Starcraft I has been out for years (about 12) and we are still figuring out things about the game. You can presume that in order to get a good understanding of the game, it will take a few years to figure a lot of things out about the Starcraft II map maker. Well, systems, such as xbox and ps3, have been out and are starting to make the most amazing games and probably will continue. If Starcraft II came out a couple years back when it was supposed to, it may have been something right now. Starcraft II will be, for the most part, the same as the beta. If anyone has actually tried beta games, you will realize that the game is not very different than the final copy.
Games like, Bioshock 2, Gran Turismo, and future games such as Rage, show how far advanced everything else is compared to Starcraft II. Yes I am comparing the xbox and ps3, but some of the games do come out on the computer too, but the competition for gaming is between every system out there.

Ok, you're going to say Starcraft II hasn't come out yet, or something like you're trollin ( because everyone likes to use that word on the internet now ... ), but first off, I just want your opinion on the subject, I love Starcraft I just believe the custom map making will be useless, which is what I've been looking forward to for a very long time.
(Oh and btw, the Melee part of Starcraft II will be the #1 strategy game)

Not sure what you're trying to say. Your incoherence is astounding.
But also, your logic is fail. Just because the old game is old, then the new one is outdated also because of the time lapse between the sequel?
Have you even played beta?

Can you explain how any of those games are more advance? (which are not even RTS games so I am not sure how you can make a comparison).
The melee part I do not really like as it has more of the wc3 feel to it instead of an sc1 feel.
I am mostly looking forward toward UMS.

You all well know that Starcraft is known for it's amazing ability to make games that are not RTS. So it is very much a comparison.
BeDazed it would be nice not to post again and your quest is practically rhetorical,

but here you go,"but first off, I just want your opinion on the subject." There's a quote from myself, I can tell how much you read of what I wrote. Not everyone will have an opinion, and that's means don't post if you don't have one. (You)

People who love starcraft will come back and play starcraft 2. If people want to play on the xbox and ps3, then let them. Starcraft will always have a large fanbase, and there'll be plenty of maps that people will enjoy.

Don't get all stuffy over one post. I don't have to oblige to that post for several reasons. You're not a moderator, nor an administrator, you have no right to keep me from posting.
You also failed to say why your logic doesn't fail. Do you really not see the fault between your logic?
Also, why are custom mapping a comparison between single games? What you said isn't a reason enough to compare something so elastic toward something so rigid. So yeah, all you've done is make a retarded comparison of something that shouldn't even be compared. Custom mapping is free. Those milked console only games aren't. And to make sure, PCs owns consoles. Console graphics haven't progressed from day 1. You can say that it's about time for a next-gen console, but corporate dickwads will probably milk the F' out of those till' they get you hyped to a few Xbox, PS, and Nintendo.

Don't forget there is one thing that console games do have that PCs never will. The ability to sit next to up to 3 of your buddies and play a game together.

On another note, People will always come back to play Starcraft. Just in case you haven't noticed, Starcraft's fan base never really shrank, and with SC2 coming out soon some people who have never heard of Starcraft might try the game since it's only $10-20.
The map base is large enough that it's virtually impossible to find nothing interesting to play.

Prove the fanbase hasn't shrunk. Give me hard data and statistics for that. Also, heard of a LAN party? My buddies and I always got together to play comp.

So mapmaking in SCI, the game with limits, is awesome, but mapping in SCII, where the only limits are those of the mapmaker's own mind... is less awesome?

The custom content in wc3 and sc2 alone make for some of the greatest gaming values of all time.

In my view the standard multiplayer and single player modes are nice, although entirely short and unnecessary bonuses on top of the custom content.

Ok, the only game that challenges Starcraft II will be Little Big Plant 2, but there is no beta so I won't make a point about it. But LBP 1 was awesome

Woops, I meant Starcraft as a whole, not just #1. Sorry

Games use different graphic engines, which you apparently don't know.
And they can milk all the money out of me they want, as long as they keep making kick-ass games, I'm going to buy them.

But when I was using the Starcraft II editor and just looking at the game and playing it, it just looked and felt cheezy for what it could've, or should've been.

Blizzard made a game engine. They made that game engine as flexible and capable as humanly possible. And they gave us full access to that editor with via GoAheadAndFuckWithOurShit.EXE, also known as GalaxyEdit. WE CAN EDIT EVERYTHING. WE CAN UNCHEEZE ANYTHING. Please enlighten me as to how that's "useless", Newb.

Or are you simply acting true to your name? Haha, that was a lame joke.

The multiplayer portion of StarCraft II is incredibly self explanatory if you bothered playing the beta. StarCraft only went up to 8 players, then StarCraft II brings 16 players for custom games. Already there is a 7 vs 7 map but too chaotic and laggy for my liking. StarCraft II happens to succeed its predecessor and be just as popular in South Korea for e-sport.

I have like 51 Xbox 360 games, 43 Xbox 1 games, 70+ PC games, and several PSP games. The problem about the Xbox 360 is that it markets mainly easy (Even at hardest) linear, very short single player games with casual multiplayer. Games like Far Cry 2 (Little Big Planet, you say? Far Cry 2 has a powerful map editor that puts forge from Halo 3 to shame. All thousands user made maps are free) and Unreal Tournament III deserve far more recognition than games like Call of Duty or Halo any day. UT3 has 40+ maps, all of which are amazingly made full of quality, only to be $10 today. Yet $15 for 5 maps in Modern Warfare 2, something doesn't seem right. Problem? UT3 is too competitive and sticks to the roots of hardcore gameplay. I also happen to be really bored of the 51 xbox 360 games.

Problem about console games, if linear, it's short. If open world, it becomes tedious with traveling and is full of glitches. If the single player was made well, it can be pretty long but may lack multiplayer. An RTS game like StarCraft II turns out to be long, has competitive multiplayer with improved Battle.net 2.0 (Aside from the negatives), and has a powerful map editor for user made content.

StarCraft II on the other hand has three separate single player campaigns in each disc (Damn you Activision), yet the quality created by Blizzard is just jaw dropping. Twelve years ago, StarCraft's single player is mostly "build an army and destroy the enemy who is already ahead of you" while StarCraft II improves and innovates in every aspect. Yet StarCraft alone has 30 missions, which can be longer than the average length of a first person shooter, which use to last 10 hours, now is 4-5 hours. Brood War extends the length of single player.

http://us.starcraft2.com/features/gameplay/hyperion.xml

Look at that, that's all single player. Unnecessary but nice touched details to be more realistic such as news reporting from the TV, music from the Jukebox, or mini games you can play in the Hyperion. Most of which are not possible in a standard melee game due to balancing. Out of most games, the effort put into SC2 is extraordinary compared to your standard game on consoles.

Yes you can uncheeze anything the game gives you. ( lol, uncheeze ), but do you know how to uncheeze everything? You can't master something instantly.

But there is something that I noticed ( and I guess mainly applies to me) . Hard to explain, but it's like the really old games for the Super Nintendo. I love all of them, but if someone makes a new one, it's just not as good. If that makes sense...

And is B.Net 2.0 going to change? Because as it is, it's completely lame. Like, B.Net 1 is ranked 10, B.Net 2 is ranked 1. I haven't gotten back on since it went down, so I don't know. ( 10 being the best score )

Also, uncheeze is my new favorite word. Cheeze isn't good, but add the -un, and it is.

Dude, the game isn't even out yet. Give it some time before you start worrying about the future of battle.net 2.

I think your referring to the sensation known as Nostalgia.

Not to be a dick or anything. But I simply read the first post and I don't think you completely understand why StarCraft 1 is so good in the first place. The fact is that it is extremely basic and easy for people to pick up and play, but at the same time capable of being one of the most challenging games out there. Modding for it, with maps, is so easy or hard, whatever you make it out to be, and because of this it fuels all different levels of players. StarCraft 2 on the other hand is way better than other RTS game out there. You can't compare an RTS to an FPS or MMORPG because obviously they aren't going to be anything alike. But if you are trying to reference that StarCraft 2 isn't using the most up to date engines and what not then you are VERY lost and in the dark. I would suggest reading up on something before you post. StarCraft 2 is not late, you are.