hedwards: The compelling reason is that it's the sequel to SC. And Blizzard took the previous decade of adjustments and balances from SC when they designed the new version.
(...)
EDIT: You of all people ought to know better than appealing to popularity.
It obviously is a sequel. With that in mind - the unstable equilibrium you get in terms of balance, means that they couldn't simply have slapped new units on to of the old ones, since every decision they make ripples through the entire game with side-effects.
If appeal to popularity does not convince you, how about appeal to authority - progamers have embraced it, KeSPA approves of it, the strategic depth it offers requires an inquisitive mind to properly analyze it...
But Korean acceptance is one thing, foreign interest is another. You can claim that Blizzard intended SC2 to be an esport, popular worldwide... but things of this sort don't JUST HAPPEN if they're wishful thinking. The game is aesthetically and intellectually pleasing, it is popular, it is quite unlike other games out there (as this thread, in its inception, was meant to point out).
hedwards: The fact that they had an established player base and gave them the same thing again, does not make it a compelling product. It makes it a product where the developer was lazy and lacking in ambition.
You can accuse Blizzard of many things, but "lack of ambition" is not one of them.
I don't think making a worthy successor to StarCraft is a simplistic goal.
hedwards: And no, it's not facts you're using so much as rationalizations.
I've been following the game's development since there was anything to follow. It's not like me liking it was some foregone conclusion - I've been skeptical in the beginning but, as time went on, I've grown to love it. It's not even that was such a huge Blizzard fan, so I had to like StarCraft - I BECAME a fan because of it.
The fact that there is an entire little "world" out there, full of people discussing strategies, commentating matches, watching tournaments... The degree to which this game has impacted societies (through the phenomenon of "e-sports") is unprecedented. Perhaps you think I fancy claiming more than is already apparent - I don't. I know the game has its flaws, among them the single-player story. I can live with that.
If you are trying to claim that it is not a "good game" but merely mass delusion, I would have to ask what criteria you are taking into account to reach such a conclusion. If something is wildly popular and there's no apparent reason for it being merely a shallow crowd-pleaser, I'd be inclined to assume that it is "good" and people instinctively recognize that.
It's only good because it's a good sequel ? That's all I even wanted it to be. That's fine with me.
hedwards: The game would have been significant had it been released 5 or 6 years earlier. But as it stands, it's pretty much just a case of Blizzard trying to continue milking the cow.
That's like claiming that given people only love each other because they've been together for years - if the passion is still there, if the interest is evidently present - it's the other way around (they've been together for years because they love each other). The undwindling popularity of Brood War has set the bar high for its sequel. The fact that StarCraft 2 was able to take over, only proves how awesome the game is.
To be able to milk a cow, you're going to need: a cow, the ability to milk it and the cow having milk. If you're merely imagining that you could one day buy a cow and laughing at how trivial milking it is, ridiculing those who milk their own cows in the process, you're not really being reasonable. I like milk, I like cheese, I like plenty of dairy products. I idea that milking is easy (regardless of whether it truly is) does not really make me appreciate its effects any less.
