darkSpyro

I've had this one textbook for a while called "Rules of Play," by Katie Salen & Eric Zimmerman, that talks about the fundamental stuff about game design and the like. I saw that Mario was in the index, and Sonic was in the index, too. Crash was also there, but even though this book was published in 2005, many years into the timeline where Spyro would've been still well known as his own entity, he wasn't in that index. Thinking about it today, it's because that he wasn't very well managed, and that the writers didn't want to support this poor management.

Quote: Insomniac Games (from unknown source)

Spyro has become an abused stepchild.

Right there, you've read a quote that spyro4president recited in an Insomniac Games community post, titled, Why Insomniac Games will never make another Spyro game. Considering this post is literally coming from a quote from 2007 (at least, that's what this topic-author is saying), after the performance of TLoS 2 was getting really laggy, you can understand why this quote was said.

However, there's other things to think about when it comes to Spyro being an abused stepchild. If you think about it, he's still not getting proper treatment as his own entity, which by this point many of you know as the reason why there have been people leaving this forums due to an unpleasant conversion. I'm not saying that it's a conversion from Christianity to false Buddhism. In fact, I'm not even trying to say it's like this forum committed to the devil.

But I digress. What I mean is that we were screwed over big time after we got promised that things would get better. The two major promises made for this special case were almost instantly broken the moment they shipped out these two newer generations of games, thinking we'd treat them like gems, when all along the givers were really being the takers, or at the very least trying to be. No actual effort is made to capture the spirit of the original Spyro games without putting in some kind of insulting incentive to try making the extra dollar. It definitely didn't work in Sierra's case, because ho, ly, sheep, they tried WAY too hard to make Spyro a kung-fu devil slasher, but the only reason why the newer iteration works now to an intoxicating level is because they know they can sell scratchy rainbow socks that are somewhat the same shape as the squeaky rubber boots we had but always want to flick off because they don't feel the ****ing same. That, and because the kids of this generation don't know better or diddly squat about what the hell was going on with the dragon. It's something I know I shouldn't put them entirely at fault for, but they essentially padded an incentive around our childhood dragon and then drowned him in *****y pieces of plastic crap that we're eventually all going to throw out anyway, and the sad part is, we think this is "fun."

Yeah, when the day comes that buying a decapitated goblizard head is considered "fun," wake me up, because I don't even want to have my eyes open right now. I tried to have an open mind about this, but the fact that the big boys who know guns but don't know games thought these cell-phone-motor-incompatible toys would be a good substitute for our lack of a fun adventure is a great big flaming no. I can go as far as to include a dirty statement from one of Spyro's owners with a source to support my argument, but I'm not going any further than this, but suffice it to say, if a very large company wants to be soulless like this, it'll be a bad influence for the rest of the industry.

So, my question is: Am I the only one who feels like Spyro's the mascot of video game franchise abuse?

Am I the only one who's tired of people living in 2011? No, I'm probably not.

Insomniac said that about LoS. They actually feel Skylanders hit it closer and have said so a few times.

But why do I even try. Considering the amazingly hostile terminology, you probably just want to be told that yes Spyro is dead and everything's going to be fine. Well, not from me, I'll just go back to getting hyped about Imaginators and the Spyro that's a major character in there. Should he get his own game eventually, fine. But I'm not wallowing in the past or treating him like a real person.
He's not a child, though he felt like a friend for people that grew up with him. He's pixels, he's an IP, he's a currency for the game industry. IPs change hands all the time and there's no child services for "mistreating" a copyrighted character.

Quote:

So, my question is: Am I the only one who feels like Spyro's the mascot of video game franchise abuse?

While I'm not going to vouch for any video game character to be some "mascot of abuse", Mega Man probably has a bigger claim than Spyro at this point. Even Crash himself would.

Quote: DS D

I've had this one textbook for a while called "Rules of Play," by Katie Salen & Eric Zimmerman, that talks about the fundamental stuff about game design and the like. I saw that Mario was in the index, and Sonic was in the index, too. Crash was also there, but even though this book was published in 2005, many years into the timeline where Spyro would've been still well known as his own entity, he wasn't in that index. Thinking about it today, it's because that he wasn't very well managed, and that the writers didn't want to support this poor management.

Is it possible that Crash and 3D Mario were enough example of good game design to where they don't necessarily have to bring up Spyro or Banjo or the like?

The screenwriting book I've been tasked to read praises Chinatown to high heavens, while also giving moderate praise to films like The Matrix and LotR. But just because he only vaguely mentions Spiderman 2 once doesn't mean I think the author dislikes Spiderman, or is making a stand about how Spiderman has been abused by Sony up until now. I just think he really ****ing likes Chinatown and insists it's the key example of how to write a screenplay.

You don't always need a thousand examples to make your point. You can often just need the one or two.

sonic is way better example of franchise mascot abuse than anything else. spyro has nothing at all on that.

Okay, well, if not abused in a domestic way like Sonic and Mega Man, Spyro's really abused as an undomestic franchise character, being that he's been constantly used for money-squeezing out of his own tail whenever someone new got a hold of him. I can see this curse continuing under a new owner in the future. Let me be the first to say that I really hope to GOD it's not under Konami.

Spyro's an IP and a virtual character design, not a child. Misused, yes, abused is the wrong word.

Quote: DS D

Okay, well, if not abused in a domestic way like Sonic and Mega Man, Spyro's really abused as an undomestic franchise character, being that he's been constantly used for money-squeezing out of his own tail whenever someone new got a hold of him. I can see this curse continuing under a new owner in the future. Let me be the first to say that I really hope to GOD it's not under Konami.

...............What?

I discovered the franchise during Giants, so I can't really empathise with you as I'm not familiar with the original Spyro games. But I do agree that the lack of a Spyro figure in Superchargers is an omen to the major disappointment with that entry.

You might be a little over-dramatc. Try to let go of the past and join the excitement for Imaginators.

I genuinely understand you. I can agree that Spyro deserves single games again, but we're talking about business. People will not make a Spyro game if it doesn't seen worth it, financially speaking. And, for now, Skylanders is worth it.

I also think that Activision is pretty terrible (even with Skylanders), but, again, we can't do nothing about it.

Thinking Activision is terrible is equal for both Spyro fans and Skylander fans. Both would benefit from a publisher that's less apathetic and obsessed with yearly releases and killing franchises for single mistakes.

Yup. That also counts for Call of Duty, Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Crash Bandicoot...

I do understand you. In some ways I do not think that Spyro and Cynder should be in Skylanders, and that they were only used as marketing symbols to kickstart the franchise. I get it, and it worked on me when the first game was announced. I absolutely loved The Legend of Spyro.

However, this does not mean that Spyro was destroyed. He still lives on in Skylanders as a playable character, an NPC, and a main character in the comics and upcoming Netflix show. His design has changed, and while I have to say that I personally think that it is the worst design for Spyro that we've had, it is be no means bad. It is good and acceptable, and at least he still looks like a dragon.

Skylanders, in my opinion, should not be considered a Spyro game. Rather, it is a game featuring Spyro. Skylanders is a wonderful franchise that, while in my opinion can never match up to, say, Nintendo's work, is truly unique and is overall quite enjoyable. It includes some of the best character designs that I have ever seen, and I genuinely enjoy the gameplay and story. Such is why I, for one, am really excited for Imaginators and will enjoy the game thoroughly once I get it.

I think Activision itself said that Skylanders and Spyro are separated franchises.

Quote: Crash10

I think Activision itself said that Skylanders and Spyro are separated franchises.

Probably. It's really weird to see them as one in the same anyhow.

Quote: DarkPredator

Quote: Crash10

I think Activision itself said that Skylanders and Spyro are separated franchises.

Probably. It's really weird to see them as one in the same anyhow.

Uh... when was this said?

I'm pretty sure Skylanders and Spyro are basically intertwined. Toys for Bob was entrusted with Spyro, and that's where Skylanders came from.

It started as a reboot when it isn't one in its current state, Spyro is even from another universe entirely.This is probably like the Rabbids series where Rayman just broke off again eventually, except Acti would just not make any games when this happened.