7.5

Battle.net 2.0 was a disaster (I haven't bothered logging in since last september). No LAN. 1/3rd of the actual game in single-player. Astoundingly disappointed in it overall.

Granted compared to the ones at the top this should be a 10. So if you are gonna rank it against those give it a 9.5, but really it's worth a 7.5 (should be telling what the other ones are worth).

Battle.net has improved a lot since then (it still has several flaws tho but they are minor) but the most important aspect of battle.net the matchmaking is unmatched in any game, No KLAN is a serius fking mistake, The singleplayer actually has more content than SC1 BTW and is much more varied this complaint is petty.

10/10

Everything about the game is top notch, starting from the presentation to the post game patches. The single campaign was easily the best I'd played in any RTS game - it never felt old or repetitive, which is fairly unique to the genre.

The multiplayer was a blast. I can understand some being upset with the changes with B.net 2.0, but for me it was a non-issue and I actually preffered it. Best of all, the matchmaking is great.

Yeah the single-player has more content. It is also worthless content. They could have completely removed the entire colonials and specter mission chains and not have had any reprecussions. Remove the Protoss one, and they could have had a perfectly fine single-player sappning all 3 races. They didn't.

Also $60, now game is worth $60.

SC1 had it's share of copy and past pointless content...

I got my copy at a hefty discount so the price doesn't really bother me that much 

Plus this way they can make the Protoss campaign the most epic thing ever... In 2016...

Yes SC1 did. However SC1 is 12 years old amd was awesoome for the games for its time. Compare newer RTS to SC2. Compare Frozen Throne to SC2. It managed to get all races in there, one way or another.

What new RTS's? Every other recent RTS game are more real time tactics or in Dawn of War 2's case a RTT multiplayer with a bad real time SRPG campaign. SC2 is the only competent traditional RTS in years and I would say it's the best RTS since TFT which had it's own flaws. 

As I said, compare it to Blizzar'ds own TFT and WC3. THe single-player capiagn managed to tell the story without adding filler shit like the colonials and specters.

WC3 had it's own filler and while I agree that WC3 and TFT told better stories and had the best custom map system the game were not without their flaws things like matchmaking were a joke balance was off for years no widescreen etc. As a complete package SC2 at launch was better than WC3 was at launch and like all Blizzard games continues to be polished up with years woth of patching. 

I suspect you were probably one of the people that blasted WC3 for it's flaws and new direction at the time as well, you just seem to hate new stuff. 

Funny because I was one of the first people to push for WC3 and the hero system. I jsut hate new things that have shit in them. NO lan, shit single-player, shit Bnet (WC3 had a better Bnet) and $60. That's what it is at the end of the day.