I watched the Battle Report posted here on GS of Starcraft 2. I have to say I was rather disappointed, and I've been eagerly looking forward to this game. SC1 is now some 10 years old and while it was a classic then, there has been a lot of advancement in RTS technology and game hardware. New techniques have been introduced like "leader units" and getting away from base building, especially for things like supply depos that hamper your population expansion without them. Watching the video just seem to be like watching a video of the original Starcraft except with better graphics and new units. It was almost like a Starcraft version 1.5. Something that a modder or fan would make that would be true to the original (same camera, same UI, etc.) but make no innovations as to piss off the fans.

It seems to me that Blizzard is intent on making this game for the hardcore competitive gaming scene rather than a good game for the masses. I know that SC1 is still played in Korean leagues competitively and the games watched on TV there. SC2 seems to have been made exactly for that purpose, to be played by hardcore fanboys and not to offer long time fans any evolution in game play.

Even WC3 made more evolution when it was released over WC2. WC3 introduced leader units and a RPG side to things where you could collect items, equip them, level units, etc. While I argue that it wasn't a perfect implementation, it was better than just releasing WC2 again with new graphics and some new units.

While I will still probably buy SC2 when it comes out, and enjoy it, I still feel disappointed in paying $50 to play a game I already have. I hope that game review sites like Gamespot don't get star-lust when they review the game since it is by Blizzard (who it seems could release a bag of crap and still not score less than a 9). I want a thorough, honest review that scores this game on not just what is in it, but what was left out.