Spyro: Year of the Dragon


Favourite Upgrade Path: Flare Wolf
View Results
darkSpyro - Spyro and Skylanders Forum > Spyro: Year of the Dragon > Is Year of the Dragon the most over-rated game from the PS1 Spyro games.
Page 1 of 1
Is Year of the Dragon the most over-rated game from the PS1 Spyro games.
TheJMAN184 Gold Sparx Gems: 2179
#1 Posted: 22:55:25 20/04/2018 | Topic Creator
Because I personally think it is.
It's still a good game mind you, but when comparing it to the other two games on the PS1 it is the most inconsistent due to moving away from the normal gameplay to introduce side characters and vehicles that are sometimes really that fun to play.
This is really my own opinion but I thought it would be worth putting up.
Drawdler Gold Sparx Gems: 2007
#2 Posted: 23:36:57 21/04/2018
Personally I think 2 has more boring stuff than the other two. Sometimes the stuff in 3 is janky and certain minigames are terribad, but I feel like at least they're trying harder to be interesting and buildn on themselves than the minigames in 2, which are often forgettable. 3 also has much better actual platforming, and more of it, as well as better enemies.

By better platforming I mainly mean it feels like there are less safety nets and plain open space gliding around, there are more dangerous lakes and bottomless pits- this is very noticeable in even the first worlds of the two. Cloud Spires is actually very dangerous for a first level. Compare to every level in 2's final world, even the more threatening Cloud Temples and Metropolis really aren't trying hard to offer challenge. 3 from the get-go is a breath of fresh air after such a bubblewrap-padded game.
In addition I feel there are more clever, or at least novel, level layouts to jump around- 2 was honestly not very creative with this and usually its levels have a linear path with only an extra branching or higher-up area or two. Often they lead to just a minigame, which is true for 3 as well though, but at least you usually know because most minigames are behind portals. 3 doesn't change the structure a ton or do this as well as 1, but if you see stuff like Icy Peak and Cloud Spires you can see there was a little more going on than 2 and a little more environmental puzzling and flow. And it's more common.
And while this doesn't sound like it would change a lot, the collectable placement in 3 is much smarter- a lot less placed in spots you have to drudge back out of and a lot more placed in semicircles that are satisfying to charge through and have great flow like 1's. Less empty space too.

It has more challenge than 2 overall and while those terribad minigames are challenging for the wrong reason, and yes some thing while not "terribad" have dated for the worse (honestly, this game has dated probably the most of the trilogy), the truly awful ones a minority and the legitimate challenge is a lot more interesting than 2's. Whereas I think in 2 lot of the minigames are boring to play.

Yes Spyro isn't that hard anyway but being hard isn't the point, at least 3 feels like it's trying to offer a challenge and legitimate threats much more often. The level design is much better for this and having more interesting and puzzling structures. If a game feels like it's offering no challenge, I usually get bored because then I'm really just walking through pretty pictures rather than doing something interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I like 2 and a fair chunk of it is good- for the easier and more light game it's trying to be it's quite good through virtue of its worldbuilding, narrative, aesthetic and music- but I think people have overhyped 2 a bit. Call me a heathen, but I wouldn't call it "great". I feel like it's less than the sum of its parts. There are more boring levels, segments and quirks (ie arbitrary backtracking, powerup enemy counters) than people really talk about. The entire final homeworld feels tacked-on as well and I guess the same can apply to 3 (to some extent, even 1, though I feel it does the "villain's homeworld" things better through the level themes and overall atmosphere) but at least the final world there has a normal level count and more complete levels. I know I'm saying this as someone who prefers games with more challenge though so maybe as far as games so lite go it is great.
With that said I still say 3 gets a lot weaker in its latter half and I can understand remembering it as worse than it really is based on that. However imo it still has a lot more good and a much higher percentage of it is good than the Winter Tundra levels, or if you're generous and compare AP+WT levels with EL + MM... maybe I'd give the edge to 2 in that comparison, but 3 still reaches higher highs there and 2 still has boring things in Autumn Plains. The first half of 3 has its flaws as well but I think the flaws of the game only get really egregious in parts of the second half, as well as it having some weaker level design.

Also, I used to say some similar things about 3 until I just replayed it last night, so... maybe next time I play 2 my impressions and opinions will change, but that isn't happening anytime soon because I've already replayed it to death; double jump, permanent superflame from start of game, advanced glitch exploits, minimal%, really everything but speedruns, you name it.
Edited 2 times - Last edited at 23:55:33 21/04/2018 by Drawdler
Page 1 of 1

Please login or register a forum account to post a message.

Username Password Remember Me