Activision unveils the third entry in the Skylanders franchise, but is it a cynical grab for kid’s pocket money or a genuinely innovative sequel?

Skylanders: Swap Force – Magna Charge essentially has a Half-Life 2 style gravity gun built into his head

A couple of weeks ago Activision announced that the Skylanders franchise had exceeded revenues of more than $500 million in the U.S. alone. In 2012 it was the third largest video game franchise on the planet, behind only Call Of Duty and FIFA. And yet the most flattering news for Skylanders was something very different: the news that Disney had overcome its growing distaste of console gaming to create its own big budget clone.

We’ve not seen or played Disney Infinity yet, and at the time that Skylanders: Swap Force was conceived neither had Activision. There’s therefore no way we can compare the two at this stage, but we can say that Swap Force does genuinely seem to be trying to add something new to the concept.



The interesting thing about Skylanders is that it is has obviously been conceived under the most cynical circumstances possible, and yet both the games and the related toys are genuinely well made and enjoyable. The first game was 2011’s Skylanders: Spyro’s Adventure, which was a sort of cross between a Lego movie game and a very simple Diablo style dungeon crawler.


The big gimmick was that the character you control is actually a little toy figurine that you placed on a dias called the Portal of Power, and which stores all your game data for that character. There are dozens of different characters, all of various different elemental types, and the more you collect the more you can open up previously locked parts of the game world.

Last year’s sequel Skylanders Giants added oversized and light-up toys to the mix but the big gimmick with Swap Force – essentially Skylanders 3 – is that the new toys split in two at the waist and you can combine any two together to get a new character. Not only do they retain powers from each of their two constituent toys but the stats for each are also automatically blended together (since the data is now saved on each half of the toy).

Perhaps it’s easy for us to say this, since we’re not the browbeaten parent having to pay for it all, but this seems an inspired idea to us. The toys are great too, and even though we’re only shown carefully guarded prototypes the way they snap together with two pairs of magnets is hugely satisfying.

We don’t get to play Swap Force in the brief preview we’re shown, but we do see it in action, with the game sporting a new graphics engine that portrays an equally new airborne world that’s being beset by sky pirates. The visuals aren’t a quantum leap forward but the characters in particular are more detailed than before, and the lighting adds a much more cinematic look to the game.

Although all the characters (and therefore toys) from the previous games are supported we’re shown a number of new ones, including a robot guy called Magna Charge and an octopus pirate called Wash Buckler. Each has three unique moves of their own, but when the toys are taken apart we get the octopus head on top of the robot body and a new character is created: Wash Charge.



Wash Charge has the bubble gun and cutlass of the pirate but whereas Wash Buckler was quite a slow character our new hybrid has the unicycle wheel of Magna Charge and so can scoot about the game world a lot faster. (Also, all the characters can now jump, a feature missing from the previous games.)

There are 16 new Swap Force characters, so that immediately makes for 256 different combinations, some more useful than others. Since it’s the toys just as much as the game that push the sales there’s also 16 new ‘core’ (i.e. gimmick-less) new characters, 16 reissued toys, and 8 new lightcore characters. But apparently there’s no new giants at the moment.

The new core characters include an undead rollerblading goth called Roller Brain, plus a walking bomb with rockets for arms called Countdown… who can throw his own head at people.

There are a few kids invited to the event along with us, who watch the announcement and demonstration as if it’s the most important thing that’s ever happened to them – rushing over to study the prototype toys with a connoisseur’s eye.

We can see they’re impressed but of course we’re still primarily interested in the game itself. There’s relatively little we can tell at this stage though, other than it looks prettier than before, the new characters theoretically add more variety, and there’s some simple new flying and shooting mini-games.

The game’s being developed by Vicarious Visions, not original series creators Toys for Bob, but talking to Vicarious co-founder and studio head Guha Bala afterwards we learnt the reason for this.


Activision clearly now sees Skylanders as its second-biggest franchise, after only Call Of Duty, and obviously intends to ensure there’s a new game every year. But if they remain as inventive as this one seems to be we really don’t have a problem with that.

Formats: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii U, and 3DS

Publisher: Activision

Developer: Vicarious Visions

Release Date: 2013

The Lovecraftian Wash Buckler was our favourite new character

GC: I feel like I’ve missed a memo here, but how comes Vicarious Visions are working on this game and not Toys for Bob?

GB: Actually, it’s a great question. From an Activision stand point, and a Toys for Bob standpoint, what’s most important for Skylanders is that every time we go out we provide something that’s really fresh; from a storyline point of view, from a toy innovation point of view, and from a game innovation perspective. So from the very beginning of the franchise we’ve been involved with Toys for Bob. Now, Vicarious’ partnership with Toys for Bob goes many years prior to that so Spyro’s Adventures, as well as Skylanders Giants, was built on Vicarious Visions’ Alchemy technology, that allows cross-platform play and a graphics engine.

Now, we also developed Spyro’s Adventure on 3DS, the first one that came out on 3DS, as well as the Wii U version for Giants. And so we’ve had a close partnership for a long time, but the cycle time for making these video games is a couple of years and so we started making this game before Giants was started. And the reason why we do that is to allow enough time for creativity and innovation, so that every time we come out we can offer something really fresh and really new.


GC: So it’s essentially the same sort of relationship as between Infinity Ward and Treyarch for Call Of Duty? Where one developer does a game one year and the other the next year?

GB: I think that’s a good analogy. And between us and Toys for Bob it’s a good creative partnership as well.

GC: So are the new ideas in Swap Force something you’ve been hoarding up since you first started working on the franchise, or did someone from Activision come along and tell you what they wanted?

GB: So, generally the way the creative process works is that it’s driven at the studio, whereas Toys for Bob initially thought of and created the idea of bringing toys to life when they were close to completing Spyro’s Adventure we were thinking about, ‘Okay well here’s what really makes the game great. Now how can we take that to the next level? What are the things that we can imagine that will take that toys-to-life idea to the next level, but in a simple and powerful way?’

And so we generated a number of concepts at Vicarious and then we collaborated with Toys for Bob, with the folks at Activision, to be able to say: ‘How do all these different parts fit? And how do we develop an innovation plan around this? And how do we transition that into ‘OK, let’s make the game!’?’

GC: This seems an immediately more ambitious sequel than Giants, was that one of the main reasons for going for the one on/one off studio arrangement? Or is this simply a milestone sequel and we won’t necessarily see this much change again for a couple of years?

GB: I can’t really comment on what will happen that far ahead, but what I can say is that… you actually mentioned it a little bit before: the first game was really an enormous innovation. I mean, people really hadn’t tried it to the extent that we did it. The extensive toy collection, the amount of detail that went into the toys themselves, and then bringing them to life in a game that’s fully realised and rich.

But then on equal measure we’d look at Swap Force and say, well that’s the result of looking at Spyro’s Adventure two years ago and trying to evolve it and work with it over that time. So the actual baking time is required to come out with these fresh ideas from a technical level, and also from a creative level as well.

GC: Do you think of a toy idea first and then how it can work in gameplay? Or is it the other way around? You’re going to say it’s both at the same time aren’t you?

GB: [laughs] It has to be at the same time. We really try to do it at the same time and it starts off with really imagining how you bring value into the living room, because physical play is so important.

GC: But the whole mix ‘n’ match idea seems like something that would’ve occurred first as a thing for the toys, rather than in gameplay – because it’s such a physical idea.

GB: We had an innovation team at Vicarious that started off with this and specifically we set out to think about, ‘What would be a great play pattern that builds upon the magic, but then moves that forward? But then how can we bring that to life in a video game, in a way people haven’t seen before?’ So it was very much simultaneous, and we have to think of things that way.

Because if we look at, not only Vicarious but also Toys for Bob and Activision, we can make and design toys now but we are at heart a video game company also. If we started just thinking about toys only or just started thinking about the video game then it becomes lopsided and it really wouldn’t work out.

GC: How do you know what’s possible with toys, in terms of manufacturing and construction? Do you have your own division now that are essentially toymakers – or is that all done out of house?

GB: It’s actually almost all done internally, and not only at Vicarious but also Toys for Bob we have hardware experts and there’s also another unit within Activision called RedOctane, who you may recall from the Guitar Hero days – they were responsible for all the Guitar Hero peripherals. They’re a specialised design team that works with a supply chain in China.

We try not to put up too many constraints from the start, but to think creatively. But then very quickly we say, ‘How does this mesh with practicality?’ And then that’s how we’ve got some of our ideas.

GC: I’ve always thought of Skylanders as a sort of Diablo lite for kids but there were some complaints that in Giants the role-playing elements had been diluted somewhat. Would you accept that criticism and has your approach to that aspect changed in this new game?

GB: You know, for us I would say we don’t really look at it in that sense. In the sense that what we want to do is create an experience that’s really accessible on the younger side but then scales up to the higher end of our core demographic. The game is not designed to be all things to all people, so to speak, so the way I would put it is RPG lite. Streamlined and accessible, and having it where the toy is very much part of that experience as well. So we support upgrading, we support statistical modifiers through the hats, and collectables and all that type of thing.

GC: Sure, but I didn’t mean that question in terms of making it more palatable to hardcore gamers, but I think of something like Pokémon which is a horrendously complicated game but obvious very successful. And I like that, I like the idea that kids are playing and engaging with something that pushes them and makes them think… a ‘proper video game’. So I just hope that you’re not tempted to take out these more complex elements just because you’re worried it’ll scare some people off.

GB: The way I look at it is it’s a layered game, so if you don’t want to find the complexity you don’t need to. But it has quite a bit of depth to it. So for example, we have so many different toy characters and lots of different types of enemies, and we have ways of bouncing all the numbers of all the characters and enemies and their abilities so that there’s the right hero for the right job. And that’s actually quite a complex activity, but we want to do it where it’s pretty smooth to the player – but where you can also change the balance by modifying your character also.

So there’s a lot of levers to pull on, for something like this, but we haven’t really exposed all that to the user – but it’s there if you want it. And part of it is because the goal is not to make necessarily a game with all the numbers exposed.

Guha Bala – modern day toymaker

GC: So I’d say the announcement of Disney Infinity was a pretty huge compliment for the Skylanders franchise in general, but what did you think when you first saw it?

GB: So in terms of the game itself I’m sure you’re a better expert on it than I am, but if we think what we set out to do even just a couple of years ago it’s about saying a good idea will have competitors of one variety or another. We don’t know where they’ll come from, so our job is to make sure that we invest in innovating, we invest in increasing the value of your collection, we invest in play patterns that we can apply our knowledge to and that other people haven’t yet thought about.

So what we’re doing now is an embodiment of saying, ‘When we’re successful we’ll have to deal with that, so we want to make sure we deliver the best, best possible experience for consumers. So for me, that’s what I think about day and night – how to come up with the next magical thing.

GC: When I see a clone of any game I’m always interested in what features they focus on, because it implies that’s what they think the game they’re copying is missing. With Disney Infinity its four-player mode seems to be one of the key differences, so I wonder now whether you’re tempted to add that into your game?

GB: It’s a great question. For us it’s more about making a special experience, rather than doing a feature-for-feature kind of comparison. And we spend a lot of time with kids in making the game, and we find that the richest experience is actually when there’s a two-player in-the-living-room interaction. And that’s where the kids are and that’s where the toys are as well.

GC: It’s interesting that the Lego games are also only two-player, despite them also having had ample opportunity to expand to more. Is two people on the same screen the sweet spot for this kind of game?

GB: We’ve made four-player games before, so it’s not a technical limitation. If you have one character on the screen and the other player has the other how many can you introduce before it becomes visually confusing? We have to guide the player. How many people can talk together at the same time and have a good experience? If a person starts upgrading and changing a character as much as they want to, how much does that slow down or accelerate the experience for the other person? That’s a balancing factor.

So what we find is that it’s a really great experience for non-split screen, same screen two-player co-op. And that really works well. And it works well with our swapping paradigm, it works well with the conventional Skylanders, but it’s really about kids playing with their friends, in their living room, with the physical toys and the video game at the same time.

GC: The other big difference with Disney Infinity is of course the licensed characters, so I wonder if there’s any thought to add your own to Skylanders?

GB: You mean from other universes?

GC: Yeah, either stuff that Activision already owns or has the licence for? Transformers or Spider-Man, for example.

GB: There’s two ways of looking at that, one of those is that Activision doesn’t own those IPs so those are separately licensed IPs.

GC: Sure, but if Hasbro or Marvel think there’s money in it I’m sure they’d be only too happy to extend the licence. I mean Activision had Spider-Man in their Tony Hawk’s games, for example.

GB: But if I think of Skylanders it’s really what works for the experience. At its heart Skylanders is its own world and has its own fiction. And its characters all hold together as Skylanders, so even though there’s great variety in that there’s a common bond and design that holds the form and functionality between all of them.

That’s what Toys for Bob and Vicarious collaborate on, in a constant process to define. And it’s very important to us, so introducing an external licence into that… I mean anything is possible in the future but it doesn’t sound like it’s the right thing at the moment.

GC: Is Swap Force likely to come to any other formats that haven’t been announced yet?

GB: Yeah, you know I can’t really answer that. [laughs]

GC: I mean obviously I’m talking about the N-Gage here.

GB: [laughs] Well look, I can say possibly. There could be an iOS version, for example. We’ve already done that to a degree and wherever you are we want to be able to give you a toys-to-life experience.

GC: But you can’t plug a Portal of Power into an iPhone, which does seem to defeat the object to some degree?

GB: People have asked us, ‘Why do you lock things on the disc? Why do you put exclusive content on the disc that you only unlock with the toy?’ And the fact of the matter is many of our consumers are in an unconnected environment, so we can ensure that if you have a toy you’ll be able to have a digital side to that.

So that’s why we have a lot of things on disc and pack in all the value in the disc. And so sometimes folks look at that and say, ‘Hey, look why don’t you allow us to unlock it virtually?’ But it’s really so we can build enormous convenience factor for consumers by putting it on the disc ahead of time.

GC: What about the Portal of Power, is that always going to be the same? Is it the same device in Swap Force?

GB: That’s a good question, it’s actually different for this game. We were talking about the upgradeability of different parts… there’s more technical sophistication with what we have to do now. So there’s a new Portal of Power for Swap Force, but it will support all the old toys.

GC: So what does it do that’s different. It uses NFC technology – is that right?

GB: We don’t really talk about the technical specs, I know there are people that can analyse them and pull them apart but we don’t really talk about that.

GC: So it’s just magic?

GB: [laughs] Right. The toughest thing about innovation is making it simple. You look at Nintendo or Apple, and all these great innovators, the greatest difficulty is not about how complex it is it’s about how simple it is, from a usability standpoint.

GC: Okay, that’s great thank you very much.

GB: Thank you. Those are actually very different questions from what I usually get, so that was cool.

GC: Oh, hang on. I forgot to ask about what’s the craziest thing you’ve heard about a collector, in terms of how much they’ve paid for a rare piece?

GB: We’ve seen some crazy prices on eBay, but we have pictures of collections too. And some of them look like… shrines, that people have built. There’s the set that they have for play, there’s the set that they have in some kind of hermetically-sealed vault for future generations…

Both: [laughs]

GB: It looks like it should have candles around it. But when you get into the world of collectors there’s a whole spectrum.

GC: Oh, and is there anything you can say about Crash Bandicoot?

GB: [laughs] You’re talking about that photo with the poster on the wall?

GC: Yeah, I think there was some speculation you might be working on a reboot for Crash?

GB: Well, there’s nothing for me to say about Crash Bandicoot. [laughs] I mean I love the games, we’ve made some of the party games…

GC: Is there any reason why he couldn’t appear in a Skylanders game?

GB: Well, Crash Bandicoot is a very different personality to Spyro…

GC: But if I was Activision and I wanted to bring back Crash Bandicoot I would’ve thought a cameo in Skylanders would be a pretty good start.

GB: I think the best way to think about that is the same question you asked about Transformers and Spider-Man. Because the way I think about it personally is that Crash Bandicoot is a great IP, that’s had great game experiences in the past, but it’s very different than what Skylanders is today. That’s the way I think about it.

GC: Thank you, that’s great.

GB: Okay cool, thank you.

Thoughts? Email gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk or leave a comment below