>>20589453I despise the scheme of Skylanders. They have a shitload of expensive DLC that they have active commercials for in-game and that flat-out restrict on-disc content if you don't have at least one figure of a certain type.
I figure it's also partially because of the current environment. The Internet gives us so much stuff to do that there's a lack of "direction" in one specific thing, as it's not only weird to not have Internet at home, it's apparently weird to not have it at all times in the palm of your hand (kids having cellphones what the fuck).
In addition, Skylanders just doesn't have the perfect setup Pokemon did. Skylanders has games and toys, it's true, but Pokemon was /everywhere/ - games, toys, cards, a show, movies, and even food, clothing, and vehicles. It was hard for kids to not find some aspect they liked, and even harder to evade it entirely.
I figure it's also because of the games themselves. Skylanders, while not bad, is fairly linear in design, with the stuff that's most "hidden" being mere collectibles, with little in the way of secrets. Pokemon, though? A big, wide open world full of customization and strange mysteries, like the origins of Mewtwo and the existence of Mew. Furthermore, Pokemon was designed as a social game, unlike Skylanders. While you /can/ share Skylanders, that's not one of the core design elements. Pokemon requires people to trade to complete the Pokedex and to catch rare creatures; to do that, they need to get out there and socialize unless they have lots of money to burn on two Gameboys. That also helped with creating a sense of "community" that Skylanders could never create, even though Pokemon RBY looked like shit even back in the day, let alone compared to Skylanders. They even helped kids with trouble reading to learn how, or to help people like me learn English or some other language, which helps them on a personal level as well, and it's part of the reason I really admire Pokemon.
