User Score
8.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2589 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 12, 2010
    0
    First of all: I have played all portions of the game. SP and MP.

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

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

    If I take all of this I can only say I am very dissappointed, a game made for money and not for the gamers - 1 pts for greed and lack of inspiration.
    Expand
  2. Apr 7, 2011
    4
    As an fervent follower of the Starcraft narrative since Brood War, I was eager to say the least for this game. But oh how my hopes were crushed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    that is all

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

    ;}
    Expand
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 82 Critics

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