Insomniac's Spyro The Dragon vs The Legend Of

I'm not done with my side by side comparison of Spyro the Dragon against The Legend of Spyro and won't be for sometime since I am just now touching the first installment of the Sierra/Activision trilogy and don't personally own any copies yet, but I can already see why there is such a Broken Base.

Not even sure if this was the best way to go about it but I've started with the first games in both trilogies, playing both ten minutes at a time and it's hilarious.

Spyro The Dragon tells you there is a Gnasty Gnork vs Dragon Conflict and summarizes the former's abilities in the briefest manner possible before throwing you in. Legend Of Spyro has so much Worldbuilding\What's a Secret Four in its first cut scene that I initially thought it was a sequel to the original trilogy. Really, the original game could be a handheld from a game play perspective. It eases you into the action with harmless targets and minimal hazards but you get to the action right away with a copious number of save points. It's later counterpart has a lot more cut scenes, Loads and Loads of Loading a tutorial section and establishing character moments to the point it has to flat out tell you when the game is really starting.

The story telling isn't too stellar in either but I give points to Legend Of for trying. Insomniac Spyro openly admits that some of the older dragons are stronger than he is, which makes one ask why they aren't doing more during the current raid on their realms. A few seconds explaining that they were still recovering from the last raid, recovering from the spell they were just freed from, are going to do something elsewhere, that Spyro wants/needs to do it on his own, anything would have gone a long way. The only Dragon Master not captured is getting too old to fight and Spyro is a special purple, the "Legend Of" take is better than nothing.

The immediate entry into game play and the dissonant ratio to cut scenes make more sense the further you go into Legend too. Both games deal with recovering what rightfully belongs to the dragons but the first Spyro is a platform game about pest control. Combat is not a prolonged experience. You can't take many hits, your range is short but your enemies are little more than speed bumps, road blocks at worst. You simply identify weakness, often on the fly, if there is even any strength to begin with, then bum rush them and mow foes down in mass to collect the appropriated gems.

Legend by contrast is what the modern market calls an action game, lacking only an Awesomeness Meter. What platforming there is has been simplified and made much easier while combat has been made much more complex. Both Spyro and his enemies can take a lot more punishment, health pickups come in much larger amounts, all pickups are automatically drawn to you, some pickups go toward leveling up abilities, strafing is now a thing, your basic flame is now tied to an ammo system, there are combos which extend to juggling, Spyro has a meter tied an area of effect charged attack and slow motion is a regular occurrence(thankfully this can be toned down on the options menu). Combat's now much more about conservation, zoning and crowd control, rather than a quickly surmounted obstacle to collectibles.

If you couldn't tell, I wasn't too thrilled The Legend Of Spyro: A New Beginning when I first started but the more time I spend, the more I realize it's not a bad game, I'll even say it's much better than "Enter The Dragon Fly". I've already played the original Spyro trilogy and am surprised by the game play and story depth "Legend Of" already offers when compared to the first Spyro The Dragon. I look forward to going side by side with "Ripto's Rage" and the game I mistakenly took it as a sequel too, "Year Of The Dragon".

But while "Legend Of" isn't bad, I'm not sure I call it an improvement. I find the decision to so radically change the platforming, combat, collection and storytelling style of Spyro The Dragon a questionable one. Yes, I said the story itself is the one thing better in these two first outings but not the way it is told. Spyro The Dragon needed a few more seconds at most, it could have said everything needed just by changing a few lines of dialog without adding to the length of time at all. Legend Of ultimately feels like an attempt to make Spyro more like Jak and Daxter or Ratchet & Clank.

Continuity Reboot is a trope I rarely find necessary. Legend Of's Spyro is ultimately irreconcilable with his former counterpart(and Sparx is even more In Name Only). He brings some good to the table but good enough to erase what came before? I think "Legend Of" would have been better served as a spin off with a different dragon living in a different area where Spyro's existence was only relevant enough for marketing purposes, like Ghosts 'n Goblins, Gargoyle's Quest and Maximo: Ghosts to Glory are all related but star different characters in different areas who play differently from each other.

edited 4th Jan '16 2:54:19 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

So... much... words.

: TL;MEAB: Insomniac rebooted the Spyro franchise. The OP is comparing it to an older series. And although they're different, neither one didn't live to their expectations.

R.I.P. my brain cells.

OP is a silly prsn

I respect the time and thought that you put into writing all of this us, IAT, but this strikes me more as something you'd put onto a blog rather than a discussion forum. Unless there's anything you want to ask or discuss, based on it?

If the post doesn't inspire any discourse it would still be on topic to give your opinion on the two trilogies or at least the two first games.

It's a lot more cathartic to confront Gnasty Gnorc than Cynder, although it'd be nice if the former lasted just a little longer.

I'll say one touch I liked about "A New Beginning Though" is that all the other dragons looked like Spyro. It bugged me how there are only four quadrupeds in the entire kingdom...though there is also at least one other purple...

The Gnasty Gnorc fight in A Hero's Tale is better than the one in the first game, because the fight lasts much longer (there are three phases, and he takes three hits during each phase, whereas in the first game he goes down in two hits once you catch him), and he puts up an actual fight. It's rather funny that he's tougher as the first boss in A Hero's Tale than he is as the final boss of the first game.

Having said that, it does tie into what the OP said about the focus of the games. In the first game, the focus is on the platforming with combat being a momentary distraction, and the battle with Gnasty demonstrates that. Most of the battle is spent chasing him as he flees, and there's more danger from the level itself via falling off a platform than there is from Gnasty himself, as his only attack is a very slow, very telegraphed energy ball with a small hitbox, which he only uses when you're in the first area before you start chasing him.

In contrast, A Hero's Tale has more developed combat, though platforming remains prominent. Spyro has different kinds of elemental breath, secondary abilities for each breath, and even a block ability, which was a first for the series IIRC. As a result, it's necessary for the enemies to get tougher too. For his fight, Gnasty has a number of attacks, including shockwaves, tornadoes, lightning, and causing boulders to fall from the roof. I haven't played the reboot games so I can't say for certain, but it sounds as if, in terms of gameplay, A Hero's Tale may be a middle ground between the PS One games and the reboot, having a greater focus on combat, but not reducing the platforming in response to that.

This seems like it's begging to become a bashing thread.

Yeah, I'm not really sure what the point of this topic is. If you want to discuss either game, surely there's a general thread, and if not, you could make one.