There always seem to be questions about WBC2, which I haven't played (just lots of WBC3). So my question is the subject: with WBC3 presumably upgraded (mechanics? UI? graphics?), why do people continue to choose to play WBC2?

I guess the corollary is: should I?

Thanks! I"m still curious why people DO play WBC2 though, since many clearly do.

In my opinion the campaign is way better in WBII.

WBC3 doesn't feel to me like a sequel but a mod. Voice acting quality is way worse than in its predecessors, a good chunk of new units look goofy, and the music is a tremendous downgrade (I know this one is subjective and not that important but it does take away from the experience). WBC2 also felt way more cohesive, every race is limited to a handful of classes, which may feel restrictive, but to me it gives them more identity. A demon pyromancer/summoner/death knight makes much more sense than seeing something like a high elf defiler or a fey necromancer.

tl;dr WBC3 has more content but at the same time there's a dip in quality, cohesion and class/race identity.

This is exactly what I was looking for ... thank you Bartek13g (and Valorfist too). I think I will give it a try then. I've played a lot of WBC3 though, so hopefully I won't miss any particular changes too much.