Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

ratchet · Jul 13, 2008 1:54 AM

Sorry to bust your bubble, but you can't explain all the great mysteries of video games. How come Spyro just so happens to move correspondig to a human pushing against the analog stick/d-pad while everyone else stands in the exact same place saying the exact same things to you every time you walk up to them? How come night never changes to day if you stand around long enough? How come if you leave Spyro standing around long enough he and Sparx don't starve to death? Does he never make a poo? I guess not considering he's never ever ever eaten food before onscreen, and he can be onscreen for a potentially loooooooong time. The list is endless. It's a video game. The reason enemies reapear once you reenter a level is because if they didn't you couldn't replay levels. It'a a video game for god's sake!

Fair enough, but i still find AHT to be out of the timeline.

What about after you beat Gnasty?

Good Question, i guess the theory goes that The Gnorcs got so used to creating more gnorcs that they did it themselves.

To think you had the nerve to call my Moneybags theories far-fetched. RIPTO HAD LOST HIS FREAKING SCEPTER!!! HE COULDN'T CAST MAGIC!!! And not to mention the fact that you're saying that Ripto can raise the dead at will. If that were true, he would've summoned an army and clobbered Spyro during the boss fight. Heck, Ripto could barely ressurect Gulp correctly!

Excellent point!

So if you don't want people to find your money, the obvious thing to do is throwit all around the country in plain sight. Those faries mustn't be very intellegent. At least they actually HID the orbs. How could Ripto've started inslaving Avalarians? All he had was two dinosaurs and no way to cast magic!
Most of the Avalarians didn't seem to even notice Ripto's presence, they were all much too busy worrying about idols that come to life and evil spirits that canturn statues green. All Ripto actually did was take over the uninhabited castles and throw bombs at people. Elora, Hunter, and the Professor were just worried because of his scepter, which was eaten, and Crush and Gulp. Ripto also didn't have an army of spirits as far as we can tell, those were the natural inhabitants. He'd sent Crush to get his Riptoc army, but the portal was blocked.

Good point once again! BUt i'm sure that Ripto had something to do with the chaos in avalar.

The gems are purely elements of gameplay and not to be taken seriousoly anyways, but I believe one of the levels is a Dark Gem mine. Maybe normal gems are also mined there, that's why all the gnorcs are carrying gems? (The gems in chests or lying around don't reapear.)

Hmmmm, maybe they are a different kind of gem? found more reguarly

SL, the sequal, says that Bianca has cousins in the Forgotten Realms. She may've ben visiting them.

Nice excuse that Amaze made.

Like i said, i think we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject, Spyroworld seems to go with your theory more than mine, so do most people. so i'm heavily outnumbered!

No matter how much i think AHT isn't on the timeline, it is.

Spash the Bandragon · Jul 13, 2008 5:31 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty sure AHT is on the timeline. It's still a pretty pathedic game, though. But if anyone finds anymore contradictions, post them here.
And you can believe AHT's not on the timeline if you want, there's no official timeline, so we'll never know.

ratchet · Jul 14, 2008 6:00 AM

yeah, thanks. And thankyou for the argument!

spyromaster330 · Jul 18, 2008 7:23 AM

I think it is on the timeline even though it has alot of things that sugest it isnt. And also why would they make a game and not bother to put it on the timeline?

ratchet · Sep 08, 2008 1:16 PM

The question is, Should it be on the timeline?
My opinion might also be a bit biased seeing i didn't like AHT that much.

Razz · Sep 27, 2008 6:24 PM

Late response, huzzah!

Personally, I don't think this game fits in with the old games at all. The universe itself has been re-wired in some very obvious ways (there's stuff in AHT that isn't in any of the previous games, and there are a lot of details of the previous games that are missing). I think AHT was a reboot attempt.

Paranoia · Sep 27, 2008 6:46 PM

They were probably trying to make the game different from ETD, but I don't think it was a reboot. They brought back Gnasty Gnorc for one thing, who references back to the original Spyro the Dragon. Also, they have Hunter, the Professor, and Sgt. Byrd.

Razz · Sep 27, 2008 7:17 PM

That's one of the many reasons WHY AHT is likely a reboot. Gnasty Gnorc died, very obviously, in StD and there was nothing that even hinted that he'd survived (unlike the epilogue in RR that implied Ripto could have made it). Also, the entire world set up was different, there were tons of characters who's species had never been shown to exist in any of the dragon worlds prior to this game, everything looked different, and characters who were in previous games were so different they were nearly unrecognizable (namely, Moneybags and Hunter).

Paranoia · Sep 27, 2008 8:33 PM

Razz wrote:

That's one of the many reasons WHY AHT is likely a reboot. Gnasty Gnorc died, very obviously, in StD and there was nothing that even hinted that he'd survived (unlike the epilogue in RR that implied Ripto could have made it). Also, the entire world set up was different, there were tons of characters who's species had never been shown to exist in any of the dragon worlds prior to this game, everything looked different, and characters who were in previous games were so different they were nearly unrecognizable (namely, Moneybags and Hunter).

Define reboot. Does it mean a remake of a game with some changes, or just something completely different?

They made many references to the old games. The names of the dragon elders also came from Spyro the Dragon.

Razz · Sep 27, 2008 8:57 PM

A reboot is a complete re-start of a series (LoS is a reboot, as is Tomb Raider: Legend).

AHT is a botched reboot; they were sort of keeping with some things from the old games, but in many respects, they had completely changed everything else. The only thing AHT has in common with the older games, really, are the names of certain characters. Everything else, including the character personalities and the entire world setting, is completely different.

Paranoia · Sep 27, 2008 9:11 PM

Razz wrote:

A reboot is a complete re-start of a series (LoS is a reboot, as is Tomb Raider: Legend).
AHT is a botched reboot; they were sort of keeping with some things from the old games, but in many respects, they had completely changed everything else. The only thing AHT has in common with the older games, really, are the names of certain characters. Everything else, including the character personalities and the entire world setting, is completely different.

I'd have to disagree with the character part. Hunter's personality in AHT was very similar to the original games; As was Sgt. Byrd's. I don't think they wanted to start the series over, just make up for Enter the Dragonfly.

Razz · Sep 27, 2008 9:22 PM

Are you kidding me? D: Hunter went from being a sweet, doofy guy who's overall good-natured to being a complete arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than everyone else. Sgt. Byrd went from being a no-nonsense, kind-hearted soldier to a know-it-all, better-than-thou jerk. The Professor became a petty snob, Bentley was a small-minded wuss all of a sudden, and don't even get me started on Moneybags...

And that's just from a personality standpoint. In terms of character design, they look completely different.

Kazoobie64 · Sep 27, 2008 10:49 PM

Well, Hunter always kind of bragged about how awesome he was back then but it was in a more loveable "trying too hard" way, because Spyro always beat him ANYWAY. But I don't think it was a reboot, since Spyro goes "didn't I defeat that guy [Gnasty] years ago?" I think they were probably just trying to establish character personalities better and failed miserably.

Razz · Sep 27, 2008 11:08 PM

Like I said, botched reboot. big_smile They didn't intend to reboot the series completely, but it's clear that they were trying to remake it.

Ignitus's #1fan · Oct 05, 2008 9:25 PM

Not really. I think this is canon with the rest of the old series games(unfortunately).

Gnasty Gnorc... didn't die >.>. He appeared in the epilogue of YotD, and what's more... well, he did poof into dust at the end of the boss fight, but don't forget that at the end of Spyro 1, he re-cast his crystallization spell and Spyro said "Here we go again..." (talk about plotholes). Hunter was cocky in the originals as well, only he had a likeable goofiness too. Sgt. Byrd was never really clearly developed to begin with, so his sudden pomposity in AHT can be overlooked >.>. One major plot hole would be Sparx's talking(okay, TLoS Sparx talking is very acceptable, since it's a reboot and he's actually funny in the process, but old Sparx talking.........................). Spyro was just plain unbearable in AHT... but still, his change can be overlooked as well. He was always cocky. The Professor was a bit odd in that game, though... not to mention the sudden butchering of the elders(god, they were just plain awful). Those I can't explain.

AHT was just a game that really screwed up the old series plotline. That's why I said that it's "unfortunately" part of the old series canon(the old series was never big on plot at all, but AHT was just plain disrespectful towards what it did have).

Razz · Oct 06, 2008 2:45 PM

The old series (Insomniac and, much as it pains me to say it, EtD to a minor extent) may have been small on plot but, for the most part, they did keep their stories connected. The locations were all plausible places that fit in with the preceding games (Avalar is established as an alternate universe, the Forgotten Realms are part of the dragon world, every game begins in Artisan Home, and Dragon Shores is mentioned in all of the Insomniac titles). This started to unravel in EtD, but we did still have Bianca and Hunter and everyone looked the same (only hit with the ugly stick).

The problem with AHT is that it suddenly introduces places that were never there before (Dragon Kingdoms? What?) and retcons an established concept (the dragon eggs had already hatched in YotD; what's up with them suddenly being unhatched?). It also introduces things that didn't exist story-wise: there were no elders in the Insomniac titles (it was never established that those first dragons you rescue are elders, just that they're the first dragons you rescue). Let us not forget the entire look and layout of the world itself has changed as well as the established social structure (when did dragons get nannies? When did all these random animals move into the dragon homeworlds? Where were Ember and Flame before this? When did dragons start living in huts? When did Moneybags become a bad Russian stereotype who pretends to care about Spyro? and on and on).

I'm sure AHT was intended to fit in with the old games, but it does so many things to ensure that it can't. It doesn't even fit anywhere in a timeline for the old series (is this before YotD, after...? Who knows!). This is probably less of a botched reboot and more of a botched retcon of the series. Regardless, there's no way it logically fits in with the games that preceded it, though I'm sure it was supposed to.

Ignitus's #1fan · Oct 06, 2008 8:33 PM

I pretty much agree. It was intended to fit, but it really... didn't tongue .

As for the dragon eggs... ironically, the original trilogy had a similar plothole. XD You had to save dragon eggs in Spyro 1. But they only come once every twelve years. Zuh? XP

lilgti · Oct 25, 2008 1:39 PM

spyromaster330 wrote:

a reason for sparx talking is probaly because he is a playable charcter now, so the people who made it just made him be able tol talk for no reason

he was also a playable charecter in spyro 3 at the end simaler to AHT wink

Stormy · Oct 25, 2008 1:44 PM

Ignitus's #1fan wrote:

I pretty much agree. It was intended to fit, but it really... didn't .
As for the dragon eggs... ironically, the original trilogy had a similar plothole. XD You had to save dragon eggs in Spyro 1. But they only come once every twelve years. Zuh? XP

Huh, you know, I never thought of that.

They never really said how much time had passed between Spyro 1 and Spyro 3, though. Could have been 12 years. =P

Spyro Master · Oct 29, 2008 1:05 PM

well he did look a bit bigger in spyro 3 form wot he was in spyro 1 i relised that he had grown up a bit

T3h0v4llu · Nov 13, 2008 7:02 PM

I dont really care, when the game was okay. To be a good spyro game it doesnt have to be EXACTLY like the three first ones. Unless its very bad like tlos.

ratchet · Nov 14, 2008 6:27 AM

Dont worry, these days i consider it part of the Spyro timeline, dispite it having absurd characters and many things that do not make sense. But they way i place this on the timeline is very far fetched which alot of people would disagree with.

T3h0v4llu · Nov 14, 2008 1:13 PM

Good for you. It beats the tlos series for sure.

ratchet · Nov 15, 2008 8:43 AM

I also noticed razz agreed with me on the subject, that is a change, her and me usually don't agree. eh heres where i put this game:

So basicly, a few years after Spyro: season of flame, Red and Gnasty AND RIPTO start forming a plan to use dark gems to warp the dragon realms and its inhabbitants. Then when they are the most vulnerable, Ripto would devise a plan to destroy the dragons and if that didn't work, Gnasty and Red would do something. Gnasty gnorc creats false gems which do the same job as normal gems and uses them to create gnorcs. He then goes into the Dark gem mine, along with Ripto and observes his gnorc slaves mining dark gems. Gnasty Gnorc, Ripto and his slaves were the first people affected by the dark gems, it effected his personality, look and memory. though it only effected Ripto's look. A few years after the mining, Red and gnasty start dropping dark gems around the dragon kingdom, and the inhabbitants personalities and looks start or morth, unaware what the dark gems are doing to them. Moneybags, who has been hanging around the dragon realms ever since Spyro 3, had been one of the worst effected and one of the quickest effected. His voice, personality, memories, look changed. Hunter got somewhat smarter and since spyro 3 had taken up an a boy and arrow hobby. We already knew he could use one seeing we saw him use it in Spyro 2 in fracture hills. (except after AHT while he was recovering he got somewhat dumber as seen in ETD). The professor's voiced changed and look. Spyro's personality changed and look and voice. Spyro also forgot how to glide as well as some of his other abilities. Sgt.byrd's voice changed and personality. Bentley's voice and personality changed. Then the events of Spyro orange took place. After Spyro orange, blink got effected and lost his memory of the events of spyro orange. Spyro forgot about blink too. Then AHT took place. During this time, Elora was away. AHT took place at the year of the dragon after YOTD (12 years after YOTD) Spyro, because he's a dragon, doesn't age like humans, thats why, even though he's in his 20s, he's still young. After AHT, everyone's persoonalities and stuff returned back to normal, except some people quicker than others. And some assmed other personalities.

A few other things:
-Gnasty obviously survided seeing Spyro talks about how he wants Gnasty to improve and stuff in the 120% cutscene, not to mention in the same cutscene you saw that the dragons were once again frozen in crystal. Also, you see him in the YOTD epilogue. Why he complerely disappeared? well i think he simply teleported and lost his stick in the process.
-Either the dragon elders were simply effected by the dark gems or they were completely different dragons. Maybe those dragon names were popular, i'm sure some are.
-The extra species in AHT simply could've moved from another land (such as Avalar, Forgotton realms) between games or were originally there anyway. I'm sure we didn't see ALL the places/realms in Spyro 1, 2, 3, SOI, SOF!
-Sparx talking could be explained by the dark gems. but i wouldn't be surprised by the fact that at a certain age, dragonflies can learn to talk, just like human babies.
-Just so i can explain this here, The 12 dragon eggs in Spyro 1 could've been left over from the last year of the dragon, or early for the next one, or simply they coul've been there just so the dragons have back up just incase something goes wring with the batch born in the year of the dragon. Or... maybe dragons are just free to breed whenever they want and so there is always a few at a time but then dragons are mostly expected to breed around the year of the dragon. maybe it's "lucky" or something.

So yeah, that's my theory. enjoy!

Razz · Nov 16, 2008 11:30 PM

Wait, we agreed? XD I thought I didn't include AHT with the Insomniac games. It certainly looks AU to me.

#26 Jul 13, 2008 1:54 AM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#27 Jul 13, 2008 5:31 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#28 Jul 14, 2008 6:00 AM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#29 Jul 18, 2008 7:23 AM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#30 Sep 08, 2008 1:16 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#31 Sep 27, 2008 6:24 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#32 Sep 27, 2008 6:46 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#33 Sep 27, 2008 7:17 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#34 Sep 27, 2008 8:33 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#35 Sep 27, 2008 8:57 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#36 Sep 27, 2008 9:11 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#37 Sep 27, 2008 9:22 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#38 Sep 27, 2008 10:49 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#39 Sep 27, 2008 11:08 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#40 Oct 05, 2008 9:25 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#41 Oct 06, 2008 2:45 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#42 Oct 06, 2008 8:33 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#43 Oct 25, 2008 1:39 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#44 Oct 25, 2008 1:44 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#45 Oct 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#46 Nov 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#47 Nov 14, 2008 6:27 AM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#48 Nov 14, 2008 1:13 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#49 Nov 15, 2008 8:43 AM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

#50 Nov 16, 2008 11:30 PM

Re: Where does this game lie on the Timeline?

Board footer