If people are going to spend their hardearned cash based on reviews by GB and the like,  all I'm saying is that it can't hurt to step back, let the game sink in more. The lastest innovating steps in the RTS genre has been the big scale battles (Supreme Commander) and advanced strategies like in the Total War series. Even though Blizzard has big piles of cash and the game has been in devellopment for years, it's very muc 'old school' and doesn't  bring anything new to the table. sure, guess that's what Blizzard was aiming for. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because what is does, it does well, but this is not the next step in RTS gaming. Still, I think reviewers should make that point clear.. So check out my video in which I explain this more thorough.   
 
  

Now that's more like it!
Anyhoo, I like Starcraft, and since I'm pretty much a big Blizzard fanboy, I'm not getting into this discussion.
I just think it's fun though, that's all that matters to me.

The way I figure it. This game will be played like 10 years from now anyways.  So all I have to do is play it once about 10 years from now, and it will be like I financed it for $0.016/day.

It's a very polished game. Top notch singleplayer (Interesting between missions gameplay, variety of gameplay in missions, etc). Top notch multiplayer (Very balanced, fun units to use, etc). And you can bet your sweet cheeks that there will be top notch custom games.
 
 All of that together? Yes, 9+/10.

 If you take a step back and wait a while, Starcraft 2 will probably end up outlasting all of the games you listed, because of its (relatively) polished and balanced multiplayer.

"Something makes me think you're Dutch. "

the game is ridiculously awesome.

" I wouldn't say StarCraft II is overrated, it's just that a lot of rviews I've seen are one-sided. I think StarCraft II really deserves the scores it's been getting, but some attention to its flaws and issues would be nice--or at least address some of the perceived flaws (no LAN support, for example). "

" @RVonE: also on topic: well reviews are not perfect and people are always gonna disagree. i thought brad's review of limbo was amazing. and although the relative short length of the game could be considered a definite drawback but i think it is not the job of the reviewer to tell you what is wrong about the game (jes i know this sounds crazy). On a site like giant bomb i read reviews to find out what an editor thinks about a game, not a definitive verdict.  "

" @RVonE: took me about 7 seconds, small touches do the trick.. i'm gonna say utrecht. also, screened has a link to rotterdam-4-life.com on it's frontpage ridiculous!    also on topic: well reviews are not perfect and people are always gonna disagree. i thought brad's review of limbo was amazing. and although the relative short length of the game could be considered a definite drawback but i think it is not the job of the reviewer to tell you what is wrong about the game (jes i know this sounds crazy). On a site like giant bomb i read reviews to find out what an editor thinks about a game, not a definitive verdict.  "

The issues I hear from you:

• Lack of Zoom
  
• Small/Medium Maps
• Pathways too Small
• No cover/formations
• Lack of strategy
  

The problem is it has been twelve years and RTS design is pretty stale on the whole.  No one has tackled the hard problems of the sterile lack of interactivity in the maps, Company of heroes shows that taking RTS to the next level can be done.  Those who say starcraft doesn't need to take the next step are easily entertained by stale rehashed game designs, and people wonder why the game industry is in such a shitty state these days.  I think gaming has just been invaded by newbs, and all the old school gamers who actually play a wide variety of games is dwindling you have people now that only play WoW and think "it's the best ever!"  
 
Most people, and hence most of the gaming population are sheep, this is a fact.
 
Intelligent criticism of games and gaming cannot happen when you are a newb who's only played a few games or don't have the IQ to see a games flaws.

" The only problem I have with starcraft is that its very hard to get used to it if it is your first RTS. "

" @Typical said:

" The only problem I have with starcraft is that its very hard to get used to it if it is your first RTS. "

What specifically is hard about starcraft?  They have whole tutorial missions for newbs in SC2, so much handholding it's almost disturbing for an older gamer like myself. "

i love brads reviews.

i bet you're complaining because you got beat in a few matches of multiplayer

The single-player is definitely overrated, but combined with the MP the game deserves a 9/10 in my book. I'd say it's wrong to ding it for "old" gameplay though, it's just a different style. I like to compare it to shooters. Quake came out 14 years ago yet noone complains about the huge FPS successes using outdated gameplay, even though it's the exact same thing. And it's not like there haven't been innovations in that genre either (3rd person, cover, leaning etc). Just because one game introduces something new doesn't necessarily make the old outdated. In the end SC is more of a macro-RTS sorta like games like Settlers or the Anno series (although not as extreme), which shows this style of RTSs is still valid.

SC2 is/was overrated, but its still worth 60 bucks.  Now, is it worth the full 180 + Collectors edition pricing?  Hell no.

 The lastest innovating steps in the RTS genre has been the big scale battles (Supreme Commander) and advanced strategies like in the Total War series.
   

" SC2 is/was overrated, but its still worth 60 bucks.  Now, is it worth the full 180 + Collectors edition pricing?  Hell no. "

I thought about what you said and I agree with you.  I think that most of these reviews are subjective, because they're based off of opinions from people who played starcraft themselves in the late 90's.  That's not to say this isn't a great game, much worthy of praise, but if you have played and enjoyed Starcraft during that era (like myself and many others) you pretty much know that Blizzard hasn't dropped the ball here. 
 
However, from a person who may be slightly newer to the RTS genre or gaming as a whole, praise filled reviews, may send the wrong message. 
 
Is this an excellent game?  Absolutely.  Is this game for everyone?  Not a chance. 
 
While this game may be extremely accessible to newcomers, it may not be equally appealing. 
 
I think this is what you're trying to say?  
 
Now it's time for me to go back to playing some Starcraft II.

" @sting771 said:

" @Typical said:

" The only problem I have with starcraft is that its very hard to get used to it if it is your first RTS. "

What specifically is hard about starcraft?  They have whole tutorial missions for newbs in SC2, so much handholding it's almost disturbing for an older gamer like myself. "

Whether you are young or not, you're comments are so 14 that it's amazing. I have never seen a grown person so strongly emphasize how much of an "expert gamer" or "older gamer" that they are. "

" @Semition said:

" @sting771 said:

" @Typical said:

" The only problem I have with starcraft is that its very hard to get used to it if it is your first RTS. "

What specifically is hard about starcraft?  They have whole tutorial missions for newbs in SC2, so much handholding it's almost disturbing for an older gamer like myself. "

Whether you are young or not, you're comments are so 14 that it's amazing. I have never seen a grown person so strongly emphasize how much of an "expert gamer" or "older gamer" that they are. "

Given that the only thing you do in an RTS is tell units to move places and once in a while press a button que up the next unit, I mean come on?  It's not like anyone here is playing Descent, one of the pinnacles of gaming badassery.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_(video_game)   I'd like to see people who have a "difficult time" playing an RTS try to tackle full 3D action game classic like D.  I'd get it on camera and put the hilarious fumbling on youtube... Haha.  Gamers today have no stomach for mastery, they want everything to cater to non-existent skills. "

THIS guy got called out on the Bombcast too! INTERNET BEEFS!

Also, after watching this video, your claims are unfair. A review is always going to be a subjective thing. You're never going to get a completely objective review because it's always going to reflect the opinion of the reviewer. Because....well, that's what a review is. It's not hard. Another thing, way too much stock in numbers. A lot of talking about 9s and 10s. Who cares? Last thing, your points aren't really valid. You say small maps as if it's a shortcoming of the game and as if Blizzard was just too lazy to make bigger maps, which doesn't really fly. The maps are small because that's how the game is structured. The missions are focused and so unlike most traditional RTS missions that you can't just say "Okay, here's the biggest map. Make the biggest army and stop the enemy". That's not what the game is about. Your other stuff doesn't make much sense either. I think the models look fine but I'll admit it's not the greatest looking game but that was a clear focus of Blizzard. They didn't want to make a system hog that only the most high-end PCs could play for the one clear reason: Korea. In Korea, Starcraft is playing in internet cafes around the country that don't have power house PCs. And finally, no interactivity with environments? Go play a Relic RTS. That's not what Starcraft is.
 
gg

So should I buy starcraft II ??

People like to throw that word around a lot, "innovation". I don't really think they know what it means, they seem to be using it as a crutch. It's an unfair argument to make because you can't argue against it. I can give you a myriad of reasons why Starcraft II is complex, rewarding and fun, but all you have to do is say "it doesn't innovate". It's a lazy argument and a poor one.

"
@Rockdalf said:  "   What you just posted did not discredit his post in the least.  It would behoove you to recognize that presenting yourself as an "authority" on a subject matter, does not support your statements in the least, so when you come off looking like a tool, responding with "No, I really know a lot about games" only makes you appear more as one.  ""  Sorry but you've just proved you are a giant fanboy.  His post said absolutely nothing.  RTS games are some of the simplest games around. Everything is abstracted from the player the most a player is required to do is merely move units around and watch their resources, too much for todays ADHD generation of course.  There is an issue with RTS games new players will complain if the game is too slow paced (supreme commander) and will complain if it's too fast paced (starcraft 2).  There's no way to cater to these essentially non-gamers.  Check out all the reviews of supcom lambasting it for it being "tedious" and "slow".  Most gamers can't put a coherent sentence together when it comes to game criticism.  They can never pin down exactly why they like it or why they dislike it to discerning degree which makes their views completely irrelevant because they are essentially incapable of forming coherent thoughts about games to begin with.  So any praise they heap on a game is meaningless - they couldn't even tell you in discerning detail what is great about the game just that they like it, they will throw words around like "complex" "rewarding" "fun" and "gameplay" without being able to form a coherent thought about what defines the word "gameplay".  Gameplay is about interactivity and unit actions, you hardly ever find a coherent breakdown of what units do, what they don't do, what you wished they did, why they or the scenario you are playing is boring, etc.  You just get vague crap like you're spewing with no detail at all.  "

" People like to throw that word around a lot, "innovation". I don't really think they know what it means, they seem to be using it as a crutch. It's an unfair argument to make because you can't argue against it. I can give you a myriad of reasons why Starcraft II is complex, rewarding and fun, but all you have to do is say "it doesn't innovate". It's a lazy argument and a poor one. "

Dude, I think this game is a solid 9 because it's polished to hell and back and also bnet2.0 but this game isn't anywhere near 9.5 or 10. The SP has so many BS in it.
And yes I bitch about 0.5s. To me games that get a 10 should be well... perfect or almost perfect and SCII isn't perfect because of it's average campaign.

" @ThatFrood said:

" People like to throw that word around a lot, "innovation". I don't really think they know what it means, they seem to be using it as a crutch. It's an unfair argument to make because you can't argue against it. I can give you a myriad of reasons why Starcraft II is complex, rewarding and fun, but all you have to do is say "it doesn't innovate". It's a lazy argument and a poor one. "

Except it plays like a game that came out in 1998. Just think of other games that you played in 1998 and how their genres play today and you can see why it's such a big problem for some people. "

Stop being willfully stupid.  For someone who claims to have played all those games (which, surprise, I've played as well and more) you sure are spouting some dumb stuff.
 
What I mean is that StarCraft 2 plays exactly like the first did. Things like free camera control, being able to select all the units you want, not having to get workers collecting resources, no base building, direct control of units, hero units, special global powers not tied to a unit, realistic damage models, autonomous units, morale systems, having the sky and the underground as literal layers on a map with their own resources and possibilities to build bases, leveling up units, units scavenging items from other units, fucking water based units for god's sake. All awesome things RTS games have done since StarCraft that SC2 doesn't even think about trying. 
 
It's not about things becoming "the standard". It's about trying to make a better fucking game.

Its not as groundbreaking as Warcraft 3 but I am enjoying it so far.

" Stop being willfully stupid.  For someone who claims to have played all those games (which, surprise, I've played as well and more) you sure are spouting some dumb stuff.  What I mean is that StarCraft 2 plays exactly like the first did. Things like free camera control, being able to select all the units you want, not having to get workers collecting resources, no base building, direct control of units, hero units, special global powers not tied to a unit, realistic damage models, autonomous units, morale systems, having the sky and the underground as literal layers on a map with their own resources and possibilities to build bases, leveling up units, units scavenging items from other units, fucking water based units for god's sake. All awesome things RTS games have done since StarCraft that SC2 doesn't even think about trying.   It's not about things becoming "the standard". It's about trying to make a better fucking game. "

" @Rick:   Innovation is overrated.  Change for the sake of change is stupid."  

I think you're butthurt. I think you're butthurt that you've enjoyed strategy games for so much longer and now a strategy game has come out that is popular and you want everyone to know that they're all wrong, you know strategy games and you like the better ones.
So congratulations to you sir, you've managed to make yourself feel superior to a group of people who are actively bringing interest back into your "favorite genre".
I'm just gonna be over here, enjoying the fucking game.

" @Ares42:  I suggest games like CoH or World in Conflict for that kind of RTS experience. SC2 is a different game dude. "

Games good, but it does have flaws. It is not perfect. It is as close to perfection as any game can get, but it still has flaws that should be pointed out. 
The problem I had with the review was every single person KNEW what Brad would write before he wrote it. I like Brad and his reviews but he is a self admitted fan boy of the game. The review was pointless, there was even a "Hint: It's good" or something on the front page poking fun at the fact that EVERYONE knew the outcome of the review.
 The game review should have gone to Ryan. He would be the best unbiased person for the review because like he says in the podcast he hasn't even played the game yet.  
 
But in the end, I pre ordered the game. I am not mad about the review, everyone still loves giant bomb, and Rick is simply pointing out the truth. I'll be interested in seeing the reviews for the next installment in the SC2 series. 

I really like Crown Royal to drink.  If they came out with something new, I would want it to taste very similar not totally different.  If it did taste the same with some slight refinements I would review it as a good drink.  Point being, if SC in general is not your flavor of choice then it wont appease you no matter what they do.  For what it is and what they set out to do, I believe the reviews have been spot on really.