Starcraft, to me, is one of the most imbalanced games ever made. I always felt that way, even when I was young and I didn't know much about game design, etc...I knew something was wrong when my entire army could be raped by some things without hardly inflicting a casualty, while other things would be effortlessly crushed by it.
I also don't like it because it really was the forefront of the "rush ***" movement. To me, playing a strategy game should be about army to army battling and strategic depth, not "Build three guys and kill the enemy's construction unit in the first 4 minutes of the game."
Warcraft of course is much more balanced because using an army requires a lot more thought in that game. Also, the micro was better, because it wasn't forced. In Starcraft to micro seems like it isn't for fun, but a necessity you must learn to execute properly, like a task at a job or something. I think Warcraft made playing the game that way much more fun, and also much more flexible. I have won many battles against SC junkies who thought spamming certain units would get it done, only to find my hero and some other casters wreaking havoc on them.
Of course I am horribly biased because of Warhammer 40k, also. I always hated Starcraft but now that I see the source material it pulls from... See, warcraft comes from Warhammer fantasy, and personally I think that it is better. A cooler story, etc. But the gothic sci fi atmosphere of 40k can never be duplicated...and Starcraft definitely does not have that grim attractiveness that the perpetual galactic warfare of 40k provides.
EDIT: For those discussing the "thrills" of SC...I don't think you might follow what I'm getting at. The "thrill" expressed in SC is just winning despite an enemy attack that is ultimately doomed to futility in the first place (Early Zerg versus Early Protoss...what do you expect to happen?). People often confuse the ego rush of winning the game with fun. That's one of the main reasons I don't like it.
