Yeah, about that. X stands for nothing. So the first model of the PlayStation is called PSX here for short.
I personally prefer a game on the original device. I have the games as hardcopy, so why not? Though I understand how the graphics improve a little on a small screen (Size Matters anyone?) it still doesn't look bad on a big high-def TV. 
Yeah, about that. X stands for nothing. So the first model of the PlayStation is called PSX here for short.
I call it PS1. Sure it's not official or anything, but calling it PSOne is too long (plus that was the name of the slim model) and calling it PS can get it confused with other things. But PSX MEANS PSX, a well-known device with the primary function of playing PS2 games.
So really we have to call it something, and so to me personally I think PS1 is most suitable, as there is nothing to confuse it with.
I just like consistency. Like when I found out the PS4 could be called Orbis, I was a bit worried. PS1, PS2, PS3, PSO? I still think the Vita should be PSP2. Lol JK, they can call the portables whatever they like, as long as they are PlayStations.
No seriously, its called PSX here (Holland). Some instruction booklets say it too. I know about the PSX console, crazy device. Good thing you can just play PSX games on a regular PS2.
Orbis reminded me of Orvus. I'm really glad they just called in PS4!
I loved the spyro series from the games made by insomniac up to the legend of spyro trology ….but then they skylanders and killed off the franchise to long-time fans completely, now every time I see an ad for skylanders I think of how spyro was replaced by a purple frog with wings
I loved the spyro series from the games made by insomniac up to the legend of spyro trology ….but then they skylanders and killed off the franchise to long-time fans completely, now every time I see an ad for skylanders I think of how spyro was replaced by a purple frog with wings
Yeah , Spyro in Skylander's is very ugly . I also think that Spyro is a purple frog with wings 
The original Spyro - Spyro (From the reboot) - Spyro The purple frog from Skylanders
To me, the best looking Spyro is from The Legend of Spyro Reboot.
I don't like LoS.
Spyro is not something to be taken seriously, it's supposed to be a fun, pick up and play platformer collect-a-thon.
The fact that Sierra couldn't capture any of the above mentioned elements just goes to show they wanted to make a game and shoehorn Spyro in it so it would sell. It's not even that good of a game on it's own. It's a non-stylized or creative beat 'em up, average at best.
Skylanders, while detracking EVEN MORE from the original concept of Spyro, was at least a light hearted and fun game.
In my opinion, the only game that was actually a good Spyro game not made by IG was A Hero's Tail, but even that one is a bit 'meh'.
To me Krome Studios (The developer behind The Legend of Spyro), wanted to update Spyro tothe "new age of platformers" like Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank when stories became more serious.
Yes, the reboot has it's downs (like the repetitive combat in The New Beginning and it frustrating dificulty in The Eternal Night) but it also has it's ups (Spyro now it's a more serious character with a backstory and the universe it's consistent).
Of the trilogy, to me The Eternal Night is the best because it has a balance of combat and Platforming, to bad it's sooo hard!
But that takes away from the fun of it all.
Jak and Dater and Ratchet and Clank were fun, Spyro was not.
Spyro is essentially a cardboard box in the LoS games. One could make the arguement that he was so aswell in the PS1 trilogy, but the difference is that the PS1 trilogy focuses more on gameplay rather than character driven stories, which is what LoS focuses on. Too bad every character suffers from "I'm a cliché RPG character" syndrome.
But, as I said, the gameplay is also very flawed.
The game's essentially a beat 'em up but fails to deliver satisfaction from beating up your enemies as it's supposed to do.
Spyro has essentially two forms of attacks, melee and fire attacks.
This creates a problem as it starts getting repetitive, there's no variety in your combos because you're essentially restricted to 4 different moves.
Compare this to Devil May Cry 3 and you start to see how LoS is a very mediocre title.
DMC3
LoS
DMC3 and Spyro had very different budget, especially The eternal Night that had half of the budget of the previous game.
Budget shouldn't affect gameplay quality.
I shouldn't, no. The game has to use the budget as guidelines for 'MoSCoW' (Must, should, could, would). Though sometimes there isn't enough for the right resources. I'm sure DMC did have enough for not only a great team, but also a pack of good voice actors. And many QA tests.
In a way, budget is everything. It's the developers job to put it to good use.
Budget affects the game's presentation more than anything else.
When you think about it there are many indie titles made with little to no budget, yet some manage to be even more entertaining than DMC3.
In the end, you shouldn't jump on graphics before having a refined gameplay experience, especially in a beat 'em up with no whacky environments or situations.
I haven't played either Spyro or DMC3 so I can't judge on that. But you're right. While graphics have become a very important part of a game this generation. It will always be the gameplay and story that define a game.
I've always wanted to get Dawn of the Dragon on PS3, but is has become quite rare over the years. After hearing your review on the game I think I'll pick up my Wii version and see if the PS3 one is worth purchasing.
I'd pick it up.
Haven't played it myself, but from the videos I saw it looks like it focuses more on exploration and doing RPG-ish quests rather than beating up baddies.
