darkSpyro

Oh my gosh! Either I have finally walked into the 21st century or I have found something:

I went on this Universal Interactive website, and it said that Activision and Vivendi Games had joined together to become 'Activision Blizzard'. Here is the following website for proof:

http://games.ign.com/articles/839/839004p1.html

On the same website, I found something that I found to be quite shocking, however that is not saying much because I do not know much (I am more of a book person than a computer person). Anyways, it said that The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon was not made by Activision, but by Vivendi Games. Here is the following website for proof:

http://games.ign.com/objects/027/027767.html

Again, I have no idea if this information is already commonly known, so if it is, sorry for the unnessisary use of space.

Yeah, we already knew about that, Wylrin...

S240sx24 - I hate to sound like a total jerk, but if you won't buy a Wii because it's not HD compatible, then it's pretty much tough luck that all your fave platformers are going to Nintendo. I can see this Spyro game having the possibility of selling very well, all because it's stuck on one console, rather than spread out, and it's been targeted at the right audience.
Then again, I still prefer the 1960 b&w version of Psycho to the 1998 version. I really could not care less about graphics or special effects, and apparently many other people do not.

@Isis - Naw, you don't sound like a fangirl. I'm not even that into Nintendo, but I'm agreeing with all your points..... unless I'm a fangirl too and I never knew it?


Edit: Aw, Wikipedia deleted the page.

Look at Final Fantasy, one of the most successful franchises on Earth. And 7, which was the one that became so popular, had horrible graphics in todays standards. But people still loved it, because it had a good solid storyline.

How about Nightmare Before Christmas? A Claymation film? But it has such a huge fan base because the story is so good.

I have been playing the original Spyro games for the last week, and I haven't even noticed the graphics. All I care about is, well, reminiscing.

Oh, and if anyone heard of Mirror's Edge, it got a ton of awards. And yes, it's graphics are pretty nitty gritty. But if you've played through it, you'll realize that the world itself is so bland. Everything is White with one other color. But the gameplay is tight, and the story is amazing.

I honestly don't see why try to make such awesome graphics when all we want is good gameplay, and a good story. And I swear if they make Spyro king then this new game automatically gets a zero for plot.

Quote:

Personally, the way most people view graphic's importance, I feel if Star Wars had been made today with present-day graphics but the same storyline, they would think it would be better.

They did that when I was in high school, before they talked about that prequel trilogy that George Lucas thankfully never made (I keed; as an old school Star Wars fan, I despise everything it has become today ). Anyway, it was the Star Wars special edition where they updated the original trilogy with spiffy graphics. Everyone kind of hates it because the modern tech just clutters up some classic special effects that were a lot more impressive and fun to watch.

But, yeah. Graphics aren't everything. They are, in fact, the least of my concerns when gaming. When it comes right down to it, I've gotten a lot more fun out of my Wii and PS2 than I've had from my PS3 (and this is even including that I can't play a good half of the Wii games we own because the sensor bar and I are not friends).

Quote: Aura24

Yeah, we already knew about that, Wylrin...

Well, at least now I'm in the 21st century!

Yeah, I need to read the latest encyclopedia or something to get caught up in what is actually happening in this time sector.....

Well I may not be helping one bit in this investigation, but... uh... at least... uh................ well I really can't think of any good side to this. Okay, I'm really feeling like an idiot I really need to catch up...

Don't worry Wylrin, I did the same mistake a little bit back

Quote: Wylrin

Okay, I found this following video that contains information about the upcoming game Spyro's Kingdom. Most if not all of this information may already be known, but I felt it was, nonetheless, appropriate to post it here:

The link below is also supporting evidence of Spyro's Kingdom, which is specifically located under Recently Booked Projects, which is under Profile Information:

http://www.voiceoveruniverse.com/profile/ThomasBromhead

It's funny because Aura24 made that vid (:

Okay, I totally need to figure out what we know, and what we don't, so when I do find something, I will know if I have re-found something we already know about, or if I have actually found something. As a fellow Spyro fan, I feel I should be of some assistance, but that is not possible until I find out everything there is to find out about what we have already found out. I apologize for my naive-ish-ness, but I want to help, and apparently finding out what we have already found out, is step one. So if I keep finding out what we have already found out, ignore me for my own sake.

I have been a Spyro fan for a long while, but I am new to its, shall I say... origins? It might take all eternity to find out what we have already figured out, but if it does something useful in the end, that's fine with me. Alright, so if I randomly ask stupid questions out of the blue, that's why. Now... Research Time!

I'm not totally knowledgeable on Spyro's origins(I am as of concept and creation, not so much companies). It was the first game I ever played, I was scared of the vibrating controllers ;

^
Same here! Couldn't have said it better. I am more knowledgeable of the actual game concepts, not the companies who make the games.

The origins are pretty simple:

Universal wanted to make a game. They hired Charles Zembillas to do character concepts for a dragon and Insomniac Games to make the game. The end.

Universal's game division has gone by a number of different names over the years, but they have always owned the Spyro franchise and still do.

Wonder when we'll get a trailer or a official release of this game coming up. I hope the two years of this game is gonna be good. But I have a feeling we wont know anything more until e3 next year.

Question:
How long before DotD did people find leaked info and working titles?

This may give us an idea as to how long from now we can expect official info.

Also, how long after people found out about the title The Darkest Hour before they switched to Dawn of the Dragon?

I've heard rumours of a possible April release. But just rumours.

Where?

I hope for an April 2011 announcement of the game, if Activision isn't so secretive.

They could just release the game quietly. I heard that's what happened with the Sly Collection.

You mean just put it in stores with only a commercial before hand?

Actually, I was reading gamesradar.com's review of the Sly Collection and they said Sony released it with "zero fanfare".

That could happen here. IMO, Spyro isn't really a "milkable" franchise anymore, so Activision may not make a big deal of it.

^ I actually think that too.

Really? Wow, how well did it sell?

I actually think they need to expose Spyro as much as they can to make as much money off it as possible, considering how little known he is now.

Did anyone else check out that topic in Idle chatter about a possible reveal of a new Crash Bandicoot game? If it's real and they actually are gonna reveal something maybe this means they plan on revealing something about Spyro too? What do you guys think?

The reason I think it is because, in the PS1 era, Spyro and Crash were considered as big as Mario and Sonic. They also starred in the same types of games as Mario and Sonic - Platformers. Also, they had similar personalities:

Mario and Crash were both(and still are) silent heroes, with a couple of iconic musings.
Sonic and Spyro were "animals with attitude", cocky, restless, and young. Sonic has developed a lot as a character, while Spyro has been rebooted.

Because these kind of characters were all the rage among kids, and because the mature market wasn't fully established at the time, everyone, kids and older gamers alike, bought these games.

But since the PS2 came out, and as new technology was developed, developers started to get into the mature market and the casual market, and everyone kind of left platformers to the side, the exceptions being Mario and Sonic. Franchises like Banjo-Kazooie didn't produce any games for a good while, if at all. Spyro and Crash still produced a steady flow of games, not too fast but not too slow, although they got overshadowed by everything else, despite the advertising campaigns. Any new platforming games usually only got like two or three games before their developers moved on to another project.

Simply put, Spyro does not have the extreme popularity of Mario and Sonic anymore, and even if he did, there is a much wider selection of games this generation than there was in the PS1 era and Spyro could be seen as "just another kids game" by the general, non-gamer public. Therefore, churning out tons of Spyro games wouldn't do anything for Activision, it would only waste money.

For this reason, Activision should not release as many Spyro games as possible. They should let the developers take their time, as the only real demographic for Spyro right now is gamers. And gamers like to have good, polished games. So, Activision, why not at least make Spyro successful among it's ONLY demographic first, before trying to milk it. Gamers don't care how long they have to wait, as long as the game is good.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Actually, I was reading gamesradar.com's review of the Sly Collection and they said Sony released it with "zero fanfare".

That could happen here. IMO, Spyro isn't really a "milkable" franchise anymore, so Activision may not make a big deal of it.

Part of the reason the Sly Collection had zero fanfare is because it was a horrible collection. No effort was put into it by the folks involved with making it. It doesn't help that it's just a collection of games that have already been played with literally no extra features added in to make it interesting for buyers. I doubt the new Spyro is going to be that pointless. It's not popular and not a big deal, but we'll probably hear a bit about it because it is a new game.

As regards Spyro these days and his waning popularity, it's simply because he, like Sonic, has stopped having very good games. The only people who might consider any of the games outside of the original incarnations in both Spyro and Sonic franchises are the series' fans (i.e., not the general gaming public). Nobody really cares about either Sonic or Spyro right now because there's been nothing to care about. Sonic is changing this by taking a few steps back. Spyro's only chance is to do likewise or try something new, elsewise he will languish in obscurity and go the way of Crash Bandicoot (who nobody talks about outside his fandom and sometimes the Spyro fandom; seriously, I didn't even know Crash was still going until some time after I'd been playing LoS and saw people talking about his newer games in the Spyro forums).

Agreed. As long as the game is good, it doesn't matter how long it takes. In my opinion, the only way for games to constantly be released is if they are rushed and haven't had much thought put into them. But at that point, there is really nothing worth waiting for. I would rather wait for something than not wait for anything.

Quote: Razz

Quote: sonicbrawler182

....elsewise he will languish in obscurity and go the way of Crash Bandicoot (who nobody talks about outside his fandom and sometimes the Spyro fandom; seriously, I didn't even know Crash was still going until some time after I'd been playing LoS and saw people talking about his newer games in the Spyro forums).

I actually stopped playing Crash after they changed his appearance. Not because of his new appearance though, but because CotT just really bored me. Most people I've seen stopped playing Crash after Twinsanity (which I loved, and kept to the platforming route well enough).

I sometimes feel as though LoS has truly destroyed Spyro

Literally the only reason I played LoS at all is because I was an old school Spyro fan to begin with and I was curious. I don't understand how anyone outside of Spyro fandom who wasn't paid to play it ever did. As a nice touch, Mike Graham (or maybe Chris Wilson; I get them mixed up) said himself in an interview that the LoS team could care less about their older fans and that they were aiming for a new audience. It was a nice spit in the face to the people who actually liked Spyro and I think there's more than one reason why LoS was a financial failure.

I really hope Activision is learning something from the success of games like New Super Mario Bros. Wii. If you're going to keep a franchise going, you need to aim for the old fans to start. New players will come in through word of mouth if you deliver a good gaming experience that is familiar to older players (or you must innovate in such a way that your new game is really new and also good, which is much harder to pull off).

Out of the blue statement:

Okay, at the end of Dawn of the Dragon, the world was in pieces, right? Kind of like the realms in the original series, perhaps? So, in my opinion, this new Spyro game could be a combination of both the originals and the legend series.

Oh, and I have taken the title "Spyro's Kingdom" into consideration. Maybe some bad guy is trying to take over all of the realms/pieces of the world, and there is this division of realms that unites into "Spyro's Kingdom" that trys to defeat the bad dudes. Maybe Spyro is like the representitive of the dragons, or something, since he is the purple dragon.

Any ideas?

Except Sonic Colours seems to have bombed in sales. At least, there are games that didn't aim for old fans that did much better. The NSMBW thing is certainly no guarantee.

Hey, played the LOS games and honestly loved them, now let me explain, they werent spyro, but still it was so completely different that i honestly didnt mind it. And furthermore i felt that simply put, spyro was boreing in ANB so i do agree with prior comments. About the new game, i say early-mid 2011 too, at least i hope so since im getting a DS soon WAHOOO! Anyways, my irst post so i decided to join the forum topic by touching on several parts of it. What you guys think about all of it?

^pretty good.........

Where were the rumors of an April release?

If those rumors are possibly true, I'd expect we get an announcement sometime soon.

otherwie its like a song that never ends

yeah i here yeah, but still, say it comes out and it a split LOS and OS spyro game. WOuld you still buy it?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Sonic Colors isn't too bad. I think it bombed because, like with Unleashed, they made it ove complicated, but just by a little. I am really liking the voice actors (Tails sounds like a boy, not a girl, THANK GOD). And they have some really funny moments.

Spyro needs to do this. Scrap the stupid big name actors that can't voice act, go back to the original portal system that gives the games that magical feel, heck, bring back some of the girls! Where's Elora, Shelia, and Bianca huh? Bianca was my favorite! *angry*

And they better not settle with the name 'Spyro's Kingdom'. Can any of you see Spyro as king? I hope not, because that doesn't sit well with his rough and tumble attitude.

ehh, the name wouldnt tick me off as much, and the LOS would still be cool to continue, but still i wanna see ember back, i mean she was awesome in the AHT and SL but thats not enough.

Right now, the only thing that's really selling well is Black Ops.

The only bad main Sonic game in recent times was Sonic 06, and the only mediocre one was Shadow the Hedgehog(which doesn't even have Sonic in the title).

Sonic hasn't been getting bad games, just horribly biased reviews. I also seen biased reviews for Spyro. There are tons of people who care about Sonic. In a poll conducted in the UK at the end of 2009, he was voted the UK's favourite videogame character, and this poll was offered to the general public. I was actually extremly suprised, as Mario seems to be the big hitter in the UK.

Speaking as someone who is not a Sonic fan, I've heard nothing but bad things about the franchise after it's Sega Genesis games. My husband's a big fan of Sonic and even he hates them. The only one we've heard anything good about is Sonic 4. Honestly, the only people I know of who still play Sonic are its fans; the series seems quite incapable of attracting a new audience these days.

As regards the game's name, I'll just repost what I said elsewhere:


Honestly, I think I'm the only person who doesn't care about the new game's name. If it's a working title, great. If that winds up being the official name, neat. We all laughed at the Wii when it came out and that system made us eat our words, silly name be damned. "Beyond Good & Evil" is pretty much the most awesome name in all of video gaming but the game tanked originally (alas; it was an amazing game). We all thought "Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon" would be a cool game about Spyro with such a neat name, and look where that got us. A name doesn't really mean much in terms of video games.

Well, I accidently made someone on this very site a Sonic fan, and they are not the only person I have got into Sonic.
Sonic 4 got great reviews, but the old school fans bashed the hell out of it. The old school Sonic fans always exaggerate on how "bad" they are, and I can tell you about many hilarious incidents within the Sonic fandom.

Yeah, I've heard the only fandom worse than Spyro is Sonic.

There are actually quite a few fandoms worse than Spyro, at least on my personal experience and investigation. But the Sonic fandom was so bad up until Sonic 4's release. It still is a bit bad, but from what I've seen, Sonic Colours is patching things up.

Well all we know is a new game is coming out. Hopefully the game is 3x as long as dotd was.

On another note happy thanksgiving to all you guys hope you guys have blessed and safe thanksgiving with your families

I don't care if it's not very long, as long as it's good. I clocked in 70-80 hours in to DotD. And I only got it during the Summer!

Well agree with sonicebrawler there, length is often seen as what makes a good game but not always, i mean really look at top gun back in the days of the snes, short in length, strechted but then reticuled. But anyways that leads me up to something of which ive been pondering recently. We are the spyro fanbase right, or at least some of it, so when this thing comes out, if it had to be all you desired what'd that take?

You kidding? There's a LOT of worse fandoms then Spyro. I think the best fandom I've seen is Kirby fans because, lets face it, Kirby games are still tons of fun. Kirby's Epic Yarn is my #2 on favorite games of all time, beaten only by Okami.

I would prefer it be longer than DotD too. But to make me happy, it needs to be fun.

Quote: SpyroPurple

.....so when this thing comes out, if it had to be all you desired what'd that take?

Classic Spyro gameplay, character, anti-hero Cynder, bring back the other characters, more of Ember & Flame, and generally fun and entertaining gameplay.


.......But that's wishful thinking

"Anti-heroes give us villains a bad name!"


Lol, random moment!

Cynder was tolerable when she was an anti-hero. I really hate her now that she's a princess/token girlfriend.

I'd be happy with a return to creativity for the new game. Ditch this paint-by-numbers epic story crap and have something interesting. And I want to see some more old characters come back (especially the girls). But, honestly, I have no hopes for this game. It's going to have to prove itself before I shell out $60.