I think 10 years of blueballs can kill any attempt at objective appraisal. I think if nothing was made between OOT and TP, TP would have gotten better scores across the board.

It didn't really innovate anything. But its a fun game, and thats all that really matters.

I think that Blizzard was too worried about riots in Korea to significantly alter the game.

I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p 
 
And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game doesn't even have a complete story! having to fork probably another 120$ just to see it to the end. That is if they don't add paid dlc to the bundle, and then it will be more.  
 
Some say no one forces the buy or that it will come over time, but they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and making it less rewarding in my opinion. 

I don't feel innovation is always necessarily required for a game to be good.  However, many reviewers are overlooking the flaws Starcraft 2 does have, some significant ones aren't even being mentioned...
 
SC2 feels like the kind of game that deserves the score range of similar non-innovative but well designed titles...

Reviews are just one persons thoughts.  A great review score don't make a GOTY.  MW2 got a better avg then Borderlands but Borderlands was a much better game.

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

In the same way that someone passionate about audio will notice the difference between 100 and 200 ohms while the average person will think they sound the same, there are massive differences between Starcraft 1 and 2 that aren't noticeable to the uneducated person.

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

Meh, define innovation. StarCraft 3D is a term uneducated people throw around. People that can't be arsed playing StarCraft 1 "because of the graphics".
MBS, autogathering, unlimited unit selection - so many constraints that they found solutions for. In my book, that is considered innovation. Not to mention the way to tell the story, innovation!

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

I think people who play SC2 soley for the campaign are getting just a tad ripped off in the long run, and people who just play multi really will never need the expansions. But if the price is enough to deter you, then you probably have the patience to wait 4 years and get the battlechest which will probably run for about 80 dollars. "

You'll get plenty of maps through the UMS, though. As is, from what I know about the expansions it seems like something focused mostly to single player because they don't want to divide up multiplayer into 3 segments. So my feeling is modes will be exclusive, but if any units are added, everyone will get them.

" You'll get plenty of maps through the UMS, though. As is, from what I know about the expansions it seems like something focused mostly to single player because they don't want to divide up multiplayer into 3 segments. So my feeling is modes will be exclusive, but if any units are added, everyone will get them. "

except TP wasnt half as good as OOT 
and starcraft 2 is very similar but u cant beat perfection 
they literally did the best they could possibly do at eveything for this game 
the ending was a very slight dissapointment and thats all i feel would be areason  to give this a lower score than 97

Sometimes sequels do well because they perfect and improve slightly on a great formula (e.g., Uncharted 2).  Sometimes sequels don't do well because they attempt to perfect and improve on what was done before, but fail to do so or just feel old (e.g., Crackdown 2).  Starcraft II falls into the former.  That's about all there is to it.
 
Trying to create some grand unified sequel theory is pointless. 

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

Innovation can be important, but it's not the only thing that that matters. Starcraft 2 is a good example of refinement.  
 
I feel this point is much more poignant if you actually take the time to try and play Starcraft 1. Doing so really starts to expose the vast differences between the games, especially when considering the single player. Things like better level designs (almost every mission in 1 is either a timer defense or kill all the enemies mission), better unit selection, better enemy A.I., more interesting characters, more fleshed out universe, more customizable units, etc. In the end this refinement turns Starcraft 2 into an incredibly enjoyable game, even if there is minimal innovation, and thats what matters to the end-consumer.  
 
On the subject of a game like TP, perhaps it got panned by certain reviewers because they didn't feel it was refined enough (in my own opinion it actually seemed to reverse some of the better refinements by MM and OOT) and perhaps the point that there is a much larger gap between SC1 and SC2 as opposed to OOT and TP has some merit. The longer wait between games allowed for nostalgia to build, whereas Zelda never really went away between the OOT and TP.
 
I guess the point I want to stress though is that refinement is as powerful a force as innovation. Consider a game like Braid, which is generally considered to be a good game. It wasn't the first game to the take the concept of using time manipulation as a puzzle mechanic, but it did refine time manipulation into a really really enjoyable game. On the other end, games that really do introduce completely new mechanics for the first time don't always end up being good, after all brand new mechanics make it hard to design for. Innovation is good in the long run, but refinement is a more immediate way to improve games.

Consider a game like Braid, which is generally considered to be a good game. It wasn't the first game to the take the concept of using time manipulation as a puzzle mechanic, but it did refine time manipulation into a really really enjoyable game. On the other end, games that really do introduce completely new mechanics for the first time don't always end up being good, after all brand new mechanics make it hard to design for. Innovation is good in the long run, but refinement is a more immediate way to improve games.

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

Vs Nothing.
 
It's success in the modern world comes from being a blizzard product so it's overrated right out of gate, plus it also succeeds in approaching the casual player who might remember playing age of empires or the original starcraft and offers him the exact same game but prettier, making people who haven't played an rts since then think they still have it and feel good about themselves, further inflating it's credentials.
 
Edit: Oh and they also managed to make the game burn your pc components if you look at the menus for too long. I guess that has to count for something.

I totally agree. It seems like the gaming press loves to criticize developers for not "innovating" and "adding new things" in their sequels, yet Blizzard always seems to get a pass. Why is it now, after 10 years of release that they call Starcraft's brand of RTS is called the perfection of RTS? Then why did the same gaming press praise Warcraft III for moving the genre forward (with things like leveling for individual units, etc.), if Starcraft was perfection? Starcraft 2 is to RTS games as New Super Mario Bros. was to 2D platformers. It was nothing new; it was the same old good stuff with a pretty, fresh coat of paint. There is nothing wrong with that, but please don't call Starcraft the pinnacle of the RTS genre.

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

It is hard, in my opinion, to milk a franchise by releasing a game 12 years later.  If you are talking about the next two games, if they are anywhere near as good as this one, they will be worth every penny. "

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

Given that Wings of Liberty is the first StarCraft game since Brood War, to say that Blizzard is somehow milking StarCraft is absurd. "

I wonder what the people at EA and THQ did when they saw the reception to SC2.
I mean Dawn of War and C&C have tried soo hard to innovate but neither did as well as SC2.

@ OP
You use words like "rehash" but I don't think you truely understand how popular the original game was, its serious business son(one county even televises its games). I came into starcraft2 with a tight wallet and an open mind, I am not dissappointed in the slightest. I have a fully fleshed out campaign(that leads on from the 6 walls of text in the manual) and an almost instant connecting multiplayer aspect. This is pure RTS heaven. This game recreates its predecessor with surgical precision and also adds more to the flavor, any dislike for this game truely must come from an aversion to the genre in perticular or just some rampant need to get attention. I for one will be happy battling it out in multiplayer long after the next expansion hits.

The Galaxy Editor is showing true innovation right here. 
 
When you pay for SC2, you're paying for an investment.  :P

" I totally agree. It seems like the gaming press loves to criticize developers for not "innovating" and "adding new things" in their sequels, yet Blizzard always seems to get a pass. Why is it now, after 10 years of release that they call Starcraft's brand of RTS is called the perfection of RTS? Then why did the same gaming press praise Warcraft III for moving the genre forward (with things like leveling for individual units, etc.), if Starcraft was perfection? Starcraft 2 is to RTS games as New Super Mario Bros. was to 2D platformers. It was nothing new; it was the same old good stuff with a pretty, fresh coat of paint. There is nothing wrong with that, but please don't call Starcraft the pinnacle of the RTS genre. "

" The Galaxy Editor is showing true innovation right here.  When you pay for SC2, you're paying for an investment.  :P "

" @Cataphract1014 said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

It is hard, in my opinion, to milk a franchise by releasing a game 12 years later.  If you are talking about the next two games, if they are anywhere near as good as this one, they will be worth every penny. "

 
@Hailinel said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

Given that Wings of Liberty is the first StarCraft game since Brood War, to say that Blizzard is somehow milking StarCraft is absurd. "

 I hope you have the same opinion after Legacy of the Abyss. :p "

Braid did WAY more for time manipulation than SC2 did for RTS gameplay however.  Like others have said, SC2 is like Street Fighter 4 in terms of innovation or refinement. "

I don't think people understand the meaning of the word innovation anymore.

" @Jeust said:

" @Cataphract1014 said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

It is hard, in my opinion, to milk a franchise by releasing a game 12 years later.  If you are talking about the next two games, if they are anywhere near as good as this one, they will be worth every penny. "

 
@Hailinel said:

" @Jeust said:

" @ryanwho said:

" @Jeust said:

" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p  And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

It takes about 12 hours to finish the campaign, say 20-30 minutes a mission. Then there's the UMS which will provide a ton of free content, then there's multiplayer, then there's challenge mode. Plenty of 60 dollar games have shipped with significantly less content. "

True, still i feel they are milking all they can out of the franchise, and that will translate in a less rewarding experience. what do you think? "

Given that Wings of Liberty is the first StarCraft game since Brood War, to say that Blizzard is somehow milking StarCraft is absurd. "

 I hope you have the same opinion after Legacy of the Abyss. :p "

I like Koei's Warriors games.  Dynasty, Samurai, Gundam, and soon Fist of the North Star.  It is a series that they've milked and are continuing to milk for all its worth, and yet I keep buying and playing them because I enjoy them and I can appreciate the aspects that each new game brings to the table.  (Why yes, I am Koei's bitch.  Thank you for asking.) StarCraft II is getting what, two expansions?  Each with a full single-player campaign?  Oh god, the world is on the verge of annihilation.  Whatever shall I do.  Etcetera. "

I really wonder how some people are smart enough to operate a computer, yet dumb enough to espouse opinions like these. 

@Jeust said:
" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

Its kind of like saying Valve are milking Half Life 2. They're not, they're being stupid and calling something that should be called Half 3,4,5 episodes in Half Life 2. Blizzard is probably in the same boat here.

" Its kind of like saying Valve are milking Half Life 2. They're not, they're being stupid and calling something that should be called Half 3,4,5 episodes in Half Life 2. Blizzard is probably in the same boat here. "

"

I really wonder how some people are smart enough to operate a computer, yet dumb enough to espouse opinions like these. 

@Jeust said:
" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

Do you understand what a trilogy is? Do you also bitch about every single game that's part of a trilogy? If the SP was 5 hours long then you'd have a point, but by all accounts it's somewhere in the range of 12-13, and even Brad said in his review that the story reaches a solid conclusion by the end of the game. Also, that's not even taking in to consideration how great the multiplayer is. 
"

Multiplayer 
SC1 --> SC2 
SF2 --> SF4 is okay but I think  
Unreal 1 --> UT2K4 would be a better because I felt like SF2 to 4 is way more similar than SC1 to 2.  Some of the changes to SC2 multiplayer such as multiple building selection and unlimited unit selection would be like if SF4 got new buttons that automatically input QCF/QCB/etc for you.
Not sure how popular UT are among this community though so SF2 to 4 is a decent enough comparison for those who haven't played.
 
Singleplayer 
SC1 --> SC2 
HL1 --> HL2 
 
I think that about sums it up. 
And blizzard has a schedule of about 1.5 years per expansion. I'm not sure about you but 1.5 years per expansion doesn't sound too ridiculous, not after we've seen guitar hero and call of duty. 
 
I think it's actually nice that Blizzard already announced that they'll do 3 games. Like TV series, it's good to know when you have a definitive end. Otherwise, you'll really start milking it by putting in filler or adding to the story that was originally unintended.  Most of the old school RTS like Tiberian Sun and Red Alert had expansions that sort of just added a weird campaign which did not continue the story well at all. 

" @Jeust: Games are also costing more to develop and are riskier. (Dune didn't take a $100 million+ to market.) 
 
I think this is the exact direction you would reasonably expect.
 
 

@ryanwho

said:

" Its kind of like saying Valve are milking Half Life 2. They're not, they're being stupid and calling something that should be called Half 3,4,5 episodes in Half Life 2. Blizzard is probably in the same boat here. "

  Oh christ... I hope Blizzard doesn't pull a HL2: Episode 3 on us. "

" Yep i do. Still do you understand that all other rts games presented all the factions campaigns in the same game, without stretching them to make three games out of it?  "

This is pure RTS heaven. This game recreates its predecessor with surgical precision and also adds more to the flavor, any dislike for this game truely must come from an aversion to the genre in perticular or just some rampant need to get attention. I for one will be happy battling it out in multiplayer long after the next expansion hits. "

" @Semition said:

" @Jeust: Games are also costing more to develop and are riskier. (Dune didn't take a $100 million+ to market.) 
 
I think this is the exact direction you would reasonably expect.
 
 

@ryanwho

said:

" Its kind of like saying Valve are milking Half Life 2. They're not, they're being stupid and calling something that should be called Half 3,4,5 episodes in Half Life 2. Blizzard is probably in the same boat here. "

  Oh christ... I hope Blizzard doesn't pull a HL2: Episode 3 on us. "

it is the direction i would expect, still i feel that with raising the price of the game, and dividing into multiple games, they aren't pulling any stops into milking all they can from consumers. And i think that hurts and will continuously hurt the industry.   Am i wrong? "

" @Jeust said:

" Yep i do. Still do you understand that all other rts games presented all the factions campaigns in the same game, without stretching them to make three games out of it?  "

No? "

Speaking to VideoGamer.com in an interview to be published tomorrow, associate producer Jeff Lydell explained its decision to follow Blizzard's lead, saying it allows the developer to pay more attention to the included campaign.

He said: "Really it comes down to how much focus you want to give to each campaign. If you're only doing one, you can give it more attention. We've seen a real trend where the games that focus on fewer hours are doing quite well.

" except TP wasnt half as good as OOT and starcraft 2 is very similar but u cant beat perfection they literally did the best they could possibly do at eveything for this game the ending was a very slight dissapointment and thats all i feel would be areason  to give this a lower score than 97 "

" @sixghost said:

"

I really wonder how some people are smart enough to operate a computer, yet dumb enough to espouse opinions like these. 

@Jeust said:
" I agree. That's one of the reasons i tend not to buy many sequels. They generally are a cash-in cow. :p And i think this is a terrible trend we're setting in, with games having less content for a heavier price, and giving it an awesome score to make it more worthy. The game isn't not even complete! "

Do you understand what a trilogy is? Do you also bitch about every single game that's part of a trilogy? If the SP was 5 hours long then you'd have a point, but by all accounts it's somewhere in the range of 12-13, and even Brad said in his review that the story reaches a solid conclusion by the end of the game. Also, that's not even taking in to consideration how great the multiplayer is. 
"

Yep i do. Still do you understand that all other rts games presented all the factions campaigns in the same game, without stretching them to make three games out of it?   I feel they are stretching the content, so that they have three products to sell and not only one. Do you feel that it is a good decision?  What if that becomes the standard among rts games, and soon to have a complete arc of the story among all races/factions, we'll have to buy multiple games?  Sounds appealing doesn't it?   I think like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, still doesn't sound appealing at all. "

How is this any different than how the campaign was handled in SC and BW? They're not jipping you out of any missions, they just chose to make an extremely in depth campaign for one race. Do you really think they could have implemented stuff like the upgrade system if they used the same 10 missions per race format? If anything you are getting a better experience because of this. In SC and BW the first 2-3 missions of a race's campaign were always extremely easy tutorial missions, so you really ended up with 7 real missions per race. Not the case here.

Are you even a starcraft fan? I can't believe someone is complaining that there is going to be MORE STARCRAFT GAMES being released. Play the game, then complain if you don't think the story and campaign were worthy of being a full game. It sounds like you are more offended by the idea of 3 games rather than their execution of the idea so far.

There are significant differences between SC1 and SC2.  If you wanna know what they are play SC1 again. 
I must admit, at first i was put off by only the Terrans being playable in the story mode but the Single Player is very well put together and clocks in more hours than most SP games on the market today. 
Starcraft had a very unique identity as an RTS and Blizzard did very well making changes and innovations that improve upon the game without altering that identity.  

" @kishan6 said:

" except TP wasnt half as good as OOT and starcraft 2 is very similar but u cant beat perfection they literally did the best they could possibly do at eveything for this game the ending was a very slight dissapointment and thats all i feel would be areason  to give this a lower score than 97 "

Really? You don't think there is anything they could have possibly done to make this game better? People should just stop making RTS's now, because this game is the best you can possibly do? "

" @Phaseshift said:

This is pure RTS heaven. This game recreates its predecessor with surgical precision and also adds more to the flavor, any dislike for this game truely must come from an aversion to the genre in perticular or just some rampant need to get attention. I for one will be happy battling it out in multiplayer long after the next expansion hits. "

See, this is where you went off. Starcraft 2 does what console games do sequel. Put you in more and more interesting scenarios, revamp the graphics and fix up the multiplayer. But in no way does it do what an RTS game does.  There's no extra layer of complexity to the game, or creating different avenues of strategy like diplomacy for example. As many people seem to comment, SC2 recreated SC1 perfectly. But while I am interested in getting back to the Starcraft universe, I'm not going back to it because of it's RTS elements as games exist that do a better job.  To say it simply, Starcraft 2 is[seems like] a great game, but a bad RTS by today's standard. It's like playing Duke Nukem 3D today, it's a fun game, but better games exist in the genre. It doesn't diminish that it's a fun game. Hope I made sense. "