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.