Topic: The Spyro series

I remember back in '01 (back when all I had was a PSX), I would constantly rent Spyro 3 because I knew that was about as close to Mario 64 as I was going to get on the Playstation. It was a pretty fun game, but its been forever since I last played it.

I haven't really played any of the newer Spyro games. And I don't intend to.

Just started playing Spyro: The Year of The Dragon, since I wanted it since I was a kid and finally decided to hunker down and buy it. Well, after playing it for about an hour, I must say...I'm glad I only payed $6 for it. Or rather, I wish I had gotten it as a kid. I just can't appreciate a game like this anymore. It's childish, rediculously easy, and the constant stream of rewards makes it so that nothing feels like an accomplishment. It's just not that fun, and overall it just feels bland. The only reason why I got it was because I wanted it as a kid, but since then I had already gotten Spyro: Season of Ice as a substitute, and to be quite honest, it wasn't much of a downgrade. Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if the series has really gone downhill, or if the series just hasn't aged well.

Oh well, I'll still probably finish it, and at the very least, I now know that I was never really missing out on it, and now I don't have to get the rest of the series like I was planning to. So I spent 6 bucks that I would've spent at any time to save me $12 and a lot of grief. Not bad, right?

I was thinking about downloading the first Spyro on my PS3, because I only got to play it a couple of times when I was younger. I'm sure I wont enjoy as much as I would if I played it a lot back in the day (the same with FFVII), but I'll still give it a go soonish.

That I'll mostly agree With. Rayman 2 was a pretty solid 3D platformer, and far better than Spyro or Crash ever were, IMO.

Both Ape Escapes are great, too. I never got to play much of either, though. Mostly just watched my bro play. But What I did play was pretty awesome.

Well, no, Rayman 2 is far less Repititive than Spyro. It just is. I'm not gonna bother arguing any further with someone who'd make such rude claims.

What do you do in Spyro besides run around and collect jewels, bowling over the random happless idiot that occasionally gets in your way, and crack open the occasional egg/Princess/Whatever is supposed to be your main objective? Rayman 2 has tons of gameplay variety, with tons of unique challenges and objectives that actually require effort to aquire. Any single stage alone is way more fun than I've ever seen in a Spyro game.

I can't think of anything, but much of what you mentioned is in Rayman 2, too. When was the last time you played it? 10 years ago?

I got the PS1 before the DualShock. I took to the analog sticks a lot better on the PlayStation.

That's obviously not what I meant. I was talking about the level design and the gameplay itself. Mario isn't what makes Mario games fun--it's the brilliantly designed worlds that envelop him. The music, the whimsical, child-like wonderment of it all-- that's what Mario is all about. And for the record, yes, Mario can fly and talk. He does both in Mario 64.

Exactly. The worlds in Super Mario 64 are simply brilliant - very bizzare, creative, imaginitive, and loads of fun to explore! I'm not even speaking from a nostalgic point of view, either. I never really got to play much as a kid, yet as an adult, I'm astounded by how charming the game really is. The Worlds in Spyro can't even conpare. Sure, the characters are charming, but I can't say any one local has really stood out to me yet.

Agreed, the level design and puzzles in Spyro were a lot blander than what Mario offered, even back then. Without the relatively unique characters it would have been a write-off for me right from the start.

And Spyro never flew as such, iirc. (At least in the first games.) Just a double jump and glide.

More like Jump, Glide, flutter.

Spyro flew in the first game, but only on the timed stages. In the sequel there a flight powerup he could use on certain levels when he passed through the two pillars, but it was only temporary. Other than that, he just glided (he could hover too in the sequel).

I've only played the Legend of Spyro Trilogy, and they're some of my favorite games. Although, it may be more that I like the character than the actual gameplay. I mean, the games are fun and all, but nothing outstanding.
I guess I just like that game's version of Spyro, the "all-around good guy" version. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard the old one was a jerk.)
You know what they should do; do the next Spyro game with the platforming stuff from the old games (minus anything that involves being a jerk) and the characters' personalities from the TLOS Trilogy. (And Cynder. Plus any characters from the old games)
That would be great...

I remember using my brother's PSX just so I could play Spyro. Never really got into Spyro 1, but I loved Spyro 2 and liked Spyro 3 (skateboarding was a lot of fun). I still play the games to this day whenever I'm feeling nostalgic.

Well the only Spyro game I've played that actually sucked was LOSEN. All the others have actually been rather entertaining, even on the PS2. The problem with LOSEN was that it felt like you were thrown into an adventure-in-progress rather than starting a new one.

@Starfox: You were. It was part 2 of a 3-part Trilogy.
Still probably the worst of the trilogy. (Even though I thought it was good)
Why is part 2 of almost any trilogy almost always the worst? (Jurrasic Park 2, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Back to the Future 2...)

Jurassic Park 2 was all right.
Back to the Future Part II was actually a fun movie, with their ideas of what 2015 would be like
Temple of Doom sucked

That's not really true at all. Sometimes #2 is the best. It all just depends on whether or not the original got things "Just right". If they did, then it's usually not as good because then people go in expecting the lightning to strike twice, which it never does. Then by the third one they simply hope it was better than the second.