Quote (BardOfXiix @ Oct 5 2013 06:19pm)
Part of it can be narrowed down to mechanics. SCBW was a much more micro-intensive game. It featured more multi-area fights because huge groups of units were hard to control (there would often be 2-3 battles going on at different expansions, or multiple drops and such). The unit cap aided in this, as well as in further unit control requirements.
Also, the spellcasters were more diverse and more widely used. Swarm was really good. The arbiter had cool mechanics that could be used in multiple ways. Basically, the spellcasters in SC2 deal damage, and people cry if they do other things (fungal, I'm looking at you). The unique abilities of these spells (and their crowd control effects) allowed for more "epic" moments in games.
Finally, the map design was vastly different. In SC2, every map has a few easily defensible choke points and in HotS changes were made to make it even easier to hold these (win-d'oh mines, ezpz cannon). In SCBW? Rushes much more viable (but still fairly rare, the game was a macro game as well). Maps with multiple areas of attack made it possible for such strats to work well.
There are a few more points that can be made surrounding some of the unit design ideas as well (thors suck, colossi are fucking good, ultras are situationally useful/broods are a win or lose decision), but I'll leave that for a later rant.
I think the biggest thing that we have to remember is historical perspective. Starcraft and SCBW were groundbreakingly good games when they came out. Like, mind-blowing awesome. The unique gameplay opportunities and cool graphics (they were cool) drew a large following initially. Also, DotA didn't exist at the point of SC release. MOBAS weren't a thing. There were significantly fewer good alternative games, and even fewer competitive games at the time (but now e-sports is massive). This meant that if you wanted to be serious about video games, you played SCBW or an FPS.
Since SCBW, the gaming industry has really exploded. More developers, more alternative choices, more epic games with epic graphics and epic mechanics. Games are reaching a larger audience, and an audience that doesn't have the patience or the dedication to get good at a game, so they play "social" games--games where it's common to work WITH friends to succeed, as opposed to playing alone (SC2 is a 1v1 game and you all know it).
So it comes down to a lot of issues. Lame mechanics and unit design, more alternative choices, and a new "casual" gaming population have basically ousted Starcraft. I hope that a small dedicated core of gamers continue to play because it's a fantastic game, and I really hope that one day the world comes back to Starcraft and recognizes how cool RTS games really are.
My biggest (personal) problem with SC2, tbh, is that Blizzard seems to be funneling players towards a single playstyle, as opposed to SCBW where players came up with these cool strategies based on cool mechanics. SC2 took away a lot of the opportunities by dumbing down the spells.
That was a really good read. Makes a lot of sense, and matches up with the points perfection was making.
At this stage in SC2, what can really be done to change or fix things? If Blizzard were to 'dumb down' the game and make SC2 only be able to Select 16 units at a time, or modified things to be more like SC1. I don't think people would accept it very well.
I do agree however that it always seems to just be about a big huge army clash that decides the game it seems.