Anyone have thoughts on why this is the case? Here are a few of mine, but looking for other input!
Excessive addition, nerfing and buffing of units to try to engineer epic games is what killed SC2. Rather than letting players come up with creative strategies, Blizzard seems to have tried to prescribe strategies each time they add or change units. In other words, trying to make SC2 perfect made it substandard. Leaving Broodwar messy in many ways allowed players to apply their own problem solving skills to it.
Some compositions have extremely hard counters, other compositions have NO hard counters, game somewhat broken and imbalanced, but players solve that through innovation (e.g. Zerg cannot win head on fights at all and must rely on tactics, an innovation resulting from players working through the dynamics of the game).
Fast expanding was an option, one that took guts, was risky, but offered upside. It could be countered in many scenarios, and you could just lose. Or you could try to expand and reap huge economic rewards later on, but the game would be far from decided.
Starcraft 2: Blizzard trying to engineer "epic, macro games". Considers vulnerability to rushes a flaw, and gives units anti-rush measures (e.g. Mothership Core). Considers differences between races a flaw, and makes all races comparable (e.g. Queens to cancel out the larva dynamic for Zerg, gives Zerg cheap armored units for head-on fighting (roach), gives Zerg siege units (swarm hosts), gives Terran armored cheap units (Marauders), etc. Blizzard also decides that rushing is not only a flaw, but should be prevented entirely and considered "cheese" all in efforts to make longer professional games. Ups starting worker count to 12.
If they keep on this route in SC2: all games will start out with both players having 4 bases, all their tech and maxed out armies so we can enjoy the so-called "good, macro games", cutting out all that supposed "cheese" that came in the form of rushing, strategy, risk taking, etc.
SC2: expanding is a necessity and comes with no risk as Blizzard has carefully prescribed how to easily stop any rushes. Therefore, in SC2, rushing is referred to as "cheese", and frowned upon.
SC1: raw, less engineered, more organic. Strategies flow from players.
SC2: engineered. Strategies flow from excessive and common "nerfing/patching" of units, as well as addition of new units. Blizzard trying to engineer the most spectator-friendly scenarios rather than letting the game evolve organically.
Anyone else have similar or opposing ideas? Curious if others have thought about this any...