Fenixp: No. It's good gameplay for multiplayer since it balances easily and leaves just a little to luck, however as for a single-player experience it's heavily out-dated. I have played Starcraft recently and 'the little guys down there' weren't fighting. They were standing in lines until one of them fell over. It might have felt realistic and stuff back when SC was released, however I have no reason to NOT condemn it today, when Relic shows how to make atmospheric RTSes.
That doesn't really mean I do not understand the decision. It's better balanced that way, important stuff for atmosphere like sync-kills take control of units from you for a while... But, from replays I've been watching, I've noticed they haven't even bothered adding things like units taunting each other, or just them screaming in battle. Or at least changing what they say according to their health. Little things? Yeah. But important for me. There's no cover system, no at least semi-tactic movement of AI-units... Nothing.
As I said, I understand the decision of making the game 'hardcore' with as little shinies distracting from clickfest as possible. But I just don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer and I am sure SP experience would be so much better if Relic did the gameplay. Because I've played SC1 for story. I've basically suffered trough the most missions.

cpugeek13: And WC3 is a much better game than SC. Most of SC's appeal lies in its nostalgic value. The RTS medium has made so many positive advances since then (like WC3), but SC2 ignores most of them. A lot has happened in 12 years. ..

PoSSeSSeDCoW: ...

Fenixp: Well actually, Company of Heroes with the very same cover system is using artillery quite often, and I don't see how air units would be undoable: the best units to ignore cover ever, however unable to properly track targets in buildings.
Sync kills, taunting and acknowledgements being routine? Well PRECISELY. It blends well with the whole genre that you probably won't even really notice it except for a few extreme cases. But when units are sync-killing each other here and there in the fierce battle, it instantly looks more varied and interesting than when they all do the same movements at almost the same times. As well as when they're shouting with pain or at each other.
I'm not arguing with you, as for the cover system, there's plenty of OTHER reason why not include it in SCII. But the fact that it's profitable and will appeal to hardcore players doesn't mean I agree with it. But the dynamic unit acknowledgements really do a lot for the feel and the atmosphere, and really aren't THAT hard to do.
Still, it all comes down to what we expect of the game, of course. And I will be buying the game as well. I just don't like approach Blizzard chose.

Gundato: No, it is just about capturing the essence of the plot.
Dawn of War's trailers are all INSANELY awesome, but they tend not to show the clicking and the like.
Most FPSs only show the cutscenes (sometimes pre-rendered) and set pieces.
Gasp, shock, and amazement. Advertising isn't 100% truthful. Next thing, you guys are going to start complaining that women don't actually rape you in the street if you use Axe Deoderant.

El_Caz: If I'm in latin america and I played the beta on a 1 meg DSL connection and didn't have any lag issues while playing with american and canadian friends, now that the gates will be opened and the servers flooded, would I have lag issues if I buy the american version? I'm getting a warning that if I buy the american download version I could face lag issues.

KavazovAngel: Who the hell wants cover system in SC2. Its a fast paced RTS game, where average matches tend to last a dozen minutes at best, not a long, long tactical RTS game like COH and others like it.

stonebro: Please stop spouting your bullshit.

Fenixp: Please stop attacking Gundato whenever he posts. Fell free to not respond to him at all, or - his posts if you hate him so much, but keep the discussion on a certain level of politeness.
Plainly said: Gundato tends to piss me off, but you're doing it double so with this little 'resistance' of yours.

Gundato: And to provide further support for the fear that the Starcraft formula might actually be a bit too dated, ActiBlizzard has said that there will be no reviews prior to launch.
There are reasons for this (Battle.net is a big part of this, and a major update is going up with the game) and reasons against this (the SP doesn't need that).
And a more cynical person might argue that Blizzard realize that most sales are pre-orders and 0-day purchases and don't want to risk losing those. Have to beat Modern Warfare 2 somehow :p