Why starcraft is such a huge success

It appeals to ALL gamers, both casual and competitive. Starcraft being played at an elite level is extremely different to it being played at a low level, but the ruleset is identical.
The game is accessible to newer players, but hasn’t been “dumbed-down” to attract them. The matchmaking population is segregated via a well developed and effective ranking system (bronze through to grandmaster divisions), so that newbies don’t get curbstomped by experienced players.

The reason why Reach is a failure when held to the success of the halo2/3s population, is because the Arena system is flawed at best, providing little if any incentive to play in it, and the mechanics of the game (bloom, AAs, movement traits, kill times, map quality) reduce the skillgap. More skilled players and halo veterans become frustrated with this and stop playing.
I understand why Bungie wanted to make the game more accessible to the casual crowd, but the reason it didn’t work was the TTK in Reach was too long for casual players to switch from games like CoD.

Starcraft 2 stayed true to the roots of starcraft, but added things that didn’t affect the essence of starcraft in a negative way (Improved graphics, improved performance, new units).
Reach on the other hand strayed away from what halo IS. An arena FPS emphasizing accuracy, map movement, teamwork and map control. The only thing that Reach kept about the “halo-formula” is teamwork (albeit a by-product of the reduced individual skill-gap).

If Halo4 is to be a true success it NEEDS to play like halo. Add new weapons, improve animations, improve graphics, improve forge/theater/matchmaking functionality, add a ranking system and produce quality maps.

Halo doesn’t need to evolve the same way starcraft didn’t need to evolve from 15 years ago. The magic is there, it doesn’t need to be created, only enhanced.
I hope 343 has learned from the mistakes of Reach and also from successful franchises like CoD and Starcraft.

Halo 4 forum bro

> …
>
> Halo 4 forum bro

Its not really hard to see that hes trying to compare matchmaking systems and how effective they are, and reading through the OP’s post hes right.

Starcraft is RTS.

Halo is FPS.

You’re literally trying to compare an apple and an orange.

> Starcraft is RTS.
>
> Halo is FPS.
>
> You’re literally trying to compare an apple and an orange.

Honestly I don’t understand 90 percent of the users of this forum. READ THE -Yoinking!- OP.

I agree 10000% percent OP. gimmicks shouldn’t be necessary to attract new players; the game just needs to be fun. And their should be an effective ranking system so I can’t win 50-4 or lose 4-50 because I can potentially be paired with any skill level in reach.

Thank you for the insightful post OP

Pretty much. If all of the competitive and skilled players can get (and stay) matched up together, as well as the casuals with the casuals, everyone will have fun and enjoy the game.

> Starcraft is RTS.
>
> Halo is FPS.
>
> You’re literally trying to compare an apple and an orange.

Dumb post award awarded.

I <3 you Sean.

More truth can never be spoken.

> Starcraft is RTS.
>
> Halo is FPS.
>
> You’re literally trying to compare an apple and an orange.

Please, learn how to read and comprehend.

> Pretty much. If all of the competitive and skilled players can get (and stay) matched up together, as well as the casuals with the casuals, everyone will have fun and enjoy the game.

Which is actually easier the more skillful the game is.

Anyway, I agree completely. I love how everyone says the original halo gameplay is old, and the game needs to “evolve” if it is going to survive, but like you said, Starcraft 2 kept its gameplay from 14 years ago.

> Starcraft is RTS.
>
> Halo is FPS.
>
> You’re literally trying to compare an apple and an orange.

You completely missed the point.

Love the comparison. COD, one of the most played game overall, and Starcraft, the number 1 MLG game. The similarity, is that both stayed true to it’s core. Halo was also at the very top list until Reach came out with it’s gimmicks that changed the gameplay completely. Therefore if you want to be successful, don’t change for the sake of change and what isn’t broken.

SCII is as popular as it is because you don’t require any special dexterity “bonuses” to hold a controller while running, jumping and gunning.

SCII is pure strategic gameplay executed to point and click and shift and scroll and macro and click and lather, rinse, repeat. Always repeat.

> Love the comparison. COD, one of the most played game overall, and Starcraft, the number 1 MLG game. The similarity, is that both stayed true to it’s core. Halo was also at the very top list until Reach came out with it’s gimmicks that changed the gameplay completely. Therefore if you want to be successful, don’t change for the sake of change and what isn’t broken.

If so, explain CoD: 1-3 and then CoD: MW-on.
CoD was gaming-successful before MW, but mainstream-successful pre-MW, certainly not.

> SCII is as popular as it is because you don’t require any special dexterity “bonuses” to hold a controller while running, jumping and gunning.
>
> SCII is pure strategic gameplay executed to point and click and shift and scroll and macro and click and lather, rinse, repeat. Always repeat.

If you know how to play Halo, and have a good strategy. Halo isn’t anything more than to repeat what you already know too.

Here is an example on The Pit:

1
> Run for invisibility.

> If you surive, take their sniper (If not, take our sniper).

> Go for snipe tower with the sniper.

> Snipe until you die.

> When dead, take sword or shotgun and approach the sniper tower again.

> Kill the Sniper and use the Sniper rifle.

Loop: 1

If something happens unexpectedly in this formula. Like I wouldn’t get theirs or ours Sniper, I always have something else I do. This was just to show that Halo is a lot of repeat as well. You will always open every match the same, and always stay in the same places, etc.

I totally agree OP.

The earlier Halo games used the mantra: “easy to learn, difficult to master”…I think this was kind of lost in Reach.

Anyone could get easy kills using armor abilities, and this is what annoyed the more competitive players.

Personally, I think Halo 2 had it about right. I wasn’t very good when I played it all those years ago…but at least I earnt my medals.

OP this sounds like a good way to help out all of the players from casual to competetive.

GOOD JOB ON THE POST

> > Love the comparison. COD, one of the most played game overall, and Starcraft, the number 1 MLG game. The similarity, is that both stayed true to it’s core. Halo was also at the very top list until Reach came out with it’s gimmicks that changed the gameplay completely. Therefore if you want to be successful, don’t change for the sake of change and what isn’t broken.
>
> If so, explain CoD: 1-3 and then CoD: MW-on.
> CoD was gaming-successful before MW, but mainstream-successful pre-MW, certainly not.

The games are almost equal. It’s just that they became more and more popular over time.

I’m sorry, I have to disagree.
First off, you imply that gamers can only exist in either category. There’s nothing inbetween or any other type of player or fan.
Next, I highly doubt it plays to a casual audience member in mind. You can argue what a “casual” is, but usually it means someone who doesn’t know a lot about gaming or even has an interest in the topic. That said, a “casual” will most likely not even be aware of what Starcraft is, much less even having a computer to run the game. That’s why consoles are much more succesful for them, they can just buy it, plug it in, play.

I’m annoyed you call Reach a failure. Once again falling into the old habit of declaring this and that based on personal preferences (usually share by aggressive people as well). Reach wasn’t a failure and there are many factors to take in to explain the numbers of what it is now beyond, “The game sucks!”.
You also claim that “Veterans” are ALL annoyed by the changes Reach bought, but completely ignore every single veteran that do like those changes and keep playing the game. Also bringing up skill again (it’s like a natural defence, just say something isn’t skilled and voila, you have an undefeatable argument) basing in on a limit selection of abilities rather then looking into what else can be considered under that category.
You say Bungie appeals to the casual crowd? Really, where’s the evidence for that? I never buy this argument. If anything 343i catered MORE to the “casuals” (it’s like an insult to you people) by fixing the Halo remastered version with the Kinect (which can be more directly linked to “casuals”).

Who’s to say Reach didn’t stay true to Halo roots? In fact, every single Halo game released is always made with the promise, “We’re making sure to keep to our roots for Halo”. Adding the ability (optional) to run doesn’t change that fact.
Starcraft 2 did make changes. A lot of changes. In fact, those changes came about after what the players changed Starcraft into. Micro and macro managing didn’t even exist back in those RTS days. Everybody just built larger and more units and walked them into each other. Only did Korea change the way the game played.
Many of those changes strayed away from the roots. I’m sure many people complained about the lack of a Medic unit. Now they don’t care. We’re also waiting for two new game expansions that can completely change the game.

Again, you’re declaring what’s factual truth. You’re declaring what Halo IS, you’re declaring that anybody who thinks otherwise is not a true fan. That you have a better understanding of what the series is about more then everyone else and that everybody should listen to you for their own benefits. Although, I’m sure anyone else trying the same thing that doesn’t share your view will be immediately shut down.

Halo Wars was a success, I’m sure that game doesn’t play in any way shape or form like Halo: CE. Frankly, I think all Halo games have played like Halo. Just because someone flying makes you cry doesn’t deteriorate from that (and there are functions of Halo that not everyone agrees with and can be changed).

Halo does need evolve. Nobody wants to play Halo 2 again (except for biased fanboys). Seriously, does the marketing sound appealing to you? “Remember that game you played a decade ago? We’re now bringing it back for a huge price jump for you to do the same thing you did 10 years ago all over again!”. How about presenting it at E3? “Well, at first we decided to create Halo 4, but then a lot of people on the forums who were a minority wouldn’t stop crying, so we instead decided to copy and paste Halo 2 to get them to shutup. Buy our game!”.
Starcraft evolved, many games evolve, there are many more success stories from evolved games then from games that just repeated the same thing (check out recent reviews for Ninja Gaiden 3, Resident Evil Operation while you’re at it).

Funny you should bring up CoD, because CoD is the best example of how evolution in games is good and repeating yourself is bad. CoD started the meme of, “All FPS are about WW2”. Even when Halo was running about this was the general view. People liked CoD1, loved CoD2, but by the time CoD3 had come out people were getting tired of WW2 (as well with the expansions). Then CoD4 came out with it’s “Modern Warfare” trend. Guess what? Everybody loved it. Veterans loved the change, new players loved the change. People loved the new tone, the new setting, the actual story for once, and the perks system that was introduced. When CoD5 came out, people weren’t that happy about another WW2 game. But the new tone, setting and perk system (as well as -Yoink!- Zombies) was still there and brough a breath of fresh air to a genre that was stale.
Then MW2 came out, some changes were made that people liked, but some were annoyed that it didn’t really go any further. Black Ops came out, some people did put up with a lot of stupid stuff, but they did return for Zombies and a more balanced multiplayer. Then MW3 came out. A lot of negative backlash. Many people were angry it didn’t go anywhere. People got real tired of the same old thing. Many people start calling out for change. New CoD was announced. Nobody has batted an eye.

Halo also suffered from this. Many people have complained about Halo just being the same thing over and over again, no real change or evolution. If Halo 4 comes out and they feel like they’re playing a 2007 game, they’ll just scoff at the idea of a sequel.

Just let me stop you at how Starcraft hasn’t been “dumbed” down for newer players. Yes. Yes it has. Blzzard frequently updates the game with game altering updates on a nearly monthly basis. Changes that are almost all there to make the game easier for noobs. Faster build times, a larger and faster mothership radius, lower resource requirements, faster research times…

Even worse, your first 50 matches are even more noobified.

If you’re argument is going to hinge on how SC isn’t a baby game, you’re entire argument is void.

Dude, let’s not talk about games I haven’t even heard of and start talking about HALO 4.