretty bad acting. We can do better..." The game itself offers a ton of new units, and some oldies. I was pleased to see the Vulture replaced by a powerful-when-upgraded dune buggy. Firebats were upgraded to be walking fortresses, and my favorite marines are still all-around great units (love rushing with them). The game was complicated more by the addition of more types of infantry and I was surprised to see the Goliath back (always disliked making that unit, and the experience hasn't been improved since it dies easily and takes forever to produce). The missions are usually a hoot, and have been more complicated than SC1's typical "destroy the enemy base" mission. I've especially enjoyed how several missions have been added to make a defensive player happy - the "survive thirty minutes" style games. In all I would purchase this again, but have lost respect for Blizzard for dropping the ball on a storytelling experience that had great potential. I look forward to reading reviews for expansion packs before I purchase them. Expand
  15. AnnaK.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing Blizzard games are always known for their polish and attention to detail. From obvious things like smooth and eye-candy visuals, through amazing CGI work to gameplay with well balanced learning curve. And that is all there is to Starcraft 2. The child to one of most popular RTS games of all times did not brought anything really new to the table. It plays and feels the same, just pleasing the players with new graphics and some simple fixes to UI and controls. The problem is that in perfecting the known schemes, Blizzard refuses to try anything new. After 12 years of waiting for a sequel, i think they wasted their chance to provide their fans with some new, exciting expierience. Similarly to WoW that took best thing from MMOs made prior to it, Starcraft 2 used all the knowledge of traditional RTS gathered ever since Westwood created Dune2 and polished it till it shines. Personally, i found the Terran campaign a little too much on the cliche side, and voice acting at moments is way below the standards of modern market. Splitting the experience into 3 parts, also seems to be hurting the overall reception. It's a good game, but not good enough to deserve a perfect score. It's all been done before, Blizzard took no risks to try to create something new. It's same old game with new looks. 7.5 Is all it can count on from me. Expand
  16. StevieP
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have Is it polishes? Yes. Is it good? Yes. But even Doom is still good but a new map pack from id Software wouldn't see me fork over 60 euros. There's many problems here: the price tag, the lack of change and innovation, the clichéd story, the forced use of Battlenet and being online to play Single Player, the lack of LAN support, the splitting up of the story so you only have a third of a full game at full price, the lack of saves (only auto-saves), etc. etc. Honestly, this is poor value for money if you're not into the insanely-competitive online aspect. If it ever drops to Expand
  17. Jexter
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and I gave this game only 5 out of 10 due to many bad aspects that Blizzard has implemented by ignoring community pleas. I will not buy this game, but played in beta. Blizzard will no doubt shoot itself to a foot with this title. Pros: 1. Solid gameplay albeit most units feel like cannon fodder, they just seem to die too fast. 2. Entertaining campaign. 3. Powerful map editor 4. Beautiful and runs well on most machines. Cons: 1. Always need to be connected to the internet. No offline playability. 2. No LAN 3. No cross-realm / global playability. Many of my RTS friends are either from the US and Asia. Why does Blizzard want to kill global communities? 4. No chat channels. Hard to form a community. 5. Additional charges for "premium" maps and units. 6. No tournament / clan support. 7. No ownership of the product. If Battle.net is down, you cannot play. DRM going way over the top. Expand
  18. DavidB
    Jul 31, 2010
    7
    In the past when asked for a release date for StarCraft II, Blizzard would proudly proclaim:
  19. Christoph
    Jul 30, 2010
    7
    Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2 and WarCraft 3 are all more modern than this game. StarCraft II throws RTS evolution back by several years. The Campaign is "OK", not very exciting so far, and multiplayer is basically the same it was 10 years ago.
  20. PaulF
    Aug 2, 2010
    7
    I cant believe that there are so many people giving this 10 which is a perfect score because this is not a perfect game.Sound and graphics are outstanding but i was expecting more than just a graphics upgrade.It feels old not classic. RTS has moved on (i am so over base building). Having said that it is still fun but it doesn't draw me in like CoH or DoW.
  21. DamienR
    Aug 3, 2010
    5
    While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty While the in-game graphics and cut-scenes are undeniably well made, with excellent art design, voice acting and animation, the part of the game that you pay for (namely the RTS gameplay) just isn't up to par. It is undeniably well balanced for multiplayer, but the graphics and level design are way behind current technology, and are not even slightly ground breaking. Really pretty disappointing. Singleplayer story is average, if not a bit cliche (saving a lost love, betrayal, shady alliances etc etc yawn), though the missions are fairly interesting. Lastly, paying three times for one game, and forcing Battle.net on everyone, AND no LAN? No thanks. Expand
  22. AndreyI
    Aug 3, 2010
    7
    If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of If you are not a RTS multiplayer fan this game have very little for you to offer. Campaign is dull, full of cliché and self-repeating. 26 mission just for one side (other 2 factions will come for additional money) and half of em you can throw away without any problems. I like old 3x8 format from SC a way more than new one. Graphics is good, but for me not better than Company of Heroes. And that is 4 years old game. SGI are good but not that impressive as it were in Diablo 2. And those childish things like achievements and facebook integration. It's really making me a sad panda. Overall it's a good game but nothing like "brilliant sequel" or any other hollow words in all this 95+ score reviews. Today Blizzard is more about making money so we all "enjoying" this "the same old thing but 2x shiny". Sad but true. Expand
  23. SpendrikC.
    Aug 4, 2010
    7
    It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just It's a good game: polished, high production values, fun. However, despite new units and new abilities, there's nothing game-changing. Playing it feels like playing SC1+BW, good for nostalgia, but seems a bit boring for a essential a third of a story. The lack of LAN, chat, and cross-region support bothers me. With the new Bnet, I miss the days of signing on privately to just play a few games. I hope they have more robust privacy settings soon. Expand
  24. bobg
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    I just don't get it. The story is boring and doesn't grab you, the graphics are nothing amazing and the game is lacking a number of important features, e.g. LAN play. Sure this is a decent game if you want the same gameplay you had 12 years ago, but no way does it deserve the kind of perfect scores it's getting.
  25. RonnyS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll Sooo.. Are they going to be going the franchise route with starcraft now, or? Starcraft 2011, Starcraft 2012 and so forth.. Cause in 12 years they've added less than what EA adds to Tiger Woods each year.. This is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It's an OK rts by todays standards. The campaing was absolute rubbish, though. Got half way through while always thinking "it'll get better next map", but that never really happened. And when you're still thinking "it'll get better" after 10 hours of play... then... that's a massive fail. I'm not going to get into the MP of this game, I know it's the big draw of a game like this, but I'm just not going to get back into it. It's the same as it was 12 years ago, when the playerbase of online games were at about 18-20 years average. Now I'm 12 years older, don't have patience for kids and their insults, and don't really care much about pwning nabs in a retro RTS.. If you liked SC1 and played it a lot back in the day, it might be worth buying it when it hits the cheap bin just for the nostalgia. Definitely not worth the 60bucks I paid. I bought Warhammer 40k Dawn of War II Chaos Rising 2 days after I bought sc2. It's just a better game. Metascore of 85, but that's not a bloated 85. Starcrafts 94 is just a testament to how many reviewers get paid these days. Expand
  26. JoeS
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing Disappointing is the first word that comes to mind when I think of Starcraft 2. I am a huge fan of the first game and Brood War. I've played those games about 50 times over and I plan to play them again. I doubt I'll play through this game more than once. The story has gone from amazing to campy trash. The gameplay has gone from feeling epic to feeling like you're playing with glass figurines. The gameplay feels about the same, the only major differences being that some of the old units now have different names and appearances. Really, this whole thing just makes me want to play Starcraft 1 again. Expand
  27. MatthewC
    Jul 27, 2010
    7
    Not enough has changed from the last game to warrant receiving a super high score from me. The game is pretty and has a nice soundtrack, but coming from the original game, there is practically no innovation and no surprises to be had. It's a shame to think that the original Starcraft was released in 1998 and still compares well with Starcraft 2, now in 2010.
  28. ColinR
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Compared to other RTs's this is just lacking. It is not as in depth as supreme comander or innovative as company of hero's. It is not as tactical as the total war series. It is a very basic rts with an ok story. The only reason it is so popular is based off the original. But it has been years couldnt they have done and changed more.
  29. KostasI.
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both Ok lets get down to bussiness. Long story short the game is very well done and it does worth your money somewhat. What i like about this game. It has awesome cut scenes and videos in as high standards as you would expect from Blizzard. The campaign is lengthy which will last you about 15 - 17 hours in normal difficulty and while you play the campaign you are going to use all units both from the old days and the new ones. Sound is also at a very high standard. Intercace is also a notch above anything else i have seen in the genre. Gameplay is what you expect, nothing has changed from the old days WHICH IS GOOD and speaks loud at how far ahead was Starcraft 1 from the competition. What i did not like about the game. The engine is very unstable and does not seem to perfom as good as other engines even if the graficks are not nearly on the same level as current strategy games. The story is just not what i expected. I wanted it to be really epic with the characters being developed even more but no....Its not bad but it could have been so much better and so much "to the point", it feels like a blabbermouth is telling it. Keep it simple and focused people. Overall the game, while very good and very well done, fails to capture the essence and heritage of the old game and slows down the story much more than it should. Expand
  30. MarioS
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    Same gameplay are the old one with the worst battlenet in any blizzard game. Same it took them 7 year and it's still missing many things.
  31. Hendrik
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont The campaign is well done. Great mood, good story. Intense. The multiplayer experience is... like you are used to it from SC1. No differences. In fact: almost a remake. If you liked SC1 then you should play SC2 totally. But if you are used to more complex RTS games which were released after SC1, which brought a lot of new developments in gameplay just like Company of Heroes, then you wont become that happy Expand
  32. RanoldC
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    While this game is a pretty good RTS by itself, it just doesn't feel right. It feels like blizzard tried too hard to make it as good as its predecessor which in my opinion just ruined the game. Making the game overpriced and splitting it up into 3 campaign also shows that they are trying to rip off people with the legacy of its predecessor. Honestly, I'm disappointed.
  33. JacobP.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Cinematics are great (although blizzard are still way behind square enix) but the rest of the graphics are just not up to 2010 standards, not by a long shot to be honest. The single player is entertaining but its nothing new at all so it just cant get higher marks from me. I was expecting something truly fantastic but its just not. Good game ? Yes Greamt game ? No.
  34. TannerB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    The game is good. Not the best, not inovative at all. If you liked the original starcraft chances are you will also like this one. If you were looking for more than the first im sorry to dissapoint you. The scaling for starcraft is also really bad, some fps drops with 2 hd5870 crossfire even. I think dawn of war 2 is the better. Although i have to admit the menus are nice for sc2.
  35. BradK
    Jul 29, 2010
    5
    It's sad to see that even reviewers are being sucked in by hype. The one reviewer gave it 100 and said the game is exactly the same as the first one with a new skin. Don't these people even think this through.
  36. JamesB
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    Considering the extraordinary length of time between the original StarCraft and SC2, this doesn't really show any signs of a game that's been in development for several years. It's a fun game to be sure, and any SC fan will absolutely love it, but it still seemed rather lacking to me, at least considering the lengthy development time.
  37. David
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    This is one of those games that had a heavy investment into cinematics and marketing, while gameplay is only mediocre. It has been 12 years since SC1, you can't just remake the same game. A predictable and cliche ridden story doesn't help it, too. There is nothing particularly bad about SC2, it's just that it doesn't take any chances and ends up being too boring.
  38. SuciuM.
    Jul 29, 2010
    7
    I like the menu and the cutscenes make you drool . However the overall graphics are bad. And I had expected to see a much massive game with thousands of creatures fighting for their survival . I mean the plot it`s happening in space I expected to see thousand of sprites on the screen.
  39. DD
    Jul 29, 2010
    6
    This gameplay is old and busted. I prefer the new Dawn of War rts formula to the old Starcraft formula (for resource collection, unit control, reinforcement and upgrades, micro-macro ratio, a total of 8 unique armies, etc). There's nostalgia appeal in S2, but not enough *new* stuff.
  40. FarSpace
    Jul 31, 2010
    5
    imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of imo it is build real fast and attack or the same and defend then attacvk if that's more fun for you, so really it is not a great stratagy game. not allot to it if you want some real stratagy game play, but the graphics and story are good if that's what you like. personaly this makes me want to go back to the WWII board games, now that uses some real thaught. I'm so sick of Blizzard so called going with what so called works but I guess other don't want there game to get any more interesting but just have more options and better graphics is fine but lets some some big time stratagy that really getsmore interest, chess is way better even. sorry. Expand
  41. FrancoisV
    Jul 30, 2010
    6
    blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. blizzard said this was going to be epic and even better than star-craft/bood war. well i just finished the game(every mission and even the secret mission), few interesting things but overall the story is lacking, i felt like ''ok i spent that much time just to know this, that and that and this is it''. So you do a bunch of missions that doesnt really advance the story. some missions were fun but it didnt add anything to the story. considering it has only the terran campaign and it took so much time before they release this game, it's seriously is weak. dialogue were a bit cheasy too. as for the multiplayer, i havent played much so far, but most of the map seems the same thing, you start on a elevate floor with one entrance....the gameplay overall seems a bit slower too (haverster, gather less mineral and gas than the first game and most unit/building cost around the same as the first game :S ) the menu/battle net is confusing too, i will probably get use to it but so far it's a little bit annoying. overall i am disapointed. i'll probably wait til they release protoss game or a bundle and spoil myself a little and see if the next games are going to be worth it. Expand
  42. JSewell
    Jul 31, 2010
    6
    Basically more of the same. Updated graphics from the original, however gameplay remains largely unchanged. Blizzard must not realize that there have been improvements to RTS games in the past decade. I'll take Supreme Commander any day over this game.
  43. StarCraft
    Aug 1, 2010
    6
    This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack This games strategy isn't any more complex than paper- rock-scissors. If you don't defend against an air attack your opponent can decimate you with 3 aircraft, however if you defend against the air attack and he land rushes you don't have the resources to defend yourself. 90% of the game is managing your resources and hoping you pick the right attack and you attack first...if you don't you lose similar to paper-rock-scissors. I don't get the hype. The graphics are cool, sound is awesome but the game play isn't any different than the original. Strategy buffs need not apply..this game comes down to who can build and attack faster and hope like hell you chose the attack...no defensive strategy what so ever in this one. Expand
  44. serkanu
    Aug 2, 2010
    6
    I dont understand these reviews. THIS GAME HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INNOVATION. Gameplay is boring and 10 years old! What kind of industry has gaming become? Cool cinematics, good graphics and BLIZZARD trademark are not enough to make an excellent game!
  45. DaneilD
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    Like most of the users here, I haven't actually played this game; but that won't stop me from commentating on it. I thought about giving it a perfect score, and I also thought about giving it a 0/10. But I felt about that. So instead, I'm giving it a 5/10 in order to balance out the 10/10 and 0/10 scores given by everyone else who hasn't played the game.
  46. bob
    Aug 6, 2010
    6
    Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, Very disappointing overall. Don't try to buy this game digitally from Blizzard! - The service hasn't even been programmed properly, resulting in a (waiting after purchase) queue line a week long, with customer service completely overwhelmed with complaints, and unresponsive save a voice message stating so. If you can actually play the game, it's basically a 3D port of SC1, save the flashy but poorly written and schizophrenic single player campaign. Blizzard has become a subsidiary of Activision, and they just want your money now. Mutiplayer for this game was slapped together before the server was even finished. There's not even a chat room as of August 4th. Expand
  47. GlenA.
    Aug 6, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the Starcraft 2 is essentially just a graphics boot up from the original game play wise though honestly when you have a game so close to flawless it's hard to improve. The game runs great, it's awesome to play. So while it had a solid core everything that surrounds it seems weak, lackluster and in some cases cruel. Okay, the campaign's plot and characters are bland though the mission's fun and you will easily get your money's worth in just the campaign alone which is something that's rare to find nowadays. But prepared to be unimpressed by the story which is told not in nice little discussions pregame but instead in bland 30 second conversations between characters and it lacks the scope of the first as half of the missions feel like side quests and don't advance the plot. I'll say this again EVERY mission except like four of them are extremely fun so don't worry about feeling bogged down in grind like the original tended to do. The multiplayer, at least the Battlenet multiplayer is solid and flawless the game groups you based on skill into different ladders and you usually only fight people in that group which makes well matched games, plus there is a newb ladder to help you get a hang of things early on so don't worry about being out classed by psycho crazy players and never learning. The teams as usual are perfectly balanced and each fun to play, plus Blizzards mapmaker makes it so you can just play custom maps (like DOTA spin offs and Tower Defenses) and not even bother with traditional play. As of now just looking at the games features it easily warrants a 9 only losing one point for the poor story, but now we get to the real problem at hand, the corporate bull crap. This game has no LAN! There is no way to play it with a few buddies without them each spotting $60 which is disgusting, but if you don't have friends who do that sorta thing then who cares. Also you get one profile, that's it, you can't go back and restart at lower ladders or have an account for a buddy to use if u don't want your record wreaked. Finally there are going to be two expansions, set in stone! that's at least $50 dollars more of investment to keep up, which sucks. All of that combined makes this game drop from nearly flawless to a mere 7 which is below its quality. If that last paragraph didn't faze you then get it if it did then I'd mooch off another guys copy until you figure out if it's worth the money. Expand
  48. FabioF.
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    A excellent art work as every game from Blizzard. Sadly it was shipped with a poor story as all recent games released. True good games dont need a restrictive DRM to make a profit. We was hoping to buy a great sequel of the original Stracraft not a multiplayer client. I would not play in Battle.net even for free. Blizzard is surely losing his touch.
  49. JamesE
    Aug 6, 2010
    5
    I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. I suspect many of the people giving this '10' are WOW players who've not played many RTS's before. I can see how they'd be impressed. Its not bad, but its nowhere near 10. The story seems to have been written by George W. Bush with extra inputs from Oliver North. I know originality has never been big for Blizz's writing staff, but this seems to be a new low. Lowest common denominator anyone? The business model is pure greed. Won't be too long before MW is integrated into Battlenet and we'll all have to pay subs for the privilege of using the service. The graphics could pretty much be sprites and viewing angle (especially compared to Total War, SupCom, CoH and the Dawn of War series) only allows for a small amount of the pretty small maps to be seen at once. Online is completely unbalanced (even if the units are fairly well-balanced), seeing as Blizz decided who was going to be good at it months/years ago and gave them alpha + beta access while the rest of us will have to play SC1 or dry as dust skirmish maps against the PC to even learn the names of Zerg or Protoss units. Of course the potential reviewers were included in the beta as well. So glad they all had a good time. Expand
  50. MIkeM.
    Jul 27, 2010
    6
    If this game was released 5 years ago, it would have been wonderful. Oh wait, it was basically release 5 years ago with all the beta testing that was happening year after year... I don't know, feels kind of anticlimactic now.
  51. MM
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    Great single player experience...can be great online too but follow this link: http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence This article is about how Activision want to control everything. No more lan party even online. Tournament? Not without Activision approval. It is a great game but you have too accept the Acti"vision" on your shoulder.
  52. Lolwut
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I It was a pretty fun game. I wouldn't say it was worth $60 though. The campaign was a bit of a cliche. The graphics were pretty nice, coulda been a bit better. The voice acting was average at best. It was interesting to see it borrow a few small elements from mass effect. I liked the original SC because I got it and Brood War for like 20 bucks. I got more bang for my buck there. I would wait a few years down the road for all the games to be released in some kind of battlechest. Expand
  53. DavidS
    Jul 28, 2010
    6
    Highly overrated. Almost exactly the same as SC1 with only updated graphics and an expansion's pack worth of content and tweaks. Plus Blizzard is being extremely greedy forcing you to buy 3 separate full price games instead of just one. Would not buy again.
  54. MikeK
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, I think the single player is pretty enjoyable (and very polished). The multiplayer is sub-par. It's SC1 w/ better graphics, less game-play modes (like having multiple people control the same exact units), no LAN support, with lots of achievements. Lots of achievements a good game does not make. Totally not worth $60 (or $120 in my case, bought one copy for me, one for son). In 2010, have no co-op in RTS for the campaigns is unforgivable. If it wasn't for the great cutscenes, and backstory for single player, would be a total loss. But, for a single player game, the story is nowhere near the likes of Mass Effect or Dragon Age. After I'm done with single player, don't envision myself playing this all too much. Be lucky to have this still installed in a few months from now. Expand
  55. JM
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, Horrible game? No. Great game? Maybe 12 years ago. Repackaging the exact same game from 1998 with a slick new graphics engine isn't the way to sell someone on a $60 PC title. Sure, it has a decent campaign, but not $60 decent, about $20 decent, and the same online multiplayer I've been playing for over a decade with fewer features. StarCraft 2 is Blizzard phoning it in. Really, why bother? They'll sell a ton no matter how little effort they put into it. Expand
  56. TuanH
    Jul 28, 2010
    7
    Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 Long story short: Gameplay is the same as the first Starcraft with little changes. Interactive environment is plus but not a big plus, This is just one big graphical overhaul with one long-ass campaign for one race that continues the story from Starcraft: Brood War. No channels on Battle.net. The editor is good, but not amazing - less custom scripting. Might as well go back to Starcraft 1 if you're not interested in paying for graphic updates. If you're moving from Warcraft 3 and never played Starcraft before, expect almost-to-nothing micro and lots of more emphasis on macro. If moving for modding purposes, expect a very long wait for modding artists to release loads of medieval models/icons to suit needs for fantasy genre custom games. Expand
  57. AndrewP
    Jul 28, 2010
    5
    After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 After 12 years I feel like we deserve more than Broodwars with updated graphics, destroyable rocks and some watchtowers. The majority of the units are very close in function to what they were in Broodwars, and the basic game play hasn't changed at all. Sure it's still fun but seriously that's it after 12 years? Lets put this in perspective: nintendo has released roughly 100 games related to the mario franchise in that amount of time. The C&C franchise has released 12 titles (xpacs incl.) since 1998. In March 1998 the Backstreet Boys were at the peak of their careers, there was a new show on TV called South Park that had been causing controversy since its first episode 7 months earlier, and something called a "Justin Beiber" had just celebrated its 4th birthday. This is basically a first generation RTS re-packaged, now if you'll excuse me I'm going to play Broodwars. Expand
  58. meh
    Aug 11, 2010
    5
    Meh. 10 years. Blizzard spent the better part of a decade working on the next installment of the Starcraft franchise and this is all they came up with? A boost to the graphics, fancy CG cutscenes, no apparent change in gameplay, and a total reliance on micro-management. Whoop-dee-do.
  59. Aug 11, 2010
    7
    They did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and theyThey did an excellent job at making a really old-fashioned RTS. The graphics seem a bit outdated at this point, but more importantly the gameplay is certainly fun. I also enjoy the music, particularly for the Terran race. However, it is still a really old-fashioned RTS (complete with a crappy story of course). Units are spammed which gives it an unpleasant visual look, and they unrealistically cluster together like crazy, as if they do not really occupy any physical space. They line up in a circle around enemies they're attacking, and there is no cover system, formations, or any other kind of advanced, realistic tactics. It's a bit silly and cartoonish. But that's just what it is, and if you're into that type of thing, with the ultra-micromanagement and all, go for it. Expand
  60. Sep 9, 2016
    6
    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations. Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the
    I was a Starcraft/Broodwar fan, back in the day. I own almost all Blizzard games, except WoW. I was excited so much for this, but it was a let down.

    Blizzard played it safe. They just took the Warcraft III engine, upgraded it, and made a Broodwar remake with minor alterations.

    Don't get me wrong, Broodwar was great, so a remake of it would be great anyway. And we were witnessing the beginning of the great RTS draught we are currently experiencing, back when it was released. But i expected much more. This game is archaic by modern standards.

    It has the usual Blizzard polish. Great art, not the most advanced engine though. Great cutscenes and cinematics. The story is somewhat corny but enjoyable, the campaign is enjoyable but won't make you think much.

    But ultimately, it was a game we had already played before. And the RTS genre had seen many advances that Blizzard chose to disregard to return to the 90s.

    All in all, this game was overrated. Worth a playthrough for nostalgia's sake, just for the story. Don't bother with the multiplayer unless you are a Korean.
    Expand
  61. 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
  62. Aug 12, 2010
    7
    I'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. TheI'd give Starcraft 2 a 9 or 10, but Blizzard is evil and could do something more original considering the resources they are sitting on. But anyways, the game itself is just plain and simple fun and entertainment, both single player and multiplayer. The challenges and custom games are fun enough to play alone, and achievements and portraits offer a nice, if shallow incentive. The campaign itself isn't fantastic, but it balances an OK story with fun gameplay very well i found. Some new features for gameplay would have been nice though, just to mix things up a bit, I am glad they didn't add any superweapons though, which ruined C&C for me. (what about shifting maps? someone make them.) At least you can select more than 30 units at once now. :P It is not a realistic RTS by any means and shouldn't try to be, in my opinion. It has its own challenging tactics and strategies which are not bound by realism, not everyones cup of tea of course. (What were you expecting?) This isn't Axis vs. Allies, its space cowboys vs. psychic bugs vs. nigh immortal telepathic aliens. Expand
  63. Aug 14, 2010
    6
    Competently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament playCompetently built but utterly unnecessary; adds nothing and takes no risks, it tries nothing new and feels retro in the bad way. A completely cynical release by Blizzard, who know they'll make squillions off sheer hype and nostalgia alone, the game has no reason to exist; it's plot is incredibly bad, it's writing god awful, the game is less balanced and less suitable for tournament play than the original, and it strips many features away from the original in the process (with the absence of LAN being sorely missed, and in an incredible level of greed, adds region locks to screw countries with high game prices like Australia)

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

    Starcraft 2 is the worst kind of cynically marketed products, a completely unimaginative paycheck of a game that took no risks and learnt nothing - designed to sell on **** hype and nostalgia; and shame on us for falling for it.
    Expand
  64. Aug 14, 2010
    7
    While StarCraft II remains an incredibly fun game with a fun storyline, people who have never given two craps about RTS games, aren't starting to care here.
  65. Aug 15, 2010
    6
    Starcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothingStarcraft II is a way overrated game. Is this what Blizzard can accomplish in all those 7 years? Am I looking at some kind of joke, is this Starcraft 2 or an expansion set which makes the game HD? Storyline is cool but nothing new. The missions could be fun when you think that this is not Starcraft II, its just Starcraft HD. I don't know people, I won't pay for a game that provides nothing but an upgraded experience. Sorry, I'm just fine with original Starcraft... Expand
  66. Aug 19, 2010
    7
    This game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; butThis game is like 'go', only there is no taking turns. Frankly i thought the units and structures seemed a bit mismatched and sometimes bizarre, in the sense that there are some concepts in the game that only a videogame developer would come up with. for my personal taste, the confined view & maps and the odd tactics the game requires you to master won't have me dialing into lobbies; but it's not like they'll miss the numbers. having said that, the single player campaign was substantial and challenging, the cutscenes were cool, and no-one (certainly not me) is going to say they didn't get value for their money. Expand
  67. Aug 19, 2010
    6
    If you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interestedIf you have never owned the original Starcraft or are a serious player, this game is for you. While the graphics are nothing mind blowing, the rapid game play and balanced races make this one of the top real time strategy games available. The campaign and story are quite good, and the multiplayer is well designed to accommodate to varying skill levels. However, if you are only interested in this game casually, you should give it a pass. The gameplay is hardly different from the original, and it is more of a large patch than a new game entirely. It is sad to see that the game is even more micro intensive than before, forgoing skill for memorized cookie cutter strategies and quick hands. Unless you like to spend hours perfecting you ability to multitask, I would suggest choosing another game. Expand
  68. Aug 19, 2010
    6
    Though the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less andThough the gameplay is alright (if nothing special), the writing is quite embarrassing. I believe you have to be either 15 years old or have very low standards indeed to not roll your eyes at the forced pathos and Jim's troubled-hero antics. Unfortunately for Blizzard, games are moving up in the world, and as better writers enter the field, these lame, juvenile cliches will become less and less acceptable. Expand
  69. Aug 20, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would giveStarcraft 2 is a fun game. Battle.net 2.0 has good features with it's new quick match setting, and the custom games section is well done. Basically overall the game is pretty good. It's the redone version of Brood War which I enjoyed a lot. The graphics are better, the main story is longer (though only one race) and there are new multi player features. I'm giving it a 7. I would give it a 8 if there was a tournament option (with a party of 8, P1 v P2, P3 v P4, P5 v P6, P7 v P8 all at the same time with 2 people battling on each map. Then the winners face off, and those winners face off etc.) I would give it a 9 if it had the tournament option, and it also didn't require you to be online to do almost everything. There are times when my internet is down, and I want to just play against A.I, but Blizzard won't let me do that. Finally, it would get a 10 if it had the two prior features, and the races were balanced. Not only did the races lose their defining traits (Zerg can no longer swarm, and Protoss is weaker than Terran HP-wise) but the races are now just plain imbalanced. Zerg is underpowered compared to both races, and no I'm not saying this just because Zerg is my main. Even the professional Korean players are starting to complain that Zerg is too weak especially after the Roach and Ultralisk got nerfed. Fix all these things, and Starcraft 2 gets a 10. Expand
  70. Aug 21, 2010
    6
    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original Cons: Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real
    Pros:

    Very enjoyable single player campaign, nice graphics, not much removed from the original

    Cons:

    Locked into region (this is really really bad - should be an option to at least be allowed to play custom games with friends on other regions). The requirement to logon to battle net to play the single player or even view replays is massive suck. Blizz have no distinction between real life friends and 'game only friends' where you really don't want to be sharing your real life name and such. Therefore their friend system is rubbish too.

    This game gets a six purely based on the drawbacks I've listed above. The region lock even on custom games is incredibly shortsighted by Blizz and their increasingly annoying push with where they are going with Battle Net is very off putting. No doubt Diablo will be poisoned with an even worse incarnation of the current social notworking crud.

    Quite disappointed with how blizz are changing as a company. I miss the old Blizz circa WC3 where they were not only loved for making superb games but because they also treated their customers much better than the current assumption where they think everyone is some sort of thief and everyone uses junk like Failbook.
    Expand
  71. Aug 21, 2010
    5
    Graphics aren't too great compared to previous rts releases, story isn't that immersive and get's a little silly at points, same old sh** I suppose for a rts, gets old fast! I will admit I'm not a real fan of rts style games, but all this hype is ridiculous.
  72. Aug 24, 2010
    6
    The game is great, it's definitly Blizzard and a great balanced STR... but how sad that they have not renewed a little bit more the universe, the units, the gameplay... I'm looking foward to an extention pack with more differences !
  73. Aug 24, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detailStarcraft 2 is fossil game play mechanics in fossil graphics. Every RTS hit released after 2000 has presented new innovations in game mechanics to make the game more interesting and fascinating. For example Company of Heroes was released in 2006 and was a huge breakthrough in game play and RTS graphics. What does Starcraft 2 present us? Destroyable rocks? Lousy DX9 graphics with low detail models? I'm sorry but it is not enough. And how does the game get any better by the 3D when the view is fixed? It seem most of the game's success is only because of the hype and the name. If there was no SC1, this game had already be forgotten as a decent Xmas present candidate. When playing the game, it is hard to believe it has been released in 2010. Someone might say Starcraft 2 is a good game because it is so balanced. True, but does it actually matter but only for those top level players who have practised and practised for hundreds or thousands of hours. What is in for a casual player? I would rather play a RTS that amazes me with it's graphics and mechanics and challenges me intelligently from the very beginning. Expand
  74. Aug 26, 2010
    6
    I really dont consider this game the best of year. Why? The story is fair to poor, its Jim Raynor collecting artifacts to save Kerrigan. If she is devil, why save her? The gameplay is good with well structured graphics. The only thing thats good it's graphics, the gameplay, and the multiplayer mode. Starcraft 1 is much more intertsing with good story and cinematics.
  75. Aug 31, 2010
    6
    Pretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategyPretty good strategy game, but so was the original. I'm so confused as to why, after a decade since the original, I feel like I'm playing a polished up expansion of the original. Very little innovation, poor storytelling, nothing here that advances the RTS market. All that said, though, this is probably the premiere e-sport for the time being. So if you're into competitive strategy gaming you will not be disappointed. Expand
  76. Sep 1, 2010
    5
    Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ),Starcraft 2 == Warcraft 3 Graphics with Starcraft 1 gameplay and feel. The key redeeming feature to this game is the multiplayer interface and custom map offering. It is elegant and sleek, it gets you into your game and does so very fast. It matches you up with good latency opponents so lag is hardly an issue. I think the Graphics are incredibly outdated (As I mention, they are WC3 Old ), but this is not a game to be purchased for graphics, it is the addictive fastpaced arcade competitive style multiplayer action that gives it such a good score. Though... :) I think it's highly over rated! Expand
  77. Sep 8, 2010
    7
    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire
    Starcraft 2. I have been waiting 12 years for this. Finally! Finally!! Is it good? Yes. Is it great? eh...

    I don't write a lot of reviews, but here is my take. 1 player campaign is very entertaining. I really enjoy how you can progress by collecting research and upgrading your units. I think the story is a little bland. I think Reynors facial expressions are almost the same the entire game. The terran units themselves look very cartoonish. I like the ideas, but I think they look like toys/cartoonish/overly bulky. The protoss is even worse in my opinion. This is probably because of the 3-D aspect of the game.

    I would have given this game an 8 if it would have taken half as long to be released. This could have easily been realesed five or six years ago and still be the same. A lot of it reminds me of Warcraft 3, except you get to build big armies and there aren't stupid heros that harrass you to death!!! I would have given this game one more point if the gameplay was altered just a little more. Company of Heros set the bar for new RTS, especially the cover options and how the landscapes around you are incorporated into the strategy. I can't fault SC 2 too much though, as it is important to stay with the basics that made the original so great. The retail price is a little steep for not including the other two campaigns, but it's still worth it. Bottom Line:

    Great game, but its starting to get tired. Probably should have been released five or six years ago. Should have moved RTS forward a little bit more without comprising original. This game feels like WCIII and SC merged into one. 7 out of 10.
    Expand
  78. Sep 15, 2010
    6
    Over 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find itOver 10 years of waiting, and I am disappointed. It just feels like a StarCraft re-made. I am not talking about the actual tactics that you may play in competitive games, it's the gaming experience. Blizzard changed the face of RTS with the innovations of SC (comparing with WCII and C&C/RA), but apparently there is basically no innovation in SCII. Everything in SCII, you can find it somewhere else before. Technically, the graphics and sounds etc are just average, nothing special. The only good thing, is probably the so called 'map editor', with which we may see some fantastic innovations in the future. Expand
  79. Aug 3, 2015
    6
    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.
  80. Sep 27, 2010
    6
    They should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the artThey should have skipped the single player part and moved on to expanding the ORIGINAL gameplay. Big opportunity missed. The story is a cliche. Several missions are interesting, but that's all. We've got an anime Gears of War strategy game that's no better than the first. Actually, the original StarCraft is better, since you get to play on LAN and it doesn't taste as wrong in the art direction. As a bonus for the new game, it works on old hardware (integrated graphics), but that's all. They never pushed the sound direction, either. To sum it up, multiplayer is fun, but nothing worth mentioning in terms of what haven't been mentioned since the original. Expand
  81. 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
  82. 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.
  83. Oct 5, 2010
    5
    Really just do not get the hype or the love for this game. I can understand the enjoyment of the game in a competitive field, but the single player is pretty terrible. I pretty much just rushed through it and tried to get it over with as there was just nothing to really enjoy about the boring story and just in general pathetic game play provided by Blizzard. The whole thing just felt uninspired.
  84. Oct 7, 2010
    6
    Single player campaign owns. But multiplayer is imbalanced, even after patch 1.1 terran is still too strong. Zerg is too weak. Terran can counter everything and easily reveal any stealthed unit. EMP and PDD are OP vs Toss. They'll fix the imbalances but it will take a few months.
  85. Oct 9, 2010
    6
    Nothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game isNothing particularly impressive as far as a sequel goes, other than the updated graphics engine. The storyline was a bit hollow and anticlimactic as well, in light of Brood War's ending. The characters are a little one-note. The gameplay mechanics are slightly modernized and the AI has been polished, but its more or less exactly the same game. Battle.net has been revamped as this game is based almost entirely on multiplayer. It felt as if I were playing a "remastered version of Starcraft" rather than its sequel- as far as my expectations went, it didn't surprise or impress me too much, and of course this game took far too long to develop. Expand
  86. Oct 14, 2010
    5
    It's basically SC-1 with new graphics... So it starts with a 10 score... minus 1 point for no LAN... Minus 1 point for forcing battlenet on peeps... Minus 1 for making people wait 12 years for a new coat of paint... Minus 1 because the other 3 minus's were actually minus 1.3333333333333333 .... Minus 1 for having to have a constant I-net connection to play.
  87. Oct 15, 2010
    5
    Yes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highlyYes, it's Starcraft II; whoopdeedoo .... Starcraft II offers nothing new to the genre. Sure it's polished, but not particularly original and definitely has a stale smell about it. Typical of Blizzard really. Make a polished game, but remove all originality and imagination. RTS has moved on; if you want a polished, graphically superior, and dare I say it, funner game, then I highly recommend Company of Heroes. It's 2 years old now, but superior to Starcraft in all respects (as well as graphics would you believe? I guess SCII has to run on Korean PCs so that explains the disappointing visuals). Expand
  88. Dec 9, 2010
    7
    An incomplete game put on shelves, a one-time payment of $60 for something that ends as poorly as Halo 2, yet being able to entertain me, that's a difficult to rate game. This is a game, but it isn't a great game.
  89. Nov 4, 2010
    6
    I'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, butI'm not big on RTS's but this one kept my attention for a while. After completing the story I felt that I payed full price for a third of a game. The story was very short, but the cinematics looked awesome and I liked how you could customize and interact with the characters through the campaign. Afterwards I played some multiplayer; it was ok. If you love RTS's then get this game, but if your like me then it will be played once and then forgotten. Expand
  90. Nov 20, 2010
    7
    The single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at howThe single player is decent, but definitely not impressive, the storyline was a throwaway at about a quarter way through the campaign, and the storyline missions are about a handful or two, while most of the missions consist of side quests that have next to nothing to do with the story at all. I'm quite disappointed by the graphics, but it wasn't unexpected - I mean just look at how archaic and inept WOW is graphically. This game was made and adjusted prior to full retail release for the seasoned starcraft player, and I as a casual gamer stood to lose out 70% of the games online, and it was a boring and unrewarding experience to say the least. Needless to say, and reiterated numerous times, the price tag is a total rip off for what it offers in only a terran campaign. I never knew a such a software giant such as Blizzard had the low in them to bully us consumers. Expand
  91. 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.
  92. Hax
    Nov 29, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It took them over twelve years to make this game and nothing has changed except more polished graphics and that's it. The storyline wasn't interesting what so ever. I just wanted to complete the game to understand whats going on but the game still doesn't grab a hold of me. The only ting I really enjoyed was the cinematic scenes. That was amazing. Expand
  93. 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
  94. Dec 2, 2010
    6
    Its hard to understand why this game took so long to make since it is basically a remake of the original with a couple of extra units and slightly updated graphics. However, if you liked the original you'll like this with the reverse being just as true. By itself, a good (not great) rts that relies to much on the success of the original.
  95. Dec 21, 2010
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The gameplay is simply fantastic. Everything feels much smoother, the melee is great... and everything else sucks.

    The campaign was simply terrible. Cliche ridden dialog (time to put this rebellion into overdrive!), retcons (Oh Overmind, how you have fallen), random plot holes (hey - lets bust onto Mengsk' flagship and kill all his guards AND GET OFFERED A DEAL. No mention made of the dead guards.), and everything else makes it sickening.

    Custom games are ridiculous. The popularity system for ranking maps is simply stupid. New games can't get up there. The editor is somewhat improved over Warcraft 3, but the scripting/triggering side is still crappy. Worse, since SC2 doesn't even off GetHandleId like WC3. What's wrong with just introducing python or something already in the industry? Why make your own heavily neutered version of C?

    Battle.net 2 is a slap in the face. The menu is made of laggy, stupid flash based dialogs. No chat channels, no clans, lobbies for custom games automatically start... with a 30 second timer. That you can't quit out of except by logging out.

    What is this, Blizzard?

    I'd recommend if you enjoy melee (and I do), but you're better off avoiding the campaign and the custom game system. At least, until they fix it. They're getting there with patches, but you should never release a game missing features.
    Expand
  96. vmp
    Dec 29, 2010
    5
    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war
    If this was the first SC ever released, it could get a 7 maybe 8. Cinematics and storyline are pretty poor, failed to create any nice atmosphere. The single player campaign is very short to the point that I felt robbed. It has pretty graphics though and it is still entertaining and quite interesting to play. Quite good game.
    But for people who have played the first one and/or the Brood war it just feels like a memorabilia rather than a fresh game. Very few new elements and the same game play that we know for 12 years with much less content and a high price tag.
    Expand
  97. 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
  98. Jan 24, 2011
    6
    The single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that haveThe single player is very well presented and the addition of armoury upgrades and research streams adds depth. Interaction and attention to detail are a big plus so hats of to Blizzard in that regard. Some of the voice acting is borderline comical however and there isn't enough missions where you get to simply wipe out the enemy but Blizzard instead seems obsessed with missions that have pre-imposed and arbutary time limits. Achievements, medals and challenges are a novel addition. Graphics are quite nice for a rts on a good PC but you cannot zoom out very far which is frustrating and limits battlefield awareness. Like looking through a narrow funnel. I appreciate that alot of the little annoyances from the original have been fixed up in the sequel and the AI works better when left to it's own devices that it did traditionally. This isn't to say that some legacy issues are not still present. On mulitplayer - this is more about perfecting build orders, hoarding resources and spamming units than genuine strategy. A shame given some of the new creative unit types on offer. Without significant time invested into practice It's all too frantic to be truly enjoyable. Doesn't feel as balanced as the orignal SC but also feels less likely for games to end in locked stalemates. Find an opponent equal in skill and it will probably be a blast - just as the original was. SC2 remains an enjoyable though somewhat regressive game which has it's place amongst other more evolved and deeper RTS games - shame that mutliplayer is still a shallow dog for novices and there is no Zerg or Protoss campaign included. As a final note I do not care that this game was released in 2010 - needing to be logged onto the net to play "single" player is a joke. Expand
  99. Jan 30, 2011
    5
    I once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I canI once had a dream that I went to a movie theater, but the movie stopped about every 10 minutes and would not continue until everyone in the theater finished a round of an old RTS. Everyone in the theater left saying it was the most awesome experience they ever had except for me, who felt annoyed and disappointed that my movie was interrupted by an old video game. I now realize that I can see the future. I was playing Starcraft 2. Expand
  100. Apr 13, 2011
    5
    Its your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort thatIts your basic RTS game, adds nothing new to the RTS genre, I mean really, the technology behind this game...Blizzard could have made this game back in 2004, graphics are cartoony, and the game play is very simple, after playing games like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, you just can't go back to anything like this. Credit where its due though, I admire the care and effort that Blizzard put into this game, every campaign mission always adds some interesting element with every level, but over all, game is nothing new or interesting, how it got over 12 million sales is beyond my comprehension. Expand
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]