You think you're funny? You're just useless for the whole discussion!
This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read! With this statement you will be surely a teenager that crushes pimples yet.If Rayman 3 came out in the 90's it would've been releasing in the same time period as super mario 64's goofy ass camera and controls, Rayman 3 would've been the shit. And it wasn't like gamers in 2003 had a completely different psyche than they did 5 years ago, Osama's air sports didn't affect video games.
Rayman Legends is almost objectively a better game than Rayman 1. I like Rayman 1 better because it's got the art and sound that makes me wet, but being forced to collect a gazillion cages placed in fuckawful locations and meme difficulty just doesn't hold up to consistently tight design. There's plenty to praise and like about Rayman 1's design but it's undeniably flawed.
Super Mario 64 is a game that the whole (because obviously people can not read, I speak as a whole) upsets the contemporary games on every aspect. But you today affects only the graphics, the shootings and inconsistent play, no depth!
2003 is not certainly a mature year as the whole '90s. The '90s were a decade that took things seriously, the '00 of course not! Indeed Rayman 3 came out in 2003, and instead to be "mature" as to be simply a badly recited comedy. Instead of being the story of a hero who saves his world it's a farce, and this you call maturity?! Bah!
"Rayman Legends is better than Rayman 1". Here I do not know whether to laugh or cry, seriously!
Rayman Legends looks like a colorful set of scrawls, Rayman 1 is ART!
The Rayman Legends gameplay will definitely be more fluid and dynamic but I REPEAT, NOT JUST GAMEPLAY IS TO MAKE A GAME! Possible that you look only and ONLY the gameplay.
Rayman Legends is monstrous! Characters that seem scrawls, trivial and inconsistent plot, trivial and inconsistent soundtrack, wallpapers recycled from Rabbids era onwards. JUST SUCKS!
Globox fart in the game! WOW, THAT'S MATURITY! What to say, except your own silly humor!?i dont forgive you
For sure?He has like 3 cutscenes in the whole game and they're all identical
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEali3wT39c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTCxCp3YEnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72c38mQ-n2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixk0EB9l81A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99QivD0XCjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xPA9EgCDgQ
To me they seem not identical. Seems identical your cabbage answers!
Mr Dark is amazing and dreary. The wizard of Rayman Origins what else, apart a recycled scrawl from Teensies concep!?Devoid of personality and no dialogue, just like the Magician in Rayman Origins!
Rayman 2 was able to make me touch the sky. Rayman 3 is so trivial to me that stew just bought.
And in any case as I explained in my previous posts that Rayman 3 took EVERYTHING from Rayman 2 then imagine you. You can!
How much you are miserable from 1 to 10?Yeah ly is a qt3.14
Like above.This nigga probably paid 10k for a blank canvas and goes "you just dont UNDERSTAND" when people laugh
Do you think I care!? However I was not talking to you, nigga!im triggered!
Not to me!ew ps1 and n64 are the worst versions, PC/Revolution/Dreamcast is the way to play baby
I repeat:
Looking the facial expressivity of Rayman in the N64 version (therefore 32-bit/64-bit system): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j69uWXQZk_g in this version his face appear delicate and more expressive!I just say that the skin present in the original Nintendo 64 (and PlayStation) version/s with the hub in 2D and 3D gaming features used only where necessary is in my opinion the best.
The Rayman's skin in the original version for Nintendo 64 and PlayStation appear delicate and expressive while in PC and Dreamcast versions, and PlayStation 2 remake appears little expressive, squat and ungainly. Just compare the dialogues of the Nintendo 64 version with 128-bit versions to understand what I mean.
And look the same scene on 128-bit system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8mVqc8k3aM in this version his face looks fat and less expressive! And if you looking well as if the pupils come out from eyes.
Michel Ancel is behind Rayman Origins and Legends
If Michel Ancel has no more ideas or must continue to waste his creation it is better to stop publishing new Rayman titles.
Meanwhile edgy, Rayman 2 is anything but child's game.Really? I thought the Bog of Murk or Desert of the Knaaren were some of the most atmosphere-y places in the series. Rayman 3 tries and fails to be funny, but I think if anything some of that was implemented to not make the game too edgy for being a kids platformer. And besides, the knaaren were still terrifying to the kiddos regardless of dad jokes.
I preferred when it was subtle!Rayman has always had a comedic aspect however subtle or blatant, and flag underwear is actually kinda clever.
I think Rayman's movement and controls are tighter in Rayman 3, especially in the combat department.
Although for me the series has stopped to Rayman 2 due to the reasons that I have already explained and I think this is taken for granted by now I am not saying that Rayman 3 doesn't everything right. I'm just saying that Rayman 2 is more complete even in fighting techniques since Rayman 3 is just more dynamic while Rayman 2 moves are far more structured.
Rayman 2 shows characteristics of attack, combat moves and target acquisition identical to Rayman 3 (but simply stylistically different as for example the viewfinder that in Rayman 2 it's automatic but invisible while in Rayman 3 is automatic but visible because the more physical confrontation) with extra hanging attack position and optical target acquisition, as the contrary Rayman 3 shows two additional combat moves such as the side somersault and spin kick at close range. Features which, although absent in Rayman 2 would prove unuseful anyway since the Robot-Pirates are definitely more powerful than a "potato sacks" with a shotgun and since Rayman in Rayman 2 uses a different energy to deal their enemies, ie its inner energy, that are totally different concepts but nonetheless Rayman 2 in my opinion remains the most comprehensive and superior in this regard too.
So recapping Rayman 2 have:
1st) the same combat moves of Rayman 3 but simply stylistically different. Parity!
2nd) the protagonist implementing somersault after a jump automatically, unless you stop before; in Rayman 3 you must impose the somersault at the end of a jump. Rayman 2 is better!
3rd) Rayman stops the helicopter as soon as he touches the ground; in Rayman 3 the helicopter is switched off as soon as the player releases the button. Rayman 2 is better!
4th) extra hanging attack position and optical target acquisition; in Rayman 3 shows two additional combat moves such as the side somersault and spin kick at close range. Parity!
5th) Rayman uses the magic fist which it's much more powerful, concentrated and devastating; on Rayman 3 returns the telescopic fist already seen in the first Rayman. Rayman 2 wins!
6th) Rayman can obtain the more powerful and devastating power fist; in Rayman 3 there are the laser detergents or five cans which together don't form the potential of the power fist. Furthermore the laser detergent has a short duration while the power fist is permanent unless the protagonist is not weakened, the super helicopter it lasts for as long as it takes to the protagonist and at last what happened to the purple lums!? Rayman 2 wins!
7th) reached the final battle, in Rayman 2 the resistance is higher while in Rayman 3 is slighty lower. Rayman 2 wins!
8th) in Rayman 2 exists the apnea; in Rayman 3 (and next Rayman in general) no and don't understand why (sure developers superficiality) but however can use his hair as a propeller. It should be parity but Rayman 2 wins for the additional difficulty and the realism!
9th) in Rayman 2 if Rayman falls from a great height it does nothing and mitigates the fall with somersault while in Rayman 3 is crushed (also with you use somersault), synonymous of new character weakness. Rayman 2 wins! Because, regardless of realism that still appears incorrectly in Rayman 3, we are talking about a hero who can not go splat on the ground.
10th) in Rayman 2 the main character performs a slightly more slender and higher jump than Rayman 3. Rayman 2 wins!
11th) in Rayman 2 is the key to the rocks containing the masks; instead in Rayman 3 gets power of leptys which is simply the bigmouth which is able to do in the first Rayman but with trivial adding that turns blacks in red lums. Just short of ideas, ridicolous! Rayman 2 wins!
12th) in Rayman 2 it performs an epic adventure; in Rayman 3 is not able to beat one knaaren without laser detergent... that more less powerful of power fist. Rayman 2 wins! Because he is a hero and as such is shown, not indestructible but powerful!
13th) on Rayman assumes automatically an aggressive facial expression and a position of attack loading the telescopic fist while in Rayman 2 assumes a frenzied posture of attack especially when stationary which you load the magic fist; in Rayman 3 will load a punch without expression and right attack posture, unless you're it assumes an attacking position, in short in Rayman 3 seems almost mechanical, with no personality. Rayman 2 wins but especially Rayman wins!
14th) the skin of Rayman 2 it remains the original one exactly as in the first Rayman but in 3D; Rayman 3 and next are just a makeover. Rayman 2 WINS AGAIN!
That would be you!?
NOT IN Rayman 2.which seems like it could be more interesting than the coward thing they went with in R2/R3.
Just in Rayman 3 it was a coward fool.In Rayman 2 is a "coward" who risks his life by being captured and bring his will on the prison ship to free Rayman. In Rayman 3 What is it? A useless coward and that's it.
And you sound like a bad copy of Chris Brown.This sounds like something Jeb Bush would say to try and identify with the common folk.
On every aspect. I also have to say, you can not see!Origins is an enormous redesign that completely transformed the series, how is he low on ideas?
If you say!Wow, that reviewer fucking sucks
You get confused with Rayman 2!but Rayman 3 offers much more diversity and never compromises on quality.
TO ADSOLUTION
I apologize but I am not English. Totally agree with you.The suffix "-ish" in "childish" doesn't necessitate you be a child in order to have it apply to you. An adult can act childish at times, and likewise, a child can demonstrate bouts of maturity.
And who is Nintendo Power staff? (simply man how me and you). Who's IGN staff? (simply man like me and you). Who are you to criticize me as if you were the goodtastes judge? Even I could say the same.You've just stated here that you are the arbiter of good taste. Who are you to say that?
Where am I wrong I recognize that I did. I apologize to you, but we do not know well and then I misunderstood.That's a blatant lie. Of my sixteen quoted replies to you talking about the style of the games, only 3.5 of them are focused on gameplay.
With that superficiality and irony at all costs, I doubt it. I add that just for this it has been object of criticism even in his era.I highly doubt that - it would probably have been seen as revolutionary.
Rayman Origins and Rayman Legends are monstrous! Characters that seem scrawls, trivial and inconsistent plot, trivial and inconsistent soundtrack, wallpapers recycled from Rabbids era onwards. I repeat my point of view that make Rayman incomparable with Origins and Legends.Rayman 1 is better because "it's just so obvious"? I'm phrasing my question this way because that's the exact same answer my friend once gave me when I cornered him after he tried to use secular reasoning to justify his disdain for homosexuality.
Ad you are a serious programmer, and also me ask how did come? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QmbIFNv4HEHow exactly did you come to that conclusion?
Yes, I know well Rayman and every versions of its games. But not to me!Since you're comparing the two, how is the N64 version any "darker" than the PlayStation version? Also, have you played the PC version? It's the same as the N64 version but with significantly better graphics, music and performance.
Looking the facial expressivity of Rayman in the N64 version (therefore 32-bit/64-bit system): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j69uWXQZk_g in this version his face appear delicate and more expressive!I just say that the skin present in the original Nintendo 64 (and PlayStation) version/s with the hub in 2D and 3D gaming features used only where necessary is in my opinion the best.
The Rayman's skin in the original version for Nintendo 64 and PlayStation appear delicate and expressive while in PC and Dreamcast versions, and PlayStation 2 remake appears little expressive, squat and ungainly. Just compare the dialogues of the Nintendo 64 version with 128-bit versions to understand what I mean.
And look the same scene on PC/128-bit system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8mVqc8k3aM in this version his face looks fat and less expressive! And if you looking well as if the pupils come out from eyes.
Also looks at the pupils of Razorbeard in PC and Dreamcast version. They are positioned on the contrary to give to the main villain looked more awkward and clumsy
Instead in the Nintendo 64 version they are in the right place leaving to Razorbeard its integrity and seriousness
While the PlayStation version looks even more threatening with empty, ghostly eyes
This is not very important, but I believe that one who kills Rayman if take him is not so good. Don't you think?You said Jano was "bad" and Razorbeard was "evil". Also, no, it isn't.
That's not a contradiction. The first half of my statement was comparing the game to other platformers, and the latter half was comparing it to other games, and all other media as a whole.
Literally speaking it is the darkest game in the series probably one of the darkest platformers to exist
Ah come on! I just reported someone, I can not make the list of all the games I've played from 1993 to 2000/2001.Most of those I wouldn't consider particularly beautiful, they just sound like a random assortment of games from your childhood.
Okay, but it is.Sure, but that's a very cheap excuse that can be used to justify literally anything if you want it to.
For example? The gravity, the oscillatory movements of the character, the thrust of Archimedes underwater and the mechanical physics in general on Rayman 2 are simply brilliant.There are a lot of games preceding Rayman 2 that handled their gimmicks far better than Rayman 2 did.
Its also in the Dreamcast and PC versions but a little less.The N64's and PlayStation's models are downgraded versions of the the PC and Dreamcast models. The N64 and PlayStation's are not the originals, and I can't agree that they're more expressive than the originals. Revolution's model on the other hand is an upgraded version of the original PC/Dreamcast model. I agree that in that game his expressions are a little "squat and ungainly", because all they really did was smooth out his face without adding any extra detail or modifying his animations accordingly.
Looking the facial expressivity of Rayman in the N64 version (therefore 32-bit/64-bit system): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j69uWXQZk_g in this version his face appear delicate and more expressive!
And look the same scene on 128-bit system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8mVqc8k3aM in this version his face looks fat and less expressive! And if you looking well as if the pupils come out from eyes.
Dialogues intended to the cutscenes.There are no 128-bit consoles. Also, the only versions of the game with voice acting are the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 versions.
Ok but at least avoid falling into the ridiculous not eh!?Not really, it's just a party game. Not everything has to have some deep meaning.
I know, the Rayman M logo was to be also the logo of Rayman 3 at E3 of 2002. But does not change the ridicolous final result of Rayman M.That's not true, actually. The aesthetic heavily mixes elements from both Rayman 2 and Rayman 3, before Rayman 3 was released. In many ways, it's actually one of my favourites in terms of style.
Rayman 3 could to be a very good title, but in my opinion was developed horribly wrong.Once again, you've somehow equated humour with a shallow atmosphere. The two are completely unrelated. Rayman 3 to me has a very strong atmosphere even in light of its humour.
Seriously, but saved the world or went jogging and then go to sleep. Just first that Rayman and Globox sleeps they could make the final sequence a little more elaborate, do not say much.Why not? Also, I thought that ending cutscene was a genuinely magical scene.
I like humor, but as in the first two. if the third was like the first two would be great!Yeah, but I think his hilarious writing in Rayman 3 makes up for that. I know you don't like the humour, but at least understand that other people do and that they're not wrong for liking it.
Also in Rayman 3 there is the slow walk but there is no use. In Rayman 2 instead it serves to not wake up the enemies and stealth.There are very few points in the game where you actually hang, and when you do, there aren't ever any enemies from what I can recall.
I say it is not up to par with Rayman and Rayman 2 soundtrack, but it certainly is better than Origins and Legends.Yes, but you seemingly dismissed the entire soundtrack as complete and utter trash in your first post.
Your opinion. I respect it.Look, I understand where you're coming from, as I too was dismayed when they decided to simplify the characters. In reality however, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing that, and people who were introduced to the series through Origins see a lot of charm in the new designs.
This is not true man, I have not given fool to anyone. I only said that the true fan chooses quality over quantity and that's it.In your first post, you called everyone who disagreed with your viewpoints foolish. Additionally, you pulled the biggest no-no of all when it comes to any kind of debate, which I've gone over many times already.
Yes, I know. I can give you a hint? make the title just more fluid: "Revenge of Darkness"And that's exactly what I'm doing, because like I said, I also prefer the presentation of the first two games.
Even the few suffer.And this is exactly what I meant when I said you totally lack empathy: you don't care about anyone's preferences but your own. You would rather that the countless number of people who enjoy the new series suffer, simply because you don't like it.
Rather more humour and less atmosphere. The perfect balance between humour and atmosphere was the first Rayman.A lot of people find that Rayman 3's humour conflates with the atmosphere, but I don't think it does. I find that, in the span of any one given scene, it achieves an excellent balance between humour and atmosphere.
A lot of the cutscenes with Razorbeard are actually very pointless, but are inserted to give A narrative pacing.In Rayman 2, while there definitely is a narrative with plenty of cutscenes, they only show up once in a while: less than once per level, with sometimes no narrative showing up for many in a row. From beginning to end, the story of the game essentially comprises, in no necessitated order, you rescuing your friends and collecting the four masks while Razorbeard throws various different obstacles your way. A lot of the cutscenes with Razorbeard are actually very pointless, but are inserted to give some semblance of narrative pacing. Essentially, very little happens between the beginning and the end of the game that isn't just a camera following Rayman through his journey. The PlayStation version actually brings greater depth to the narrative, which is quite nice.
Rayman 3 has a structured narrative. Rayman finds Globox and gets his hands back; they discover André who's trying to destroy the Heart of the World, but Globox accidentally swallows him; Rayman and Globox go to various doctors to try and get André out of Globox's system; Rayman discovers an ancient mystical tower from the teensies that opens a portal between worlds; Rayman gets captured by the Knaaren and has to fight their leader, Reflux, whom Rayman defeats; André is finally set from from Globox's stomach and goes to team up with the vengeful Reflux; the teensies show Rayman a shortcut to get to a boat which will take him overseas to a mountain housing Hoodlum Headquarters; Rayman destroys Hoodlum Headquarters; Reflux uses the power of the Leptys to transform himself into a beast; Rayman defeats Reflux and turns André back into a red lum.
To say Rayman 3's plot is nonexistent compared to Rayman 2, let along that it has no plot at all, is just silly.
Rayman 2 does its duty of platform, without mincing words. How the car should make the car and the coffee maker, the coffee maker. I can not find a fault sincerely.
Is precisely because it that Rayman has lost its so being directed and therefore losting its essence.
So, better a well-structured narrative but trivial or a slightly less-structured narrative with "big impact"? I prefer the latter, I'm sorry.
An user said that the soundtrack of Rayman 3 sounds good in every occasion while the Rayman 2 soundtrack sounds good only for the purpose of the game.Individually you said "The soundtrack should be like Rayman 2" and "a game soundtrack is meant to be played alongside the game", but I'm not sure what this sentence as a whole is trying to convey, can you rephrase it?
I said to disagree because that's a soundtrack was made for a game, and should certainly not be heard on the CD player.
I explained myself better? Let me know...
I did not understand well what you write, but as I understand it I don't think that I have something wrong frankly. I'm just saying that Rayman and Rayman 2 were original and they treated their contents in a more serious way and with the right dose of irony. Not to prevail exclusively irony.Given that hoards of people would care to disagree and there are plenty of things other people seem to see in the other games that you don't, are you positive you aren't biased? Is everyone else wrong, despite the fact they're clearly seeing something you aren't?
And I'm not the only one who says, I just belong to a minority of people.
You said nothing! Also jumps and somersaults?! Rayman 3 has taken heavily from Rayman 2 in this and it shows. Change just on the effect, simply because they have changed the jump and combat moves style.The combat moves in Rayman 1 and 2 are completely different; the only thing they have in common is that you can strafe and lock on.
It's not stupid. Rayman 2 had this automatic feature, therefore on Rayman 3 the developers have not added anything.Are you joking? Firstly, that's the stupidest, most useless criticism of a game I've ever heard. Secondly, I think the need to move forward to actually initiate the somersault is a great little detail they added.
The automatic feature gives more personality to the character.
Then far more valid reasons I've written other. Are 14.
They have not made an improvement. The automatic helicopter makes the game more fluent for the player, especially with super-helicopter that Rayman 3 not has.I prefer Rayman 3's helicopter.
The throttle-copter is a less lenght power-up and not count.
Simply parity. Rayman 2 wins in the structure, Rayman 3 just in a more dynamism.That's hardly a parity.
Would you compare an energy ball to a simple punch?How is the magic fist more powerful, concentrated and devastating?
We say that we can stop to this pointThese gameplay modifications are made to suit each game individually. Personally, I found the heavy metal fist a lot more useful than the golden fist in Rayman 2.
These gameplay modifications are made to suit each game individually.
The final battle of Rayman 3 is not bad even from my point of view but it is marred by unnecessary irony of Globox in the fourth final phase.This is categorically wrong on every level. Rayman 3's final boss has four stages, each of which is roughly the same length as both of Rayman 2's combined. I personally hail Rayman 3 as having one of the greatest final bosses of all time.
In Rayman 2 there is more atmosphere while Rayman 3 more action, but the energy in Rayman 2 remains unchanged although Rayman is on the rocket and it is consequently more exposed:
while in Rayman 3 in the last phase collapses dramatically due to the flying shuttle:
I disagree, the apnea makes the game experience more complete and intense.While Rayman 3 had only a very brief swimming segment where you could only move on the horizontal plane, not only was the idea of him using his helicopter to swim creative, I hated having to collect lums and bubbles to breathe in Rayman 2. I mean, the game was designed around it, but I much prefer it when games are designed with unlimited breath so that you can explore the amazing vertical underwater worlds at your leisure, without being put on a timer.
If there wasn't it was better not you think?I agree that the height damage mechanic doesn't serve much of a purpose, but does it really affect your experience enough to bring it up in a brief bullet-point list like this?
Not. Simply to not change him. Super Mario is the same from 31 years. Sonic is the same from 25 years, I say this as to say that they have never lost their integrity. The original Rayman is that of Rayman and Rayman 2. The others are weak and useless makeover to me.What are you implying? That Rayman 3 should've been the first Rayman game in 4D?
What would this be? What to do with Rayman and his universe?!!