darkSpyro

How about this: If I see a "Made in China" mark on those toys, I call it low quality.

Video game consoles are made in China.

Almost everything is made in China.

How about this restated version: If it revolves around a gimmick, is made in an incredibly short amount of time, has a "Made in China" mark on it, is made by Activision, and is a clumsy attempt to revitalize a series that has little to no potential for basic income (Meaning, by the merits of the game, not influenced by in-company attempts), I call it low quality.

Honestly, could you blame them for having "low quality"? They can easily throw a game together and get millions of dollars for it. The gaming market has gone over to the casual players. While that may not be a good thing for some players, it means that companies can get more money for something that they really didn't have to spend much on.

However, Skylanders is a bit different. I don't think anyone realizes what a huge risk they went into for this game. Figures? that work with a game? It's been tried maybe one or two times before, and never worked. But now it has and other companies are seeing that. To me, it seems they put more effort into the figures then they did the actual game.

Does that mean I won't buy Giants? No. I love the game, and I had a lot of fun playing it. Skylanders doesn't need some deep and intricate plot or a multi-million dollar budget (Although with that voice cast, I really could see a large number in there for it) It doesn't need super amazing graphics either.

Everything is fine the way it is. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

1. Figures get mass produced for very low cost.
2. Blame them for low quality? Why play a sucky game?
3. If the mass-produced "Made in China" figures got more effort, then the game deserves not a penny in sales.
4. Giants is almost entirely the same game as Skylanders, with minor additions. You do realize they pulled a COD here, right?

But I enjoyed the game. So I'm gonna buy it.

I think that's what no one is getting. So what if they did pull a COD? Skylanders was a great concept, and it wasn't sucky at all.....

In time, you'll see what a naive view that is. Idealism is the fool's land of pipe dreams, not the concrete bed of reality.

Quote: ShaqUoh

In time, you'll see what a naive view that is. Idealism is the fool's land of pipe dreams, not the concrete bed of reality.

wat.

i don't think I've ever gone "Oh heavens, look at those atrocious graphics" and put it down. If there's something coming out that I want; I'll get it. Simple as that. Games don't need a story to be incredibly addicting and fun. Heck, look at Angry Birds. I have all 3 versions, and I've spent at least half of my time during the day playing it, 3 starring things, getting unlockables. And there's not even a plot

Again, naive.

Graphics mean nothing to me, only gameplay. Skylander's story does not bother me, generic and tawdry as it is, it's gameplay does. For all it promises, it leaves too much to be desired.

That's what I feel about LoS

Quote: ShaqUoh

Again, naive.

Graphics mean nothing to me, only gameplay. Skylander's story does not bother me, generic and tawdry as it is, it's gameplay does. For all it promises, it leaves too much to be desired.

What kind of story would you rather have? It was a fun, quirky little plot, written by some great people who worked on Toy Story. Sure there was some characters that randomly showed up a times, but it worked out fine.

It was more like...a cartoon. And I think that's exactly what they were going for.

Would work wonderfully, if it actually was a cartoon. But it's a game. So if they were going for that, they were making a stupid mistake.

Soooo Shaq, is there anything about this franchise you do like? I can't tell if you're just a hater or simply trolling. I mean what is the point in telling someone they have a naive view when they are simply being optimistic in regards to a sequel to a game they really enjoy???

I think it has merits, but they got a little muddled in the way. I mean, the idea of inter-console memory cards was brilliant, but it didn't need a gimmick. People with PS1 or 2 had pretty simplistic memory cards, and those worked.

The toy idea would have been better as something robust and simple, because it had merit, istead of flashy and colorful.

Quote: Himewad

Isn't it possible that when developing the first game that they had so many ideas that they couldn't put them all in? So, they decided to save a bunch of quality ideas for a sequel?

That's not a good thing. That means we're only being fed the scraps of what wasn't put into the first game.

AKA, recycling the same game.

Quote: Himewad

The forums that I post on in here are the Skylander forums. I don't care about the other ones. And if someone doesn't care for this game I don't know why they would post in here.

Also, I'm not a big gamer, so you can talk all about CoD that you want and you'll get ignored by me. TBH the only reason I like this game is because my son loves it.

This whole "it's too soon" response just kills me, though. Why is it too soon? If they are ready to release a game they are happy with, let them do it. No one says you have to buy it.

Because they like to share their opinions? There's a lot of people that don't like Legend of Spyro, but post in those sections too. Wasn't a problem then. Isn't a problem now. Same will apply to this section.

I'm using CoD as an example, not necessarily just for YOU. As you may have noticed, you aren't the only one that shares the same ideas as you.

It's too soon because it won't be any different than the previous game. You'll be spending extra money for something you already bought. THAT is the problem. Having that little development time doesn't allow for much creativity, so to reach the deadline, they essentially copy and paste.

I don't have to buy it, but I don't have to tolerate it either. This isn't something that pisses me off, or sends me into a world of rage. This is something that genuinely disappoints me, because while I knew a sequel was going to happen, I was hoping they would hold off on it, and build upon the game, and possibly make it Game of the Year material.

Lol, Skylanders winning GOTY? Yeah, because the people waiting five years for Skyrim would ave no problem with that.

I've got no shame in low quality, mass consumerism, and financial decisions that make other people roll their eyes in disbelief. There's my piece of opinion.

Quote: ShaqUoh

Lol, Skylanders winning GOTY? Yeah, because the people waiting five years for Skyrim would ave no problem with that.

Note how I said about the sequel being improved to possible GOTY material. But this would've required 2-4 years of development.

You guys want a really good game, and you got one (in your opinions; I find it to be decent). But now, don't you want a better one, now that you've seen what they can do?

This isn't a sequel, it's an expansion. The actual Skylanders 2 will probably be titled "Skylanders 2." Think of this as Dragon Age: Awakening; a stop-gap to keep interest going while the real sequel, with real advancements in terms of game engine and graphics, is being developed in secret. To me, that's pretty apparent. There's no use getting up in arms about a lack of originality--that's supposed to happen in expansions. Ask anyone who's ever played any MMORPG about expansions, and their definition will fit Skylanders: Giants to the letter.

In a nutshell, give them a break. Yes, it's a cash-in. Yes, it's a shameless way to get more, new figures out there to meet unexpected demand. But really, who wants to play the old game into the dirt and get bored while waiting on a true sequel? The purpose of an expansion is, and always has been, to fill that gap. Giants is going to do just that. Expensively... but it will.

As for whether or not it's too soon.. I really can't imagine sustaining any interest in the first Skylanders after all the figures are out and we've got everyone's Heroic Challenges complete. The idea of more content this fall, expensive though it may be, is appealing at the end of the day. I think that's what they're going for.

Quote:

This isn't a sequel, it's an expansion. The actual Skylanders 2 will probably be titled "Skylanders 2." Think of this as Dragon Age: Awakening; a stop-gap to keep interest going while the real sequel, with real advancements in terms of game engine and graphics, is being developed in secret.

I'll cross my fingers and hope this is the case.

But I have a hard time believing they would sell an expansion at possible full price, even though it's Activision. Nor would I think they sell the game with the portal. If it's suppose to be an expansion, why not only make it with only the game and new toys, forcing people that didn't buy the first game to do so? At the end of the day, it'd get them more money anyway.

It IS a sequel, Tash, Activision confirmed that.

Activision did release Guitar Hero: Aerosmith at full price just a couple of months before the true sequel, World Tour. They also sold it in bundles with an Aerosmith guitar. Giants really does seem more like a response to the rabid demand for more content than a true sequel, and although this is Activision, their hands were kind of tied. No one expected Skylanders to be what it was, and they're risking a suddenly huge new fanbase by not giving them the content they're demanding. Hopefully, they at least learn from their mistakes (or shortsightedness) and give us difficulty settings, a realistic level cap, and perhaps even online PVP, to warrant paying full price again.

Of course, if I'm wrong and this is the true sequel, I wouldn't be shocked, but that's not to say I'd receive the news without some element of surprise. I don't think anyone who actually works on the project has come out and called it a sequel yet, though. That word is being tossed around by the fanbase and journalists, but curiously absent from official statements.

Activision said themselves Giants is a sequel to the first Skylanders game, Tash.

http://investor.activision.com...eleaseID=646775

"This novel premise takes a monster step forward with the worldwide unveiling of Skylanders Giants, the follow-up to the most successful kids' IP launch of the year.(1) Activision Publishing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI), will debut the sequel at the North American International Toy Fair in booths 3151 and 3251 at the Javits Center in New York City from February 12-15."

I honestly don't care if it's game of the year worthy. I buy games to be entertained, and to have a little fun with my kid. This game accomplishes those goals. I fully expect Giants to do the same.

Quote: Aura24

Activision said themselves this was a sequel to the first Skylanders game, Tash.

http://investor.activision.com...eleaseID=646775

"This novel premise takes a monster step forward with the worldwide unveiling of Skylanders Giants, the follow-up to the most successful kids' IP launch of the year.(1) Activision Publishing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI), will debut the sequel at the North American International Toy Fair in booths 3151 and 3251 at the Javits Center in New York City from February 12-15."

A press release is a different story than a developer interview. I maintain that it is too early to speculate, or call this a sequel. To reintroduce the Dragon Age: Awakening comparison, that was referred to as a sequel as well, and less than a year later, Dragon Age 2 came out. Expansions are often referred to as sequels in the gaming industry, but there's a difference between an official, direct sequel, and a simple followup. It is shortsighted to say anything for sure before the unveiling mentioned in that article is even over. It might even be E3 at earliest before we can honestly conclude whether or not this is an expansion or a sequel, if then. So, no, I'm not in denial at all. I stand by my earlier statements that it's way too early to rally against this game on the grounds that it's the official sequel, or even unoriginal, really, until we've actually played it, or seen more.

And if it's confirmed to be a sequel by the devs at Toys for Bob, before E3?

Then I'll readily accept that. Really, there's no arguing the facts. If it's the sequel, I'll be somewhat disappointed that they chose to follow up such an innovative first game with what seems to be somewhat of a rehash, but that doesn't mean I'll be passing judgment before I play it. Really, select changes to the Skylanders formula, such as a higher level cap, difficulty settings, and limited online play, would probably warrant continued support from me.

As some folks have said. Buy the games for fun, entertainment, whatever it is that makes you like it. I see no reason to dismiss it merely because it isn't "good enough" in others' eyes. If anything, the fact that it resembles, gameplay-wise, the first game makes it seem more open to returning fans. And we at least know it will have some extras any way.

Overall let's face it, the Skylanders fans get annoyed at you for posting a negative opinion about 'their' game, so let's just let them buy the sequel and end up getting bored of it, and then that will probably encourage Activision to release the same rehash over and over, wow, talk about boring. Edit: I knew we would see a bad side to these type of fans one day.

Quote: SuperSpyroFan

Overall let's face it, the Skylanders fans get annoyed at you for posting a negative opinion about 'their' game, so let's just let them buy the sequel and end up getting bored of it, and then that will probably encourage Activision to release the same rehash over and over, wow, talk about boring. Edit: I knew we would see a bad side to these type of fans one day.

... You mean you've never seen their bad side yet?

Why stop such an interesting argument, man? Let it continue. Especially when both sides of the argument bring up good, though repetitive, points.

Quote: ShaqUoh

Giants is almost entirely the same game as Skylanders, with minor additions. You do realize they pulled a COD here, right?

yeah 16 new characters are nothing... also we know everything about the gameplay...

Quote: Aura24

It IS a sequel, Tash, Activision confirmed that.

Oh...........that depresses and disappoints me on so many levels.

Quote: Himewad

I honestly don't care if it's game of the year worthy. I buy games to be entertained, and to have a little fun with my kid. This game accomplishes those goals. I fully expect Giants to do the same.

To me, if I find a game within the Top 10 games of the year, that means I LOVE the game, and I'm fully entertained and will certainly go back and play it again. Skylanders missed my top 10 last year. And if Giants is more of the same, it will miss my list again.

I can't be entertained by the same thing over and over again, especially if I pay money for it. So I'm passing until I'm given a good reason to run out and buy it.

Quote: SuperSpyroFan

Overall let's face it, the Skylanders fans get annoyed at you for posting a negative opinion about 'their' game, so let's just let them buy the sequel and end up getting bored of it, and then that will probably encourage Activision to release the same rehash over and over, wow, talk about boring. Edit: I knew we would see a bad side to these type of fans one day.

This............so much of this.

A lot of Skylanders fans on here are quick to throw the troll card at anyone that posts something negative. Face it guys; not everyone likes the game. And even the people that like the game (me) have their problems with it. Let these people express their thoughts. They don't tell you to go away because you're an immature troll. Why not give us the same "internet courtesy"?

I don't think this game would be good. But if it has multiplayer it is good.

Quote: Rays

I don't think this game would be good. But if it has multiplayer it is good.

It's a sad state of affairs for gaming when adventure games are judged by the multiplayer.

@ shaqUoh

Stop with the criticism. You don't have to call someone stupid because they want to buy a game they will enjoy.

Quote: D-Rex

Quote: Rays

I don't think this game would be good. But if it has multiplayer it is good.

It's a sad state of affairs for gaming when adventure games are judged by the multiplayer.

WHO SAID ADVENTURES HAD TO BE JOURNEYED ALONE?

Quote: sonicbrawler182

WHO SAID ADVENTURES HAD TO BE JOURNEYED ALONE?

It's not that. It's ridiculous that people would declare a game bad just because it has no online. If a game isn't designed with online multiplayer in mind then it doesn't need online. Simple as that. Games like Call of Duty do fine for online because they're designed for online multiplayer. Not every game needs online multiplayer. The classic Spyro games didn't need online multiplayer. LoS didn't need it. A game like Skylanders doesn't need online. It's a story oriented RPG adventure game, why on Earth would you need online for that? The local co-op is fine, plenty of people are happy with that.

The battle mode? If they thought the battle mode would be any good for online, don't you think they would have supported that? What do you want, leaderboards, killstreaks? The mode itself is not designed for online multiplayer. There is no need for it unless you feel some pressing desire to show off how "good" you are at a mode that's barely balanced.

If a person wants to say Skylanders is bad because of its story, gameplay, merchandise-driven nature, or anything else that actually have an impact on the game itself, that's fine. Those are reasonable arguments. But to say Skylanders is bad because it doesn't support online multiplayer is ridiculous. That's like saying a game is bad because it doesn't have achievements/trophies. Or judging a game entirely on graphics. Gamers these days, good grief.

I'm excited, but my biggest fear is that activision will make Skylanders like they make call of duty.

Quote: The_dragonborn

I'm excited, but my biggest fear is that activision will make Skylanders like they make call of duty.

Yearly installments? Too late. It's begun.

Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure (2011)
Skylanders Giants (2012)

Activision is doing the same to World of Warcraft. Yearly expansions starting with the new one.

It seems Activsion realizes that Skylanders massive sales can be milked to death, and also, it makes up for Modern Warfare 3's big failure.

I've never played the game, but people say that MW3 is a near-carbon copy of MW2

Some of the critics in this thread are fair in what they say and should continue to speak their ideas (same goes for the smarter skylander fans). Others, though, (really just shaqUoh and some small time posters) seem pretty damn snobby (almost like Winchester from M*A*S*H. Intelligent but pretty antagonistic).

Quote: The_dragonborn

It seems Activsion realizes that Skylanders massive sales can be milked to death, and also, it makes up for Modern Warfare 3's big failure.

I've never played the game, but people say that MW3 is a near-carbon copy of MW2

That didn't stop MW3 from selling millions day one and continue to top sales charts to this day.

Quote: The_dragonborn

It seems Activsion realizes that Skylanders massive sales can be milked to death, and also, it makes up for Modern Warfare 3's big failure.

I've never played the game, but people say that MW3 is a near-carbon copy of MW2

It is. I'm about to sell it.

Sell MW3

Play Skyrim! It won Game of the Year, and I'm glad it did,
It is the best game I've ever played. (hence the name)

I don't think anyone is here in this thread saying people aren't allowed to express their opinions. The naysayers just assume it's going to happen and preemptively reassure everyone of their right to speak their mind. It's not really a controversy, it's just being made to look like one.

Reminds me of the YT wars during the original Skylanders release.

Many still bought it and were proven wrong, however.

Lol, YT is a great troll source.

I totally agree

Quote: SilentButDeadly

Some of the critics in this thread are fair in what they say and should continue to speak their ideas (same goes for the smarter skylander fans). Others, though, (really just shaqUoh and some small time posters) seem pretty damn snobby (almost like Winchester from M*A*S*H. Intelligent but pretty antagonistic).

Wow. That reference will go right over the heads of 95% of the people in here.