SC2 Beta, done for the time being. Not sure how many people plan on playing it, but here's my overall review of the beta.
Balancing
1v1- Terran had a pretty ridiculous edge with their mech build, especially against Zerg. Tanks annihilated any and all zerg ground and 2-3 Thors could take on about 6000 mutalisks. The only way for Zerg to win was to A. be a far better player, or B. have far better macro. As it was, even Idra (best Zerg player alive, proly best player alive) had trouble beating the top Terrans. In a patch that came out in the final week, Tanks saw their damage reduced from 60 to 50, which is pretty significant. This meant it took one extra blast to kill a Roach (zerg unit), which gave zerg some prayer on the ground. Didn't get to see any high level tourneys after the patch so not sure if it was enough of a nerf. Everything else seemed okay, although 1v1 bores me a bit. Games are all too similar. If you go random you have 9 possible matchups, you also just try to counter the enemy. In 2v2+ there are far more matchups and you can't straight counter an enemy since his teammate usually has him covered. Just my preference though.
2v2- There are a couple of rushes that are effectively unstoppable on most of the current maps. (I went 20-0 as Zerg using one of these and it was the first 20 times I played Zerg.) Not sure how to stop these tactics without killing 1v1 games though other than making maps slightly larger. Still, games that don't have the 8pool/reaper proxy or the 8pool/gateway proxy tend to be pretty balanced with the better team winning.
3v3- Added a few weeks ago, definitely my favorite game type. They only had one 3v3 map, but it felt FAR more balanced and fun than ANY of the 2v2 maps. Also, in 2v2 if you lose an ally to a bullshit rush, you're fucked unless your opponents blow. Sure, they are behind on eco, but it's still 2v1. In 3s this is not the case. If all 3 bullshit rush an ally you're still playing 2v3 instead of 1v2. This is obviously a far better ratio and I played plenty of games where we lost someone early only to come back and win pretty easily. There are also insane amounts of matchups possible, keeping the game from getting dull. As of now I've seen no "super strat" that can just outright win games. (A popular commentator made a video of a tri 7 pool rush being unbeatable. Yeah, we got lucky enough to pull his team in a 3v3 and massacre his unbeatable strat.)
4v4- These games are just crazy. Only one map as well, which would have been a good map if ONE BASE DIDN'T HAVE THE MAIN BUILDING A FULL SPACE TO THE LEFT. HUGE oversight that hurt the hell out of 1 player each game. Didn't make a difference 9/10 games due to skill differences, but in close games it definitely mattered. Fours seems pretty balanced too, with no uber team/strat or anything like that. The early game rushes are popular, but as with 3v3, if you lose an ally to an all-in rush, it is easy to counter with good players on your squad.
Matchmaking
Always important in games like this is the matchmaking. Blizzard created 5 divisions. Diamonds/Platinum/Gold/Silver/Bronze. You play in 5 placement matches that decide your division. I have two beefs with this. 1. You can go 5-0 in placement and get either Diamond, Platinum, or Gold based on who you played against. This is dumb. Gold league is an absolute joke to high level players and you shouldn't be stuck there after going 5-0 because of drawing garbage opponents in placement. It's also not fair to gold players who have to play the top teams 15-20 times before they can upgrade. Hopefully this is fixed before release. 2. Divisions have 100 players in them right now. Meaning... being rank 1 in Diamond is a joke. Let's say 1/5 people are in Diamond, with 100 per division. If 1 million people are playing online when the game comes out then 2000 people will be ranked 1 in 1v1. TWO THOUSAND. You can be "rank 1" and not be a top player at all. I'm fine with the division but hopefully the 100 per was just a beta thing. I'd like to see 1000-2000 in a division come release. That way being a top 10 diamond player actually means something. (I've heard rumors of a "pro" league above diamond that will be hard to get into. That'd be cool.)
I'm betting Blizzard will get some feedback on this and correct things for release. Mainly the whole 5-0 in gold thing.
Interface
This isn't completed, but it's pretty awesome with a couple of flaws. The overall layout is really cool and easy to use. The one downside is no chat rooms... you also need a friend's E-mail address or facebook account to become real ID friends! (The facebook thing is cool, but wish it wasn't the only good option.) Other than the friends/chat issues it's awesome though. Tabs for games, replays, achievements, etc. Achievements are silly just like in all games, but kind of fun. I've also heard rumors that there are going to be "challenge" achievements. Like extra scenarios to do. Hopefully they are tough.
Overall
Some obvious issues to deal with, but that's what the next 1.5 months are for. They're all interface/battle.net issues as well, so they're easily fixable.
And shameless plug, if anyone is curious to see some games. Look up PsyStarcraft on youtube. He's my brother and I think the 4th most viewed commentator. He's probably a top 20-25 1v1 player from Beta and had a good record vs a lot of the top pros. (Except Idra.)