Spyro the Dragon For SSB WII U. DLC

[A10theHero]

Not sure if you two realized, but Spyro never had anything to do with this franchise in the first place. Notice how the "SPYRO'S ADVENTURE" game had nothing to do with him. The world wasn't related to him, the other characters weren't related to him, the story wasn't related to him....nothing at all in the game had anything to do with Spyro. Activision just used him as their poster child to get peoples' attention.
Calling Skylanders a "Spyro game" is like calling Smash a "Metroid game".

...Have you even played Skylanders? It's a new world, yes, but it's not that it has nothing to do with old Spyro games. Spyro's background story in that game is that he came from the Legend of Spyro world after defeating the final villain. Also, if Skylanders had nothing to do with Spyro, why are Sparx, Cynder, and Moneybags (now called Auric) in the game with him? In addition, in the mobile game Skylanders Lost Islands, Spyro has the ability to travel to a place known as "Spyro's Hometown"--an obvious reference to his previous series. Finally, in terms of gameplay, a lot of elements in Skylanders are similar to those of the previous Spyro games. Searching for and collecting a variety of items is very important. Enemies interact with the player instead of performing a loop of certain actions. Although the levels are somewhat more linear, there are many hidden areas to discover (though the hub for the games is as, if not more, open world than previous Spyro installments). You know, if Smash carried over many elements from Metroid, then yeah, it would be considered a spin-off of the series.

In my opinion, Spyro games were naturally heading towards the direction of having more than protagonist. In several games, there were minigames where you played as Sparx instead of Spyro. And then in A Hero's Tail, the minigames were expanded to have several other heroes for you to play as. Eventually, in the Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon, you had two playable protagonists instead of one. And now in Skylanders, you can choose who to play. It almost seems like a natural progression of Spyro's series that was going to happen anyways.

Anyway, if he is their poster boy, shouldn't they at least continue giving the special attention?
If they really just let him popularize Skylanders, then trashed him, then I'm not so sure.

Did that really happen? I don't pay much attention to Skylanders.

They're still using him as the main character in the books and other stuff, but for whatever reason, they haven't featured a new Spyro in Superchargers like they did for some other veterans. So the leader of the Skylanders is still a poster boy in other media, which could possibly hint at him making a later appearance in the video game, but that's still a stretch.

 

[snakeguy86]

Yes, The Skylanders, The Disney Infinitiy Characters, and the Amiibos All Were Created for Making Money For Their Companies.
It's To Bad All They Do With Those Is Trash Good Characters For A Pay Out.
Doing This to Any Character Icon Like Spyro Is Horrible, Especially For The Older Game Players.

 

[Gotmilk0112]

Anyway, if he is their poster boy, shouldn't they at least continue giving the special attention?

He never got "special attention" in the first place. Activision just used him to advertise the game, knowing that Spyro fans were desperate for a new game after the mediocre Legend of Spyro series.

I'm being 100% serious though; the game has nothing to do with Spyro. The world is unrelated, the story is unrelated, the other characters are unrelated...hell, you don't even have to play as Spyro at all. To call Skylanders a Spyro game because Spyro is in it, would be to call Smash an Earthbound game because it has Ness in it.

Spyro's affiliation with the series was dropped after the first game. And even then, it was just dropping his name from the subtitle.

Spyro's background story in that game is that he came from the Legend of Spyro world after defeating the final villain.

That doesn't really make it a Spyro game.

Also, if Skylanders had nothing to do with Spyro, why are Sparx, Cynder, and Moneybags (now called Auric) in the game with him?

"If Smash isn't an Earthbound game, why is Lucas in it too? And why is there an Earthbound stage?"

Finally, in terms of gameplay, a lot of elements in Skylanders are similar to those of the previous Spyro games. Searching for and collecting a variety of items is very important. Enemies interact with the player instead of performing a loop of certain actions. Although the levels are somewhat more linear, there are many hidden areas to discover (though the hub for the games is as, if not more, open world than previous Spyro installments).

Having a few similar elements doesn't mean it's a Spyro game, no.

Really, I don't see Skylanders as a "Spyro game", I see it as a "game with Spyro in it".

 

[A10theHero]

He never got "special attention" in the first place. Activision just used him to advertise the game, knowing that Spyro fans were desperate for a new game after the mediocre Legend of Spyro series.

I'm being 100% serious though; the game has nothing to do with Spyro. The world is unrelated, the story is unrelated, the other characters are unrelated...hell, you don't even have to play as Spyro at all. To call Skylanders a Spyro game because Spyro is in it, would be to call Smash an Earthbound game because it has Ness in it.

Did you read anything I wrote? He did get special attention. Why else would he be the leader and one of the founders of the modern Skylanders? Though I agree about the marketing ploy, he did get special privileges compared to other Skylanders. When Series 1 Skylanders first released, there were 3 different Spyro variants (Normal, Legendary, and Dark). He was the only one with a Dark counterpart for the longest time, and the lore behind the new Dark Skylanders is that Spyro helped them harness the darkness.

Spyro's affiliation with the series was dropped after the first game. And even then, it was just dropping his name from the subtitle.

No, just no. I referenced Spyro's Hometown in Lost Islands. That wasn't the first game. He has been important to the series all the way until the latest game. That's why there's been a new Spyro every game until now and also why he was a part of the limited edition Eon's Elite series. And even then, he's still one of the most important characters in the books.

That doesn't really make it a Spyro game.

No, but you said that it had nothing to do with Spyro. This obviously means that there were connections. The series has a lot more to do with Spyro then you give it credit for.

"If Smash isn't an Earthbound game, why is Lucas in it too? And why is there an Earthbound stage?"

Wow, so you isolate a part of my argument, try to dumb it down, and still fail to capture the essence of what I was saying? I'll make this very clear because it seems you didn't get that: if the game contains many Spyro-related elements, how can it have "nothing to do with Spyro"? Sure that does not make it 100% a Spyro game, but it definitely has something to do with him. You said the game has "nothing to do with Spyro", so I brought up elements that show he had a bigger role than you think. Simple as that.

Having a few similar elements doesn't mean it's a Spyro game, no.

^ Read above please.

Really, I don't see Skylanders as a "Spyro game", I see it as a "game with Spyro in it".

Again, have you played Skylanders? You avoided this question earlier. But anyways, it'd be a spin off at most because it pretty much did "spin off" of an idea for a sequel to the Legend of Spyro series (look up Spyro's Kingdom).
Also, since you like talking about Smash, I want to bring something up about it. Calling Smash 4, for example, a "Smash game" could be considered an umbrella term. It is a Mario game, a Metroid game, an Earthbound game, a Fire Emblem game, and many other series wrapped into one crossover fighter/party game. So simply calling it a Metroid or Earthbound game would be incorrect because it's bigger than that--that is only one label that does not capture the total essence of Smash. Skylanders is not called a crossover game since Spyro's series was the only previously existing series. But it arguably could be called a crossover between Skylanders and Spyro then--it has elements from both games with more coming from the former (obviously). For that reason, there are Spyro elements in the game, meaning it partially is a "Spyro game", but, like with Smash, it's much bigger than that.

 

[Gotmilk0112]

Why else would he be the leader and one of the founders of the modern Skylanders?

That's not "special attention" because it's a minor detail that was barely touched upon.

No, but you said that it had nothing to do with Spyro. This obviously means that there were connections. The series has a lot more to do with Spyro then you give it credit for.

It "has nothing to do with Spyro" in the same way that Smash has "nothing to do with Earthbound".

if the game contains many Spyro-related elements, how can it have "nothing to do with Spyro"?

A couple gameplay elements aren't really a strong enough relation, seeing as many of those elements in Spyro games, were not created by or even specific to Spyro games.

From what I could tell, Skylanders is a hack&slash RPG with some very light platforming and puzzle solving. Spyro on the other hand, was all about exploring an open-ended area, platforming, and collecting things. I don't really see a connection between the two.

Again, have you played Skylanders? You avoided this question earlier.

I've seen quite enough of it through videos, but Activi$ion is not getting my money for their generic hack&slash game, no.

Also, since you like talking about Smash, I want to bring something up about it. Calling Smash 4, for example, a "Smash game" could be considered an umbrella term. It is a Mario game, a Metroid game, an Earthbound game, a Fire Emblem game, and many other series wrapped into one crossover fighter/party game.

That...really doesn't make sense. To have something be a "____ game" means that ____ is the main focus of the game. No individual character in Smash is the main focus.

Spyro is not the main focus of Skylanders, and the gameplay elements of his series are not the main focus of Skylanders either. Ergo, Skylanders isn't a "spyro game", it's a "game with spyro in it".

 

[snakeguy86]

Bowser and Donkey Kong Characters have Invaded Skylands.
It's Not Even their Game, Too
Or Maybe I Should Just Say Iconic Nintendo Characters...

 

[Pixel_]

Spyro is not the main focus of Skylanders, and the gameplay elements of his series are not the main focus of Skylanders either. Ergo, Skylanders isn't a "spyro game", it's a "game with spyro in it".

Bowser and Donkey Kong Characters have Invaded Skylands.
It's Not Even their Game, Too

Even if Spyro isn't the main character of Skylanders, there's still a chance he'll get in.
We were originally saying that and got into Skylanders, so Nintendo could make a Skylander character get into Sm4sh.
The question is which character is most likely to get in. Spyro might not be the main character, but who's the closest to being one?

 

[snakeguy86]

I Would like Spyro to be in Smash Bros 4.
I Would like either an old form Spyro with Moves or Skylanders Spyro with Moves.