Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

Hwd45 · Nov 29, 2011 7:58 PM

(First, may I note that the title says 'and why they won't happen' and not 'and why they won'.

All the older spyro fans out there should probably know how fun the first trilogy were. In my opinion, the 3rd game was the best. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.

But think about this. Spyro: Year of the Dragon was released in the year 2000, which was also the Year of the Dragon. 2012 is also the Year of the Dragon. This would technically be Activision/Insomniac's perfect opportunity to remake the first 3 games (especially Spyro 3) in HD for the current/next generation consoles.

But, unfortunately, there are many reasons why this won't happen. First of all, insomniac can't make any mor spyro games without checking with Activision first. I actually contacted them through email and they told me so. On top of that, there aren't many people who worked on the original spyro trilogy who still work at Insomniac, so it's unlikely that they'd even think of making a new spyro game. Also, since Activision don't own the original trilogy, and because they are currently making the Skylanders series, we can hardly expect them to make remakes of the original games.

It's a nice thought, though. We can only hope that the older spyro community will hassle the two companies so much that they are forced into making remakes.

So, what are your thoughts on the matter of re-releases, compilations and HD remakes?

Ripto2 · Nov 29, 2011 10:15 PM

This would be awesome if it did happen. Insomniac did a way better job with the series than Activision

Hwd45 · Nov 30, 2011 10:06 AM

Ripto2 wrote:

This would be awesome if it did happen. Insomniac did a way better job with the series than Activision

Definitely, one problem with Activision is that they rush the creation of their games. Or, at least, they rushed Year of the Dragonfly, and that's why it turned out bad; it was supposed to have about 30 more dragonflies, a few more worlds, and then they would remove the bugs, as well as increasing the fps to 60, but unfortunately, due to time constraints, we were left with a buggy, laggy, glitch-filled, very short disgrace of a Spyro game.

JazzJackrabbit · Nov 30, 2011 2:23 PM

Welcome to the forum!

Remakes are quite common in games these days. You got Pokemon Fire-red and Leaf-green, you got Super Mario 64 DS, 3D remakes of Ocarina of Time and Starfox 64. They all turn out better than the originals because of added features and improved graphics.

If Insomniac were to give Activision the rights and the code, and they eventually released it, I would definitely buy the remake of Spyro 1, or the whole trilogy if it's on one disc.

It seems unlikely, but if it happens, gaming history will be remade

Clock-la · Nov 30, 2011 5:37 PM

Are the games broke??

Nope.

So plese don't try to fix whats not broken.

Hwd45 · Dec 01, 2011 9:10 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Are the games broke??
Nope.
So plese don't try to fix whats not broken.

I'm not sure I fully understand?

Hwd45 · Dec 01, 2011 9:14 PM

JazzJackrabbit wrote:

Welcome to the forum!
Remakes are quite common in games these days. You got Pokemon Fire-red and Leaf-green, you got Super Mario 64 DS, 3D remakes of Ocarina of Time and Starfox 64. They all turn out better than the originals because of added features and improved graphics.
If Insomniac were to give Activision the rights and the code, and they eventually released it, I would definitely buy the remake of Spyro 1, or the whole trilogy if it's on one disc.
It seems unlikely, but if it happens, gaming history will be remade

Don't forget Halo CE anniversary, Sonic CD re-releases and Heartgold/Soulsilver! And yes. I totally agree that it would make gaming history. I don't really see a reason for them not to remake the originals; it would probably be extremely popular among older fans, and probably quite popular in younger audiences too.

Aura24 · Dec 02, 2011 2:44 AM

Hwd45 wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
Are the games broke??
Nope.
So plese don't try to fix whats not broken.
I'm not sure I fully understand?

Clock-la says that the original trilogy doesn't need a remake.

And I'm guessing some fans will complain about the graphics and a few changes like 'The original graphics were bettahhh!' or 'They shouldn't have tried to tinker with the 'true Spyro games!' We liked them the way they were!!'

Stormy · Dec 02, 2011 5:02 AM

A vocal minority will always complain about dumb things like that (not sure how they could possibly make the graphics worse than PS1 graphics on a modern system, though?), but I think most fans would be in favor of a rerelease of the old games. I'd love to see them rereleased with modern graphics, maybe with a few extra bonus levels or something to make it worthwhile.

Hwd45 · Dec 02, 2011 5:33 PM

They could add new graphics but have the option of changing back to the original graphics, like Halo CE anniversary. That would be cool.

JazzJackrabbit · Dec 03, 2011 4:19 AM

IF it happens, I'd like to see a bonus world.

Clock-la · Dec 03, 2011 10:40 AM

Im just saying. You know they won't remake them they'll do what everyone dose when remaking things...

Even Disney could'nt help it...imagin what activition would do!

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Dec 04, 2011 5:03 AM

i actually do think modern graphics are worse than PS1. PS1 graphics had a certain charm to them and even PS2 graphics that the 360 etc etc etc just don't have. something about very modern graphics leaves me with a slightly resentful taste in my mouth.

JazzJackrabbit · Dec 04, 2011 5:19 AM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

i actually do think modern graphics are worse than PS1. PS1 graphics had a certain charm to them and even PS2 graphics that the 360 etc etc etc just don't have. something about very modern graphics leaves me with a slightly resentful taste in my mouth.

I kind of agree with you there. Look at the Pokemon handheld games. The graphic quality in Gen 3 is probably the best.

Stormy · Dec 04, 2011 7:12 AM

^ I agree with you there, but I always thought that was because Sapphire was the first Pokemon game I ever played so I was naturally biased toward it.

But for console games, I much prefer the smoother graphics of modern consoles to that of older consoles where the texturing is obviously tiled and everything looks polygonal.

For example, this (PS2) (Although I do prefer PS1 graphics to the awkward looking PS2 graphics, so maybe this isn't a good comparison)

▼Hidden text

versus this (PS3)

▼Hidden text

Can't get much better than PS3 graphics. inb4 console war

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Dec 05, 2011 1:52 AM

but see, those graphics are almost too smooth. everything, the edges of the rocks, the glow coming from the sky, it's all just unappealing imo. too... smooth, too rounded, too flashy, too much trying to be "advanced", too much detail on the colors and not enough detail to the walls themselves.

that's why i like PS1/PS2 (especially LOS) graphics so much, of course very little in it had any "reality" to it, but they kept that little bit of edge to things that kept everything from looking like rubber, because real desert rocks don't look like that.

Stormy · Dec 05, 2011 5:37 AM

Wait, you think that screenshot looks like rubber? More like rubber than the PS2 screenshot, where you can't see the fur and everything looks like it has the same texture? I don't see it.

Eh, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I like smooth and rounded realistic details. As someone who has never had a new console until it's already been out for years, I'm always amazed with how beautiful they can make things look in games. I really don't think it's trying to be "advanced" so much as just look good and realistic, and what's wrong with looking advanced, anyway? And also, real walls don't look like PS1 and PS2 walls, either, so I'm not sure where you were going with that point. =/

I usually don't care too much about graphics and I don't mind PS1 graphics or think they're horribly ugly or anything. It's just a bonus when they can make things not look like they're obviously just lumps of polygons thrown together.

Swaffy · Dec 06, 2011 1:11 AM

Swaffeh agrees with Stormy.

Just take a look at Halo CE. The environments in the original are not as
graceful as the new Anniversary environments. It's also easier to find where
to go with the new graphics. The only reason I'd ever go back to the old
setting is to look through bushes to see enemies (old graphics had almost no
vegetation in its environments).

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Dec 06, 2011 5:56 AM

smooth and rounded is not realistic.

especially in natural rock formations.

everything else you (rather, we,) said before is opinion/preference.

i guess it's something just i see. hm.

Stormy · Dec 06, 2011 4:44 PM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

smooth and rounded is not realistic.

Sure it is. Take the human body for example. You're not going to see any hard edges or angles. Most things in nature are not made of polygons - you're going to see a lot of smooth shapes. Granted, of course there are objects that do have hard edges, like, as you said,

especially in natural rock formations

but one, modern graphics can capture that, too (can't be arsed to find a picture, but trust me on this. Angular is not hard to do with video game graphics.); and two, some rock formations actually can look quite smooth, which is what I think that screenshot that you didn't like was supposed to capture.

i guess it's something just i see. hm.

It is interesting. I mentioned this thread to some of my friends, and one of them suggested that you might have a wider uncanny valley than most people. While it looks like that term applies to human-looking things and not objects in general, I thought it could still be something similar, like, things look weird to you if they're sort of close to realism, but not quite there. Do you think that has any validity, or is it something else?

This is getting kind of tangential, (not saying we can't talk about this anymore, though), so I'm going to try to relate it back to the original topic a bit.

For the original Spyro games, we probably wouldn't want too realistic of graphics; they wouldn't fit in with the cartoony kind of theme Spyro has. Maybe a compromise like cel-shading could work, although I think I'd like if it looked similar to the Ratchet and Clank graphics. Hwd45's idea about having the option of new or old graphics would be cool: even people who like modern graphics could appreciate the old graphics for nostalgia value.

Sheep · Dec 06, 2011 7:08 PM

Aura24 wrote:

And I'm guessing some fans will complain about the graphics and a few changes like 'The original graphics were bettahhh!' or 'They shouldn't have tried to tinker with the 'true Spyro games!' We liked them the way they were!!'

That would probably be my reaction depending on how it would actually look, apart from being happy that original Spyro got some more attention.

I agree that the modern graphics usually are more realistic and can look really good.

My favorite type of graphics is what the PS1 could do when it was pushed to it's limit, in a colorful sort of cartoony style which I believe both Crash and Spyro did. Things were expected look polygonal, and some games looked bad, but these games reduced the polygonality(let's pretend that's a word) to an acceptable and comfortable level. I also prefer non-smoothed textures over smoothed textures when the geometry has this level of roughness. Otherwise, the rough geometry and smooth textures are two like different worlds.

ANB and TEN had a very nice style. A certain roughness to the geometry, but not making it ugly. The textures were detailed enough not to look over-stretched, and below a level of detail where they wouldn't blend in with the models.
It didn't have the same slippery, shiny artificial feeling that some PS2 games have, caused by stretched textures and the same type of smooth lighting on everything.

Modern consoles can produce absolutely stunning visuals, and near optimal realism. Millions of polygons, high resolution textures, bump maps, advanced lighting and perfect shadows.
Visually, you're taken even further into the game world, and can see tiny little details of realism everywhere, but none of these are relevant to the gameplay. The walls, ground, rocks, trees, platforms etc. that you see have a lot of details, while the world you collide with is a very simplyfied version of this, with big, flat surfaces or primitives like spheres, and cubes, You can see, but not touch.
I don't have a PS3 myself to play with(have played some games with friends though), and don't use our Wii a lot, so my opinion might not be justified by reality, but it's the impression I have, partially based on my experiences with the PS2, but with the improvements in modern consoles on my mind.
Something I've noticed when watching my brother play Monster Hunter Tri for the Wii, is that when things look as realistic as they do, I expect the collisions to be too, and feel that it's wrong when he can walk through the huge body of the monster he just slayed as though it was air.

Graphics have improved a lot because of hardware acceleration and graphic card stuff, while the speed of collision and world interaction code lags behind(There have of course been huge improvements, but still).

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

something about very modern graphics leaves me with a slightly resentful taste in my mouth.

I agree with this. I'm probably biased by my favorite games and what for me was the golden age of games.

As for a remakes of Spyro games, graphics wise, I think I'd like something similar to Super Mario Galaxy.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Dec 08, 2011 3:51 AM

those aren't as smooth as in the screenshot. when i think of that game, i think of holding a bouncy ball. actually, yeah, it reminds me a lot of this bouncy ball sort of thing i had when i was a kid.
when i look at natural rock formations, i think of hard rock.

It is interesting. I mentioned this thread to some of my friends, and one of them suggested that you might have a wider uncanny valley than most people. While it looks like that term applies to human-looking things and not objects in general, I thought it could still be something similar, like, things look weird to you if they're sort of close to realism, but not quite there. Do you think that has any validity, or is it something else?

that makes a lot of sense. PS3 graphics try to be realistic, they're close, but just like that bizarre robot, or mannequin, or whatever it is in the Wikipedia article, there's something about the detail that makes me very displeased. also i tend to pick out detail easily.

but see, LOS graphics are pretty realistic-looking, especially considering there are few "real" things in it. but maybe if the world really looked like The Eternal Night, i wouldn't like its graphics then.

as for Spyro games, i think it'd be a bit hard to appreciate new graphics, even for fans of them: we're used to seeing the games the first way. seeing them in a different way, for me anyway, would be a bit... unnatural, if you could use the word "natural" in technological discussion. still an interesting thing to imagine.

JazzJackrabbit · Dec 08, 2011 6:51 PM

If they were to get a graphic quality similar to A Haro's Tail in a remake of the first trilogy, it would be a vast improvement. Of course, the games are already great.

bane dragon · Dec 08, 2011 8:40 PM

While a graphical update might be in order, if they do too much, people will come in and complain about the surreality it presents (the "rubber rocks" comment, along with a few others, or the general outcry against the new Spyro's appearance). If they updated graphics, I'd like to see a mix of slightly polygonal shaping for the rough look for the most part (for the simplistic look that a lot of fans of the old like) while adding a higher quality to the finer details (perhaps bubbling purple or green muck instead of just flat purple glass in the original, a little more grainy look to sand and desert rocks instead of the flat tan, stuff like that). Either that or low-grade (no sleek, shiny, metallic feel unless appropriate to the world) high quality (meaning sand looks like sand, grass looks like grass (not green shag carpetting), you can't see straight to the bottom of any lake from the top (glare from the sun, etc), and dangerous liquids actually looking dangerous (lava actually looking like melted rock, toxic lakes looking like bubbly purple or green muck that could mutate you or worse instead of just flat-colored water minus the movement, etc. The list could go on).

That said, the only thing I'd really not want to happen to the game is them adding so much extra content that it detracts from the original light-hearted feel of them. A little bonus here or there is one thing. An overabundance of unnecessary extra features is another.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Dec 11, 2011 6:43 AM

bane dragon wrote:

While a graphical update might be in order, if they do too much, people will come in and complain about the surreality it presents (the "rubber rocks" comment, along with a few others, or the general outcry against the new Spyro's appearance). If they updated graphics, I'd like to see a mix of slightly polygonal shaping for the rough look for the most part (for the simplistic look that a lot of fans of the old like) while adding a higher quality to the finer details (perhaps bubbling purple or green muck instead of just flat purple glass in the original, a little more grainy look to sand and desert rocks instead of the flat tan, stuff like that). Either that or low-grade (no sleek, shiny, metallic feel unless appropriate to the world) high quality (meaning sand looks like sand, grass looks like grass (not green shag carpetting), you can't see straight to the bottom of any lake from the top (glare from the sun, etc), and dangerous liquids actually looking dangerous (lava actually looking like melted rock, toxic lakes looking like bubbly purple or green muck that could mutate you or worse instead of just flat-colored water minus the movement, etc. The list could go on).
That said, the only thing I'd really not want to happen to the game is them adding so much extra content that it detracts from the original light-hearted feel of them. A little bonus here or there is one thing. An overabundance of unnecessary extra features is another.

BAM. spot on.

what you're describing seems pretty PS2 to me. some polygonal stuff, but with more of an eye for detail, without going crazy.

#1 Nov 29, 2011 7:58 PM

Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#2 Nov 29, 2011 10:15 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#3 Nov 30, 2011 10:06 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#4 Nov 30, 2011 2:23 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#5 Nov 30, 2011 5:37 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#6 Dec 01, 2011 9:10 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#7 Dec 01, 2011 9:14 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#8 Dec 02, 2011 2:44 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#9 Dec 02, 2011 5:02 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#10 Dec 02, 2011 5:33 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#11 Dec 03, 2011 4:19 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#12 Dec 03, 2011 10:40 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#13 Dec 04, 2011 5:03 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#14 Dec 04, 2011 5:19 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#15 Dec 04, 2011 7:12 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#16 Dec 05, 2011 1:52 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#17 Dec 05, 2011 5:37 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#18 Dec 06, 2011 1:11 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#19 Dec 06, 2011 5:56 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#20 Dec 06, 2011 4:44 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#21 Dec 06, 2011 7:08 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#22 Dec 08, 2011 3:51 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#23 Dec 08, 2011 6:51 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#24 Dec 08, 2011 8:40 PM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

#25 Dec 11, 2011 6:43 AM

Re: Spyro 1, 2 and 3 remakes (and why they won

Board footer