Should FancyFather's Rayman 4 document be added?

[Greeness]

Some of you probably remember that about a year ago FancyFather released a document regarding Rayman 4 Ghosts:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3K ... it?tab=t.0

It's very detailed, containing a lot of information regarding the conceptual stages for the project as well as its cancellation and relation to Rayman Raving Rabbids.

However there are a couple of issues with it, for one FancyFather talks here in a very emotional manner, in a way that implies they're not exactly a stable person, another thing is that this information is not backed by any official sources and is even mentioned to not be completely accurate in the doc, however, with it being so thorough and detailed I find it hard to believe that it's incidental and there's no legitimacy to it.

Now for the thing I came here to ask:

Should information from this document be added to the Wiki?
I want to gather here opinions from the Rayman community if we should do it, considering the lack of confirmation and emotional state of the person who posted it, do you think this would be an appropriate decision, or should we just keep it where's it's been?

I already got permission from Hunch to add the concept art from the document to the Wiki, but the actual information I did not add yet.

[RayCarrot]

Personally I think it should be added as it does contain a lot of interesting information, but it should be made clear exactly what information on the wiki originates from this document. Like you said this is a rather unusual situation due to how this document was written, and while the author of it did have various emotional issues during this period I don't think anything here is false per say. More so that maybe some developer recollections aren't entirely accurate or that some information has been mixed up. Perhaps on the wiki this should be documented under its own section to avoid confusing it with content from other, more conventional, sources?

[Master]

We don't really have a mechanism or method of verifying the veracity of the information contained, I think it probably fits Wikipedia's definition of a Primary Source or probably more accurately, a Secondary Source

But at the same time, I don't think there's much reason to doubt the information in that document, but without a strong reputable source or multiple confirming sources, we have to be mindful that accuracy isn't guaranteed. I hate to use "allegedly," but that sort of language that implies but doesn't resolutely confirm the information may be an approach to take. Though I do think it inelegant, and I think having subsections may be the better option. But I do wonder if we'd need to have a further think on how we integrate the information relating to topics covered in the document, with appropriate subsections on given articles.

[Hunchman801]

I share the overall feeling that, despite the highly emotional tone that strongly distracts the reader in their search for objective information and raises questions with regard to the author's mental stability, there is no particular reason to assume that any of that is made up. However, one unknown individual is not a "reliable source" in the sense used by Wikipedia, unlike, say, a reputable magazine or a person publicly known to have been directly involved.

In the end, this is all is very similar to the various leaks that have occurred during the past few years, whose authenticity we were never able to verify. Therefore, I think we can follow the example of how the wiki presents that information. Here, you have a section called "Allegedly leaked 3D renders and concept art", and we repeatedly use phrases such as "allegedly leaked" or "claimed to have been leaked" to stress the unverified nature of the content in question. Given the amount of information in FancyFather's document, it would probably make sense to put it all in a new section, prefacing it with similar disclaimers and making sure to add a reference to the document.

If anything, this would be a welcome occasion to rewrite it, focusing only on the information about the project itself and ignoring all personal aspects and other subjective considerations by the author. That would certainly make for a much more pleasant read for anyone just looking for information about the prototype.

The document states that the project's internal name was "Rayman Ghosts", but I think a more authoritative source would be required to rename the article. We may go so far as to mention it in the introduction paragraph, using the aforementioned wording, but I don't think it would be wise to go further.

[Reese Riverson]

If this ends up getting documented on RayWiki, it'd probably also be a good idea to save a copy of that document in case it ever goes down. Since it is on Google's cloud and you never know what could happen.

That's just my two-cents on the matter, since I'd hate for any sources to just to up and disappear. (Always inevitable with websites, but usually we've had Archive.org to aid with that.)

[Greeness]

If this ends up getting documented on RayWiki, it'd probably also be a good idea to save a copy of that document in case it ever goes down. Since it is on Google's cloud and you never know what could happen.

That's just my two-cents on the matter, since I'd hate for any sources to just to up and disappear. (Always inevitable with websites, but usually we've had Archive.org to aid with that.)

I've got a backup of it saved, so even if it does get deleted that shouldn't cause any worries. ^^

Either way from what I gather it seems that most of you are in favor of it being added to the wiki, but with a segmentation that differentiates the information from the main confirmed details regarding the project, I am mostly in agreement on the matter, as much as I would like to change the article name to "Rayman 4 Ghosts", the questionable legitimacy of the source doesn't give it enough credibility to be combined with anything that has been officially confirmed about this game.

I am going to make for at least a couple of more members to express their opinions, but if things keep looking up this way, we'll probably end up doing what I said in the last paragraph.

Edit: I also added a poll now, in case some people want to express their opinion without sending a written message.

[Steo]

I'd personally be fine with it, but of course as Hunch says, all the personal aspects should be removed from it for a more pleasant read, focusing on the topic itself rather than the personal surroundings of it.

[Hunchman801]

Thanks for adding the poll, looks like it's six votes in favor already.

[EdgyRabbid]

I voted yes! I feel like it would be an imporant addition!

[Hunchman801]

I finally got to adding this information to the article, alongside more details from the Unseen64 video. I tried to extract only the relevant developmental and historical facts about Phoenix Studio's prototype from the document, completely omitting the author's personal experiences, drama and fan pitches, while also emphasizing the unverified nature of the claims.

Let me know what you think!

[Droolie]

Very nice! I can add that some of this information was known before this document existed and has a verifiable source other than anonymous developer interviews which only confirmed this info. Specifically, the use of Jade engine and the existence of "ghosts". I initially found out about this by reverse-engineering the game Phoenix Studio developed right after Rayman 4's cancellation: Horsez for PS2 (in France, this game is known as Alexandra Ledermann 6).
This game is built using the Jade Engine - not on the same branch that Ubisoft Montpellier used for King Kong and RRR, but rather the one used for Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. Here's a tree diagram I made a few years ago to illustrate how the engine evolved (this is derived from variables/features added or removed between versions, leftovers from previous projects and more):

By the way, this is almost purely speculation, but this might indicate that this Rayman 4 project was a joint project with Ubisoft Montréal at some point. This developer portfolio also seems to indicate something like this:

I joined Ubisoft to work on a Rayman reboot that by the time I arrived to start work in Montreal had been cancelled. I was moved to the King Kong project. The Kong levels had been moved over to Montreal due to time constraints, this wasn't without it's problems.

Anyway, this Horsez/Alexandra Ledermann 6 game is very interesting, because it contains quite a few leftovers from the Rayman 4 project. A lot of debug strings for example. Here's a list of all strings in the executable (download here) - just CTRL+F and you'll find a LOT strings related to "Rayman" and "ghost" (or "boxeur" and "chewing gum" which seem to be the only 2 ghosts that were implemented at the time Horsez started development). I think this can at least confirm that ghosts were a central part of this game's design, as the document claims. I think the focus on these ghosts, combined with all the strings about rotating rings, magnets and plates does seem to indicate a more puzzle-like type of gameplay, so that aspect of the document seems very believable to me as well.
As for other data in this game: it also contains an unused test map named "BootCamp" that is the map shown in this image (I later made this explorable in my RRR Prototype patch). The game also contains sound banks and menu data referencing "Rayman4", but no actual assets are left.

PS: here's another funny anecdote: After Horsez 1, Phoenix developers were asked to make a PSP version of King Kong, so they switched to the Montpellier branch of Jade engine that that game used. And in the meantime, RRR came out. This meant that the next 2 Horsez games were both based on the RRR engine and come with leftovers of this other Rayman 4. If Ubisoft ever revives the Horsez IP, perhaps it would be worth checking that game for more leftovers of cancelled Rayman games.

[PluMGMK]

Interesting tree! So despite the name, BG&E isn't actually the ancestor of all Jade games then!

[Droolie]

Interesting tree! So despite the name, BG&E isn't actually the ancestor of all Jade games then!

I'm sure an early version is, but it had a long development, so the final version of BG&E's engine already diverts quite a bit from the engine used and modified by the Sands of Time team. Actually a bit insane that both of those games released on the exact same day (Nov 11 2003) - so both of them can claim to be the first completed Jade game.

[Hunchman801]

Thanks Droolie, this is really insightful! Do we never stop learning new stuff about this project?

Anyway, I have updated the article again to include this information. Please have a look and make sure I haven't written any nonsense there.

[Droolie]

Anyway, I have updated the article again to include this information. Please have a look and make sure I haven't written any nonsense there.

I didn't expect this rather technical source to end up so well documented on RayWiki, but it's nice to see it! I don't see any nonsense there, thanks for adding it!