How does StarCraft 2 differ from other RTS games? [closed]

I would say that Starcraft 2 does not have more strategic or tactical depth. Just the opposite, I think one of the great selling points is its simplicity.

Harkening back to the original Starcraft the actual game design is very simple:

• You gather a resource
• You build buildings
• You build units from said buildings

By comparison a game like Sacrifice, requires you to manage dynamic resources on the fly while engaging in a mercantialistic struggle for a sometimes intangible concept of souls.

Starcraft is, if anything, very normal for a RTS game. There are few bells and whistles. What it has done that few others have is take this simplicity and hone it. The fact that its relatively simple has allowed its creators to exercise great balance between its units compositions.

As for unit aspects of the game, Starcraft 2 places a lot of emphasis on the concept of being seen and the effect of terrain.

Units can often be seen or not seen depending on their approximate location to one another as well as special abilities they posses or units around them posses. Sight, therefore, becomes a new kind of tactical advantage.

The major departure in terrain that Starcraft 2 has is that non-flying units are able to overcome otherwise impassible obstacles based on their abilities (such as teleportation or "jumping"). Additionally, some units can create new impassible obstacles, while still others can remove them. Finally, terrain can sometimes be changed in nature allowing increased speed or instantaneous travel.

While these two aspects are not unique, they are given more emphasis than a lot of other RTS games such as Age of Empires or Total War (which lacks both).

As for personal enjoyment, I can't speak to what you might enjoy. Perhaps if you told me what you didn't enjoy about C&C?

Starcraft II, like most great games, is a game that you can learn in an hour, yet takes a lifetime to master. Not saying that's a recommended thing to do. It has a great amount of strategic and tactical depth and a compelling single player story line. It must be worth something if it's the only video game that's a national sport! (S. Korea)

Perhaps the selling point for me was that Battle.net is undisputedly the best online service for gaming there is in regards to speed, uptime, and matchmaking. The games are quick and decisive, usually, meaning if you have only 20 minutes to play there's a good chance you'll be able to finish a game in that time, since Battle.net can match you with an opponent of similar skill in seconds.

Plus everyone likes space marines fighting mystic aliens and evil infectious swarms.

Edit: Starcraft differs from other RTS's in that it is probably the most balanced game out there. The only RTS I can see coming close to the quality of Starcraft 2 is Company of Heroes. It's also different from Starcraft 1 as it has new units and a much more streamlined interface. Basically, it fixed everything that was wrong with the first game.