darkSpyro

Hey all,

First of all I'd like to say I have not yet played this game, nor do I entirely want to. So the whole point of this thread may seem a tad.... weird, in general. No, I didn't make an account just to make this thread (made the account a while ago for general dragon banter), but it is one of my most important issues at the moment.

Since the age of four, I have been playing adventure games, and my favourites were Crash Bandicoot and Spyro games (it was around the year 1997). Not only were all the characters what I'd call a household name, but the devolopers - Insomniac, and Naughty Dog (Naughty Dog for the CB franchise) were well remembered. I knew immediately when I saw that Universal Interactive Studios and Sierra were involved in the new Spyro games, and not Insomniac, that my gaming life would change completely. It was then (Spyro: A Hero's Tail was where my burning hatred began) I began to rage in my room, disappointed that the first three games were (in my opinion) were going to be the only good ones. I hated change, still do, and didn't think it could get much worse when the Nintendo Game Boy Advance/DS and mobile phone games were released. Oh how wrong I was....

Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure was the killer for me. I mean, I thought the final Legend of Spyro mini-series game was horrible (as to be proven in an upcoming review on my YouTube channel), but this one I really am.... disgusted with. Look at the title - Spyro is a subtitle, and on the game's box art he's not in the centre, but just pushed to the side. On a competition on a Sugar Puffs cereal box, his name only appears twice, and he's lost in the cast of 30 extra characters. I know Spryo isn't a game that relies on lore, as its villains and plot have any good reason to change and no-one will complain. But this? Really? A tyrant has sent our heroes to Earth, freezing them in ice is what I've seen a lot of. So it's humanity who has to release Spyro? He's supposed to be buff, fearless and won't stop at anything, but we have to save him with our credit cards.

Sorry to sound like a whiner, I must admit I'm taking this way too seriously. But it's hard for a Spyro gamer who has been playing these games for fourteen years to face facts with Activision blatantly exploiting the franchise. They're giving Spyro a bad reputation, milking him of cash and then they'll throw him out without a name. This is not the Spryo I wanted to dig out a few years later and say to my kids, "Hey, put down your pads and look away from Call of Duty 34.2, and look at a real game".

So that's my complaint - not as formal as I wanted it to be, but really, it's the best I can do to explain my anger. In all honesty, it had to happen at some point. I haven't played it, nor seen any trailers (again, I don't plan on it either). But I'm tempted to. If anyone can give me a reason not to firebomb it anytime I see it, that'd be great. Is it a good game? How long does it last? Does it make Spyro a hero, or is his name only there because it makes money?

Thanks in advance, and sorry for leaving a blazing trail of hatred behind. This smiley might make thins a little better:

now everyone, lets not say ''omg shut up'' to him. he has the right about expressing his opinion and tellimg what he feels about this. just sayingthis before anyone starts something.

I've been trying to come up with a decent answer, but I don't really know how to react to this one.

Me personally, I won't bother with Skylanders, this doesn't mean that I hate it, I'm just not really that bothered about it, I've seen videos of it, it just makes me feel 'full up' and I don't want anything to do with it. You know when you've eaten too much one time and you feel sick? I get that feeling when I see Skylanders, it looks like they have tried to put too much into it.

I'll just stick to the ones I like, and try not to rant too much about it, but since someone has sort of asked opinions about it then this is mine.

Quote:

So it's humanity who has to release Spyro? He's supposed to be buff, fearless and won't stop at anything, but we have to save him with our credit cards.

This part made me smile, partly because it's kinda true.

Oh man.....that quote made me LOL.....that is genius....

Oh yeah, I forgot that part, that was really funny.

Quote:

First of all I'd like to say I have not yet played this game

Dead on arrival.

And now for a more mature response:

I'm not going to go and slam you or anything, because you aren't acting like a lot of the people that complain about this game, and I must give you credit for that. But I do suggest you at least try this game. You don't have to buy it (I'm pretty sure a store near you has it available to play). Just try your hardest to forget that Activision published it (as in, had no real part in the making of the game), and instead focus on the people that tried their hardest to put effort into the game, the developers. You can tell in the game that they were trying to make a fun experience for both kids and adults. I know this statement is overused enough, but seriously don't judge a book by it's cover. Spyro may not be the main focus of this game, but I didn't buy this game because Spyro was in it. I bought it because I was fairly interested in seeing how it turns out.

I'm a tad bit like you. I've played Spyro games even when I was a little baby (I was only almost 2 when the first game was released), and I loved both him and Crash to death. I was a PS1 and Sega Genesis kid, and even after the PS1 ended, I still followed Crash and Spyro. I've quite literally played every single Spyro game to ever be released on the consoles. But even after a second "reboot" in the form of Skylanders, I'm still a fan. And I still played Skylanders. I'm pretty sure somewhere, somebody expected me to be outraged by the design change, or the lack of old characters. But I wasn't. I wasn't going to judge this game without playing it. And now that I've played it, I'm glad I didn't bash on it and not give it a chance, because I really like it.

In my opinion, Skylanders isn't the killer. It's an attempt to bring him back into the public eye. To get us to remember that he is still alive. To try and introduce him to a new generation of kids that would hopefully remember him in the same way we remember him on the PS1. I find Skylanders to be a good thing, since it means that someone (Toys For Bob) isn't ready to give up on him, and just let him die away, with Dawn of the Dragon being his final curtain call. And trust me, Dawn of the Dragon would be a lousy way to end the Spyro franchise, as much as I think that game is decent.

So the message I'm trying and failing to convey is to at least try this game. Don't pass on, because while this is your opinion, it doesn't hold much substance until you play it. I pointed that out in the beginning of this post.

Besides, you don't NEED every single character.

Quote: Johnster1

Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure was the killer for me. I mean, I thought the final Legend of Spyro mini-series game was horrible (as to be proven in an upcoming review on my YouTube channel), but this one I really am.... disgusted with. Look at the title - Spyro is a subtitle, and on the game's box art he's not in the centre, but just pushed to the side. On a competition on a Sugar Puffs cereal box, his name only appears twice, and he's lost in the cast of 30 extra characters. I know Spryo isn't a game that relies on lore, as its villains and plot have any good reason to change and no-one will complain. But this? Really? A tyrant has sent our heroes to Earth, freezing them in ice is what I've seen a lot of. So it's humanity who has to release Spyro? He's supposed to be buff, fearless and won't stop at anything, but we have to save him with our credit cards.

Sorry to sound like a whiner, I must admit I'm taking this way too seriously. But it's hard for a Spyro gamer who has been playing these games for fourteen years to face facts with Activision blatantly exploiting the franchise. They're giving Spyro a bad reputation, milking him of cash and then they'll throw him out without a name. This is not the Spryo I wanted to dig out a few years later and say to my kids, "Hey, put down your pads and look away from Call of Duty 34.2, and look at a real game".

So that's my complaint - not as formal as I wanted it to be, but really, it's the best I can do to explain my anger. In all honesty, it had to happen at some point. I haven't played it, nor seen any trailers (again, I don't plan on it either). But I'm tempted to. If anyone can give me a reason not to firebomb it anytime I see it, that'd be great. Is it a good game? How long does it last? Does it make Spyro a hero, or is his name only there because it makes money?

Thanks in advance, and sorry for leaving a blazing trail of hatred behind. This smiley might make thins a little better:

Don't worry, man. You're not alone. I too am disappointed in terms how this has little to do with Spyro. Get used to CAViar, he will ALWAYS make a counter-argument towards anyone who has lost faith in Spyro in terms of gameplay direction and hatred towards Activision (CAViar is kinda like the de facto leader of this website)

I've played Spyro since I was 5, and I'm 14, now. I will continue to love Spyro, even though they've seemed to "kill" him the LoS series.

BUT, I think they've revived him a bit with Skylanders. Why? Because, he's back to his old "kick ass" self, and there are tons of refrances from the older games and newer ones alike. Even though he looks as if he's been "pushed to the side", like I used to think, there are tons of more characters that look good.

Even though Cynder has pushed it too far now, and all the talk of Malefor has completely ridden of that "this is a completely different thing from LoS", the game still looks as if it has a lot of oppertunity. This could get in a TON of new fans for Spyro, and soon everyone will know who Spyro is. And soon I won't be made fun of at school for liking/drawing him anymore.

You see, I used to be like you, but then as I did my research and watched some videos, I decided it was time to move on.. and saw that Spyro was actually back to his classic self, just with a different image to attract more of the little boys who's parents have a hard time trying to find a kid-friendly video game for them.

In conclusion, Spyro is no different now (except for his looks) from when he began. His LoS generation may have ruined him now, but now he's back and better than ever with many friends. Spyo doesn't always have to be in the spotlight, because after a while, that may kill some of the magic... just like Ripto did when he just kept comiing back over and over and over again.

NOW,

I GO. -zoom-

Quote: StevemacQ

Get used to CAViar, he will ALWAYS make a counter-argument towards anyone who has lost faith in Spyro in terms of gameplay direction and hatred towards Activision (CAViar is kinda like the de facto leader of this website)

If a counter-argument can be made about anything, I'll make it. It's not just about Spyro, buddy. And this isn't really a counter-argument, more than it is just my response, using purely my opinion.

Also, don't forget that I hate Activision as well. But I'm not paying attention to who published the game. The publisher never mattered to me.

I still don't get that nickname.....

I too got the first Spyro game the year it came out. I was seven. Spyro was pretty much my life as a kid. Spyro is what inspired me to become a better artist. Spyro is one of the things which helped inspire my creativity. The series is important to me too.

Which is why I love this new game. It is very similar in theme and tone to the originals. It's very imaginative. It looks beautiful (if the original games were made in this generation it's what I imagine they would look like). Spyro has his old personality back.

To me this is reviving the series to what it used to be.

Of course it's not completely the same. It just can't be; be reasonable. The original games are still my favorite games and they are still very fun, but their gameplay is outdated. Of course it's going to be updated eventually.

Also, Year of the Dragon came out almost twelve years ago. If you're still sulking about changes to the series at this point, then that really is sad.

Another thing to consider, the target audience. You are not it. The target audience is children. This is not to say adults can't enjoy it as well, but consider what kids are like. I have two younger siblings. When the game started they immediately loved it. I think the game is genius, it definitely knows it's audience well. You can see when you play it the amount of love and effort that was put in to make it as fun as possible for kids. Most other kids games don't have that much.

Give the game a chance. If you haven't even seen a trailer then how do you know it's going to be so bad? The thing about the toys is that you don't have to buy every one of them. You can buy as many or as little as you want.

^ I agree.

I agree with wolfiemon too, but it still doesn't change my opinion about the game.

We're not trying to change your opinion about it, just trying to talk some sense into the topic creator.

You're neutral, you're fine.

^Talk some sense isn't the proper term. You might be doing that, but not me.

It isn't the proper term for you, but it is for me.. and it might be for wolfiemon, too.

Quote: wolfiemon

I too got the first Spyro game the year it came out. I was seven. Spyro was pretty much my life as a kid. Spyro is what inspired me to become a better artist. Spyro is one of the things which helped inspire my creativity. The series is important to me too.

Which is why I love this new game. It is very similar in theme and tone to the originals. It's very imaginative. It looks beautiful (if the original games were made in this generation it's what I imagine they would look like). Spyro has his old personality back.

To me this is reviving the series to what it used to be.

Of course it's not completely the same. It just can't be; be reasonable. The original games are still my favorite games and they are still very fun, but their gameplay is outdated. Of course it's going to be updated eventually.

Also, Year of the Dragon came out almost twelve years ago. If you're still sulking about changes to the series at this point, then that really is sad.

Another thing to consider, the target audience. You are not it. The target audience is children. This is not to say adults can't enjoy it as well, but consider what kids are like. I have two younger siblings. When the game started they immediately loved it. I think the game is genius, it definitely knows it's audience well. You can see when you play it the amount of love and effort that was put in to make it as fun as possible for kids. Most other kids games don't have that much.

Give the game a chance. If you haven't even seen a trailer then how do you know it's going to be so bad? The thing about the toys is that you don't have to buy every one of them. You can buy as many or as little as you want.

^ This to the whole quote.
Especially the bolded.

Quote: CAV

Quote: StevemacQ

Get used to CAViar, he will ALWAYS make a counter-argument towards anyone who has lost faith in Spyro in terms of gameplay direction and hatred towards Activision (CAViar is kinda like the de facto leader of this website)

If a counter-argument can be made about anything, I'll make it. It's not just about Spyro, buddy. And this isn't really a counter-argument, more than it is just my response, using purely my opinion.

Also, don't forget that I hate Activision as well. But I'm not paying attention to who published the game. The publisher never mattered to me.

I still don't get that nickname.....

Overpriced fish eggs.

He's calling you overpriced fish eggs.

^I know what caviar is.

But what does it relate to me? That I act fancy or that I have the money to buy expensive items? And where does the "Shepard" in CAViar Shepard come in? Because it's my avatar?

Well, thanks for the replies. Finally, a forum that respects opinions (esteem points gained) and gives constructive feedback. At the time I was extremely angry and apologize for such immaturity about it. But it all hit me at once - a silly competition with little information, and from my first look at it we were just "saving Spryo with our credit cards" (one of my favourite quotes about the rant, I'll admit).

In the end I will no doubt rent it despite my parents saying "Well, it's your £5.95 for a week....". If I'm disappointed, I shouldn't let it get to me. People have said to me IRL "Geez John, it's just a game", but it's more than that to me - it's nostalgia. It's the one thing I grew up with. I was (and still am) inactive, and only played CB, Super Mario and Spyro. So it was a way of life I guess (fanatic points gained?)....

But still, thanks all for the replies, you've made some good points and have given me a chance to perhaps give the game another chance. I'll be sure to play it, watch some videos (and grind my teeth, regardless). Perhaps the game is coming back to the public, or perhaps it is trying to recover from its embarrassment and loss of players from the LoS series. Or, perhaps it is gonna drain my best virtual friend dry due to greed.

So thanks all again, and I'll be sure to pop back every now and then. Not only that, but I'll check the rest of the forum posts here to see others' views on the game

If you don't want to be severely disappointed by Skylanders, then don't expect it to be a complete nostalgia trip like Sonic Generations or Donkey Kong Country Returns. This does have references and elements of the original games, but at the same time is trying to make it's own name, rather than just live in the shadow of the older games it's based on (kinda like Goldeneye for the Wii). Try to judge it as a standalone game.

Quote: CAV

^I know what caviar is.

But what does it relate to me? That I act fancy or that I have the money to buy expensive items? And where does the "Shepard" in CAViar Shepard come in? Because it's my avatar?

It's just a pun. Have a sense of humor, will you?

P.S. I never really knew you actually hate Activision. I always thought you were neutral.

^ Dude, CAV is merely asking why you gave him such a nickname.

Quote: LevanJess

^ Dude, CAV is merely asking why you gave him such a nickname.

He refers to me as Steve or Stevey, so I return the favour.

Calling someone like fish eggs it's not a positive thing IMO... calling you Steve is just... natural due to your nickname =P

I like this thread though, it's full of mature opinions, nice to see that.

^ This, he's just calling you Steve because of your username. It's just a nickname.

Quote: StevemacQ

It's just a pun. Have a sense of humor, will you?

P.S. I never really knew you actually hate Activision. I always thought you were neutral.

Quote: StevemacQ

Quote: LevanJess

^ Dude, CAV is merely asking why you gave him such a nickname.

He refers to me as Steve or Stevey, so I return the favour.

It's not that I don't like the name, or I'm offended. I was just confused as to what the meaning was. Thanks for clearing it up.

And guys, I'm not offended by the name. I intend to adopt it, much like I adopted "Captain Serious" several months ago. There's no need to worry about offending me. I'm not offended that easily.

And yes, I hate Kotick and his business moves (which would technically also be Activision's). I hate how he abused and milked Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk to all oblivion, and that CoD and Spiderman would be next in line.

Quote: CAV

Quote: StevemacQ

It's just a pun. Have a sense of humor, will you?

P.S. I never really knew you actually hate Activision. I always thought you were neutral.

Quote: StevemacQ

Quote: LevanJess

^ Dude, CAV is merely asking why you gave him such a nickname.

He refers to me as Steve or Stevey, so I return the favour.

It's not that I don't like the name, or I'm offended. I was just confused as to what the meaning was. Thanks for clearing it up.

And guys, I'm not offended by the name. I intend to adopt it, much like I adopted "Captain Serious" several months ago. There's no need to worry about offending me. I'm not offended that easily.

And yes, I hate Kotick and his business moves (which would technically also be Activision's). I hate how he abused and milked Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk to all oblivion, and that CoD and Spiderman would be next in line.

In my honest opinion, CoD has already been milked, the first three original ones are okay, I like the second one.

Sadly Skylanders is also doomed to get milked every year though maybe they'll completely different figures as oppose to the everyone in this one.

^ And do you have proof or any kind of evidence to back that up? (Besides Activision's past of milking things, they could still give Spyro up or actually not milk it. You need some real proof they'll do this.)

Quote: StevemacQ

Sadly Skylanders is also doomed to get milked every year though maybe they'll completely different figures as oppose to the everyone in this one.

I think you fail to realize that this is the exact business model that is used when you get into collectible toys. This pretty much how you make money in the toy/collectible world and is especially true for well established brands and franchises. Do you know how many types of games, figures, toys they've come up for the Pokemon franchise? The pokemon video game which has a new version every year is always accompanied by merchandise that is related to the new game. This means every new game will spawn new figures, toys, etc. Suprisingly these are what die hard franchise fans go for! So don't be surprised if you see a skylanders themed radio clock or skylanders costumes for halloween! If all goes well for Skylanders

Quote: LevanJess

^ And do you have proof or any kind of evidence to back that up? (Besides Activision's past of milking things, they could still give Spyro up or actually not milk it. You need some real proof they'll do this.)

Gonna be honest, the fact they made the toy concept, and are STILL considering a proper sequel already is proof enough this will be milked.

They initially announced that the toy concept was used so they could expand on the game for a long time, and keep people coming back. But, if they were to do that, why bother with a sequel so early?
Making a sequel so soon is proof enough of milking it. I hope they stick to their initial word, and really expand on the title. They should at least keep the original going for a year before even starting work on a sequel.

However, milked =/= a terrible game. As milked as CoD is, I still think it's an OK game, and Black Ops had some variety and nice easter eggs.
But, in the case of Skylanders, they should stick to their initial promise of REALLY expanding the original game. I don't want to see Skylanders become another Pokémon.

Yeah, I think many people need to realize that milking is not necessarily a bad thing...

Just take a look at the Pokémon franchise. Has it been milked to no end? Yes it has. Is it selling better than ever before? Yes it is! Is it better than ever before? ...I suppose that's debatable, but at least it's way better than it used to be back in the day!
Or what about the LEGO games? They've been milking those for ages now, and every single game turns out to be amazing (though it is indeed LEGO's very nature to be milked, I suppose - the great thing about LEGO is that you can add almost anything to it with great success)!

Quote: sonicbrawler182

But, in the case of Skylanders, they should stick to their initial promise of REALLY expanding the original game. I don't want to see Skylanders become another Pokémon.

The thing is, they NEED more Skylanders games if they are to continue the franchise (let alone milk it) - they can't expand the original game enough to substitute a brand new game, after all. Eventually, people will get bored with replaying the same 25ish levels (or however many there will be), and they'll long for a new game with new figurines, new characters, new stages, a new plot and all of that.

With Pokemon, at least the games only cost 30 squids. Now? A good £30 extra, not including all the figures that are no doubt bought. :/

TheWereCat: And then take a look at an almost as popular part of the Pokémon franchise - the Pokémon TCG (currently the most popular TCG in the world, if I remember correctly) - where most players use hundreds and hundreds of dollars every year just to be able to play competitively...

Oh great, so Skylanders is a little bit of a rip off of Pokemon, so that's where they got some ideas from.

Skylanders will do to Spyro what Raving Rabbids did to Rayman.

Quote: FireMeowth

Yeah, I think many people need to realize that milking is not necessarily a bad thing...

Just take a look at the Pokémon franchise. Has it been milked to no end? Yes it has. Is it selling better than ever before? Yes it is! Is it better than ever before? ...I suppose that's debatable, but at least it's way better than it used to be back in the day!
Or what about the LEGO games? They've been milking those for ages now, and every single game turns out to be amazing (though it is indeed LEGO's very nature to be milked, I suppose - the great thing about LEGO is that you can add almost anything to it with great success)!

Quote: sonicbrawler182

But, in the case of Skylanders, they should stick to their initial promise of REALLY expanding the original game. I don't want to see Skylanders become another Pokémon.

The thing is, they NEED more Skylanders games if they are to continue the franchise (let alone milk it) - they can't expand the original game enough to substitute a brand new game, after all. Eventually, people will get bored with replaying the same 25ish levels (or however many there will be), and they'll long for a new game with new figurines, new characters, new stages, a new plot and all of that.

But you are forgetting two very important things:

-The Adventure Packs provide brand new levels.
-The Adventure Packs also provide new gameplay elements.

With that in mind, Skylanders does not need a sequel for quite a long time. The toy concept was created to extend the replayability of the game, at least that's why TFB came up with it (chances are Activision only approved it because it would make a lot of money, but I digress).

Games aren't ALL about the money. The actual developers like to be recognised critically, and want to produce a masterpiece that will be talked about for years to come. And, Skylanders could reach that kind of status, but only if they don't exploit the concept. If we start seeng a bunch of new, yearly Skylander games, the games will become very mediocre, and people will just pass by them altogether, hurting both sales and reputation.

They could actually do great things with this toy concept, by expanding on the game significantly, especially through the Adventure Packs. But, a sequel so early is not the way to go.

Quote: StevemacQ

Skylanders will do to Spyro what Raving Rabbids did to Rayman.

Not really a fan of Rayman so I don't have a clue what you're on.

Quote: SuperSpyroFan

Quote: StevemacQ

Skylanders will do to Spyro what Raving Rabbids did to Rayman.

Not really a fan of Rayman so I don't have a clue what you're on.

The Rayman: Raving Rabbids games took the spotlight away from Rayman himself, and instead put it on the Rabbids, new characters designed for the mini-game formula.

Steve is saying that the Skylanders could do the same to Spyro. And I do see that as a possibility.

Skylanders is not a Spyro game

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Quote: SuperSpyroFan

Quote: StevemacQ

Skylanders will do to Spyro what Raving Rabbids did to Rayman.

Not really a fan of Rayman so I don't have a clue what you're on.

The Rayman: Raving Rabbids games took the spotlight away from Rayman himself, and instead put it on the Rabbids, new characters designed for the mini-game formula.

Steve is saying that the Skylanders could do the same to Spyro. And I do see that as a possibility.

I really hope that doesn't happen.

That possibility never came to my mind. But, now that you mention it...

If you think about that, it has happened with this game. But that's not saying it's a bad game, or that it's guaranteed to happen in the next game, but it's possible.

Quote: Darby

If you think about that, it has happened with this game. But that's not saying it's a bad game, or that it's guaranteed to happen in the next game, but it's possible.

Hasn't quite happened yet.
In the first Rabbids game, you still played as Rayman, but the Rabbids seemed like the real stars.
In the second Rabbids game, Rayman only appeared in the opening movie, despite his name still being in the title.

Skylanders is at the same spot as the first Rabbids game. Spyro is still playable, but he's not really the highlight character.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Quote: Darby

If you think about that, it has happened with this game. But that's not saying it's a bad game, or that it's guaranteed to happen in the next game, but it's possible.

Hasn't quite happened yet.
In the first Rabbids game, you still played as Rayman, but the Rabbids seemed like the real stars.
In the second Rabbids game, Rayman only appeared in the opening movie, despite his name still being in the title.

Skylanders is at the same spot as the first Rabbids game. Spyro is still playable, but he's not really the highlight character.

Spyro's name is not even mentioned in the game.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Gonna be honest, the fact they made the toy concept, and are STILL considering a proper sequel already is proof enough this will be milked.

They initially announced that the toy concept was used so they could expand on the game for a long time, and keep people coming back. But, if they were to do that, why bother with a sequel so early?
Making a sequel so soon is proof enough of milking it. I hope they stick to their initial word, and really expand on the title. They should at least keep the original going for a year before even starting work on a sequel.

However, milked =/= a terrible game. As milked as CoD is, I still think it's an OK game, and Black Ops had some variety and nice easter eggs.
But, in the case of Skylanders, they should stick to their initial promise of REALLY expanding the original game. I don't want to see Skylanders become another Pokémon.

First, thanks for answering!
Second, I honestly don't know too much about the possible sequel...
But I heard that if they do make a sequel, it will be possible they will let the old toys work (with possible new toys), is this true? If so, I don't think it honestly can be much proof or milking. They're just giving the game a sequel for more gameplay. I would completely understand if they released new characters (ALL new characters), though.

But you do have a point on the considering a sequel this early, however. That's a good inference, and you're right, it's possible to be milked, with the long game it was and with the Adventure packs (I never did say it wasn't possible, just wanted to see if Steve would give a reason). You're right, they shouldn't consider a sequel this early. :l

The thing is, though, they haven't decided to make a sequel yet. You never know, they might drop it and wait a few years.

Agreed, milked doesn't make a terrible game. Personally I never cared for CoD, though.
And kinda agreed on the Pokemon thing. It does seem to be getting milked.

Quote: StevemacQ

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Quote: Darby

If you think about that, it has happened with this game. But that's not saying it's a bad game, or that it's guaranteed to happen in the next game, but it's possible.

Hasn't quite happened yet.
In the first Rabbids game, you still played as Rayman, but the Rabbids seemed like the real stars.
In the second Rabbids game, Rayman only appeared in the opening movie, despite his name still being in the title.

Skylanders is at the same spot as the first Rabbids game. Spyro is still playable, but he's not really the highlight character.

Spyro's name is not even mentioned in the game.

It is, in the very beginning.

Hugo also says the name of Gill Grunt and Trigger Happy if you play as them. Only the Starter Pack Skylanders are mentioned by name at the beginning of the game.