Isn't the idea of a review for a reviewer to give their impression of the game, and if it has a score, to give it a score?  Is a reviewer supposed to use some osmosis method of guessing what other people think of a game?

I believe Starcraft 2 is supposed to have a Terran only single-player campaign.  it will be epic, but just feature that side single player.  They are planning it as a trilogy, with each game in the trilogy to feature a single side.  I believe all sides are to be playable in each version.

http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy

Blizzard just announced that StarCraft II's single player campaign would be split into three separate products. The scope of the single-player experience was so huge they decided to deliver three different products. The first product will focus on the Terrans, with the Zerg next and finally the Protoss. The story will stretch across three titles.

Wings of Liberty - Terrans
Heart of the Swarm - Zerg
Legacy of the Void - Protoss

Not sure what the big deal about having a single player campaign for ALL sides is, unless you view the single-player campaign as a tutorial.

Have you played it or just trolling? Thanks.

That could be pretty bad for Starcraft 2 then seeing as how each game is only going to let you have one race's campaign, same as this game does.

UNLEASH THE NERD RAGGGGGGGGGE!

It does sound low but then, if one takes a look at the ign review, they use the words, ----Because of this, Halo Wars serves almost as a "my-first-RTS"-- and from my demo impressions, the game while fun, was fairly simple and limited in what you could do..(and i dont get how can they not have the option to create multiple groups to actually you know...use some strategy in how you fight)

The difference is that IGN noticed it was kind of a "my-first-RTS" and ran the review asking themselves if it was a well made "my-first-RTS" which they decided it was. Gamespot saw it differently and decided there's no place in this world for a "my-first-RTS" and the score must suffer for being one. Newsflash, a game's target audience should not be a deciding factor on what score it gets. The game should be reviewed from the perspective of it's target audience, in this case the RTS noob, and ask themselves what that audience would get out of this game.

Didn't seem that good imo. Haven't played it though. It was obvious starcraft 2 would make it look like crap. Why wouldn't the creators (bungie or whoever) put in mouse and keyboard support for it? It's just plain stupid imo.

Because it was made for a console, and 360s don't use keyboard and mouse.

I'll admit, the Sony fanboys are a lot worse in that respect than the 360 fanboys (although to clarify, "It's worse than Haze!" is not a valid reason for disliking a game, nor is 4 frames of control lag)

And did you see that thread? People were claiming that Maxim were more reliable than OPM, because of course OPM give perfect scores to every PS3 exclusive, like Uncharted (4/5), Haze (2.5/5) and Lair (2.5/5). I'll link you to it:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57419

The majority of people were saying something along the lines of "Why the hell are we listening to ten words and a number from a porn magazine", but you'll find people saying that it's beginning to get low scores from non-PS magazines. Hell, just the fact that people think it's a valid review is somewhat disturbing. Do you consider a Playfire comment a valid review? Of course, everybody ignored the fact that Street Fighter 4 got a 3/5, and instead focused on how "the 50 Cent game is better than Killzone 2".

Sigh.

And GameSpot's review, ignorant as it is, is a review, not a score and a metaphor involving dancing girls.