SC2 is probably the purest 1v1 esport. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's been heavily optimized for this use case, which is why they urge you to play it the way it was designed.
You don't have to play it, it sounds like you don't like highly competitive 1v1 tournament friendly games. That's fine, go play something else, no need to bash blizzard.
That company actually has many other games you could check out...
I'm angry because SC2 basically sucked the oxygen out of the RTS genre for those of us who like "S" more than "RT" because now everything must be "Esport-friendly" (read: tailored to ADHD millenials).
"ADHD millenials" generalize much? I am a millenial who loves the 1v1, competitive aspect of SC2, but I also love games like Civ, Crusader Kings, Heart of Iron etc. There are other RTS games out there for you, but I don't understand why SC2 being competitive is a negative thing. Yeah, competitive sc2 games are fast, but a lot of games with a dedicated, competitive playerbases are going to play fast because mechanical, execution advantages are a valid way to win. But watch a pro sc2 game and you'll notice that there is a ton of thought and strategy that go into every game. Sometimes it's a mindgame against the opponent because they have a known playstyle, sometimes it's a clever reaction to the way an opponent is playing in that particular game. You can play aggressively and try to pressure your opponent to make mistakes, or you can play defensively and try to strike when you've spied an opening. Claiming it lacks strategy because of the speed at which games play out is selling it way short.
At low level, just doing macro/economy right wins the game.
Executing a strategy requires so much micro-management and multitasking that's actually unavailable to 90% of the player base. Between low and high level, a mix of "better macro" and better tactics (don't fight in chokes when your race needs space etc.) wins games, not strategy.
OTOH, it's a bit like saying that at intermediate levels, you win a chess game by not being the first to blunder (or seeing your opponent's mistake).
I believe that an RTS game like Zero-K (a TA-like) for instance is more strategic. Your initial factory choice, which determines which kind of units you'll use is a first strategic choice; static defenses are much more important than in SC2 (where they are more or less considered a waste of resources, except for anti-air maybe). TA is based on territory dominance, so holding a point in the middle of the map is important. In SC2, the middle of the map is where the "deathball" vs "deathball" final match typically happens.
SC2 always felt like a way to funnel players into the tournaments rather than an actual game.
It was "You will play this like 1v1 and you WILL like it." After my third timed rush mission, that was it. No more.
Blizzard can grab cash without me.