darkSpyro

From: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...p-force-preview

"It's a shame that with all this attention to detail that Skylanders still only offers two-player local co-operative play. The familiar shared screen mechanic from Giants is rolled out again here. With Disney Infinity offering four-player online play, Skylanders really needs to add these features sooner rather than later. "

I'm sure the context is in Story mode, but what does this mean for the announced "survival" mode?

Discuss.

what a shame... i want skylanders to be the best, but the series have been dealt a death blow. the awesome features like 'jumping' and 'swappable' don't help much, when there is only 12 chapters. there is now soon 100 figures, people just don't find it fun to be grind monkeys, and replay the same game story 100 times. there is nothing more tedious than doing that, and calling it re-play value is an insult to anyone. this game cost a lot of money, there is enough figures to pick from, now they should focus to offer some real game play re-play value.

online gamin is the way to go and making the homeworld an open world is also a good start. have anyone here played the game 'toy story 3'?, it did have a fun open world part included where you could do a couple of missions. this you could play after the main story, skylanders could do something like that. they could make it online too, the main story/battle/survive arenas have already co-op. all this could be done online, the meeting place for the online gaming can be the home world. they already did something like that on the pc with skylanders universe...

something must be done that is for sure, Disney Infinity have the advantage to clean the table this round and skylanders can easily fall out of the equator... anyway tfb is making skylanders4, so we know we will be getting that, since it is already in the making. but if ssf do bad it will likely be the last, people will be fed up if not online game play is included that time around.

^ this ^ so much. Re-playing the story gets so tedious after a couple play throughs :/ that's why i mentioned in another thread about having a survival mode purely for lvling up for the people who are in it simply the lvl up their new landers. I know when I get my 3 new ones this week I'm not gonna sit and play through the story again. I'm gonna go right to Brock's challenges to lvl them up. That's a step in the right direction but there are all of the rather annoying parts of it (the actual challenges) I preffer to just have one big battle royal untill my toon is maxed out, replaying the story over and over and over just slows the lvling down.

I'm sad that they still only have local co-op since i know my bud isnt gonna drive across town just to play skylanders. Infinity has got a lot of features that can KO skylanders if they dont step their game up. Only thing keeping me away from Infinity is the ridiculous prices. So far thats the only thing i see skylanders having on them. I dont remember the exact prices but i remember that it wasnt justifiable for such basic figure designs. I give them an A for originality with them but to be honest their figures dont have nearly as much detail as skylanders to justify their price.

While i don't want online play, a few more levels would be nice. Or maybe lots of new content. Open world areas would be cool.

Well, I'm still buying the game, but if they don't add online multiplayer, or a lot more chapters, or even CPU PVP (ala Ambushes), in the next game, I am not buying it. I was playing Spyro's Adventure about twenty minutes ago, and, for all the faults it has, it's infinitely more fun than ANYTHING Giants offered. This is just reaching a point of lunacy: in TWO GAMES we have over 100 TOYS to collect, half of which are recolours and remakes, we're getting less and less of Skylands to explore in each game, and, I DON'T EVEN LIKE HEROICS (i finished them all... reluctantly) BUT NOW THEY'RE TAKING THOSE AWAY FROM US. THEY EVEN TOOK AWAY SKYLANDERS UNIVERSE.

"BUT MAYBE THESE LEVELS HAVE MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE!" Guess what? That doesn't fix things. If anything, having less levels that have more in each of them is just worse. Like I said, we have less and less of Skylands to explore with our new army, and no matter how long those levels are exploring them over and over is tedious. Having 12 long levels, plus a huge collection, and then a ton of experience and upgrades to unlock is repetitive as hell. Paying whatever the RRP for the game is where you live is not worth it if only a few levels are fun enough to revisit and you get tired of those incredibly fast. Each level in Spyro's Adventure (besides the first one) feels worth it to revisit, since the ones that don't offer much gold are short/easy enough to blast through, or just fun anyway, so the game can last for ages with 22-26 chapters. Now Giants... Has too many gimmicky, slogged out, or boring levels(looking at you, especially, Time of Giants, Junkyard Isles, Cutthroat Carnival, Vault of Secrets, and Autogyro Adventure). And there are no levels that are simply short and fun, making the entire thing feel dragged out over Minecraft's diameter. Giants was only ever fun during the first play through. Nightmare was barely more difficult than Hard mode and the game was so boring to go through again. You had nothing else to do besides Battle and Co-Op which become uninteresting when you face the same opponent continuously and generally know how they battle, online would keep the game fresh with random match-ups for that reason.

For once in all my time stalking these forums, I actually agree with kappapopm's opinion! If Skylanders continues down this road, giving collectors less and less content to enjoy with every Skylander and forcing them into repetition, I think that sad as it will be it will have earned a death! Spyro's Adventure is still fun, even though it's been played to the afterlife and beyond... Giants was BORING within the first MONTH, and a massive step down even with some of the cool additions it had! I cannot imagine what hell Swap Force will be with only 12 chapters and only 1 adventure pack to look forward to after launch, yet 32 new characters!


@HotDogAndZap ... What?
@Doomslicer I don't understand why people can see online play as anything but a positive addition. If you don't want to use it, don't. If you want your kids to stay off of it, keep them off of it(or unplug your Internet connection while they play), or even give them incentives to play and meet up with their friends instead of just going online. It's that simple. And for a lot of people it will add a lot of value.
For the record, they can stop "trolling switches" by making it so that if you switch out a certain amount of times or for a certain number of seconds, you get booted out.

Dlc,not adventure packs,dlc , the games need more content,making it short wont be fun and worth my money,sure you can buy more skylanders and play with them but grinding over, and over isn't very fun. I'd suggest an online mode where you can play online co-op or battle mode and Extension packs, an adventure-like pack without a character or magic items, sort of explaininh like what happens after or before the main story (prequels,ect) survival mode sounds interesting, arena where they don't stop coming? Sounds like music to my ears..

Guys, stop complaining, just because you don't like the idea of only a few chapters, doesn't mean that others don't. Plus, if you get the two adventure packs and bonus missions, it's a total of 34 chapters, 22 of which are completely unrelated to the main storyline. If that doesn't please you, just don't even come to these forums, if all you are going to do is complain about how "sucky" thus game is, when there are people who are really stoked about this game (me).

Now, I do have to admit that you are right about needing to have online play, because if they did, that would totally make me buy every game they make, needless of what ther new gameplay. Just being able to play against other peopl, or play with them in the campaign would be awesome. Also, they really need to have where at least three people can play, four would just to be confusing with the shared screen.

Now to sum it up, if you don't care for this game, why are you even in this message board?

a toy box mode would be fun, definitely with online. its like activision isn't even trying this time.I got so bored of giants i went back to SA.

My big hope is that nightmare mode is it's own thing this time - rather than just boosting baddie health/power, have heaps more of enemies and re-introduce the special mages that shield other baddies.

@Rickorio We are allowed to post our opinion, wether it's positive or not. As long as we aren't actively trying to offend anyone or trolling, and realise that people are going to disagree with us and deal with the consequences in a normal manner- it's called freedom of speech. And so we are allowed to stay if we want. It's not like the mod team will bother stopping us anyway. It's is not just us. If you look around the Internet or ask people in real life there are lots of people who dislike the "a few longer chapters" idea.

I'm not saying the entire fandom is like that. No, this is a case of the Broken Base.

Why can't they please BOTH sides? SSA has plenty of chapters similar to those in Giants: all three Undead levels, Quicksilver Vault, Arkeyan Armory, Darklight Crypt and Dragon's Peak weren't much shorter than any Giants level in my opinion. SSA is not just about short, quick levels with short, quick action, there are lengthier, more slowly-paced ones like these. They can make a game which has both types and some kinds from Giants, so why don't they?

And that brings me to my next point: SSA has a greater variety in the type of level it has. There are ones that aren't really worth visiting, but are so fun and charming that you want to anyway, there are the ones that may not have a lot of Gold but have really fun combat and are fast enough to just run through, there are the ones that are just fun to explore, battle in and collect gold in all-round, the lengthier levels primarily based around combat(see above), and the ones that have tougher enemies clumped together but plenty of Gold. In Giants, every level feels like the long, combat-based type, instead of this fantastic myriad of different kinds of design, so the game becomes so much more repetitive so much faster.

Yes, Spyro's Adventure succumbs to some faults of Giants: there are levels filled with puzzles, it's simple and repetitive, it's even missing great new features like Quests and Arenas, the graphics are worse and there are less Skylanders, and there are a finite number of Chapters, but it's all less intrusive. For every puzzle is two enemies, and outside of a number of the Elemental Zones it's rare that you'll be in a boring puzzle-filled moment without enemies right around the corner. Giants has this in spades, and the problem is that these puzzles aren't even hard or fun, and just feel tossed into the levels to make the story longer. When you have over 100 figures to level up and upgrade that's simply tedious.

Heck, they even took away the magic of being a Portal Master. It doesn't feel like it's about that any more. Eon calls you a Portal Master at the beginning and end of Giants, and that's basically it. It feels more like a marketing scheme than ever because of that, resulting in Giants being more refined and far less charming. So it's up to you wether you want more charm or a refined block-pushing game... But I know I'm not alone when I say I like the former, and I'd enjoy if if they took yearly turns. That way both sides of the fandom can enjoy both types of design, instead of half of us only ever going back to SA once we finish the others. Life is not just about being positive and we are allowed to review the game how we want, and talk about how we might prefer a sequel. For once, as an active hater of this meme, I'm saying this... Deal with it.

Quote: Rickorio

Guys, stop complaining, just because you don't like the idea of only a few chapters, doesn't mean that others don't. Plus, if you get the two adventure packs and bonus missions, it's a total of 34 chapters, 22 of which are completely unrelated to the main storyline. If that doesn't please you, just don't even come to these forums, if all you are going to do is complain about how "sucky" thus game is, when there are people who are really stoked about this game (me).

Now, I do have to admit that you are right about needing to have online play, because if they did, that would totally make me buy every game they make, needless of what ther new gameplay. Just being able to play against other peopl, or play with them in the campaign would be awesome. Also, they really need to have where at least three people can play, four would just to be confusing with the shared screen.

Now to sum it up, if you don't care for this game, why are you even in this message board?

Side missions aren't chapters, they are side missions

Quote: Rickorio

Guys, stop complaining, just because you don't like the idea of only a few chapters, doesn't mean that others don't. Plus, if you get the two adventure packs and bonus missions, it's a total of 34 chapters, 22 of which are completely unrelated to the main storyline. If that doesn't please you, just don't even come to these forums, if all you are going to do is complain about how "sucky" thus game is, when there are people who are really stoked about this game (me).

Now, I do have to admit that you are right about needing to have online play, because if they did, that would totally make me buy every game they make, needless of what ther new gameplay. Just being able to play against other peopl, or play with them in the campaign would be awesome. Also, they really need to have where at least three people can play, four would just to be confusing with the shared screen.

Now to sum it up, if you don't care for this game, why are you even in this message board?

Couple of comments on this gem of a post.

First, everyone is here because they care about Spyro and/or Skylanders. If one doesn't like something, it's an attempt to 1. be cathardic and sharing it with others who can possibly relate 2. provide possible feedback to Activision and 3. hope to bring about change (albeit in future releases as their direction has been established).

I know some folks may see this as not supporting the franchise, but I feel some of the best fans are also the ones that critique it the hardest. Don't take it personal.

I also find it amusing that others say "less is more" is a great thing. When the government taxes you more leaving you with less net pay, does that seem like a better deal? When you get less and pay more, is that a good deal? It's not complicated. Even AT&T says so.



Btw, counters saying it's about quality not quantity is right to a degree, but no one knows the quality of this game. Left to our own devices, we'll assume LESS is LESS until proven otherwise.

Quote: SkylandFollower

Why can't they please BOTH sides? SSA has plenty of chapters similar to those in Giants: all three Undead levels, Quicksilver Vault, Arkeyan Armory, Darklight Crypt and Dragon's Peak weren't much shorter than any Giants level in my opinion. SSA is not just about short, quick levels with short, quick action, there are lengthier, more slowly-paced ones like these. They can make a game which has both types and some kinds from Giants, so why don't they?

I think you've honed in on some of the attributes I personally like about SSA that was missing in SG; in fact I brought up this qualitative fact today to my wife as we were discussing the whole "12 Chapter Dilemma". Bottom line if they can capture the essence of SSA in those 12 chapters, and recapture some of that charm...we will be in for a fun ride indeed. (I also liked the quests and arena challenges and other new additions in SG and hope they continue that vein as well).

For me, it's part story board execution and part level design and additional content that can aid in the ever increasing skylander upgrade task. That's why unless there's worlds within worlds in these 12 chapters I will feel we'll lose that distinct feeling we had on certain levels in earlier games and may make upgrading an even more arduous task.

Quote: Ninpire

Quote: Rickorio

Guys, stop complaining, just because you don't like the idea of only a few chapters, doesn't mean that others don't. Plus, if you get the two adventure packs and bonus missions, it's a total of 34 chapters, 22 of which are completely unrelated to the main storyline. If that doesn't please you, just don't even come to these forums, if all you are going to do is complain about how "sucky" thus game is, when there are people who are really stoked about this game (me).

Now, I do have to admit that you are right about needing to have online play, because if they did, that would totally make me buy every game they make, needless of what ther new gameplay. Just being able to play against other peopl, or play with them in the campaign would be awesome. Also, they really need to have where at least three people can play, four would just to be confusing with the shared screen.

Now to sum it up, if you don't care for this game, why are you even in this message board?

Side missions aren't chapters, they are side missions

In some games the side quests take longer than the story I actually wouldnt mind this <.<

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

Quote: Doomslicer

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

I was thinking borderlands 2 main story takes me 7hrs but doing ALL the side quests would take probably over 4x as long

Quote: ace

Quote: Doomslicer

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

I was thinking borderlands 2 main story takes me 7hrs but doing ALL the side quests would take probably over 4x as long

So that's what you meant

Quote: ace

Quote: Doomslicer

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

I was thinking borderlands 2 main story takes me 7hrs but doing ALL the side quests would take probably over 4x as long

you can also play it online with 4 other people..... that brings a huge impact on the replay value...

At least they have survival mode, whatever that is....But, I've always been in to survival modes on video games.

You know, I see a lot of people praising Disney Infinity, as if it's just going to come in here and blast Skylanders out of the water. Look at the track record of Disney games. Hardly any of them have been good.

The game limits you so much, unlike Skylanders. Characters can only play in their worlds. They don't level up or get upgrades outside of stacking discs on top of the figure.

The worlds (playsets) themselves are going to be extreme hit or miss. I've played Cars and Cars 2 on 360, but for 34.99 I can - guess what - play Cars again on 360, with the Cars playset. A game where you do a lot of racing. Some people won't want that playset, just because it's racing, just like some don't want to spend 6-10 hours sneaking up on people (Monsters University).

I mean, kids will eat it up, but where's the innovation? Little Big Planet/Minecraft 1.5 (ie Toy Box)? Seen that before. Will we see Disney Swap? Nah. We won't be seeing Peter (Pan) Skellington (Jack), because Disney likes to play it safe.

I see no innovation in the Infinity brand. It will sell on brand alone, not because it breaks any new ground. Heck, even online COOP has been done before.

Not to defend Skylanders lack of online, which does suck, especially because we need online PVP, but everyone here acts like Skylanders is dead due to Infinity. People will see quality over branding with this... in my opinion. Just because the Disney brand is slapped on a game and figures, doesn't make it good. Look at all of the other Disney games on Metacritic.

If I buy Infinity, you will never see me buying characters to keep sealed. There is simply no point. The art for said characters isn't even that great, and the packaging looks so plain. I might display them in my general gameroom, when I can have one built (since my current one is now nothing more than a Skylanders shrine now that my 4th wall will go to Skylanders), but nothing will ever get me to build a room dedicated to it, like Skylanders will, when I have a house built and I ask the designers of the house to fashion me a massive room, with shelving made up to fit whatever Skylanders are out at that time.

Skylanders has nothing to fear from Disney. Infinity will sell, but the adults will flock to Skylanders before they will Infinity. Infact, I've been asking every Gamestop I've gone to lately, how the two are doing compared to each other. All stores have told me that while Infinity is being reserved by customers, it's nothing Earth shattering. They said that since they've been taking reserves on Swap Force (which was after Infinity started their reserves), people have been reserving Swap Force more. Adult fans/parents have been reserving Swap Force, while only parents with small children have been reserving Infinity.

I do agree we need online for Skylanders, but Infinity won't sell due to online capabilities alone. Outside of the 3 playsets, do you think Little Timmy is going to get every playset on day 1, just because he asked for it? Nope! Which means certain playsets will have dead lobbies, because Soccer Mom A wasn't prepared to spend her whole bank account on day 1. It's a double-edged sword.

Just my take, seeing as some in this topic are saying Skylanders is gonna be hurting, because Infinity has online, while Skylanders doesn't. Lack of online hasn't stopped Skylanders from being a billion-dollar franchise for Activision. It would be cool if they added it, but I doubt they will listen, just like they haven't been listening to our cries about the games getting shorter and shorter. Still, it hasn't stopped this game from selling over 100 million figures, when this brand was out for only 15 months (probably way higher now).

Quote: Doomslicer

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

No doubt the additional content to help upgrade your skylanders is where they are proposing is our "additional value". The game is easy enough that having an upgraded skylander isn't required. My thoughts:

1. I'd like some levels hard enough that you REALLY NEED upgraded skylanders to complete them--at least on the higher difficulties (again being kid friendly means being a pushover difficulty wise).

2. Providing additional/new content to make the task of upgrading skylanders more adventurous and less "grinding". I'm hoping side missions fit the bill here, but if they are in fact replacing Heroics I'm a bit stumped here as to how this will play out.

3. Unlocking of additional content/features along the path of upgrading skylanders and completing content. They started doing this in Giants with nightmare mode, Knight Helm hat, top hats for quests etc but I'm hoping they are going to push it to another level. One thing they HAVEN'T done is reward you explicitly for COMPLETE skylander upgrades. I'd like a reward system for a per skylander basis, per element basis, and ALL OF THEM. They started rewarding additional hats for completing quests; how about unlocking unique content to that skylander (maybe a powerful upgrade, additional playing level, battle mode etc). Tons of options here.

In today's Giants, you need about 3 hours to fully upgrade (quests, heroics, levels etc) each skylander -- or 330 hours total for the 110 unique skylanders we have. It would be nice to spread unique content to the player to reward them on their journey here since this is where a true completionist will spend their time on the game. How about additional battle mode, story levels that can only be accessed with fully upgraded skylanders?

@GameMaster78: I don't think anyone here is saying skylanders is going to be hurting--but we see a desire to see continued pushing of content for the game. I remember your first reaction to the 12 levels. If they are shortening the story mode itself then I hope for Eon's sake they are looking at new and creative way to encourage the replayability of ugprading skylanders (re above) or we will see market share erosion (which, considering they were the only one in their own newly defined market--is going to happen anyway).

Btw, I do believe this is Activision's battle to lose. They have the innovative edge b/c they are not constrained, but they do need to bring more to the table---they seem to be concentrating too much on the toy side and not on the game imo. Online isn't a show stopper, but it's becoming a drag when you realize there are fewer chapters and potentially other aspects of the game being changed. If I start seeing a lot of stuff GONE but not replaced with something new/better, is when my spidey senses tingle. There's a lot of unanswered questions that seem to indicate it could go in this direction and if so, could hurt. I'm sure Activision is anticipating "some" market erosion; I just don't want that to be because of mistakes related to the game itself.

Quote: Rickorio

Guys, stop complaining, just because you don't like the idea of only a few chapters, doesn't mean that others don't. Plus, if you get the two adventure packs and bonus missions, it's a total of 34 chapters, 22 of which are completely unrelated to the main storyline. If that doesn't please you, just don't even come to these forums, if all you are going to do is complain about how "sucky" thus game is, when there are people who are really stoked about this game (me).

Now, I do have to admit that you are right about needing to have online play, because if they did, that would totally make me buy every game they make, needless of what ther new gameplay. Just being able to play against other peopl, or play with them in the campaign would be awesome. Also, they really need to have where at least three people can play, four would just to be confusing with the shared screen.

Now to sum it up, if you don't care for this game, why are you even in this message board?

I for one perked my ears up when I heard "Survival Mode." I love games with a survival mode, and that is something fun to look forward to. As well, the Side Missions that are replacing the Heroic Challenges are sounding to be quite promising as well. You have to look OUTSIDE the number of chapters to see what the game has to offer. And me, I'm keeping an open mind.

As for online play, I personally could care less since I can't hook up my XBox to the internet anyway.

Well, Ghost, I am all for more levels in Skylanders, you know that. Heck, if it were up to me, I would give the customers value, by releasing -

1: Games that have at least 22 story chapters. If I can't get my story drug out over 22 chapters, I will make it 22 chapters, through Adventure Packs.
2: 6 Adventure Packs per year, released bi monthly until the next game releases (October, December, February, April, June, August).
3: NEW Heroic Challenges every game, based on how many landers are released. If 56 come out on any given game, there will be 56 Heroics.
4: Online PVP and COOP.

You know how passionate I am about these games losing more and more levels each game, but it still offers more than Infinity does.

Infinity offers playsets that may be good or may suck (since each playset is made by a different developer and Disney hasn't had a good track record on game developing), where only characters from that world can play on that playset, and it offers online through those same worlds, and it offers a Little Big Planet mode.

So, the game does two things. Single Player and create your own levels. That's it. I just don't see the value in that. That's just me, though. It offers online for both, but online doesn't equal a quality game. If anything, it will make the game even easier to beat.

I will buy for the novelty, when everything is digital download only, but never because it's a good franchise. I need innovation, not another way to have Snow White crammed down my throat, when I already see her almost everyday through DVD/Blu-Ray, or anytime I walk into a Disney Store.

^I like your ideas, but I'm not judging Skylanders based on the stupid Infinity game---the bar would be set too low. My standards have been set high after SSA and SG overall was a mixed bag. When you're the best, the bar is set higher. That's how you STAY the best.

For me, without Toy Box mode Infinity would be an also ran game. What I DO like about it is the illusion of "infinite types of gameplay/sets" which imo allows playsets to sell better than bolt on adventure packs. Your idea about keeping adventure packs front and center would help solve the ongoing content problem, although it needs to be beefed up considerably over their SSA counterparts. If adventure packs could be anagalous to Infinty's playsets then I think I'll start feeling more positive about Swap Force's direction.

But playsets only have a confirmed 6-10 hours of gameplay. However, not everyone likes racing games, so they will skip the Cars playset. Not all people want a kiddie version of Metal Gear Solid, so they may not even complete the included Monsters Univesity playset. Lone Ranger looked alright, but even then, it's about shooting people on trains from what I've seen. Some may see that as repetitive, using characters that don't get new moves and whatnot.

I mean I can see the strengths and weaknesses of all playsets for Infinity, but at the same time, when I think of Skylanders, I think of characters that can play on ANY level, fight against each other in combat, take on waves of enemies, do timed challenge levels, and get up to 8 additional moves and buffs, and now level to 20.

Who knows. I think it will be interesting to see who keeps the edge over the other. I personally think it will be Skylanders. Some may have a different opinion.

I dislike one mode of Infinity already, because I don't value spending my life making levels for others to enjoy, while not getting paid for it, while those who made the game sit on fat checks, when I could make movies instead of levels, get a fat check, and express the same imagination that will last be immortalized on film for as long as this planet is around.

Quote: kappapopm

Quote: ace

Quote: Doomslicer

Indeed.
Back in the day I was a Pokemaniac, my HeartGold save file had 600 hours (one thing to be said for Pokemon games; they last a while), and it didn't take more than 100 to beat all the main story.

I was thinking borderlands 2 main story takes me 7hrs but doing ALL the side quests would take probably over 4x as long

you can also play it online with 4 other people..... that brings a huge impact on the replay value...

True, but i generally play alone unless someone i know is on. Having extra people isnt very relevant to the sidequests. The only thing having more people means is that things may be done faster. Which actually would make their lack of online multiplayer beneficial so people cant blow through the game so easily. I like the idea of both <.<

Let's be honest, the nature of HOW you select your character would make online play very tricky. Unless it was saved to the game like on the 3DS titles, it's far simpler NOT to have online play.

Quote: GameMaster78

But playsets only have a confirmed 6-10 hours of gameplay.

I would kill for the adventure packs to have 6-10 hours of gameplay...wouldn't you? That's already better than story mode in Giants.

Btw, Toy Box mode isn't for me personally, but for someone who wants to create and/or be creative...it's WAY more interesting than playing the same old level 50 times and allows for more "out of box" critical thinking and even paves the way for logical thinking if one were to get into game development and/or information technology.

Now i don't even know if i still want this game... 12 chapters... no online... yeh it will be just the same as giants

The chapters are longer that is why there are less.

Quote: sklndrscientist

The chapters are longer that is why there are less.

Based on your comprehensive information on what's in a level? I don't recall a complete level being available to the public for review. At the very least if a level is a given location I do know there will be fewer locations and there's no valid rebuttal for that.

Quote: Kevin16

Now i don't even know if i still want this game... 12 chapters... no online... yeh it will be just the same as giants

With better graphics and cool swap landers... <shrug>

Yeh buuut i don't want graphics or figures i want a great gameplay experiance

Quote: Kevin16

Yeh buuut i don't want graphics or figures i want a great gameplay experiance

That's why I made the thread

I don't care about online features that doesn't make a game better or longer. 4 player Local Co-op offline would make things totally different and is the feature I am waiting for.

Why are people complaining about this with Swap Force around the corner now? This should have been done back in Feb when people first saw the game. If you don't want the game now, just don't buy it.

Quote: WickedRogue

Why are people complaining about this with Swap Force around the corner now? This should have been done back in Feb when people first saw the game. If you don't want the game now, just don't buy it.

Game play specifics (local co-op vs networked) were not announced in Feb. We only got side comments about co-operative mode at E3; nothing demo wise. And I'm pretty sure this was commented at that time as well. It's always amusing that a few side comments like this REALLY makes a difference anyway. This is more of a public service announcement.

i tought they listened to FANS