Bye Ancel

[Xenon]

If a game is developed to a high standard, I agree that it would sell well, but only in its market. The problem is, demand for games in Rayman's particular market (adventure platformers) is decreasing, so the compass of buyers comparably decreases too.

 

[Jake360]

If a game is developed to a high standard, I agree that it would sell well, but only in its market. The problem is, demand for games in Rayman's particular market (adventure platformers) is decreasing, so the compass of buyers comparably decreases too.

Then give Rayman a gun.

And i think the gameplay is very similar to that of R&C as well as J&D anyway and they both sell well and are both restricted to a single platform. They are both third person shooters but the fighting gameplay is exactly the same, lock on and strafe, and R&C has very similar platforming elements.

Plus if Rayman 4 gets 90%+ reviews then the hype will sell it to those who don't usually play platformers, and there is no reason why it can't get those scores looking at Rayman's track record.

 

[Adsolution]

Well talking about sales, take a look at FF XIII. You could almost call it an adventure platformer RPG at a lot of points. It's crazy popular.

Plus there's a LOT of people out there who you've never talked to about Rayman, that cherish it as a childhood game, but always play shooters. You would never know that unless you directly asked them. I found out a good 25% of the people I've directly asked had played and remembered at least two of the three installments, and about 40% remembered the first game. They're like "ooooohh yeah, I loved that game!" if I randomly brought it up.

So if people like that see ads for a new Rayman game with a similar style on TV or on the Internet, then there's a pretty high chance they'll get it. That's what I'm trying to achieve.

 

[Jake360]

Was Rayman in some sort of PS1 bundle? Most people i've talked to say the first game they played was Rayman, and it was mine. Don't know if it was just luck that my mum got it with Rayman when i was about 7 or if it was bundled.

 

[Cairnie]

Rayman 1 on PS1 had been in the charts for a really long time back when the PS1 was still popular about ten years ago, and I think some catalogues would indeed have the game in bundles. When I was in school I've found a number of classmates that have said they've played it at some point.

 

[Haruka]

I think that we, that born on the 90s (some members here, before the 90s), we had a certain previlege in terms of entertainment, whatever if it is on TV, Cinema/Movies, Tecnology available and evolution, the games and consoles catalogue, the music, etc. Each year that passes I can't avoid in thinking that this new generation doesn't know how to judge what is really fun. Just look at Disney that bets now on Hannah Montanas and Teen-targeted shows. What about the classic movies of Disney that teached morals and whose musics were remarkable? A couple of weeks ago I got astonished when I was watching a TV contest of a 9-years old kid against an adult; the question was "What was Pinoquio?" and she answered "Err... a robot?"........ I just got "WHAT THE ****...?! ". I can also bet that 5-years old kids cannot say what is a VHS or a BETAMAX. These are just examples, but there are many more.

 

[Jake360]

I think we appreciate the games we have more as well, and i don't think people born after the 90's will ever enjoy a game as much as we did when we were kids. I mean we got to grow up with huge pixel graphics, 2d platformers and a red and blue pokemon game. What are our kids going to be playing when they're 6, RRR 3D Natal edition...

I think we were the luckiest generation, experiencing VHS, CRT, early generation games consoles, brick mobile phones and everything up to the as life like looking uncharteds, god of wars,ipad etc.

I remember spending hours after hours on our PS1, playing Gran Turismo, Rayman, Toy Story 2, and when we got the PS2 at the time it was awesome, but now look at the PS3. As gamers and viewing the huge leaps in technology we were born at exactly the right time.

 

[ParadoxJuice]

Plus there's a LOT of people out there who you've never talked to about Rayman, that cherish it as a childhood game, but always play shooters. You would never know that unless you directly asked them.

Hmmm, I'm going to have to start asking some people.

If a game is developed to a high standard, I agree that it would sell well, but only in its market. The problem is, demand for games in Rayman's particular market (adventure platformers) is decreasing, so the compass of buyers comparably decreases too.

Then give Rayman a gun.

And i think the gameplay is very similar to that of R&C as well as J&D anyway and they both sell well and are both restricted to a single platform. They are both third person shooters but the fighting gameplay is exactly the same, lock on and strafe, and R&C has very similar platforming elements.

Indeed.

 

[spiraldoor]

Even if Ubisoft did release an R4 that tallied with the greatness of R2 in terms of game design, I don't think this greatness would be reflected in the sales income. In my opinion there's no room for platformers like Rayman in the market anymore, because fans have become more interested in high-tech futuristic shooter or action games or games that make use of modern technology. It's a social issue more than anything.

For this reason I doubt there'll ever be another Rayman instalment.

I think we appreciate the games we have more as well, and i don't think people born after the 90's will ever enjoy a game as much as we did when we were kids. I mean we got to grow up with huge pixel graphics, 2d platformers and a red and blue pokemon game. What are our kids going to be playing when they're 6, RRR 3D Natal edition...

I think we were the luckiest generation, experiencing VHS, CRT, early generation games consoles, brick mobile phones and everything up to the as life like looking uncharteds, god of wars,ipad etc.

I remember spending hours after hours on our PS1, playing Gran Turismo, Rayman, Toy Story 2, and when we got the PS2 at the time it was awesome, but now look at the PS3. As gamers and viewing the huge leaps in technology we were born at exactly the right time.

Both of these statements are undermined by the same fact: we cannot see into the future.

It's all well and good to say that there won't be a Rayman platformer in the next three years, or that kids growing up today won't play games as good as we did, but when we extrapolate this thnking into eternity it starts to fall apart. How can we say that there will never be another Rayman installment? There could be thousands over the course of the next few millennia. Is it really defensible to suggest that kids born after the '90s will never enjoy a game as much as we did? I don't think so. The technological gap between '00s kids and '10s kids might be ten times larger than the gap between '90s kids and '00s kids. There will be new games that have yet to be imagined. There certainly will be new Rayman games. Gamers in the 2100s may look back on us in the same way we look back on Victorians, and wonder how we could ever put up with such feeble technologies.

In short: don't make sweeping statements about the future. None of us have any idea what's around the corner.

 

[Jake360]

In short: don't make sweeping statements about the future. None of us have any idea what's around the corner.

But we have experienced the two extremes, why would someone born now go and play a poor, 15 year old game when there is no sentimental value for them, and with each popular series at the moment being milked to death i think we were fortunate from a game and technological point of view. With 3D coming out now and HD graphics there is not much else that can happen untill the leap of virtual reality.

Now with splitcreen slowly leaving and online taking over i think it takes away that family element of gaming when you're at a young age too, which was what i enjoyed the most. Playing splitscreen with my dad on Gran Turismo, splitscreen with my brothers on 007 nightfire etc etc I remember playing Rayman 1 with my dad, not owning a memory card and we had a notepad dedicated to Rayman where we wrote down all our codes!!

 

[spiraldoor]

But we have experienced the two extremes, why would someone born now go and play a poor, 15 year old game when there is no sentimental value for them, and with each popular series at the moment being milked to death i think we were fortunate from a game and technological point of view.

For the same reason I went back and played Super Metroid for the first time just a few months ago. The same reason I played through the NES Mario games last year. I had heard that these old games were good, and I knew that they were significant; therefore I played them regardless of their age. I think you're underestimating future generations by suggesting that they won't do anything similar.

With 3D coming out now and HD graphics there is not much else that can happen untill the leap of virtual reality.

There's actually quite a lot. For example, games systems in a decade or so might run on extremely powerful quantum processors. Games will eventually reach the stage where they look as good as the human brain is able to comprehend. Games which aim for realism will actually achieve it. Sound systems might have millions of channels instead of six or eight. Pixellation, aliasing, screen-tearing and low-resolution textures will become a thing of the past, just like the practice of having mist to obscure unloaded areas already has. And commercially-available virtual-reality systems will be another major milestone to look out for in the upcoming decades. Fifty years ago we could never have predicted the internet; similarly-unpredictable technologies will emerge.

Now with splitcreen slowly leaving and online taking over i think it takes away that family element of gaming when you're at a young age too, which was what i enjoyed the most. Playing splitscreen with my dad on Gran Turismo, splitscreen with my brothers on 007 nightfire etc etc I remember playing Rayman 1 with my dad, not owning a memory card and we had a notepad dedicated to Rayman where we wrote down all our codes!!

I can understand your concerns about online gaming taking over, but I don't think it's an insurmountable problem. For example, you could easily set up two televisions and two games consoles in the same room, connect them via the systems' online gaming network, and there you go: you're playing a game with/against your friend while sitting next to them. The only problem here is the price of multiple systems and monitors, but these prices will surely decrease. A computer would have been worth a fortune only a few decades ago; now you're regarded as poor if you can't afford one. And most people have at least two televisions, which would probably have been considered remarkable a century ago.

These problems will all sort themselves out in good time; don't worry about it.

 

[Jake360]

There's actually quite a lot. For example, games systems in a decade or so might run on extremely powerful quantum processors.

Some people think that we've seen the last generation of consoles, and if not we wont be seeing another after the next. Buy obviously we don't know it as fact, and i would love games to look as real life as possible but the thing holding it back is not just the technology but human ability to render something to that much detail.

For the same reason I went back and played Super Metroid for the first time just a few months ago. The same reason I played through the NES Mario games last year. I had heard that these old games were good, and I knew that they were significant; therefore I played them regardless of their age. I think you're underestimating future generations by suggesting that they won't do anything similar.

The same, like i went back to the original Rayman and i'm currently playing Rayman 2. I got the original Mario Kart downloaded on the Wii and was playing an old f1 game a couple of weeks back. I think people will go back to old games to just experience them but i don't think they will be enjoyed as much, and i don't think people of age 8-12 will feel the need to play old games when they can swing their arms around on the Wii etc.

These problems will all sort themselves out in good time; don't worry about it.

I hope so. It is game developers fault creating the amound of junk around, taking advantage of film blockbusters (avatar, transformers etc) and then putting a shovelware title that will print money because younger kids don't know any better.

 

[spiraldoor]

Some people think that we've seen the last generation of consoles, and if not we wont be seeing another after the next. Buy obviously we don't know it as fact, and i would love games to look as real life as possible but the thing holding it back is not just the technology but human ability to render something to that much detail.

The people who believe we've reached the last generation of consoles think that consoles will be replaced by PCs in the future. They don't believe that game technology is about to stop advancing or anything like that.

I acknowledge that greater realism in games means harder work for animators and graphic artists, but films have already reached the stage where computer-generated imagery rivals reality, and the artists seem able to cope. The only thing holding back games from reaching the same level is the fact that they have to be rendered in real-time by a consumer-grade system.

I think people will go back to old games to just experience them but i don't think they will be enjoyed as much, and i don't think people of age 8-12 will feel the need to play old games when they can swing their arms around on the Wii etc.

Some of them will and some of them won't... it's the same way with old literature and old films. There will always be people ('casuals') who couldn't care less about the history of gaming and won't play anything that isn't up-to-date. These people will miss out on the hundreds of great games which already exist. Too bad for them.

I'll never know if I enjoyed Super Metroid as much as I would have enjoyed it had I played it ten years ago, but it does no good dwelling on such things. It's a great game and no technological advances can change that.

Perhaps someone a hundred years from now will come across this thread and be dreadfully amused by it all...

 

[Jake360]

I acknowledge that greater realism in games means harder work for animators and graphic artists, but films have already reached the stage where computer-generated imagery rivals reality, and the artists seem able to cope. The only thing holding back games from reaching the same level is the fact that they have to be rendered in real-time by a consumer-grade system.

Yeh, looking at avatar sure, it does look good, but not real life good. And like you said, getting it to be CG quality in real-time will take many years if it is achievable. I don't think the graphics will make a huge leap from what they are now for a long time, the biggest leaps in graphics we'll ever see were in the last 15 years.

Perhaps someone a hundred years from now will come across this thread and be dreadfully amused by it all...

Prehaps the robots that have trapped us in a virtual reality will come across it. But i'd love to see where technology takes us, not just in a hundred years but look what happened in just the last ten years!

 

[spiraldoor]

Yeh, looking at avatar sure, it does look good, but not real life good. And like you said, getting it to be CG quality in real-time will take many years if it is achievable. I don't think the graphics will make a huge leap from what they are now for a long time, the biggest leaps in graphics we'll ever see were in the last 15 years.

The rate of technological advancement, as far as I'm aware, has been steadily accelerating for as long as humans have existed. Early technologies – fire, the wheel, flint tools – were developed over the course of centuries, but nowadays brand-new technologies can become the standard within a couple of decades of their creation (eg mobile phones, the internet). Who knows, maybe someday new technologies will be embraced by the public within a year of their conception, or a few months, or a few days.

Avatar might look crude by 2020; what's cutting-edge in 2020 might look crude by 2025; what's cutting-edge in 2025 might look crude by 2027, and so on. I think the biggest single leap in videogame graphics will be when the first consumer-grade quantum processors are released, but the technology will continue to improve at faster and faster rates until it's as good as it can get. Each new technology paves the way for a host of others. Look at all the technologies that the invention of the silicon chip has made possible. Did you know that the first artificial life was created just nineteen days ago? What doors will that open?

 

[Xenon]

How can we say that there will never be another Rayman installment? There could be thousands over the course of the next few millennia. Is it really defensible to suggest that kids born after the '90s will never enjoy a game as much as we did? I don't think so.

I made a prediction when I said there will be no future Rayman instalments, not an assertion. And I didn't make the claim you cited in the latter part of your post. The simple argument I was putting forward was the video game market is ever changing and as technologies and social fashions change, peoples' gaming interests change accordingly. You can see this statement to be true in the evolution of the games over the past twenty or so years. I'm not saying people will never like platformers or Rayman again, but gaming taste will inevitably shift further and some markets that are becoming "old-fashioned" are likely to suffer as a result of this.

 

[Jake360]

Did you know that the first artificial life was created just nineteen days ago? What doors will that open?

I did, but they didn't make it out of nothing did they. Hopefully they'll be able to make poke'mon to make my childhood dream of becoming a poke'mon master a reality.

And there will become a time when they get to a barrier and they can't improve video game graphics. I know technology is growing at an exponential rate but in terms of graphics in film and games that will tail off soon.

 

[syntheticgerbil]

Even if Ubisoft did release an R4 that tallied with the greatness of R2 in terms of game design, I don't think this greatness would be reflected in the sales income. In my opinion there's no room for platformers like Rayman in the market anymore, because fans have become more interested in high-tech futuristic shooter or action games or games that make use of modern technology. It's a social issue more than anything.

For this reason I doubt there'll ever be another Rayman instalment.

Well this is the thing. The game design really only helps critical scores. What Ubisoft fails to do is market their quirkier games correctly.

If they just release an all out marketing campaign for a new Rayman game, it'll be just as successful as the Rabbids. Rayman 3 was marketed with that attitude crap, so it didn't reflect too well in sales.

It's all just about having confidence in your product. But Ubisoft releases like 20-30 things a year, so I'm sure they only are worried about getting dollar signs with as little effort as possible, really.

 

[Jake360]

Well it's Ubisofts fault for creating a franchise that isn't marketable too your typical gamer. Rayman 4 was heading in the right direction and was very marketable, just looked how frustratingly well the first RRR sold.

 

[Cairnie]

Rayman Rush probably sold way more than RRR1 did, I swear I remember that being in the charts for a long time a while back [also paying £20 for it gaah x.x].