Sabertooth said:
With Rayman, every game in the original trilogy was extremely different. What would be the difference between a hypothetical "Rayman 4" and Rayman Origins? What type of gameplay would it have? Most people who clamor for a "Rayman 4" are the same ones who want an exploratory 3D platformer with a narrative and dynamic characters, but the first Rayman wasn't that--yet we still consider it part of the trilogy. Rayman Origins could have easily been called Rayman 4 and no one would have batted an eye. This is not the case with Sonic Adventure, which was a huge change from the established and consistent style of its predecessors.
Personally I think the whole numbering system in video games is arbitrary. I just want a new game that breaks the current homogenization; they can call it "Rayman Buttfuck Sunday" for all I care.
I might be totally mistaken but isn't it that before Rayman 2 / Crash / Jak / Spyro as 3D platformers, JumpNRun was commonly 2D because this is what technical progression is? Many developers saw the opportunities (and fundamental risks, in all terms of design [be it gameplay or clarity!]) of bringing their franchises to the third dimensions (or vice versa

). Also, graphics and new technical gimmicks had always been a selling point before the rise of independent studios or before video games had become old enough as a medium so that nostalgia and revisiting genres and franchise roots emerged.
Nowadays, the step back (I don't mean this in a negative way) from 2D to 3D platforming with Rayman Legends and Origins is a much more deliberate choice: Publishers and developers didn't want to explore a literal new dimension of gaming or felt the need to keep up to date by just doing it for the sake of it. Rather, 2D is a choice for a specific look (=dimensional restrictions with never-before-associated-with-this beautiful textures), well-explored gameplay (=typical sidescrolling), and/or delivering nostalgia (=all of the above plus jokes like totally typical horizontally scrolling flyNshoot levels).
TL;DR a.k.a. Having said all this: The jump into 3D towards Rayman 2 was not PERCEIVED as a spin-off-like deviatiousness simply because the choice for 3D felt naturally progressive, maybe inevitable even (tell me if I exaggerate this point, I'm just 23). From this point of view, it is understandable why people are able to perceive Rayman 1, 2, and 3 as a trilogy. With or without the knowledge of Ancel's motivations, fans take into account limitations from at the time, and why the three first "story" games (which is why M or Arena don't get count, of course) are being seen at as more or less coherent bundle.
In order to make my point why the trilogy is seen as a trilogy a little clearer, let's have a look at Origins and Legends again, and what differentiates them from Rayman 1, 2, and 3: Although O. and L. feature light storytelling and different areas to explore as well, the environmental backdrops are mere means to implement certain game mechanics. An example: A water world allows for swimming -> allows for new enemies -> demands new movesets. Highlighting a certain environment and using this opportunity for new gameplay elements is universal. For O. and L., this is used subtly: just run from start to finish and have some variety on the way.
But when Rayman 2 and 3 allowed for the exploration of vast or chaotic landscapes, you were meant to maybe get lost a little and truly immerse into this magical world.
Of course, all of the games mentioned above follow the same design principles and are well crafted. But at the same time we feel a shift in the weight of certain aspects when we compare the "trilogy" with Legends and Origins. The means are subtle, the effect isn't - at least, to me.
I hope you enjoyed this WOT
