Rayman 1

[Hunchman801]

That's pretty much the first time I've heard of Rayman being unfair, throwing random things at the player or being all trial and error. Or even the PC port being bad; I can't think of one place where the limited vertical visibility is a problem.

The only place in the whole game that I've ever found faulty from a game design point of view is the third part of Pencil Pentathlon where you have to walk down the slippery eraser, and absolutely not run, to land on the bouncing eraser and not die. I remember losing quite a few lives there as there is no indication of what should be done whatsoever.

Other than that, please point me to a specific part of the game that is unfair or can't possibly be beaten the first time, cause I don't see anything. That part just before Space Mama may be hard and require quick reflexes but it's all there in front of you.

As for the fact that you can't beat the game without freeing all Electoons being a major flaw, I think it's a gross exaggeration. Yes, they should have allowed for casual gamers to finish the game too, but they made a different choice and it certainly does not ruin the game or matter that much.

I've also come to realise that Rayman is not such a hard game. I think the reason most people call it very hard (and so did I) is because they either first played it a rather young age, or expected something much easier from the cartoony style of the game, or, in most cases, a combination of both.

I remember being stuck at the Swamps of Forgetfulness for about a year: I finished Rayman Junior in the meantime, and when I got back to the original game, I went all the way to Skops without anything blocking me (finding all the cages took me another few months though). It's not an easy game, but I've never found Band Land so much more difficult than the Dream Forest. In fact, Picture City (and possibly the Hard Rocks before that) really is when things get tough. I know it's all very subjective and I understand that others may see it differently but I actually found the difficulty quite gradual in Rayman.

[The_Real_Razorbeard]

I've also come to realise that Rayman is not such a hard game. I think the reason most people call it very hard (and so did I) is because they either first played it a rather young age, or expected something much easier from the cartoony style of the game, or, in most cases, a combination of both.

See, the problem with this is that it was clearly targeted at a younger audience. Therefore it being hard for people when they could still be considered part of that audience isn't an invalid complaint. If you're making a game for kids, the main path of the game at least should be balanced around that. Granted, standards were different back then, and you also wanted it to be hard enough that kids would be playing it longer so it stuck out to them more going forward, but still. The bottom line is that, looking back on the game with modern standards, it hasn't aged as well as it's successors. This is especially apparent looking at Origins and Legends, which took the franchise back to it's 2D roots. While the games both get pretty tricky, most of the time it's the fair kind of tricky, where you can see what you need to do, it just takes timing and skill to execute, thus often requiring a couple attempts.

And before you bring up the treasure chases/musical levels, those were all optional. They weren't required to beat the game, they were there as a challenge for older players and/or younger players who felt up to it. Plus, you don't have to get every cage to finish the games either. Rayman 1 lacks the balance that this separation creates, and it suffers for it.

Rayman did as well as it did back in the day for a few reasons: the pleasing, colorful art style, and the high quality of it's soundtrack among them, but it's gameplay was lauded because standards were very different back then. And that's okay. Not every game that we deem a 'classic' is going to stand the test of time indefinitely. I don't begrudge anyone who has Rayman 1 as their favorite entry of the series: I'm sure I'd have a bias for it too if I'd gotten a hold of it at the right time in my childhood, or perhaps if I'd had a bit more skill built up when I did get it. But I didn't, so I don't. Simple as that.

[Hunchman801]

See, the problem with this is that it was clearly targeted at a younger audience. Therefore it being hard for people when they could still be considered part of that audience isn't an invalid complaint. If you're making a game for kids, the main path of the game at least should be balanced around that. Granted, standards were different back then, and you also wanted it to be hard enough that kids would be playing it longer so it stuck out to them more going forward, but still.

I always saw Rayman as a game targeted at a wider audience, from kids to adults, hence their decision not to make it too easy. There's no arguing that it's a bit too hard for kids though.

The bottom line is that, looking back on the game with modern standards, it hasn't aged as well as it's successors. This is especially apparent looking at Origins and Legends, which took the franchise back to it's 2D roots. While the games both get pretty tricky, most of the time it's the fair kind of tricky, where you can see what you need to do, it just takes timing and skill to execute, thus often requiring a couple attempts.

Origins came out less than five years ago, of course it hasn't aged as much as a game that's more than twenty years old. Or did you mean, say, Rayman 2? I actually think it hasn't aged as well as the original game, due to the early 3D graphics.

As for the “fair kind of tricky” argument, which I suppose means that you find the original Rayman unfair, I'll have to repeat myself:

The only place in the whole game that I've ever found faulty from a game design point of view is the third part of Pencil Pentathlon where you have to walk down the slippery eraser, and absolutely not run, to land on the bouncing eraser and not die. I remember losing quite a few lives there as there is no indication of what should be done whatsoever.

Other than that, please point me to a specific part of the game that is unfair or can't possibly be beaten the first time, cause I don't see anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that modern games have evolved to be a lot less punitive and frustrating that Rayman could be: all games were like that at the time anyway.

I'm simply saying that there is (almost) nothing unfair, trial-and-error about it.

[Adsolution]

The bottom line is that, looking back on the game with modern standards, it hasn't aged as well as it's successors. This is especially apparent looking at Origins and Legends, which took the franchise back to it's 2D roots

It's not very apparent to me because, despite Origins and Legends being 2D, I would hardly call those games going back to the series' roots. They look and play absolutely nothing like Rayman 1.

[The_Real_Razorbeard]

No, I didn't mean Rayman 2. In my opinion the character design and sheer vision for 2's world radiate a charm and mysticality that makes up for the graphics beginning to look a bit dated compared to more modern fair, especially since we have Revolution.

I looked at Origins and Legends as examples because the gameplay is more directly comparable. It takes the basic gameplay from Rayman 1 and expands on it, making it faster and more fluid. It also fixed the issue regarding the requirements for beating Rayman 1 in a way not entirely dissimilar to certain modern Nintendo games. The whole point of me bringing up how it fails to meet modern standards comes from the fact that a lot of people don't seem willing to accept that. There seems to be an insistence that any game they liked as a child is timeless and will always be a good game, despite how gaming as a medium is constantly shifting and changing. I'm not saying anyone here is like that, but more that a sizable chunk of the internet's population seems to hold these notions.

[Adsolution]

I actually think Rayman 2's graphics have aged quite well; If you play the PC version at 1080p (or 4K) and with 32-bit colour, it looks great. The textures, especially for the UI, are remarkably high-resolution. I mean, in terms of polycount, it's obviously a game of its generation, but it looks very good for what it is:

(click)


I don't see how Origins bases any of its mechanics off of those from Rayman 1. All of the mechanics, even the ones they share on an aesthetic level, are completely different. They're both sidescrollers, but that's literally all they have in common.

[The_Real_Razorbeard]

True, but that's more in common than it has with 2 and 3 when you really get down to it. I do agree on 2 aging well though, yeah.

[Dart]

Honestly I think if you don't cheat your way through Rayman 1 it gets unfairly hard once you hit Picture City. I remember being stuck on "Eat At Joe's" for 2 straight aggravating hours because the last segment is absolute bullshit if you don't have it down to muscle memory. That and I hate how yo have to 100% the game to enter the Candy Chateau, cause everybody totally has the time and skill to do that without a guide of some kind.

[Hunchman801]

The whole point of me bringing up how it fails to meet modern standards comes from the fact that a lot of people don't seem willing to accept that. There seems to be an insistence that any game they liked as a child is timeless and will always be a good game, despite how gaming as a medium is constantly shifting and changing. I'm not saying anyone here is like that, but more that a sizable chunk of the internet's population seems to hold these notions.

Yeah, I don't think anyone here is like that either. There's no denying that game design in general has evolved a lot since the original Rayman and that it does indeed fail to meet modern standards.

Its level design, on the other hand, is quite flawless in my opinion. The gameplay may be a bit slow for today's standards, but it gives you time to appreciate the scenery and the graphics haven't really aged much.

I mean, in terms of polycount, it's obviously a game of its generation, but it looks very good for what it is:

That's what I was referring to; while the textures are good, you can't help but notice the low number of polygons, and that's what makes it look like a really old game to me. Still find it beautiful in its own way though.

Honestly I think if you don't cheat your way through Rayman 1 it gets unfairly hard once you hit Picture City. I remember being stuck on "Eat At Joe's" for 2 straight aggravating hours because the last segment is absolute bullshit if you don't have it down to muscle memory.

Where were you stuck exactly? Hard and unfair are two completely different things anyway.

[Rayfist]

please point me to a specific part of the game that is unfair or can't possibly be beaten the first time, cause I don't see anything.

Didn't I mention the randomly spawning pencils already?

Yes, they should have allowed for casual gamers to finish the game too, but they made a different choice and it certainly does not ruin the game or matter that much.

Despite my complaints, it's an aspect I'm not too bothered by either, though I don't see it as 'offering another option to the casual crowd' but more so, just giving another ending. I think that was a nice approach the original Crash games had.

I've also come to realise that Rayman is not such a hard game. I think the reason most people call it very hard (and so did I) is because they either first played it a rather young age, or expected something much easier from the cartoony style of the game, or, in most cases, a combination of both.

I think I put it pretty well earlier. I'm going to back pedal a bit on few opinions here but if there is one thing I do think is true, I think that Rayman's difficulty progression is all over the place, which can certainly catch first time players off guard.

Don't be mistaken either way, I still love Rayman 1, but I feel like perhaps I've defended it a little too religiously. I really don't want the stigma of being a fanboy (I swear that's not my main reason just a little thing in there), and I guess once I started to hear actual criticism in video form, I sort of went along with a good chunk of it, but it doesn't change how I feel about the game.

[Hunchman801]

Didn't I mention the randomly spawning pencils already?

Where exactly do they randomly spawn? It's not like I know Picture City by heart so I'll need more information if you want me to look it up.

[Master]

Wasn't there randomly spawning pencils in some places in the Super Helicopter level?

[Adsolution]

Yeah, I brought that up in my conversation with Rayfist. They aren't completely random, but if you don't already know how they work, you're going to get hit a few times and/or die. Like I also said though, this is a one-off; nowhere else in the game does something like this crop up.

[GOT4N]

I thought it could interest some of you: Note this isn't greatly my work, scrimpeh has done a lot of it (as usual for this TAS I'd say)

[PluMGMK]

Cool! Even though I don't really understand much of it…

[Dart]

Honestly I think if you don't cheat your way through Rayman 1 it gets unfairly hard once you hit Picture City. I remember being stuck on "Eat At Joe's" for 2 straight aggravating hours because the last segment is absolute bullshit if you don't have it down to muscle memory.

Where were you stuck exactly? Hard and unfair are two completely different things anyway.

10:07, and leave it to Haruka to make it look like a fucking cakewalk!

[Rayfist]

...This is the first time I ever knew you could actually hit the piranhas at Eat At Joes. I always avoided them. Seems like that would've made things way easier.

[sergiomonty]

That's pretty much the first time I've heard of Rayman being unfair

That's quite delusional to be honest, every non-Rayman fan who played Rayman 1 knows how unfair it is. I as a kid knew how unfair it was, and stopped playing it after, like, the second level. And yes, the lack of vertical visibility is a huge design issue.

The game has a set of rules that are unclear unless you actually spend a lot of times with trial and error. Finding new enemies is kind of scary, not because of how challenging they are or anything, but because you don't know what kind of cheap attack are they gonna execute. It's game design 101. There's no indicative of the type of attack a Hunter can execute, he has a gun, but the projectiles he makes are bonkers in terms of hit box, and you don't have the time to actually react to it. In fact, you spend a lot of time figuring out the weird design that the bullet has... and then bam, it hits you in the face. Seems like a pretty cute joke to have a giant bullet with a hand and a hammer coming out, but it's distracting, too big, and it's pretty fast for a first playthrough. Clearly not user friendly.

Not being able to jump on enemies is a major, and I repeat, MAJOR design flaw. Not only it breaks the standards of conventional 2d platforming, but also, the first enemies in the game encourage jumping on them with their big bumber-like hats.



Not being able to shot projectile at the beginning of the game makes you believe that jumping is still an alternative for killing, which In games like Megaman and Metroid doens't happen. Oh, and in those games, the enemies are designed to be small, fast, and most of the time, flying, or spiky, which usually leads you to believe that jumping isn't the most reliable way of defeating them.






As great as Rayman 1 is, it has some very weird design choices. Most of them art-based. In fact, along with Bubsy, Rayman is one of the first games that actually show how silly animations and random artstyle choices can ruin certain aspects of a game (but obviously Bubsy was the one who really fucked up)

[NyaNyaLily]

(...)Not being able to jump on enemies is a major, and I repeat, MAJOR design flaw. Not only it breaks the standards of conventional 2d platforming(...)

[Adsolution]

There's no indicative of the type of attack a Hunter can execute, he has a gun, but the projectiles he makes are bonkers in terms of hit box, and you don't have the time to actually react to it.

How slow are you? If you see someone pointing a gun at you, the immediate reaction would be to get out of the way, and the fact that the bullets move so slowly makes them even easier to avoid, hammer or no hammer. Out of the three friends I've watched play through the game for their first time, none of them had even the slightest bit of trouble with the hunters, or most of the enemies in the game. The only enemies that really come close to what you're describing are the moths in Band Land, which are fast, intelligent and unpredictable. Most of the enemies in the game are slow and provide a lot of anticipation for their attacks through very obvious precedent animations.

Not being able to jump on enemies is a major, and I repeat, MAJOR design flaw.

No it isn't.

Not only it breaks the standards of conventional 2d platforming,

Why do you think that that's a bad thing?

but also, the first enemies in the game encourage jumping on them with their big bumber-like hats.

Of the three friends whom I've watched play through the game for their first time, none of them considered jumping on the livingstones.