Our world unfortunetly has become a much more violent world....and in turn a lot more games include violence....that's what people want these days. Most developers focus on this aspect of gaming because it caters to about 75% of all gamers out there. I certainly talk to a lot more gamers who prefer a bloody shooter over anything that involves a purple draogn running around killing apes.

It's no surprise that nobody really wants anything to do with Spyro. Sure it was ok 10 years ago when it first came out....but what did you really see for bigtime shooters back in 1998....heck Spyro was the best you could do with technology when it came out...so many gamers took a liking to it.

It's just a different audience these days. The developers are gonna target what most gamers want...and in return the critics are more use to focusing on such games. The day I see Spyro receive a very good review will prolly be a very cold day in H E double hockey sticks.

If you just pick up and play for the first time it is kinda annoying...but after awhile you get use to it. I really would like to try it with two players...I have heard that it's pretty cool.

Who cares as long as your the one enjoying the game....I for one love it. Who cares what they say.

yeah. for me, as long as the game is playable, I'm happy. XD

And I'm stuck !!

But otherwise 10/10 for gameplay, what's not to love about Spyro picking up a Grublin and giving it a right royal thrashing ...

I actually do agree with many of the points made on DotD...I just overrule them because I really don't care...I like the game and that's that.

I never listen to the reviewers anymore because the only games that I see getting high points are shooters and RPG's that are T or M. Any games that I play always get low scores. So sad.

Most of the time concerning Gamespot those games are given high reviews because the reviewers get paid to do so. If you see a certain game being advertised on the website, most likely it'll get a high score, regardless of it being a crap game or not.

Although your statement is not particularly true, lots of the games I play get pretty good reviews and they're aimed for the family audience. Zelda: Phantom Hourglass got a 9, which is higher than Twilight Princess (even if it's by .2 lol) and Twilight Princess is the more mature game with the better graphics. Even if they rate a game I like a bad score, I can still agree with their points most of the time, but I enjoy it anyway.

Did DotD have its own little ups and downs....certainly...I like a good game just as much as the next one....and this one had its issues. I am a big fan of the story and the characters just as you said before, but I don't judge a game just on story.

Unfortunely the mechanics are all that matter to MOST reviewers...and I knew from the start that DotD was gonna get trashed by them. Personally I didn't think they were that bad...but their were problem spots. When it comes down to it, as a Spyro fan, I think it was a worthy addition to the series...but that's just my personal oppinion.

Very very true. Like I said before...none of them have invested any time in the story or the characters, they just pick up the game and judge what they see. Which we all know is pretty low unless the game is some suped up shooter or RPG..

the problem is, for the most part people want to know how the game plays. story and characters are important to a game, but i think most gamers arent going to buy a game based on story, they want gameplay, so thats what reviewers will focus on.

itd be like judging the DS version of DotD based on story, its thesame story as the other versions, so in your opinion should rate highly, but lets be honest, i havnt played it, but the gameplay is most likely bad... real bad