Rayman 3D
- Thread starter Janic
- Start date
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
3Ds has an internal hard drive. They would be stored there.Haruka said:
- Messages
- 15
- Tings
- 75
I can't wait for this release, the 3DS is a great chance to redeem my Nintendo fanboy status seeing as how I've been playing my Wii less ever since I got Steam. I particularly like that it's a port of Rayman 2 because I think it's the best game in the series, also because... well... I've never played it. 
But at least when I do play it, it'll be in 3-D, have dreamcast quality graphics, and other stuff.
But at least when I do play it, it'll be in 3-D, have dreamcast quality graphics, and other stuff.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
YOUZ NEVER PLAYD RAYMAN TOO? YEW SEEREEUHSS?Rayzorbeard Origins said:I can't wait for this release, the 3DS is a great chance to redeem my Nintendo fanboy status seeing as how I've been playing my Wii less ever since I got Steam. I particularly like that it's a port of Rayman 2 because I think it's the best game in the series, also because... well... I've never played it.
Hah, you don't know what you're missing. But I guess this 3Ds version is the best original version of it available, so you'll surely have fun. Be prepared for a wild ride through some of the most creative 3D environments you've ever seen.
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
I am still perplexed at your resistance to Rayman 3D. In what way is it not a good thing? More people will have a chance to play Rayman 2. We’re going to get a brand-new version of the game which is potentially the single best version of any Rayman game ever. If it sells well, Rayman 1, Rayman 3 and Rayman M will most likely follow. Everyone wins completely. I am not sure why you think an enhanced Revolution would push the 3DS further than an enhanced Dreamcast version; the Rayman 3D screenshots look significantly better than either of them, and I’m sure the developers will take any upgraded models from Revolution if they think that is worthwhile. Look closely at screenshots. They are good.RayFan9876 said:
Indeed, my Rayman 3 GameCube ISO is somewhere between 1.35 and 1.425 gigabytes (Windows Explorer is inconsistent regarding this). That ought to leave a couple of hundred megabytes for ‘extras’ or whatever additional coding they have to do to make the 3D work. I suppose if they needed space they could downsample the textures or compress the audio, but I would hate that.RayFan9876 said:
As I said, Ubisoft are bringing Rayman 2 to a wider audience, some of whom will not have had the chance to play it before now. This is excellent.Rayzorbeard Origins said:I can't wait for this release, the 3DS is a great chance to redeem my Nintendo fanboy status seeing as how I've been playing my Wii less ever since I got Steam. I particularly like that it's a port of Rayman 2 because I think it's the best game in the series, also because... well... I've never played it.
Here’s some more boring off-topic argument crap (and can we finally have those spoiler tags I’ve been requesting for years? They’d be very helpful here):
Code:
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"]Sorry, I was talking about graphics. Correct what I said to "you think the Dreamcast is factually 100% better in every way graphically." Still absolutely frickin' ridiculous that you seem to be able to think your opinion can override the literal fact in front of your face. And by being highly insensitive, I mean you sound like a robot built with no emotion or variation whatsoever.[/quote]
You were talking about graphics? You specifically claimed that I said I was ‘one-hundred percent correct that the Dreamcast version is better [b]in every way[/b]’, thus completely misrepresenting me. Now you say that ‘I think my opinion can override the literal fact in front of my face’? No, that is completely false. My opinion is that the Dreamcast version looks better; when I play the two versions and compare them, ‘the literal fact in front of my face’ is that the Dreamcast version looks better. When you called me ‘the most insensitive person you ever met’, I got the impression that you were talking about my personality; I did not know that you measured people’s ‘sensitivity’ by emotion or variation of their speech. I do not like to imbue my posts with emotion, which may hamper your perceptive abilities somewhat. Do you think Xenon is insensitive too? His manner of speaking is not dissimilar from mine.
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"]Well guess what, what if I said that I've played through both versions multiple times (which I have) and I can say that without a doubt, I am 110% sure that the N64 version, as an objective fact, looks better? I obviously don't think that, but what would you have to say in response, that your "true opinion" is better than my "false opinion?" You do not have the right to voice other's thoughts. I don't think the Dreamcast looks better, therefore, bam, your "fact" is now false. If one person disagrees, your "fact" is false. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. And my opinion is that Revolution looks better. Does that mean it actually does? No (even though it does in a technical sense). Your opinion is that the Dreamcast looks better. Does that mean it actually does? No![/quote]
But the Dreamcast version does look better. I don’t understand how anyone could disagree with that. It runs at a solid sixty frames per second, whereas Revolution runs at a choppy thirty that sometimes drops as low as fifteen or twenty. Not pretty. That’s not taking into account Revolution’s set lighting and colouring; these things can be controlled by the player in the Dreamcast version, meaning that they can make it look exactly as they want. Revolution looks like it’s stuck on maximum luminosity. And no, what you say about fact and opinion is nonsense. A fact isn’t reduced to a mere opinion just because someone disagrees with it. If the earth is flat in my opinion, that doesn’t change the objective fact that it’s round. If you play the Dreamcast version, then play Revolution, you will see that the Dreamcast version looks better. It’s true. Your disagreement is baffling.
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"][QUOTE="spiraldoor"]Calling someone ‘pre-pubescent’ is not the ‘the worst attack/insult you can commit’; that’s utterly ridiculous.[/quote][QUOTE="RayFan9876"]Calling him pre-pubescent in the form of being informative is completely harmless, but in the form of an attack/insult, it's the worst kind of attack/insult you can commit.[/quote]epic fail[/quote]
I simplified your argument because I did not feel like typing it out again. Since you are apparently unable to understand this, here is the extended edition of my statement: Calling someone ‘pre-pubescent’ as an insult is not ‘the worst kind of attack/insult you can commit’; that’s utterly ridiculous. Pre-pubescence is a state everyone experiences and is teased about to some degree; it is absolutely and entirely inlike attacking a rape victim. I imagine that actual rape victims would be quite insulted by your trivialisation of their plight through this daft comparison. Your whole argument is that rape victims cannot control being raped and that pre-pubescent children cannot control their pre-pubescence; you seem to think that this vague, tenuous similarity makes the words ‘pre-pubescent’ extremely horrible and callous when used as an insult. Your comparison is very silly and it holds no water.
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"][QUOTE="spiraldoor"]Please stop this branch of the argument right now; it isn’t going anywhere.[/quote]
It's kind of my main, resolving point, so no.[/quote]
Everything everyone says is obviously their opinion, and I don’t think it’s worth clarifying and repeating this clear truth in every single post I make. I want to talk about Rayman; I am tired of this boring debate on whether or not we should say ‘in my opinion’ all the time. And now it’s apparently your main point? Oh dear. Please, if you disagree with my arguments, attack [b]the arguments themselves[/b], not my decision to omit redundant ‘opinion’ labels everywhere.
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"][QUOTE="spiraldoor"][b]Everything I say is automatically labelled as my opinion, and further labelling is redundant.[/b][/quote]
So that MUST mean that you saying that the Dreamcast 100% factually looks better and if you think otherwise you're wrong, is an opinion.[/quote]
Sure, everything everyone says is opinion. That’s why it’s so pointless to say so all the time. I’m entirely certain that the Dreamcast version of Rayman 2 looks better than Revolution, however. After all, I can see this with my own eyes, simply by comparing the two versions. This is so obvious to me that I am confused as to why anyone should think otherwise. I would say that the Dreamcast version is definitively better-looking. I’m still not sure where you’re going with this ‘opinion’ business; perhaps we should discuss the actual games instead?
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"]They're not that bad quality. They're good enough to see all the details that aren't pixel specific. And if I can tell the details with my bad eyesight, you should be able to with your "good eyesight" as you mentioned previously.[/quote]
Sorry, but these screenshots are terrible. You can pick out the major differences, like the changes in colouration and some of the switched models, but these images you keep posting simply don’t do justice to the games. They’re jpegged to hell and resized all wrong. If you want to compare screenshots properly, you must use actual in-game-quality ones – you still haven’t posted any, and they’re difficult to find, especially if you’re looking for ones that show the same place in both versions. While you’re playing the games, they each have their own very distinctive look and feel. Blurry screenshots do not capture these subtleties. They don’t capture the framerate, either.
[QUOTE="RayFan9876"]I already said that yes, iHeckler shouldn't have done that, but your retorts are just insulting. Yours was much worse than iHeckler's, and you won't recognize it. Why am I pointing this out so intensely? Because you do it over and over and over and over again, and almost nobody agrees with the majority of your arguments. Don't you know why?[/quote]
Why aren’t you pursuing iHeckler endlessly over his inappropriate comments, too? Because someone’s argument being ‘bullshit’ is not ‘something they can’t control’, therefore it’s perfectly fine to insult it? No, my retorts are not worse than iHeckler’s initial statement. He insulted my views on Rayman Revolution; these are things which I have been thinking about for several years, and it pissed me off to see all my thoughts being bluntly branded as ‘bullshit’ by this pestering child who probably hasn’t even played the Dreamcast version, doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about and is too lazy or ignorant to bother explaining or supporting his views in any constructive way whatsoever. He did it solely to annoy me, which you’ll know is a hobby of his if you read many of his posts. No, calling him ‘pre-pubescent’ isn’t ‘much worse’ than what he said to me. You seem utterly convinced that being called ‘pre-pubescent’ as an insult is terribly offensive; I would say it’s a very, very mild insult with no personal connotations or real offensive potential at all. People get called ‘idiots’ here on a daily basis (though very rarely by me; I don’t like the term). Idiots can’t control the fact that they are stupid any more than pre-pubescent children can control the fact that they are pre-pubescent; moreover, pre-pubescence is a temporary state which everyone goes through and with which there is nothing inherently wrong, whereas idiocy is a permanent state which not everyone goes through and which can never be escaped. By rights, you should be criticising everyone who uses the word ‘idiot’ as an insult far more than you’re criticising me right now; however, you do not. This leads me to believe that you are singling me out personally for some unknown reason. Perhaps the words ‘pre-pubescent’ are emotionally loaded for you because of something that happened in your life. I don’t know if that’s the case, but I really think you’re taking this too far. I’ve been called things right here on this forum which are so grossly offensive that I will not even say what they are. If I can get over these things, then I think poor little iHeckler (who is the same age that I was then) will survive the heinous insinuation that he is a child. There is no need for you to act so deeply, personally and persistently offended on his behalf.- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
They better upgrade the models or else.spiraldoor said:
Especially since the audio in Rayman 3 takes up almost a third of the disk. Textures... not so much. They're 256x256, and downsampling those would make it look like Super Mario 64. Also the standard DS audio quality was a mere 11,025 hz, so they may downsample it anyway unless they upgrade the quality of the sound in the 3Ds. The standard audio quality from our speakers is 44,100 hz.spiraldoor said:
- Messages
- 26,811
- Tings
- 200,430
Eshap said:I think you misunderstood, Haruka.Haruka said:jkzz said:
Sick is you.
Sometimes, sick means 'very good'.
Slang.
Really? It's the first time I take knowledge of that kind of connotation.
In that case I'm going to believe you since you are English-Native.
My apologises.
- Messages
- 22,233
- Tings
- 110,541
Fixxx'd.StaceyW said:
Also that slang's been around since like the beginning of time.
- Messages
- 488
- Tings
- 5
>rayman 3d
> "oh this sounds cool"
> Rayman 2 remake. AGAIN.
-FLIPS TABLES >:C -
damnit ubi stop whoring out rayman 2 and remake (or make it a better quality) versions of Rayman 1 and 3. i got sick of Rayman 2 after Revolution |:C
>ALL MY HATE
> "oh this sounds cool"
> Rayman 2 remake. AGAIN.
-FLIPS TABLES >:C -
damnit ubi stop whoring out rayman 2 and remake (or make it a better quality) versions of Rayman 1 and 3. i got sick of Rayman 2 after Revolution |:C
>ALL MY HATE
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
Why? That’s a terrible idea.kristaldoodle said:
You are a bad person.kristaldoodle said:
- Messages
- 2,810
- Tings
- 21,010
To be honest I'm quite tired of Rayman 2 as well. I believe it's the most beautiful game ever made. But it had it's glory and now it's just time to let it go into the history books. I was hoping that this would be a new platformer in the style of Rayman 2, but I guess looking back at previous years I shouldn't bother hoping that to be reality soon ( not never, soon, I trust Ancel ).
Oh well, at least they didn't make a port of Rayman 3. Although Rayman 3 is a fun game and would serve Nintendo pretty well as to demonstrate the capabilities of the Nintendo 3DS, I just think that it doesn't have that same magical feeling as Rayman 1 and 2 had to it.
Oh well, at least they didn't make a port of Rayman 3. Although Rayman 3 is a fun game and would serve Nintendo pretty well as to demonstrate the capabilities of the Nintendo 3DS, I just think that it doesn't have that same magical feeling as Rayman 1 and 2 had to it.
- Messages
- 397
- Tings
- 35
Haruka said:
I think the easiest space saver would just be recompressing the videos and audio files all over again. Since then, many advances have been made in terms of keeping full motion video and sound up in quality and low in file size.
If there's one thing you guys should check out is that this port of Rayman 2 has higher res textures (I don't see Ubisoft's touted improved models or lighting, but I guess I'd have to see it in motion) in the screenshots, so reducing the texture resolution on a possible Rayman 3 port to save file size would probably not be the first solution as it appears they didn't take that route here.
The 3D information is somewhat small in comparison to image, sound, or movie files. This is why Nintendo is the king of ports and rereleases for their first party games, as they almost never involve prerendered movies or major audiologs, making it easier to overhaul games with minimum effort for future rereleases.
For the record though, with Ubisoft's track record of the last decade, I'm going to say this port of Rayman 2 is going to suck. I bet it will have no extras or differences whatsoever and will probably be missing a few things. I would venture to guess this 3DS version would not make the original Dreamcast version irrelevant. While Rayfan is right, the Dreamcast version's models and backgrounds have less in the way of higher poly models and higher res textures compared to Revolution, it is the only 480p widescreen version of Rayman 2 available as well as being the definitive version of the pure Rayman 2 as originally realized by Michel Ancel. This is not to say I don't also enjoy Revolution as I think they are both essential for various reasons. I also think the PSX version of Rayman 2 is worth a look for the odd differences as well as having the original promo level for the 2D Rayman 2.
- Messages
- 12,392
- Tings
- 156,600
Why on earth should a game be consigned to ‘the history books’? Do you seriously want Ubisoft to stop porting and re-releasing Rayman 2 so that only the surviving copies of the current versions will be available to future generations? I guess we should stop re-printing decade-old books too.Joshua822 said:
This may come as a shock to you, but you don’t actually have to play any of these games if you don’t want to.Joshua822 said: