How is Spyro 1?

[Larry Daley]

I never played Spyro 1. How does it compare to Spyro 2 & 3?

[>M@tEo$<]

Reignited-wise, same
PS1-wise, it was more rigid in controls I'd say, especially jump-charge combination

[NBOX21]

Spyro 1 also doesn't have any of the mini-games or side quests that 2 and 3 had, so it's just pure Spyro gameplay from beginning to end.

[ni0g0s]

A bit more simple but great. For me is better than 2. Is also the hardest one

[Larry Daley]

Thanks, guess I can skip it then.

[sno0ks]

Spyro 1 is and always will be the best Spyro game. Best world design. Best music. Anyone who says otherwise probably didn't play the games back in the day. The new characters and minigames and stuff in the sequels are just gimmicks. They're still good games but 1 is the best. Plus it's the most polished game in this collection because it's the one they had the most time to work on. It is very simple but so is the entire trilogy. That being said, why would you skip 1/3 of a game you paid for just because someone on a forum said it's bad? Play it for yourself.

[Rocktor Dobotnik]

Most people would say its their favorite spyro and favorite version.

[NBOX21]

Originally posted by sno0ks:

Spyro 1 is and always will be the best Spyro game. Best world design. Best music. Anyone who says otherwise probably didn't play the games back in the day.

I have. I still prefer Year of the Dragon over the original game and its sequel. I even prefer that game's soundtrack, though in terms of level design, they both come very close for me. That said, I do think the first game is much better than its sequel - I just found Year of the Dragon to be the game that combines the best of both of its predecessors as well as refining everything those games did. That's how I felt about those games back then and I still feel that way now.

The new characters and minigames and stuff in the sequels are just gimmicks.

Eh, some of them are like the manta ray and the trolley, but others like the skateboarding and the extra playable characters in Year of the Dragon feel like they're putting a spin on the core game mechanics as you're still collecting gems and finding secret areas.

[sno0ks]

Originally posted by Shocker:

Originally posted by sno0ks:

Spyro 1 is and always will be the best Spyro game. Best world design. Best music. Anyone who says otherwise probably didn't play the games back in the day. The new characters and minigames and stuff in the sequels are just gimmicks. They're still good games but 1 is the best. Plus it's the most polished game in this collection because it's the one they had the most time to work on. It is very simple but so is the entire trilogy. That being said, why would you skip 1/3 of a game you paid for just because someone on a forum said it's bad? Play it for yourself.

Spyro 1 is trash and forgettable compared to 2 and 3. It's empty, easy, and not memorable. First of all those are not "mini games". That term is stupid as hell. They are more like missions within the levels. Without them and the characters like Hunter, Elora, the professor, Money Bags, the game is just boring and empty. The only people who prefer Spyro 1 are the ones who played it first. The nostalgic people. If it wasn't for Spyro 2 and 3, the entire franchise would be trash.

late comer to the series lol lmao cope and seethe

[NBOX21]

Originally posted by Shocker:

Can you explain what is the issue without Spyro 2's level design? You keep saying that but you never give a specific reason.

The levels are usually designed to fit the objectives rather than the objectives being designed to fit the levels. Skelos Badlands, for example - about a third of that level's space is wasted on the minigame where you have to save the villagers from the lava lizards and features absolutely zero collectables whatsoever when they could've used that space for more interesting platforming sections or hide some secrets for the player to discover.

Unlike Spyro 1 where no space in the levels feels wasted for any reason or Spyro 3 which reserves all of its minigames for side areas separated from the main level. Both games were full of secret areas that rewarded discovery and thinking outside the box, whereas 2 only did this sparingly, usually in the HUB areas.

Originally posted by Shocker:

I didn't lose anything by starting the franchise with 2 and 3. You can't even swim in Spyro 1. The entire game feels like an alpha version of a finished product.

The only Spyro game that ever felt like an alpha version of a finished product was Enter the Dragonfly on PS2/GameCube. All three games in the original trilogy actually felt like finished games; the first game just laid the groundwork that the sequels would expand upon.

[sno0ks]

Originally posted by Shocker:

Originally posted by sno0ks:

late comer to the series lol lmao cope and seethe

I didn't lose anything by starting the franchise with 2 and 3. You can't even swim in Spyro 1. The entire game feels like an alpha version of a finished product.

I admit the sequels have a lot more depth but the OG has the most soul. The whole vibe is more mystical and less goofy/cartoonish. 2 and 3 are great but 1 is goated. They are perfect sequels in that they just add more content onto the existing skeleton, but as sequels they are necessarily cashing in on the inspired release of the original.

[Kryll]

I played Spyro 1 in this collection for the first time and loved it. Can't bring myself to finish Spyro 2. Perhaps because Spyro 1 feels like a much simpler game that I can easily 100% without the fluff of what feels like side objectives, like having to collect gems to progress in some areas. Spyro 2's flying segments bore me so much as well.

[WhateverWorks]

Personally I've always liked the first one the most, it has the most charm and the most relaxing feel to it. This Shocker guy is really determined to make sure you and no one else enjoys the first one though, so I guess listen to him since he's the loudest and most insistent about his views.

[NBOX21]

Originally posted by Shocker:

I played through the first game in the Reignited Trilogy and it was alright. I never said to anyone to don't play it. It's not a bad game but it's far worse then 2 and 3 in every way.

Really? Because earlier in the very same thread, you said:

Originally posted by Shocker:

Spyro 1 is by far the worst game in the trilogy. It's incredibly boring and repetitive. It's the definition of a snooze fest. There are no characters in the game other than the Balloonist, and the useless dragons you free from being trapped. You go to a boring level, collect gems, and free a few dragons. That's all the game is. Not challenging, and not interesting at all. Lastly the bosses are incredibly forgettable and easy. Probably the worst I ever seen in a platformer. In Spyro 2 the Gulp boss fight is far more interesting and entertaining than everything Spyro 1 has to offer combined.

If that doesn't give off the impression of "Don't play this, it sucks", I don't know what does.
I do agree that the bosses are forgettable and easy in the first game, but I could at least see what they were trying to go for by giving them actual levels as opposed to just giant circular arenas the sequels went with.

[WhateverWorks]

And your comparison is ridiculous. Not to mention that you're basing it off of "official" review sites? This is definitely a troll topic, everyone knows not to take "official" reviews seriously for anything. They have financial biases involved in their review process, same as with rotten tomatoes and movies. And that's beside the point that the fans overall tend to very much enjoy the first one. Many prefer it.

Idk why you posted this to be honest, other than to troll. It's not like anyone's going to take you seriously if you're using gamerankings and metacritic to back yourself up. And you're not going to change the minds of anyone who's actually played all three games.

[WhateverWorks]

Yeah, if anything they were even more bias then as gaming was a far smaller industry. Trusting the news in the 70s was just as stupid as trusting the news today.