Anyone else check out the Amazon product reviews for SC2?

[Noctis]

I think people have mainly forgotten that RTS games tell main stories in a different way. This isn't a shooter or an action/adventure game. Even so, SC2 makes a massive leap in telling stories for an RTS, it has frikkin cut-scenes amazing ones too. Considering the genre, sc2 delivers and exceeds. If you read the decent/nerdy reviews everything is the same - best RTS in the industry, blizzard has once again changed the game.

As Xec said - multiplayer is also a BIG part of SC2. You think WoW owns the MMORPG industry because of story alone? No it's gameplay, features, etc. (which CONSTANTLY evolve). Sc2 has awesome ladder, and the custom maps are also high quality, fun, and changing. When DotA comes out for SC2 you'll have a whole new set of fans screaming 5/5 or best game evar!

[DemolitionSquid]

3 is too low. I'd give it a 4/5, roughly equal to the 8.5/10 I gave it earlier.

[Gifted]

You have to remember that there is a petetion and groups out there for the "LAN" group that told the world they would rate it 1 star in an attempt to send a message to Blizzard.

For that reason, unfortunately, it will backfire. Because suddenly when looking at the game rating with that knowledge, you can expect at least half, if not majority, of those people are people trying to "make a point" instead of actually judging the stars as needed. Try this in your observations, take this information and just cut the rank 1s by half. If you do that, you'll suddenly find a more realistic rating.. and even then, you can EASILY guess that 50% of those could be too little.

Personally I'd give it 4/5 right now. As time goes on and things are implemented in their content system you will see my review inch to 5. Overall, VERY enjoyable purchase/experience.

[Norfindel]

I'm not surprised. We all knew that there was going to be discontent with some of Blizzard's decisions, and discontent generates low reviews.
The higher the expectations, the lower the score it will get if they're not fulfilled, even if the game is very good (i didn't still played the SP campaign substantially to say anything about that).

[dustinbrowder]

probably trolls. You should get SC2, no question about it.
Some of the pro reviews have been great, no all of the pro reviews have been great and I don't think blizzard paid everyone of them (guardian, etc..).

[ArcherofAiur]

Try this in your observations, take this information and just cut the rank 1s by half. If you do that, you'll suddenly find a more realistic rating.. and even then, you can EASILY guess that 50% of those could be too little.

And to account for fanboyism overinflation we can cut the rank 5s by half....

[nobdoor]

3/5 from me.

The game's a spam fest. Too much macro, too little micro. It's a flaw in game design that we need to build more than one rax. Drives me nuts that I need control groups for my production farms. Big step backwards for RTS.

If THQ did justice for DoW2, SC2 wouldn't hold a candle to it in this genre. But alas, I only have hope for a good RTS being developed by an indie company. These fat cats (Activision/THQ) don't know what they're doing.

[Norfindel]

The game's a spam fest. Too much macro, too little micro. It's a flaw in game design that we need to build more than one rax. Drives me nuts that I need control groups for my production farms. Big step backwards for RTS.

I agree that macro is the single most important aspect of the game, but building more than 1 Barracks means that you need to decide when to get them and how many, or if you better invest that in units at that moment, or you better reinforce another branch of the tech tree.

What i think is totally unneeded, are the macro mechanics. They're just artificial UI limitations, really. But this was discussed a looong time ago in a looong thread.

[Xyvik]

3/5 from me.

The game's a spam fest. Too much macro, too little micro. It's a flaw in game design that we need to build more than one rax. Drives me nuts that I need control groups for my production farms. Big step backwards for RTS.

If THQ did justice for DoW2, SC2 wouldn't hold a candle to it in this genre. But alas, I only have hope for a good RTS being developed by an indie company. These fat cats (Activision/THQ) don't know what they're doing.

Only those who are uninformed think that micro is moving the RTS genre forward. Micro is TACTICS and is therefore moving the genre of real-time STRATEGY backwards.

The only games that moved the genre forward recently were the original Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire. After that everybody decided that tactics are what's important to strategy, completely ignoring the fact that tactics are but a very, -very- small part of strategy. Logistics is three times as important to strategy as micro is.

Back on topic, I'm only playing it with a guest pass so I've been taking it slow. I have to say the campaign is both impressive and not. The random voices in the mission ("we're with you raynor!") are annoying and poorly voice-acted, but overall the missions have so far felt good.

DoW2 and SC2 are really the only campaigns I play in RTS games, and I have to say SC2 is better in this regard since it has way more macro than DoW2 does.

In multiplayer...haven't really done it yet outside of beta. Still too much emphasis on getting build orders down perfectly, but enjoyable for all that.

[SinsWage]

Internet reviews are a huge failure. Look anywhere they exist and it's the same thing. Far and away 5 or 1 star reviews from either deluded fans or unrealistic trolls. A few people give a relatively unbiased opinion but these people are in the vast minority.