(please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

ratchet · Jan 23, 2011 5:46 AM

RedDragonX wrote:

Give me something that makes me forget about stuff I don't want to think about and I'm happy with a game.

Maybe thats why I dont need in depth stories because usually when I play games its for entertainment, because im bored or want a challenge. Not to get me thinking of something else.

Also, most gamers I know dont give 2 craps about story. All the COD players really just play multiplayer online and really dont pay too much attension to the story. Other games like super meat boy and flash games often have no story but are always popular.

This also does not change the fact that the originals had a good story and if an original game was made these days too it may have a good story. Also, please dont tell me the characters or the universe are not "made" for a good story because...well I cant be bothered explaining but it can be done.

shade105 · Jan 23, 2011 6:06 AM

I'm sure it could have a good story, but things would have to be moved around. This is probably one of the reasons they just hit the reset button on the Spyro series. They really didn't wanna think it out.

ratchet · Jan 23, 2011 10:06 AM

TBH I have no clue why they pressed the reset button when they could of worked something out. As much as people want to deny it, money was the main priority when rebooting the series, but I don't think they knew how angry some fans would get.

Stormy · Jan 23, 2011 8:03 PM

You probably haven't played many games if you think Mario is the only series that values gameplay over story nowadays and the only reason is because "it's a classic." And they're not just Nintendo games, either.

My guess is they rebooted the thing because very few game companies are still making platformers. Not sure if they fell out of favor or if that's just the way games are evolving.

Spinner the Faun · Jan 24, 2011 9:49 AM

They're all good, but the first trilogy is the best.

shade105 · Jan 24, 2011 4:12 PM

Well, yes, preference of game play has changed, and the classic Spyro style is definably out. As for the other thing. The only games which i can think of that are played more for the game play, and the story is totally dis-considered, are flash games.

Stormy · Jan 24, 2011 8:03 PM

Hmm, what about Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Kirby, Super Smash Bros, (basically everything Nintendo), Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Elder Scrolls? And those are just games I have lying around in this room that I can think of off the top of my head.... tongue Oh yeah, and pretty much every racing game.

Clock-la · Jan 24, 2011 8:09 PM

Stormy wrote:

Hmm, what about Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Kirby, Super Smash Bros, (basically everything Nintendo), Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Elder Scrolls? And those are just games I have lying around in this room that I can think of off the top of my head.... Oh yeah, and pretty much every racing game.

Dragon quest has kept to its roots for like say atleast 9 games ((And yes there are LOADS of spin offs))

ratchet · Jan 24, 2011 11:20 PM

Stormy wrote:

Hmm, what about Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Kirby, Super Smash Bros, (basically everything Nintendo), Portal, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Elder Scrolls? And those are just games I have lying around in this room that I can think of off the top of my head.... Oh yeah, and pretty much every racing game.

Very nice list.
And well yeah, I guess the target audience with LOS they were going for were new, young gamers rather than just relying on the same fanbase. the move was definitely money drivin and I think they admitted before that they knew many fans would be unhappy.

riverhippo · Jan 25, 2011 12:52 AM

Between story vs. gameplay, I would argue that because of how advanced gaming is as far as graphics, it may only be possible to get "so good" when drawing out 3D realms for platformer games now. As for Mario, I'm sure they've hit a wall with how realistic or smooth the actual graphics for a game like that can be. So a good platformer game nowadays is tempted to focus on storyline in order to considered a hot sell, or at least that is the straightline thinking.

Hopefully, platformer games have a return to the everyday console video game system and it strategically focuses on how good the gameplay is, rather than how flashy and smooth the graphics are. I predict that you can only get so far with graphics. The next Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft gaming consoles will most likely spin more on motion detection and 3D technology, besides the normal "It has better graphics.' Graphic-wise, you might not even be able to tell the difference. Eventually, motion detection and 3D technology will also age and be a thing of the past. Maybe then, it'll all be about the quality of gameplay and replayability we love about Spyro. Maybe.

shade105 · Jan 26, 2011 4:42 PM

Yeah, totally agree with Riverhippo. I mean how better can they get with the graphics, that they can actually make them look like real people? Well, that's not for sure.

Game play, in my opinion, will be a focus of newer games. But i think that the main focus of newer games will be actually storyline. I'm very sorry, but honestly in these times a game without a plot is nothing.

As for the games you old me about. I know that Zelda has a great and well developed storyline, and that Elder Scrolls has already developed one as well. If you can't tell that there's a plot, you're blind.

Stormy · Jan 26, 2011 9:19 PM

I didn't say there wasn't a plot, just that people tend to not care about it as much as the gameplay. Besides, the others on the list still stand. tongue

Games that were more focused on gameplay were very popular years ago, actually, before video games were considered a serious entertainment medium. Now that video games are becoming more mainstream and technology is allowing for better graphics, many companies are making more cinematic games. But I don't think you can say a game without a plot is nothing or inferior as many popular games with minimal plot (barely any games that I know of literally have no plot at all) do in fact exist. They're usually the types of games that are just for fun and not meant to be taken very seriously. I'm sure there are tons of them that I didn't list; I'm not exactly an expert on gaming and a couple of the games on my list were suggested by others.

riverhippo · Jan 27, 2011 2:05 AM

People complain that LoS games were just interactive movies. And I say, "what's wrong with that? You don't like movies?"

JazzJackrabbit · Jan 27, 2011 2:26 AM

I heard Metal Gear Solid 4 was pretty much a 9-hour movie with interactivity.

Cutscenes make games more enjoyable. They explain the plot of the game (usually) and some are hilarious.

Play the new(er) Spyro games without watching the cutscenes. Enjoyable? probably not.

There was a deeper plot in the TLOS games.

shade105 · Jan 27, 2011 5:38 AM

I'm a huge sucker for the plot of the game. Lol I love interactive movies, if that's what they call them. I can take up poor game play and totally replace it for a great plot. ^_^

ratchet · Jan 30, 2011 11:34 PM

riverhippo wrote:

People complain that LoS games were just interactive movies. And I say, "what's wrong with that? You don't like movies?"

No, just I dont like movies that don't have a very good plot and I dont like movies that reboot a series when they really don't need to.

Also, as Ive been saying, if an original spyro game was made today, it could have a cinematic plot too.

Erza · Jan 31, 2011 12:02 AM

Original. Because when I think about it, it makes me smile with little happy memories.
TLOS makes me *bleep*ed with all the frustration it's caused me.

shade105 · Jan 31, 2011 8:29 PM

Well, honestly I am glad they rebooted. Original Spyro's attitude sucked.

Stormy · Jan 31, 2011 8:40 PM

I actually liked it. It was funny, and it's not like he was a complete jerk or anything.

I really didn't think TLoS Spyro had much of a personality, and there was nothing interesting or distinctive about him past the prophecy, and even that's not interesting. He was just... boring. =/

ratchet · Feb 02, 2011 11:28 AM

I personally saw nothing wrong with his attitude. Maybe his attitude is annoying in AHT, but other than that, not really.

Hurricos_McBreixo · Feb 08, 2011 5:12 AM

shade105 wrote:

Well, honestly I am glad they rebooted. Original Spyro's attitude sucked.

What about his attitude that sucked? And please, no references to NON-Insomniac developed games. Just the Original Trilogy if you please.

Clock-la · Feb 08, 2011 4:29 PM

shade105 wrote:

Well, honestly I am glad they rebooted. Original Spyro's attitude sucked.

nahh..now he's to...woodern and all "IMMA EPIC HERO!!" type guy, not very intresting...

His old attitude was lighthearted and sweet :3

Aura24 · Feb 09, 2011 1:49 AM

shade105 wrote:

Well, honestly I am glad they rebooted. Original Spyro's attitude sucked.

Original Spyro's attitude didn't suck. It's your opinion, and you make it act like it's a fact.

Stormy · Feb 09, 2011 4:48 AM

Although I agree with you, to be fair, you're doing the same thing with your opinion, and so is everyone else. It's not like you have to tack an "it's just my opinion" to the end of every post where you state an opinion. tongue

torok · Feb 12, 2011 1:32 AM

I prefer the LOS series. It's more mature and fun.

#51 Jan 23, 2011 5:46 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#52 Jan 23, 2011 6:06 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#53 Jan 23, 2011 10:06 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#54 Jan 23, 2011 8:03 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#55 Jan 24, 2011 9:49 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#56 Jan 24, 2011 4:12 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#57 Jan 24, 2011 8:03 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#58 Jan 24, 2011 8:09 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#59 Jan 24, 2011 11:20 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#60 Jan 25, 2011 12:52 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#61 Jan 26, 2011 4:42 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#62 Jan 26, 2011 9:19 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#63 Jan 27, 2011 2:05 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#64 Jan 27, 2011 2:26 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#65 Jan 27, 2011 5:38 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#66 Jan 30, 2011 11:34 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#67 Jan 31, 2011 12:02 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#68 Jan 31, 2011 8:29 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#69 Jan 31, 2011 8:40 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#70 Feb 02, 2011 11:28 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#71 Feb 08, 2011 5:12 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#72 Feb 08, 2011 4:29 PM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#73 Feb 09, 2011 1:49 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#74 Feb 09, 2011 4:48 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

#75 Feb 12, 2011 1:32 AM

Re: (please read) original trilogy or new trilogy???

Board footer