Customer Reviews

1,850 Reviews
5 star:
4 star:
3 star:
2 star:
1 star:
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review

1,059 of 1,102 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Starcraft 2: A Fan's Lament
I've watched the Starcraft 2 Amazon reviews come in with great sadness. Sadness because this game deserves so much more than 3 stars, but also sadness because most of the points the negative reviews make are completely legitimate.

Starcraft 2 is a great game. I got it the day it came out and haven't touched another game since. Like the original Starcraft, it's...
Published on August 1, 2010 by Aguagon

2,457 of 2,853 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KERRIGAN?
One can only respect BLIZZARD for not setting a release date before they knew they could meet it. No matter that this was the most awaited game for over a decade, they would release it "whenever it would be ready". Well, it is ready, it is here and it rocks. Too bad they kicked the respect bucket in the end. But first things first.

Published on July 27, 2010 by NeuroSplicer

‹ Previous | 1 2185 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

1,059 of 1,102 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Starcraft 2: A Fan's Lament, August 1, 2010
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
I've watched the Starcraft 2 Amazon reviews come in with great sadness. Sadness because this game deserves so much more than 3 stars, but also sadness because most of the points the negative reviews make are completely legitimate.

Starcraft 2 is a great game. I got it the day it came out and haven't touched another game since. Like the original Starcraft, it's an almost perfectly balanced RTS with three unique races. The Terrans, Zerg, and Protoss each have many new units and tricks up their sleeves, and as with the original, the game takes mere hours to learn but a lifetime to master. Each and every last unit has its perfect situation where it can be used to turn the tide of a game. The production values are phenomenal all around. The sounds and voice acting are fantastic, the attention to detail is amazing, and if you've got a computer that can handle them, the visuals on max settings are absolutely gorgeous. And it doesn't just look and sound good; it plays good, too. A bunch of little technical issues from the original have been fixed: you can issue commands to multiple hotkeyed groups at light speed without some commands being lost, your own units will actually move out of the way when you're trying to construct a building, rally points are more efficient and separate ones can be set for worker units, etc. It's all the fun of the original, but it's now sleeker, sexier and handles better. It is faster paced than the original, and the multi-player automatic match-making system is Blizzard's best yet. As a bonus, it (like Starcraft and Warcraft III before it) ships with a map editor that lets you customize nearly any aspect of the game; skilled map-makers will be making new maps, missions and mini-games for years to come.

So when does a game like this get a 3-star rating? When its own creators unwittingly do almost everything in their power to sabotage it, that's when. Thanks to some miscalculations by Blizzard, there will be entire sections of the fan base that will find this game either unplayable or unappealing. Though the gripes have been listed many times on here, I'll summarize them once more and give my take on just how much they're really likely to annoy you:

1. You need an Internet connection to play, even in single-player mode. Obviously, if you have no or sporadic Internet, this will be a deal-breaker. You can technically play a single player version offline, but it comes with limited features and privileges.
2. You need to make a account to be able to play at all. For some, the very idea of having to go online and sign up to use a product you just shelled out $[...] for is a slap in the face. Also, this account will be your one and only Starcraft II account; no more starting over with a new name or record.
3. No LAN. I guess maybe Blizzard thought nobody actually LANs anymore? Clearly, the people have spoken, and Blizzard thought wrong. If your fondest Starcraft memories are of playing the game on a LAN with friends, this might be a deal-breaker for you.
4. The region lock. In Blizzard's previous games, you could freely switch between regions. Now, if you're an American and you want to play with your European friends, you need a European copy of the game. It's hard to see what good this does besides making Blizzard more money.
5. No chat rooms. The game's automatic matchmaking system is beautiful, but let's say you want to chat with other players in a chat room for a while before migrating over to a game. No longer possible. Just about the only way to make new Starcraft 2 friends and partners online is to privately message people you were randomly paired with after a game, or to privately message random players in your (or a friend's) league division (hint: if you do this, people will think you're weird). Blizzard has promised to add chat rooms in a patch, but for now, this is the issue annoying me the most.
6. Your and RealID friends are practically invited to stalk you. I don't think I've seen a game where adding someone you're "iffy" about to your friends list could end up more detrimental. Not only are you always online while playing this game, you always show as online to everyone on your friend's list. You can choose to show as "busy," but there's no option to hide.
7. The campaign is Terran only, and a multi-player RTS plus one race's campaign might not be worth $[...]. In Blizzard's defense, there are 29 missions, strung together to form an amazing story with cut-scenes and cinematics between each. Each mission can be completed on 4 difficulty levels, all featuring optional objectives and achievements. But for all that, an RTS veteran could blitz through the entire campaign in a matter of hours (on normal mode, at least). If you're one of the players for whom the campaign is the main draw, paying $[...] for a game it only takes hours to beat would be a bad deal.
8. There's no global ladder. If you play league games online competitively, you get ranked in a league, but aside from the top league (so I'm told; I'm not in it), you have no way to tell where you stand relative to everyone else in your league. You can only tell where you stand relative to the others in your 100 person division, and the divisions themselves are not ranked. I much preferred Warcraft III's system, where you could see where you stood relative to everyone.

The funny thing is, some of these new features people are griping about aren't inherently bad ideas. For instance, it's actually very cool to be able to chat and share your achievements with friends while playing the campaign...unless, of course, you just want to strategize and be left alone. Which brings me to what I think is the heart of Blizzard's mistake: they should have made a whole lot more settings OPTIONAL. You should have the OPTION to play single player online or offline, the OPTION to show as visible or invisible to your friends, the OPTION to play LAN, the OPTION to switch regions. But instead, Blizzard's "my way or the highway" approach will leave all of those who can't get past any of the above eight things out in the cold. So please, Blizzard, save your fans, yourselves, and your game a lot of trouble, and make more features optional in future patches.

I'll close by addressing what I think are the three groups of people holding off on buying the game: if you're dismayed by all the negative publicity, but none of the above problems are deal-breakers for you (and there's no reason why any of them have to be), go ahead and buy it. It really is a great game, and you'll have a lot of fun. If you absolutely can't get past one or more of the problems and know they would make the game cease to be a fun experience, then you have my sympathy and you get to keep your [...] bucks. And finally, to those for whom the issues really aren't deal-breakers but who are refusing to buy the game on matters of principle: you have my respect, and even my admiration. But man, you're missing out on a good one.

Update (4/19/11): Since I wrote this review, chat rooms have been patched into the game, though they aren't used nearly as much as the chat rooms in Blizzard's previous games. On other positive notes, the game is frequently patched, balance issues are addressed and taken seriously, the game has very active forums where players talk strategy in detail, and Blizzard is continuing to make new maps and scenarios and integrate them into online play. On the negative side, it's becoming more and more apparent that most of the bigger complaints against the game (like the lack of LAN, online requirement, and region lock) aren't going to be patched away. Overall, I'm still playing the game pretty regularly and having fun, but there's still plenty I'm gritting my teeth about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

2,457 of 2,853 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, KERRIGAN?, July 27, 2010
NeuroSplicer (Freeside, in geosynchronous orbit) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   
= Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
One can only respect BLIZZARD for not setting a release date before they knew they could meet it. No matter that this was the most awaited game for over a decade, they would release it "whenever it would be ready". Well, it is ready, it is here and it rocks. Too bad they kicked the respect bucket in the end. But first things first.

Seasoned and new gamers alike will appreciate the simple yet highly enjoyable gameplay. The factions are well balanced and the units perfectly valued. You gather minerals and vespene gas, you build your defenses, you upgrade, you expand, you gather your forces - and you unleash hell. Repeat as needed until satisfied.

The game is much faster than the original. Resource gathering, building, researching and expanding all go faster now. This is something that will appeal to most and I for one liked it. It conveys an enjoyable sense of urgency, adding to the immersion. And because the game is richer and deeper, the tension just keeps mounting.

The game designers either enjoyed STARSHIP TROOPERS one times too many or they are fond of killer bees documentaries. Either way, be prepared to have to deal with a lot of swarming enemies! The plains shall be soaked in Zerg blood leaving you with a thick metallic aftertaste of accomplishment.

Visually this game is GORGEOUS. It looks like C&C4 was supposed to (but failed miserably). The units are detailed in design yet clearly discernible whereas the environments are superbly done (although not that variable). True, I could do with somewhat more realistic graphics but I can see that this could only be done at the expense of clarity when the number of units rises. What needs a bit getting used to is how some of the buildings do not look that different. No complaints about how they look but one can easily confuse them and build the same building twice.

The story picks up just where SC-BROODWAR left off. Following each mission nicely done videos move the single player story along (no spoilers, not to worry) that, although we are given the illusion of choosing between different paths, apparently they converge towards a predestined end.

Why only 3 stars then? Well, in a nutshell: GREED.
Apparently ACTIVISION's influence is not very healthy to customer relations. Together with BLIZZARD they are trying to turn the StarCraft franchise into yet another World of WarCraft phenomenon - and, at the same time, using STARCRAFT II as the vehicle, turn BattleNet into the new STEAM. Unfortunately this results in a barely palatable product and using your fan-base to advance your corporate ambitions is always tacky.
Although priced even more than a full premium game, this is not a complete STARCRAFT sequel. You would not know this by its price-tag(!) but this is only A...THIRD of the game, the first part of three: you can only play the Terran campaign. The Zerg and the Protoss campaigns will be released independently later (and priced as if they were full games, one could safely bet).
To add insult to injury, one has to keep spending even more money if he wants any "premium maps" and "premium content" sold only via the BattleNet. Since this is a game that will be played mostly online don't be quick to dismiss this if you have a competitive streak.

Much more serious is the NeverLettingGo-OnLineActivation requirement. The game will ask for activation during installation, which also includes signing up to BattleNet (and, yes, this means that even this expensive game never becomes yours to keep). But that is not all: a periodic OnLine confirmation is also required EVERY THIRTY DAYS, FOREVER. You can play offline but no more than a month between re-activating.
Unlike the latest EA and UBISOFT flops (which have an idiotic Always-OnLine requirement), with SC2, after its initial Activation, you CAN play a single player game (campaign and skirmishes) without logging on to BattleNet. Only, to do this you have to log on as a ..."Guest" (I know, a Guest to your own game and your own computer...). You will be able to save your progress but you cannot tie it to your BattleNet account later, so any progress or accomplishments are lost for your online Account. After your 30 days are up you have to re-activate once more.
That is why a Broadband Internet connection is included in the minimum system requirements. You can decide if this bothers you.

Remember how we could take our original STARCRAFT CD to a gathering of friends, Spawn it on everyone else's PCs and start a LAN party? Now one can play with his friends only through the BattleNet - and the Spawn function has been eliminated! Yes, that means each one of your friends now has to have his own original copy of the game!
The brass at the top conveniently forgets that the ability to Spawn games was the main reason both STARCRAFT and DIABLO acquired such huge fan-bases.

This is a good game, one I think we will be enjoying for years - or for as long as BLIZZARD shall allow us to do so. However, I had higher hopes for BLIZZARD's respect to its own customers.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

678 of 819 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Big step backwards, November 13, 2010
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
The original gameboy was released by nintendo in 1989. On the side was a little port for what was called a link cable. This cable allowed me to hook my gameboy up with my friend's gameboy without issue. Let me rephrase: In 1991 I could link two primitive gameboys together and play a game with my friend.

In the mid 1990's I experienced my first time with LAN. I played Myth: TFL by Bungie and the Marathon trilogy with my friends. It was all so simple.

In 1998, the original Starcraft was released. In what could be considered the pinnacle of LAN party potential, millions of hours have been spent in basements, playing this game the entire night through without a single connection issue.

In 2002 microsoft released the original xbox. Countless nights were spent with friends playing Halo over LAN without fail.

By now the standard had been set.

In 2010 Blizzard released Starcraft 2...No more LAN. No more dependable, secluded nights playing on the local internet with your buddies. No, now everyone has to log in and go through their security checkpoint to play someone their computer is connected to directly. down? Tough luck. Internet connection issues? Oh well. It's not like the capability to do this has been available in games for around for two decades now.
Let me rephrase: 20 years after I could connect two gameboys together to play pokemon, my friends can't connect their two decked out gaming computers together to play the biggest game in e-sports.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

668 of 828 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Starcraft 2: The Love-Hate Relationship, July 28, 2010
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
Blizzard's (now Activision-Blizzard) obvious success today was hardly a guarantee over a decade ago, and I believe two unshakable tenets of the company back then were responsible for taking them from small game developer to the huge juggernaut that they are now: polish and care. The polish is still there, but the care is gone.

Let me begin by addressing the good stuff in Starcraft 2 first, namely, how polished the game itself is.

Graphics, sound, and game play:

You have to hand it to Blizzard, their art direction is amazing. With such comparatively low polygon count for modern mainstream computer games, there is a world of details coupled with aesthetic color schemes that could make anyone smile. I really cannot stress the attention to detail enough, such as the Terrans laying down their barracks and seeing the beams and foundations go up in real time, the lighting effects of Protoss attack beams, or the reflective organic surface of Zerg bodies. It makes the game feel alive.

The musical score and sound effects aren't fodder to the pretty graphics either; the production values are high and one can hear all of the treble and specific timbre that goes with every explosion or laser beam that gets fired with a clarity and sharpness that's to be expected of Blizzard's products. As any of the Starcraft veterans know, the music perfectly complements each of the three distinct races very well, from the mellow alternative rock motifs of the Terrans, to the new-age majesty of the Protoss, to the sci-fi horror-themed screeches of the Zerg. You may not personally enjoy listening to the background music per se, but it's undeniable that the pieces fit with each race.

The single player campaign, from the missions I have played thus far, are engaging and wholly satisfying, with the feel of an epic trilogy along the veins of high-budget Hollywood trilogies. I have always adored Blizzard's attention to story and lore, even if the same themes (betrayal, vengeance, contrition, forgiveness, etc) are used over and over again in their other franchises, but who's to complain? They're classic, timeless, literary themes.

The game play is fast and action-paced, save for maybe the first 3-5 minutes of the game where everyone is building up. I can't say that Starcraft's brand of fast-paced, high-lethality game play is for everyone, as the learning curve to be considered moderately good is quite high. Thankfully, Bnet2.0's matching service somewhat mitigates this difference by pairing you with someone similarly skilled by considering total games played, win-loss ratio, level of opponents, etc. How well this matches players is up to debate, but so far I don't have any complaints.

Now for the bad stuff, which may sound confusing to new players of Blizzard games, but veterans will instantly recognize the problems addressed.

Omission of obvious Bnet2.0 features, RealID support requirement, lack of LAN support, and cost:

The original Starcraft, and each subsequent rendition of [...], has several key features that is conspicuously missing from the Bnet2.0 used in Starcraft 2, namely:
-Private channel support
-Private game features missing
-Named custom games
-Regional server options

Private channel support:
Why is there no private channel support? If Activision-Blizzard were honest with their words that they wanted a [...] experience so good that we wouldn't want to play offline or on LAN, why leave out such an obvious feature? Private channels allow clans or friends to gather in a chatroom in [...] to organize events, discuss strategies, or just shoot the breeze in general. The lack of private channel support is a huge offense, since this was a standard feature in the days of the original Starcraft, over a decade ago.

Private game features missing:
As it is currently, to join custom games, two players would have to have each other's game ID, and add each other to their respective friends list. Not only that, ALL friends can see and join games that are created by a user on the friend list. What if you just wanted to relax and host a random custom game with complete strangers, or host a custom game with certain friends but not others? Well, you can't easily do this, since any friend on your list can see the game you've made, and can subsequently join it if they wish.

Named custom games:
Anyone who has played Starcraft or Warcraft III on [...] knows that custom game names are important. "2v2 LT no rush 20min" or "DOTA Cali ALL RANDOM" tell game seekers exactly what they're getting into when they join these games. This is no longer possible with the current Bnet2.0, as you are only privy to the game map name, and speed of the game.

Regional server options:
In the old [...] if you had friends in different parts of the world (North America, South America, Asia, Europe), you can switch your [...] server to hop over to any of those servers and play with/against them, albeit probably with much more lag, but nonetheless, the option is there. In Starcraft 2, you are locked to the region of your purchase, so there would be no way for you to change region servers. If you're in the east coast and want to play a few [...] games at 2am and it's too late in the night to find many games on the east coast, you would not be able to hop on over to the west coast where it's only 11pm, and likely more players are still on.

RealID support requirement:
The Orwellian requirement to link one's real name and location to their PUBLIC support forum profile is ridiculous; the potential for abuse is endless, as it is for anything that reveals real, personal information. I guess one could make the argument that it is in the game's disclaimer, or just don't buy the game altogether.

Lack of LAN support:
This cannot be stressed enough, LAN is an integral part of modern multiplayer RTS games, even if the majority of players will not be using it often. Just because most people don't use Radians on calculators, does that mean we should get rid of it entirely and use only Degrees? The point is, LAN settings could range from fun, social gatherings with friends, to tournaments hosted at some internet cafe; being 100% reliant on [...] to be up is hardly reassuring, especially considering that tournaments require the low latency that only LAN environments can provide.

At $60, and with all of the previous issues addressed, Starcraft 2 is too much for its worth. I hate to say it, but as much as I love the game play and the level of polish, the price tag does not justify the clear omission of certain key features.

I love Blizzard's RTS franchises, but it seems that Activision-Blizzard has stopped caring about the long-time fans that catapulted them to their prominence today. I love Starcraft 2's game play and level of polish, but I cannot get past some of the egregious offenses that the game possesses.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars DRM nightmare, March 21, 2013
= Fun:1.0 out of 5 stars 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
Buying a game on CD implies that the CD contains the game and thus ready to play out of the box as a Single player. This is not the case with Starcraft II. When the CD is in the PC, Downloading from the internet is required and the process takes about one and a half day to complete. Makes one wonder what is on the CD if you have to download everything from the internet. This is deception. It appears then that this is more of an online game and not a self contained game. The download process is a pain because it does not allow for anything else to be done; meaning that you can't really surf the internet because it will slow the download process nor can you watch, let's say, Netflix movie (picture quality degrades).
After downloading is complete, the game is still not playable. I cannot log in even after having a Battlenet account. I have played WoW fine with no problems(I knew that this was on online game from the start; unlike Starcraft). Apparently there is some technical issues ( this is not supposed to be a customer problem). So now I have to be a techie (do customers have to be one?) as I go through some technical steps with the rep. But still the game is not playable. Now the rep wants to know specs about my system (suggesting that something about my system is the problem rather than theirs; after all, I can log in and play WoW fine but not Starcraft). Look, I'm just a customer. I bought a game and I just want to play right out of the box. It's simple. Blizzard is not making that happen because of their DRM mentality. Does this encourage me to buy games from them in the future (I don't think so)?
Honestly I cannot rate this game because I can't play it. I'm returning this game. It's worthless.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

159 of 209 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Region lock and internationalization done wrong, August 3, 2010
= Fun:3.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
I'm a big starcraft fan and I've been waiting for this game for what... 10 years now.

And the game is no disapointment. It's great. The problem is on how blizzard is using this great game to promote their crappy [...] platform.

If you live in the US and has only american friends, you should be more or less fine. But if you live in a different country, be prepared to:

- Play with a different language pack, often dubbed game (without the option to play with the original audio track);
- Be limited to your country servers only (you won't be able to play with international friends);

Shame on you Blizzard.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

16 of 19 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Do Not Buy Unless You Have Unlimited Internet Access!!, July 17, 2013
= Fun:1.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
I enjoyed the original Starcraft so went ahead and bought this one. Installation pretty simple HOWEVER it will not allow you to play the game unless you "optimize" the product with over a 7 gig download that can not be interrupted .... Bandwidth is expensive where I live, downloading that much data would cost me almost $70 and you CANNOT play the game without this download. Not that interested in the game so Blizzard got my $20 and I got a game that I will never play. Lesson learned, will not buy their products again, ever. A warning on the box would have been nice....
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

93 of 124 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Like watching a childhood hero succumb to vice, August 10, 2010
= Fun:4.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
****November 2011 Addendum****

The game is fun overall. Multiplayer is a fun experience, even despite the repetitive nature of it. I had previously complained that the game was so unbalanced, they had to remove dozens of units from the multiplayer experience. Even with them out, multiplayer is still GROSSLY unbalanced. Units like the Thor and the Void Ray are ridiculously overpowered compared to virtually every other unit, and they have no real counter; the Zerg have no counter for them---Hydralisks are inexplicably weak against Void Rays, Mutalisks are killed far too easily, and Thors have a hidden splash attack with their Anti-Air missiles, which does double damage to light units (ie, mutalisks). This attack is to Void Rays and Mutalisks what fire is to rice paper.

There is no unit balance as Starcraft had; it's become an arms race; first person to spam Thors or Void Rays wins.


And to think the biggest worry I had upon seeing screenshots early on was that the buildings and units looked so bloated, fat, and cartoony. In fact they do seem rather bloated and cartoony compared to their Starcraft counterparts, but it's not nearly as horrendous as I'd initially thought it out to be.

To get the easy stuff out of the way: If you care not for the story and only for the gameplay, then 3 stars out of 5 is a fair rating.

I don't know why Starcraft was so innovative a game as it was. It simply looked different, smooth and was extremely well-balanced. It was a slick game with easily identifiable units on the field with easily identifiable sounds, weapons, and controls and interface. It was an innovation and improvement over the engine used in Warcraft II.

Here, there is none. They claimed to have completely re-made the engine from scratch, but you could copy and paste the UI onto Command & Conquer 3 or Command & Conquer 4 and it would look pretty much the same. It's not at all a bad thing, but it's not really a good thing either if you're looking to play this as a new game. It essentially feels like C&C3 with cartoonier units.

The game mechanics that went into making Starcraft so incredibly balanced will have to be re-discovered here, as new units are frequent in coming, old units have stats changed, and units like the Medic become essential for infantry squads, as they auto-heal when you move or attack-move them with a group, rather than wandering out up into an enemy because you'd need to micro-manage them directly.

Initially I'd have considered the Protoss terribly, horribly, atrociously overpowered due to weapons like the Colossus and the Void Ray, but later missions showed that there was more to come for Zerg and Terran to even the odds. This, however, says very very little for traditional defensive units like the Photon Cannon, Bunkers, and units like the Zealot. You may as well not even make them anymore, unless you plan on massing them in gargantuan numbers, as they contribute next to nothing within huge armies, whereas in Starcraft, the melee abilities of a Zealot made it essential under a Defiler's swarm ability, or for fast attacks.

But the absolute bane of this entry of the franchise is undoubtedly the writing.

Virtually everything Jim Raynor or Tychus Findlay or Matt Horner says can be found in one line or another from any other movie, TV show, or video game. There's almost nothing anyone says that isn't cliche', stupid, poorly delivered, or so bland and generic you can skip it and miss out on nothing.

Remember Arcturus Mengsk. Remember Mengsk of Korhal, and how the Confederacy nuked Korhal into an uninhabitable wasteland. Remember how Mengsk fought and bled and suffered to fight them, with his rebel group the Sons of Korhal. He was a character so morally ambiguous that he would suffer in order to help civilians, and then out of utter rage and vengeance, use psi emitters to obliterate entire Confederate planets, drawing billions of Zerg onto Antigua Prime and Tarsonis.

He wanted to (and successfully did) end the war and end the Confederacy, and not end up spending decades fighting hard guerrilla war with the Confederate remnants. He mad a bad decision, it was the wrong one, but he made it, and he was going to live with it. He was like Joseph Stalin in his ceaseless aggression to power and to the safety and security of all Terrans.

The Arcturus Mengsk in Starcraft 2 is better compared with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He and his administration create laws so blatantly false and outrageous, even CHILDREN would not fall for it. And this is presented CONSTANTLY in the form of UNN broadcasts featuring an obvious parody of news pundits. One mission sees you, Raynor's rebels, liberate a civilian area from the Zerg and Dominion forces. This is then reported on the news where a field reporter reports to the UNN pundit. He then asks about civilian casualties, and the reporter says "Actually, the only civilian casualties thus far have been crossfire from overzealous Dominion forces" and as soon as she finishes, they panickedly go back to the pundit who panickedly remarks "Uh, well, there you have it ladies and gentlemen; Jim Raynor, killing innocent women and children!"

The actions of Arcturus Mengsk, having civilians rounded up and slaughtered, or encouraging neighbors to spy on one another, or abandoning half his Dominion at the first sign of Zerg threat so as to protect his core worlds, is so completely out of character for the Starcraft Mengsk that it's a farce. It's buffoonery, and it's made less funny if you've played the Terran campaign in Starcraft 1.

But the absolute worst has to be Zeratul and the Protoss.

In Starcraft, the Protoss were the big tough fanatical race. They were loyal, courageous, religious, and xenophobic. They had highly advanced technology, but otherwise were very much like the Terrans in terms of being well-rounded, with good people and bad people making good decisions and bad decisions.

In Starcraft 2, you could replace them with night elves in World of Warcraft or any random race of wizards or magicians from any medieval fantasy work involving people speaking with stunted syllables about ancient prophecies and fallen ones and doom.

TVTropes has something called "Flanderization", named for Ned Flanders in "The Simpsons", who believe it or not, was once a NORMAL character who was religious, but also did "naughty" things and drank beer and such. "Flanderization" refers to taking ONE character trait of an otherwise normal character, and making that trait THE defining characteristic of it, to the exclusion of all else.

This has happened BIG TIME with the Protoss, where religious fanaticism and mysticism has now become the defining trait of the Protoss. Nothing Zeratul (or Nibbler, as I call him, because he's voiced by the same actor) says is not painful to listen to, straight out of every Lord of the Rings knockoff, good or bad, and done worse.

Mild Spoilers abound here: For whatever reason, whereas Raynor and the Terrans are written at a third grade level of vocabulary and storytelling, Zeratul is written at a kindergarten level. It becomes teeth-gnashingly irritating to have a cutscene show you where to go, and to have Zeratul SLOWLY exclaim "I must go over there and link with that thing, but there are Zerg in the way! They may be... problematic", or a mission where Zerg attack your base every three minutes, and when there's thirty seconds left, Zeratul ALWAYS says "The Zerg are massing for an attack! To arms!"

Zeratul's fight with Kerrigan is not so much a fight as a World of Warcraft-looking cutscene featuring an exchange of magic pixie powers---I mean, "psionic energy"

And then comes Zeratul's FIRST crowning moment of stupidity (because there's at least two) that comes as such a smack in the face to Starcraft fans, it becomes less the fault of the character, and more the fault of BAD WRITING. Zeratul encounters a Protoss/Zerg Hybrid, and then states in that stilted, bland and monotonous delivery "Who could have created such a thing?"


So while you're saying "Duran" again and again and again, the next mission comes and here's Zeratul's stupidity that is again the fault of bad writing, not because of total ignorance of the first game, but out of just bad writing:

Zeratul encounters the "ghost" of an old friend. The FIRST THING this old friend says is "I have come to you from beyond this world", and the FIRST THING Zeratul says is "But you died!"

The idiocy then continues as this old friend tells the story of the Overmind and its true purpose, and Zeratul chimes in POINTLESS commentary that only shows how utterly STUPID he is, not able to use age as an excuse to not understand the concept of "lies" and "ulterior motives" and "not everything is as it seems". The old friend remarks something about the Overmind, and Zeratul says "DUH DUH BUT, THE, OVERMIND, WAS, A, MONSTROSITY!" and this old friend has to chide Zeratul like a child that it only SEEMED this way to him.

I remark on World of Warcraft and magical fantasy a lot in this review. Know that I am not trashing on the genre, or on World of Warcraft. It is likely a fine game, but my point is that it is an entirely different genre game from this. The same way you wouldn't want to see rubber-forehead aliens in "Battlestar Galactica" or slapstick comedy in "Schindler's List", I don't want to see magical fantasy-type superstition and talks of "Prophecy", "Chosen One", "Fallen One", "the Damned", "Doom", and such in a hard science fiction game.

In fact Starcraft 2 does seem at times like that one disastrous step that Warcraft 3 did with the series; turning it from low-fantasy into high-fantasy, which actually went on to greater things in acquiring a whole new fanbase with World of Warcraft.

It doesn't fit on Starcraft 2. And seeing the Starcraft series go from something dark, ambiguous, and hard, to something literally at grade-school level in its simplicity, is like watching a childhood hero succumb to drugs or alcohol.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

195 of 264 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Unpleasantly Surprised, August 2, 2010
= Fun:3.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
Allow me to preface my brief review by saying I don't care about LAN; I also didn't particularly care about the campaign being split into 3 boxes, after being told that each campaign would be long. So my negative opinion of the game came after buying it, and completing the campaign, with no predisposed hostility.

Disappointment 1) The campaign was short, uninspired, and uninteresting. I guess I won't spoil anything, but it did not feel, to me, like a complete story (a la... Starcraft, Warcraft 1-3). So although I didn't care before about it only being the Terran campaign, I now do.

Disappointment 2) The battlenet system is just awful. The only people I know who love Blizzard RTS games are crazy for custom maps... RPG's, melee maps with custom units, etc... This new system disallows you from simply making/downloading a map and playing it (not to mention you pretty much can't make maps either, unless you have a master's in computer science). I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say you are stuck with a handful of boring maps on battlenet or the maps Blizzard included... and it didn't include many.

Disappointment 3) I loved Starcraft and Warcraft 2's editors. Then Warcraft 3 came and just tore those to shreds, with its ease of use and total customization power. I was expecting the next level with Starcraft 2; what I got was pretty much a gigantic excel spreadsheet full of jibberish I don't understand. Gone are the days when one could pop open the editor and add some new units or heroes to a map. Now, if doing that is still possible, you pretty much need to go to Starcraft U, and then spend several hours doing tedious crap that will get you possibly the same result as 2-5 minutes in the WC3 editor. This single issue would have led me to not buy the game, as this is my primary interest in Blizzard RTS games.

Disappointment 4) Campaigns and custom maps aside, the game is just a complete rehash of the original with less (and less fun) units. Almost as if they held back units for future releases, which is a total cop out. Firebats, medics, wraiths, and more all appeared in the campaign, so I got complacent... only to find the actual game was completely stripped down. At this point I thought "Hmm... oh well, I guess I can just put those units back in custom maps"... oya... I can't... see disappointment 3.

So I'm pretty much disappointed about every single aspect of this long awaited game lol. I actually stopped playing it after only 4 days (yes, I completed the campaign, challenges, and played a dozen or so matches), and got the urge to start playing WC3 again (a far better, and more complete game).

I am really hoping the editor and battlenet things are addressed sometime soon, so I haven't completely given up hope; but this game does not measure up to any game Blizzard has produced in the past 16 years.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Good Graphics, but Poor Execution for the Single Player Campaign, April 18, 2013
= Fun:2.0 out of 5 stars 
This review is from: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Video Game)
Starcraft 2 - Wings of Liberty had a lot of potential of being a great game. But most of the focus was on the multiplayer aspect and not much was focused on the single player campaign. Almost each mission had a time limit, which never gave you time to check out the new unit you received. In addition, most of the missions were side quests, just so you can get a new unit to added to your arsenal, and little focuse on main storyline. Also I don't know why Blizzard thought the campaign was too long, to me the campaigns were too short and got repetitive and boring very fast. Furthermore, there is no LAN built into the game, so you can't play the game locally with your friends. Because it is required for you to be connected to Blizzard's servers constantly or you can't play the game for more than 30 days without an internet connection. No wonder the game got pirated very fast, because a lot of gamers wanted to play the game with out having an requred internet connection. And if blizzard ever decides to shutdown the servers, say 8 to 10 years later, you basically have a useless game that can not be played at all. I don't understand why if I buy a game it should be mine, but these companies want you have just the license to the game and thats it. Not buying any future Blizzard games if they continue this practice, because Diablo III really worked out swell for them during Launch. (Sarcastic)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

‹ Previous | 1 2185 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First


StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty
StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty by Blizzard Entertainment (Mac OS X, Windows 7 / XP)
$19.99 $19.75
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.