darkSpyro

In a recent episode of the Second Funniest Podcast, Kevin Miller (voice of Sly Cooper) said if he could be in any video game franchise he'd like to be in Spyro.

So, here's the question: if he was in Spyro, any version (or any future version), who do you think he'd be a good voice for?

I'd say he would have made a good older Flame in LoS or possibly a future incarnation of Hunter that's a bit more on the goofy side than the serious.

I would think Hunter would be the best character for Kevin Miller to voice. X3

Quote: Razz

In a recent episode of the Second Funniest Podcast, Kevin Miller (voice of Sly Cooper) said if he could be in any video game franchise he'd like to be in Spyro.

So, here's the question: if he was in Spyro, any version (or any future version), who do you think he'd be a good voice for?

I'd say he would have made a good older Flame in LoS or possibly a future incarnation of Hunter that's a bit more on the goofy side than the serious.

Did Kevin Miller say why he wanted to be a voice-over in the Spyro series? I also wonder what series he meant too.

I think he would be a good voice-over for Sparx, in either Legend or Original.

All he said is that it seems like a good franchise. He didn't say anything about which version (I think the only people who actually make that distinction or even care are fans like us). It'd be fun to see him as a voice in Skylanders or the hoped-for Spyro game after that.

Quote: Razz

All he said is that it seems like a good franchise. He didn't say anything about which version (I think the only people who actually make that distinction or even care are fans like us). It'd be fun to see him as a voice in Skylanders or the hoped-for Spyro game after that.

It would be interesting, a little different too, it would be strange if he could be the voice-over for Spyro, but I don't think it would go well, sounds a bit too relaxing, and Spyro isn't really like that, but however, I would rather him voice Spyro in LoS than Elijah Wood.

Haha, yeah, me too. That would have been kind of awesome, actually. I could see him voicing an older version of Spyro, maybe, but that's not really a Spyro I'd want to see. He did a good job with a younger Sly Cooper in the first game, so maybe he'd be good as a young Spyro, too.

Quote: Razz

Haha, yeah, me too. That would have been kind of awesome, actually. I could see him voicing an older version of Spyro, maybe, but that's not really a Spyro I'd want to see. He did a good job with a younger Sly Cooper in the first game, so maybe he'd be good as a young Spyro, too.

@ Bold: I don't think so, but when you say young Spyro, I automatically think of the original Spyro, a young Spyro could have any type of personality, I think personality needs to suit the voice.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, can I see this interview? Not sure whether to believe you, lol.

I was thinking of Insomniac Spyro when I said it, or AHT Spyro, or LoS Spyro...okay, any of them. I tend to think of Tom Kenny when I think of Spyro, which was a slightly older voice and which suited him. Honestly, I think any voice actor who knows his stuff could pull this off. Just because we haven't heard Kevin voice anyone exceptionally young doesn't mean he can't (I only know him through the Sly games, so I don't know what else he's been in).

Second Funniest Podcast

Click "subscribe" to see the list of episodes. He said this in the latest episode, #327 - Red Ring of Death. I'm not sure at what time he said it, though. The whole podcast is pretty fun to listen to.

I could see him working as any Spyro...except Skylanders Spyro, I'd prefer him with just grunts and growls.

Not saying wood was bad but he didn't have any good decent emotions for the characters like he did in Happy Feet or 9.

Still Miller sounds more of a hunter to me

Wood was kinda off in DotD. But I thought he was fine in the first two LoS games.

The difference between Wood in LoS and Wood in Happy Feet/9 is that he had someone to direct him in the latter two projects while he likely did everything from LoS in a single take with little/no direction whatsoever. You can hear that obvious difference for all of the performances in the series. Some of the actors put more effort into their line readings than others, but you will hear a much better performance from all of them in other projects.

I didn't care much for Wood from the start, but there was something really off about his DotD performance. It was probably rushed like everything else about that game. *shrug*

I think his voice would work well with the Insomniac Spyro or Hunter, but I'm not sure about Skylanders. Since I'm used to his voice being mysterious like in the Sly games, I too would expect it from a mysterious character, but who knows.

I'd love to see the voice of Bentley as one of the characters in Skylanders.

Quote: Razz

I was thinking of Insomniac Spyro when I said it, or AHT Spyro, or LoS Spyro...okay, any of them. I tend to think of Tom Kenny when I think of Spyro, which was a slightly older voice and which suited him. Honestly, I think any voice actor who knows his stuff could pull this off. Just because we haven't heard Kevin voice anyone exceptionally young doesn't mean he can't (I only know him through the Sly games, so I don't know what else he's been in).

Second Funniest Podcast

Click "subscribe" to see the list of episodes. He said this in the latest episode, #327 - Red Ring of Death. I'm not sure at what time he said it, though. The whole podcast is pretty fun to listen to.

I can't get the website to load, it just takes too long and seems like it is forever loading, I just waited half an hour and nothing is happening, don't know if it's my computer, internet or the website, I think it's the website, because YouTube is loading and working fine for me, even this site is.

I've heard his voice over in a Sly Cooper walkthrough, and it's nice, it would suit Insomniac Spyro just fine with me.

Alas, that's the only link I have for the podcast. I got it from this segment that was posted on YouTube (that whole episode is hysterical, incidentally ).

Quote: Razz

The difference between Wood in LoS and Wood in Happy Feet/9 is that he had someone to direct him in the latter two projects while he likely did everything from LoS in a single take with little/no direction whatsoever. You can hear that obvious difference for all of the performances in the series. Some of the actors put more effort into their line readings than others, but you will hear a much better performance from all of them in other projects.

I didn't care much for Wood from the start, but there was something really off about his DotD performance. It was probably rushed like everything else about that game. *shrug*

Of course, no one even helped him in DOTD due to being rushed, Heck Corey Burton who is a in god tier of VA seemed to smash the entire Voice cast

Pretty much. Even at the best of times, LoS was a pretty rushed affair, but it was the worst with DotD.

Hunter.

Hunter or LoS Sparx because I didn't really like any of the voices for Sparx that much. <.<;

Quote: Razz

Alas, that's the only link I have for the podcast. I got it from this segment that was posted on YouTube (that whole episode is hysterical, incidentally ).

It's great! So random, I love it!

The earlier skit they did with Sly meeting the gang at a Starbucks was amazing.

I've never heard Kevin Miller, so I don't know...

Kevin Miller does the voice of Sly Cooper in the Sly series.

Which is why I've never heard him. I've never played a Sly Cooper game, lol.

I can see him as legend spyro and both hunters.

You should give the Sly series a shot, Fireball. They're reeeeally good.

I've seen a walkthrough of both the first and second Sly games, in my opinion they look okay, but not fantastic.

If you haven't played them, how do you know for sure? A game is an interactive medium, not passive. If you don't play it, just watching someone else play won't give you a full impression of the game.

Quote: SuperSpyroFan

I've seen a walkthrough of both the first and second Sly games, in my opinion they look okay, but not fantastic.

..........

It wont effect me buying a Spyro game!

I'd give 'im' a chance!

Quote: Razz

If you haven't played them, how do you know for sure? A game is an interactive medium, not passive. If you don't play it, just watching someone else play won't give you a full impression of the game.

Durr, I know that, I'm just saying it doesn't look all that great from where I'm standing.

With some games, I find it's easy to decide whether or not I might like it by just watching it. Games may be an interactive medium, but all you need to do is analyze the gameplay mechanics. If it looks to your liking, you buy it. If not, you don't. It's why game developers release trailers. If they thought their games needed to be played to be understood, then every game in existance would have a playable, public demo. But that's not, and never will, be the case. So saying you can't make an accurate, informed decision on getting a game you have never played is not something you should say applies to everyone, just because it applies to you.

I think you've misread what this conversation is about. I'm not saying you have to play a game to know if you like it or not, I'm saying you can't fully understand or appreciate it without first playing it. The reason some games don't have demos has nothing to do with attracting attention and everything to do with cost; it's cheaper to make a trailer and not all companies can afford or care to make a demo.

Here's a pertinent example: DotD looked fun to play and the trailers made it seem like a good game. Was it fun to play? No. Was it a good game? No. Did I know that before playing it? No.

You can get an idea of whether a game might appeal to you or not by watching it (I don't have to play Call of Duty to know it's not my thing, for instance) but you can't really judge the validity of it before playing it yourself (which is why I defer to people who like war games for their opinions on them).

Short version: you should always try something before judging it. Barring that, at least do some research. I don't like the Twilight saga but I've read all of them and can tell you why I don't like them.

Trailers from all video games can be misleading in my opinion, it's not like they actually show you a great deal of gameplay, it's just quick flashes of one thing, here and there, and you're supposed to understand that? Yeah right *Sarcasm*

I think they're either being too greedy enough to at least release a demo, or they should let people be able to upload video clips of it on YouTube, you'd think that it would help a company, because it's advertising their product, and lots of people may dislike it, but then again, I'm sure there would be enough people that may like it, either way at least people would have a more of an understanding, otherwise if you just go by a twenty second trailer, you're sort of gambling in a sense, and I think if it's not what you expect it to be, it's a bit of a con if you ask me.

Quote:

I think you've misread what this conversation is about. I'm not saying you have to play a game to know if you like it or not, I'm saying you can't fully understand or appreciate it without first playing it. The reason some games don't have demos has nothing to do with attracting attention and everything to do with cost; it's cheaper to make a trailer and not all companies can afford or care to make a demo.

The bolded part is not a universal fact. If you want an example from my personal experience, I bought Beyond Good and Evil HD not too long ago. Did I play it before getting it? No. Did I understand the gameplay mechanics before getting it? Completely, because I read a random review, and was able to grasp all the gameplay mechanics from that review. I didn't even watch any gameplay footage.

Another example is Skylanders. The gameplay is super basic in that, so any gamer should be able to understand it from gameplay footage available, or even just the previews.

And about the demo thing, you seem to be missing my point, but also further proved it right. I'm well aware that it costs to make a demo. But you said it is required that one plays a game before they can fully understand it, right? Well, if this was such a true requirement and was necessary for our brains to come to the decision of buying a game, game developers would ensure that the public has some definitive method of playing their games without actually buying it. That definitive method is a demo. But if we did need these to fully understand what we are buying, why is it that not every game developer creates a demo for all their games, if it is necessary for people understand games if they are to buy games? The answer is simple. It is not mandatory to play a game in order to fully understand it, hence, it is not mandatory to create a means for people to "try before they buy" in regards to video games.

And at that, I think I will correct your previous statement:

Quote:

I'm saying I can't fully understand or appreciate it without first playing it.

Where did I ever say you had to understand a game before you bought it? From looking at the gameplay footage of Skylanders, I still have no idea how it's played. Will I buy it? Yes! It looks fun. The same cycle happened to me with Portal and the first Jak and Daxter.

Let's take this back to basics because I see the road this is going down (yet another annoying argument in which one or both parties is perturbed and absolutely nothing is gained). My problem with the original statement was the implication that the games were being dismissed based on one viewing of someone else's playthrough of it. It's possible that's not what Super meant, but it's what I took away from it.

I still stand by my statement that one cannot understand an experience without having undertaken it, and a game is an experience. Yes, you can get an idea of if you'll like it based on footage and reviews and your own previous gaming experiences. But you cannot understand the full experience until you have the controller in your hand and are an active participant in a medium that relies on participation to exist. Games are not movies; watching someone else play one is not the same as playing it yourself.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth that I did not say. "Correcting" someone else's statement in the way you have done above is insulting and crass, especially when your correction is based on a reading of my words that is false.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Quote:

I think you've misread what this conversation is about. I'm not saying you have to play a game to know if you like it or not, I'm saying you can't fully understand or appreciate it without first playing it. The reason some games don't have demos has nothing to do with attracting attention and everything to do with cost; it's cheaper to make a trailer and not all companies can afford or care to make a demo.

The bolded part is not a universal fact. If you want an example from my personal experience, I bought Beyond Good and Evil HD not too long ago. Did I play it before getting it? No. Did I understand the gameplay mechanics before getting it? Completely, because I read a random review, and was able to grasp all the gameplay mechanics from that review. I didn't even watch any gameplay footage.

Another example is Skylanders. The gameplay is super basic in that, so any gamer should be able to understand it from gameplay footage available, or even just the previews.

And about the demo thing, you seem to be missing my point, but also further proved it right. I'm well aware that it costs to make a demo. But you said it is required that one plays a game before they can fully understand it, right? Well, if this was such a true requirement and was necessary for our brains to come to the decision of buying a game, game developers would ensure that the public has some definitive method of playing their games without actually buying it. That definitive method is a demo. But if we did need these to fully understand what we are buying, why is it that not every game developer creates a demo for all their games, if it is necessary for people understand games if they are to buy games? The answer is simple. It is not mandatory to play a game in order to fully understand it, hence, it is not mandatory to create a means for people to "try before they buy" in regards to video games.

And at that, I think I will correct your previous statement:

Quote:

I'm saying I can't fully understand or appreciate it without first playing it.

I don't agree with you, I have to play at least a demo before buying it so I know exactly what I'm getting for my money, you seem to be missing the point. I don't understand that the earlier games such as Spyro the Dragon has a demo and that was when Insomniac Games and the PlayStation gaming industry sort of just began so please don't think of telling me that companies nowadays do not have enough money to make demos, when in earlier times they have and had less money, video games used to come out at £30, now they're £40, and they're saying they're running low on money, probably that's because they need to buy new equipment to keep up to date all the time, that's not my fault. Any developer should be able to release a demo if they want an audience to fully understand what is going on. If you don't believe in that, I don't agree with you, and don't understand why.

I also am aware that developers go to E3 to show off demos of their video games for people to play, but not everyone can go. I must admit though a mjaority do, and they'll probably get enough money from fans of their video game franchises anyway.

To be fair, the making of games has gotten a lot more expensive than it was in the past. And I mean a LOT. o.O The original Spyro was made with less than twelve people in some offices at Universal. By comparison, Skylanders has a huge team working on it with some big names (Hans Zimmer) that don't come cheap.

All games are like that nowadays.

Not all. Super Meat Boy, the Katmari games, several Nintendo games... The big games are, though.

There is "Amnesia: The Dark Descent" which is a first-person horror game that came out 2008 that was pretty big, and there was like 14 developers.

And, y'know, this little thing you might not have heard of called Portal, which had a team of seven people.

Then there was Portal 2 and it had like 5x that.

Yep. But most people like the first Portal best and it had a small team. Even the team for Portal 2 was still pretty small as these things go. I think it wasn't much more than 20 people, but I'd have to look. And Portal 2 had no demo, either (well...okay, Portal is pretty much a demo for Portal 2 ). And both of those games are definitely games that need to be played to fully understand.

I don't know how they would continue the series if they chose to.

They could rescue Wheatley.

Well, she's missing a portal gun, a evil sentient robot to help, and a laboratory filled with high-tech crap.

Chell doesn't have to be the one to rescue him (though that would be sweet).

And how did we get to talking about Portal on a topic about Kevin Miller (though he does love those games )?

I don't quite know.
Why would anyone but Chell want to rescue Wheatley though?

Who even knows? It's still up for debate on whether Chell would even want to save him since he was such a jerk in the end. Maybe GLaDOS wants him back for science. Or revenge.