darkSpyro

I had a showerthought about the Skylanders franchise, and I wanted to see if what I thought of makes sense to some of you.

So I think everyone here knows that Skylanders Trap Team was the start of the decline of the franchise, but what I wonder is what happened after Swap Force and before Trap Team released to cause approximately 2 million people to get switched off from the franchise. A 2 million drop in sales doesn't happen without something to cause it. So I ask all of you who are way more aware of what transpired, what do you think happened during the aftermath of Swap Force and the lead up to Trap Team to cause the drop?

Quote: HeyitsHotDog

Quote: JCW555

I had a showerthought about the Skylanders franchise, and I wanted to see if what I thought of makes sense to some of you.

So I think everyone here knows that Skylanders Trap Team was the start of the decline of the franchise, but what I wonder is what happened after Swap Force and before Trap Team released to cause approximately 2 million people to get switched off from the franchise. A 2 million drop in sales doesn't happen without something to cause it. So I ask all of you who are way more aware of what transpired, what happened during the aftermath of Swap Force and the lead up to Trap Team to cause the drop?

I think it might have been that TT just had way to much to buy and it turned people off. SF sold very well got the best reviews in the series, SF introduces a lot of great additions that were lost in TT. TT was great, but it felt very much like a Giants 2.0 in many ways. Graphics were very good, but yet it lacked that organicness that SF had, combat was pretty good, but it lost the wonderful knock mechanics that made SF so solid. TT also lost a lot of the bonus content that SF had, from bonus missions, to check points (and it also had shorter levels, which can go by pretty quick) and even Skylander Quests that were in Giants and SF, TT's bonus playable content were very similar to each other, whether you admit it or not, they played nearly the same. Both involved being in an small/ish arena fighting enemies. TT also ditched Battle Mode which a lot of fans were disappointed in seeing gone.

I had a feeling it was the amount of figures/stuff to buy. I think I remember people complaining about that with Swap Force, but it came into full effect with Trap Team.

Financially vehicle toys were probably a great option for Activision. However, for us (the fans), I do feel a really cool option gameplay-wise could have been to incorporate the already existing Skylanders characters into these vehicle zones. For example, the sky zones could have been exclusive for flying Skylanders (Spyro, Cynder, Sunburn, Blast Zone etc.), sea zones could have been for skylanders with of the water element or skylanders that can swim (Zap, Double Trouble, Thumpback etc.) and finally the land zones could have been reserved exclusively for skylanders without these abilities and then there could be a few in-game vehicles that you can choose. The game could start with just Hot Streak but then you could purchase additional land vehicles for gold. Some vehicles could cost a lot of gold (up to 50,000 gold) which means that once your skylanders are upgraded it supplies additional replay value and means you won't have bulk spare gold with nothing to buy. As an example, here are some prices that I would expect:

Basic Vehicles:

Tomb Buggy: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Bone Bash Roller Brawl)
Thump Track: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Smash Hit)
Shield Striker: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with High Volt)
Shark Tank: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Shark Shooter Terrafin)
Burn Cycle: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Lava Lance Eruptor)
Gold Rusher 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Double Dare Trigger Happy)
Crypt Crusher: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Fiesta)
Barrel Blaster: 15,000 Gold (12,000 Gold with Turbo Charger)

Rare Vehicles:

Power Blue Gold Rusher: 30,000 Gold (25,000 Gold with Double Dare Trigger Happy)
Silver version of every vehicle: 30,000 Gold (25,000 Gold with corresponding skylander)
Gold version of every vehicle: 45,000 Gold (40,000 Gold with corresponding skylander)
E3 Hot Streak: 50,000 Gold (45,000 Gold with Spitfire)

Quote: JCW555

I had a showerthought about the Skylanders franchise, and I wanted to see if what I thought of makes sense to some of you.

So I think everyone here knows that Skylanders Trap Team was the start of the decline of the franchise, but what I wonder is what happened after Swap Force and before Trap Team released to cause approximately 2 million people to get switched off from the franchise. A 2 million drop in sales doesn't happen without something to cause it. So I ask all of you who are way more aware of what transpired, what do you think happened during the aftermath of Swap Force and the lead up to Trap Team to cause the drop?

In my personal opinion I believe it to be the amount of figures you had to buy. With Trap Team, not only did you have to buy at least one trap of every element but now every one of your existing skylanders was rendered useless due to the introduction of traptanium gates which forced you to buy premium, more expensive figures if you wished to gain access to the hidden areas. I believe it was the introduction of extra figures aswell as the normal character figures that caused the downfall of the franchise. This is why I believe if Activision wants to keep the skylanders franchise alive I think they need to keep things simple. No extra figures to purchase, just regular character figures.

Quote: Drawdler

Erm, HIHD, I know I'm saying this as someone who finds SF really ugly but I doubt the graphic changes turned many people off. There was debate about it and a fair amount of people that preferred each (it's pretty obvious where I stand, and nowadays I think people generally prefer how SF looks but it definitely isn't overwhelming in either direction and was definitely close back then) but I never saw anyone say they wouldn't buy it because of the aesthetic changes. Hell if anything I think a lot of people missed TFB's style after SF, and the aesthetics were a big part of that, so going back may have had more positive impact. I don't know about now because nobody talks about the aesthetics of this series anymore, but were definitely a larger percentage of people who disliked SF's look than TT's look at the time.

I had another ramble about how I preferred TFB's aesthetics from SA-TT a ****ton but I don't trust myself to be making a decent judgement so **** it, it's not worth it. But I will say SF looks far uglier than most people probably remember it to and SA is obviously the best aesthetically. (**** how "dated" the models are, SA does and will continue hold up as the most pleasing to look at, I know I'm biased since it's my favorite entry but the others just don't hold a candle to all the deliberate, gorgeous and memorable work there.) Outside of SC, the only time I think one of VV's console games looked any good, the modern engine tries to be clean for the sake of graphical impressiveness too often. Heading into that direction was also another nail in the coffin of the dungeon crawler feel the series had in the first game, and frankly should have stuck with, to something much more cartoony and standard. Alas, I'm ranting about this when I miss games having many more deliberate textures over engine lighting, and VV's engine and work in general is heavily lighting-based. It can still do good work with deliberate touches... but so far I've only seen that in SC. Even that is more cartoony than, as you say, organic. SA is organic yet colorful, SC is just colorful, compare the saturation of each and one clearly fits "organic" better. I know I'm nitpicking at words but dude VV's aesthetics are way more cartoony than you credit them for, even in SC.

I guess I dislike it because that's not where I want Skylanders to be. We have so much cartoony **** already. No matter how good it is, I really don't think it's the best fit and it sure is blander.

You know, it's a shame Clutch was somehow a worse artbook than Strata as there's really a world of difference between SC and every other one of VV's works, and I wish we knew more about why. I mean, there's Battlecast too although iirc Hearthstone artists did the art for that instead. If VV did most of Battlecast's art I'd be pleasantly surprised and yet further disappointed about how bad Crash looks.

... I'm sorry for all the edits, I just have nothing to do tonight. Taking a day off art and **** battle tree hax.

That's interesting you feel that way Drawdler. Granted I haven't played the games, but based on the models of the Skylanders, they feel/look like they came out of a cartoon. Maybe the worlds/levels are different, but man, the Skylanders themselves look cartoony as hell.

The fact that V.V. makes more cartoony-based graphics makes me kinda hopeful for the Spyro remakes because those games were praised for their cartoony graphics back in the day.

New General Discussion Topic for the mobile game: //forum.darkspyro.net/spyro/viewposts.php?topic=138910
New 'Everything we Know topic' for the mobile game: //forum.darkspyro.net/spyro/viewposts.php?topic=138909

Note: a few posts have been moved to the new 'General Discussion Topic'

Very interesting thoughts Drawdler, and I see where your coming from/the general gist. I like my platformers to be colorful (that's what drew me into Spyro in 1999/2000), and looking at the levels in Skylanders' games, I like VV's vivid colors, but I also like TFB's texturing as well.

Drawdler, in your opinion, do you think VV will do justice to the levels in the Spyro remakes? The original games were more about lighting and color choice rather than texturing (although that could be a product of the PS1's limitations at the time), and that seems to be VV's forte. Also some of their skies remind me of classic Spyro's skies.

I like N. Sane Trilogy's graphics, and weirdly I think pre-release people's complaints were mostly with lighting. I'm sure some people complained about the textures, but the main complaint was with lighting, which VV mostly fixed given the limited time they had.

Quote: Drawdler

Thanks. Sorry if I sound like I'm coming across as angry, I will admit in ways I am and I'm having a ****ty time and home and I'm biased against VV but hey I try to think objectively. Even if my emotions lead me to what I'm actually interested in analysing.

Not really honestly. I can't tell what I expect from them aside from the same sort of weird uncanny updates to some **** as they did in the N. Sane Trilogy (I can easily see gnorcs being botched), but I don't think they'll pull something nice off. Even putting aside the problems I have with them and what I think of their past projects, Spyro is a biiiiiig project and a lot more to do than N. Sane, and as I've said I don't think they even got that right when they seem much more passionate about Crash than Spyro. A lot of things in N. Sane were clearly rushed in that they couldn't get fundamentals in them right; Spyro seems it probably would have more dev time and possibly manpower, but that doesn't mean it won't also be rushed. Even Crash got a lot of colors wrong, the ones in Turtle Woods are really bad with how the bushes weirdly stand out so much more than anything there, even the mushrooms which should be a standout color.

I also know I'm bad at making anything aesthetically nice myself but, well, it's not so much "VV didn't get everything perfect" with the N. Sane Trilogy as "WOW, THEY GOT SOME FUNDAMENTAL STUFF REALLY WRONG". I think that falls on Acti pushing it out/not caring to give them more time but in the end it's still something the trilogy very much suffers from and what I saw prerelease and certain touches in N. Sane gives me the feeling VV didn't completely get the decisions behind the original Crash games.

Also seriously does anyone have the link to that article saying VV didn't care about Spyro as much as Crash, I swear it was posted on this topic a couple months back I can't be imagining it and it would help a lot giving an idea of how they started going into Spyro remakes

I don't have an article, but looking around on forum posts and such, is seems like VV were misconstrued. They didn't say they hate Spyro, but they were unfamiliar with his gameplay in the original trilogy. I'm pretty sure that for the remakes they played them and became familiar, and hell, maybe they'll say that they had a lot of fun with them after the remake is announced.