darkSpyro

Lately I've seen all the drama on the Skylanders boards about the possibility of it being cancelled, but also people anticipating a Spyro remake/remaster. So what would you rather have? And what is the most realistic?

1. Skylanders finally dies. Woohoo! Now we can get an awesome Spyro remake/remaster!
2. Skylanders carries on! Spyro doesn't need his own games anyway!
3. Both coexist (in your dreams, buddy).
4. Both can die. It's time to move on, right?

I'm not taking sides here. I just wanted to see what everyone thinks!

Coexistence. I love Spyro more than I love Skylanders, but there are way too many characters there with unused potential.

Also, it's not like there's a crazy IP clause that Spyro can't be in both at once. Skylanders dying means both die as it's a failure of both IPs. It's better if they just go the way of the Rabbids and become separate things with their own quirks. It worked for Rayman, the only reason it wouldn't work for us is because Activision has issues with making people happy for longer than a year.

I said in General Discussionl that I would accept the end of Skylanders if it were the only way for Spyro to fully come back, but I'd be all for coexistence.

Skyland's Spyro is not Classic Spyro (as far as we know) so why not make both the fans and the haters happy by giving them both what they want?

Let them coexist. If Skylanders is a big enough cash cow to give Acti and VV the funding needed for niche market games like Crash and Spyro platformers, I'm fine with that.

Coexistence. i dont see why those great games cant exist side by side.

Coexistence, but I have more of a thing for Skylanders.

Coexist. But if Skylanders were to die, I wouldn't mind at all.

Coexist.

I honestly would be happy for Skylanders to continue, and for Spyro to get his own games again. But it would also be nice if they could get the developer to take their time making a Spyro game, like for example, allow two or three years between each game. I think Activision have given Vicarious at least two years to develop the Crash Trilogy.

Quote: Bifrost

Coexistence. I love Spyro more than I love Skylanders, but there are way too many characters there with unused potential.

Also, it's not like there's a crazy IP clause that Spyro can't be in both at once. Skylanders dying means both die as it's a failure of both IPs. It's better if they just go the way of the Rabbids and become separate things with their own quirks. It worked for Rayman, the only reason it wouldn't work for us is because Activision has issues with making people happy for longer than a year.

Quote: Drek95

I said in General Discussionl that I would accept the end of Skylanders if it were the only way for Spyro to fully come back, but I'd be all for coexistence.

Skyland's Spyro is not Classic Spyro (as far as we know) so why not make both the fans and the haters happy by giving them both what they want?

I agree with both of these posts, I don't see why both shouldn't coexist

3

IDKWILT

Both can coexist but for that to happen we need the Spyro franchise to come back first,what would be interesting is if the Skylanders and Spyro series cross promotion each other in their respectives games and make crossover with each other linking both franchise into one.

can I get a time machine to make it so it would be 5: Spyro recovers but has had mercy of being dormant but slowly pushed to a position of relativity in a more respectful manner than of what we've seen him in for the last freaking 6-through-a-DECADE? I suddenly feel like Crash actually has had it so much better from the lack of games.

To be honest, it would be really sad for me if Skylanders ended, but if it meant Spyro getting remakes like Crash is would soften the blow a lot. I would prefer for them to coexist like Imaginators and N.Sane are doing now, but I doubt that'll work. Skylanders looks like it's about to die, though, so I hope Spyro comes back once it's gone.

Wanting a franchise to die is a rather selfish thing, but it requires more than "wanting" for it to happen so I guess we're safe discussing that. Honestly, I'd want both to co-exist but my respect and love of Spyro far outweighs Skylanders. Well, depending of course on what iteration we're talking about. Are we talking classic Spyro, Seasons Spyro, AHT Spyro, Spyro Fusion (a Spyro sidescroller would be fistfantastic) or TLOS Spyro? Or are we talking a completely new Spyro?

Like with Crash, a remaster is a worrying concept to me because I have a tendency to split the game into two categories: how much it feels/looks/sounds like the original, and likewise a modern feeling/looking/sounding video game. I'm aware that the remaster wouldn't "kill" my enjoyment of the original games, but I'm concerned that the remaster wouldn't fulfil its full potential. Then there's the question of if the remaster should do that; how much of the original game, however bad, should be kept intact and how much should be overhauled for the sake of selling a good product?

Either way, Bifrost speaks an unfortunate truth: both IPs are in a catch 22 situation. Skylanders needs Spyro (especially during the launch of the first game), and if Spyro isn't pushing Skylanders sales Activision in their staggering short-sightedness will just shut that down also. And it's wishful thinking that they'll let anyone buy the license off of them.

TL; DR - Coexist. Skylanders has its flaws, but Spyro isn't helping fix them. Coexisting would allow Activision to have two teams work on two different kinds of game and get money from two different audiences.

Quote: Sesshomaru75

I would argue that Skylanders doesn't need Spyro outside of Academy and the comics, as he isn't important or relevant at all in the games aside from the first one. And if it did, he hasn't really been helping much.

I sort of agree, I just feel like he's the cornerstone of all the jokes and the setting. Take for example Imaginators' cutscenes: I could not see any other character replacing him. Nobody else looks like a main character besides Master Eon or Kaos, but I wouldn't expect Eon to take Spyro's place or have as much screentime. This goes for Academy too (and to be fair I've not yet seen it, nor is it marketed to me). I may end up getting flak for this but without Spyro it would look like Minions or Rabbids (only with more than one joke that works outside of trailers) - they're fun, but not on their own because they were born to be supporting characters even if we personally have our "Mains". They need a strong lead role, and Spyro in my opinion is the only one that seems to fit the bill, Stealth Elf being a close second (and Gill Grunt if he was a bit more John "Hannibal" Smith).

My stance is a bit muddled up because on the one hand, I want Spyro to do his own thing, and on another hand I think he's the backbone of Skylanders. And then on another hand I think taking him away would do nothing bad for Skylanders, giving other characters more development. And then on another hand I think it's better he remain than be part of a series of riskier, less desirable games and go out without a bang. I have four hands. I am Mehrunes Dagon.

What I failed to consider earlier was that it's not as though we'll lose use of our Spyro figures, because it's not like they're being produced any more. It's quite paranoid on my part and a waste of time and resources on the developers' to stop his models working on future Skylanders games, so I'll be more flexible on my stance about that. But I still firmly believe that without Spyro, Skylanders would not have boomed in popularity quite like it did (and continued to do so for a while). I'm also being cynical about Activision - there's no doubt in my mind that they'll hold onto the rights of Spyro like a dragon clawing its treasure hoard close to its chest, and getting all weird about it. Ahem. There's few things that annoy me more than holding back licenses that people want to make use of that the owners don't. The tragic fate of Metal Arms is one such example, and I trust Activision would do the same with Spyro.