Rayman Origins

[Gennaroc]

I was talking about gameplay itself- flying levels, swimming levels, water-skiing etc- as apposed to fighting, fighting with different slightly mechanics and colour schemes, and occasional shoe races. And how the hell am I being narrow-minded and blind? Im stating the f'ing obvious that the visual style, colour palettes, reoccurring elements etc are based from 1 and 2, and that 3 is of a different design altogether. You know what, It simply comes down to the fact that it is plain ignorant to say that Ancel is not justified in stating his opinion of r3 as concrete- it is a perfectly accurate description. And RO is translating the visual styles of the games he directed.

EDIT: and globox being there with him and 'beautifully crafted forests" are frickin irrelevant. Im talking about the VISUAL STYLE not being the same between RO and R3

[Tmsp95]

Im not an expert on this, but like someone already said Rayman 3 focused more in the action and in "do this, unlock that and continue" with a vey linear path, while Rayman 2 focused in simple 3D platform and exploration.
In mather of story none of the two had a great story, but the story isnt what makes the game, look at Mario for exemple: Save the princess in all games, it never changes but the games are always fun.
Rayman Origins will focus in 2D platform (I guess) wich is basically keep moving to the right and beat enemies in front of you, so it will be a little like Rayman 3 but also a little Rayman 2 in terms of replay values with diffrent paths to explore and things to discover.

Good Lord, this probablly doesnt make sence at all

[Haruka]

You missed all the red lines between the beautifully crafted forest levels of rayman 3 to the other games, and the fact that globox travlleing with rayman originated in R3, not just origins

more polygons=/=different style

seriously, are you being deliberately narrow minded and blind?

The forests had a more fantasy feeling in Rayman 2 and Rayman 1. Rayman M has got good examples too since it uses the graphism of R2.

Globox walked along with Rayman during a period of time in R2, it started in there despite of not being a full travel. Rayman Origins won't have Globox side to Rayman when the game is being played by one person only, I fear.

[Tmsp95]

You missed all the red lines between the beautifully crafted forest levels of rayman 3 to the other games, and the fact that globox travlleing with rayman originated in R3, not just origins

more polygons=/=different style

seriously, are you being deliberately narrow minded and blind?

The forests had a more fantasy feeling in Rayman 2 and Rayman 1. Rayman M has got good examples too since it uses the graphism of R2.

Globox walked along with Rayman during a period of time in R2, it started in there despite of not being a full travel. Rayman Origins won't have Globox side to Rayman when the game is being played by one person only, I fear.

One thing that I dont get about the game are the lives/continues.
If you’re playing with anyone when you die, you turn into a bubble and the friend can save you (no lives, unlimited continues), but what happens when you are playing alone and die?

[Haruka]

In that case, a player returns to the last checkpoint, or to the begining of the level.

I am not quite sure about it yet, I must wait for the game's release.

[K.NARREN]

I was talking about gameplay itself- flying levels, swimming levels, water-skiing etc- as apposed to fighting, fighting with different slightly mechanics and colour schemes, and occasional shoe races. And how the hell am I being narrow-minded and blind? Im stating the f'ing obvious that the visual style, colour palettes, reoccurring elements etc are based from 1 and 2, and that 3 is of a different design altogether. You know what, It simply comes down to the fact that it is plain ignorant to say that Ancel is not justified in stating his opinion of r3 as concrete- it is a perfectly accurate description. And RO is translating the visual styles of the games he directed.

EDIT: and globox being there with him and 'beautifully crafted forests" are frickin irrelevant. Im talking about the VISUAL STYLE not being the same between RO and R3

BUT IT IS THE SAME :V

I mean even in the screenshots above, it's the same green a purple lushness in clear leaf forest. You are seriously blind, my friend. It doesn't help that the one screenshot is chosen that represents an odd angle instead of a crisp, focused screenshot.

You're gonna argue rayman 3 doesn't have a colourful, rayman 2 inspired style?






realise it now or GTFO. Buncha hypocrites :V

[spiraldoor]

Stronger story?

Excuse me while I laugh all the way to the bank with Nintendos money

Rayman 2 has a limp wristed story with horribly wet characters who did nothing but moan about how they needed rescuing. There's nothing epic about the story they had to tell and it's full of wasted potential. This isn't to say Rayman 3's story was any better, the only real difference was that Rayman 3 didn't pretend to be anything deeper than it actually was. It's essentially just rayman's bad fur day. I also hate this notion that serious=good, which is complete bullshit. Rayman one is just a slapstick and silly, I don't see why it gets such a harsh reception for essentially returning rayman to his fun, platforming roots. I couldn't lose myself in Rayman 2 in the same way I could with Okami, Mario Galaxy 2 or pshychonauts. It just hasn't happened to me in all my attempts at replaying it on the many different systems. All I've managed to gather is that people were obviously very impressed by something they hadn't seen before, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's been improved upon vastly everywhere else now.

No, Rayman 2 had a great story. An army of space-faring robotic pirates invade and destroy the world we explored in the previous game and Rayman must awaken a god from his ancient slumber so that he can destroy them and free Rayman’s fellow inhabitants. The word ‘epic’ means ‘momentously heroic’, and I’m not sure how you could deny that a story about the overthrow of a galaxy-spanning evil force and the liberation of a people falls under this category. Your complaints seem to centre on the characters (many of whom exist for gameplay reasons; Sssssam for skiing, Ly for powers, etc). I’ve always accepted them for what they are; in terms of the roles they play in the development of the plot, sure, they could be better, but as gameplay devices they are perfectly tolerable and they have never annoyed me the way they seem to annoy you. Rayman 3 is the story of how Globox swallowed one of the least impressive villains of all time and Rayman had to take him to the doctor, and then to another doctor, and then to another doctor. I think both games are pretty up-front about what they are; Rayman 2 takes itself seriously and has an epic story, while Rayman 3 is essentially an extended joke with a plot that sounds like it was made up by an absent-minded developer while they were sitting on the toilet. Ackowledging its own absurdity does not make it better. Rayman 3 did not return the series to its roots; even Rayman 1 had a certain amount of dignity, in spite of its cartoonish graphics. There are no fart jokes in R1. It was colourful and silly but it most definitely was not stupid. I have always been able to lose myself in Rayman 2, no matter what version I happen to be playing, and I know that a large proportion of members here feel the same way about it. As an R2 hater you are part of a very small minority; it is generally considered to be the best game of the series.

That's a pretty big dollop of snobbery your adhereing to here. I know for a fact Rayman 3 has a decent following and you're essentially disowning the idea that anyone should have ever enjoyed it. R2 has no calibre, it's a lackluster game that just doesn't even hold a candle to anything I've played before or after it. I'll never understand why it gets the reception it does. Is it because of nostalgia? Is it because of its complete lack of trying to be endearing through dialogue and is therefore a completely superficial experience? I'm going with the latter entirely. R3 is not a great game, but in comparison to R2, I had a lot more fun playing it.

Sure Rayman 3 has a decent following. I fucking love Rayman 3; I think it’s a great game, and I’ve played through it at least a dozen times. I just don’t it even comes close to the other two. You accuse me of saying that no one should enjoy it, but that simply is not true. You call Rayman 2 a ‘lacklustre game that doesn’t even hold a candle to anything you’ve played before or after it’, which is your most ridiculous statement yet. Why the hell do you think it has a rating of 90% on Metacritic? It’s a brilliant game and that’s why everyone loves it.

Here's the beautiful irony of all this- he says that, and he not only makes a game that is very concrete, even in comparison to Rayman 3, but then he makes a game afterwards, rayman origins, that looks and acts much more like Rayman 3, which is in turn more like rayman 1. After his endorsing the rabbids, I don't think he even knows what his opinion on the subject is :V

I see no irony. He said that Rayman 3 was ‘a bit too concrete for his tastes’ and you have consistently attacked him for it. I agree that Beyond Good & Evil is more ‘concrete’ than Rayman 3 (although it’s still a fantasy space opera with absolutely no basis in reality); Ancel specifically said that the reason he created BG&E was that he had loads of ideas which did not fit in Rayman’s world. He created a brand-new franchise to express these ideas because he thought that BG&E’s story and characters were incompatible with the Glade of Dreams. Rayman and BG&E are not the same thing – they were meant to be extremely different from the outset – and to criticise Ancel for not wanting the Rayman series to strive for similar levels of realism betrays your fundamental lack of understanding for both franchises.

I wouldn't even had questioned it if he'd not been a hypocrite. And now you're saying concrete is something that platformers can't be? It's that kind of narrow minded thinking that's bogged down platformers for decades. Have you never played psychonauts, de blob, sly cooper, jak 2, ratchet and clank, or for that matter, rayman 3? They're more proof of how versatile the genre can be if given the chance. Unfortunately people tend to look only to Mario and Rayman 2- two very superficial titles that, while they offer reasonably solid gameplay, are completely lacking in any wit, soul, or inspiration. They are the epitome of the uninspired platformer, and represent the masses of knock offs that directly copied them.

When did I say that platformers cannot be ‘concrete’? Never; you’re simply putting words in my mouth again. But the Rayman games have always been surreal and fantastical, whether it’s landscapes sculpted from solid sheet music or metaphysical halls filled with stars. Concrete is exactly what Rayman is not. Does that mean Ratchet & Clank cannot be concrete? No. But you overlook the fact that Ratchet & Clank is not Rayman. How can the genre be ‘versatile’ if there are people like you demanding that all platformers be ‘concrete’? You claim that Rayman 2 lacks ‘soul’ and ‘inspiration’: you are wrong.

[Gennaroc]

but its not even the same pallete! How are you so bloody blind that you cant see how incredibly obvious it is that R3 is the odd one out. The colour choices. The level of vegetation. The presentation. RO and R2 match. It is so damn simple. R3 was produced by a differing director and it shows. Michael Ancel has very definitive visual style that just is not present. And your screenshots only serve to highlight the differences mentioned.
And Spiral just schooled you momentously my friend.

[Haruka]

but its not even the same pallete! How are you so bloody blind that you cant see how incredibly obvious it is that R3 is the odd one out. The colour choices. The level of vegetation. The presentation. RO and R2 match. It is so damn simple. R3 was produced by a differing director and it shows. Michael Ancel has very definitive visual style that just is not present. And your screenshots only serve to highlight the differences mentioned.

And let's not forget that Rayman 3 was the only game in the quadrilogy not directed by Ancel.

[spiraldoor]

but its not even the same pallete! How are you so bloody blind that you cant see how incredibly obvious it is that R3 is the odd one out. The colour choices. The level of vegetation. The presentation. RO and R2 match. It is so damn simple. R3 was produced by a differing director and it shows. Michael Ancel has very definitive visual style that just is not present. And your screenshots only serve to highlight the differences mentioned.

I think Rayman 3 does a pretty good job of maintaining visual continuity with Rayman 2, with the Teensies’ stained-glass windows, the starry skies and so on. In terms of visuals, the series doesn’t really have an ‘odd one out’ now that Origins has embraced R1’s aesthetic and taken it back into the fold. R3 stands out in terms of its irreverent tone, but for the most part it looks right. Time will tell whether Origins will be ‘R1-silly’ or ‘R3-stupid’.

[Gennaroc]

yeah but in all honesty out of the four pics Tmsp95 posted which looks the most different? Which clearly was created by a different director? Yes the stained glass windows etc connect with R2, but the occasional glowing swirl on a wall or a rock feels more forced than anything else. And even those are dropped completely in favour of the more naturalistic summit beyond the clouds and hoodlum headquarters. I just feel that out of any games RO is keeping visual style with, its the 1st and second.

[Tmsp95]

Every Rayman game had that fantasy and colorfull sence in every stage, it is just diffrent in every game.

[K.NARREN]

No, Rayman 2 had a great story. An army of space-faring robotic pirates invade and destroy the world we explored in the previous game and Rayman must awaken a god from his ancient slumber so that he can destroy them and free Rayman’s fellow inhabitants. The word ‘epic’ means ‘momentously heroic’, and I’m not sure how you could deny that a story about the overthrow of a galaxy-spanning evil force and the liberation of a people falls under this category. Your complaints seem to centre on the characters (many of whom exist for gameplay reasons; Sssssam for skiing, Ly for powers, etc). I’ve always accepted them for what they are; in terms of the roles they play in the development of the plot, sure, they could be better, but as gameplay devices they are perfectly tolerable and they have never annoyed me the way they seem to annoy you. Rayman 3 is the story of how Globox swallowed one of the least impressive villains of all time and Rayman had to take him to the doctor, and then to another doctor, and then to another doctor. I think both games are pretty up-front about what they are; Rayman 2 takes itself seriously and has an epic story, while Rayman 3 is essentially an extended joke with a plot that sounds like it was made up by an absent-minded developer while they were sitting on the toilet. Ackowledging its own absurdity does not make it better. Rayman 3 did not return the series to its roots; even Rayman 1 had a certain amount of dignity, in spite of its cartoonish graphics. There are no fart jokes in R1. It was colourful and silly but it most definitely was not stupid. I have always been able to lose myself in Rayman 2, no matter what version I happen to be playing, and I know that a large proportion of members here feel the same way about it. As an R2 hater you are part of a very small minority; it is generally considered to be the best game of the series.

This is so ignorant and submissive that I don't even know where to begin

I see not how it is epic purely because nothing in the game makes me care! Everyone is a complete mushroom, I'd rather they all died as a result. It's obvious the liberation of the people vs pirates has already gone on, to the point where I feel I've actually missed the more interesting story and am only given the aftermath. You can't just throw big events at us and expect us to care. You have to establish the relationships and makes people seem genuinely threatened by the stakes. Nobody seems bothered- or if they are they're incredibly melodramatic about it, which is incredibly annoying and feels false. In R3 they send up the ridiculousness of thier own plight which is far more truthful and credible as a result and a wonderful breather. RO looks set to do the same.

Nowhere have you said why R2 is epic. A game where you have a friend who's chin is the size of mt rushmore is serious? You saw the goofy heads of the guardians, right? R2 is in no way serious. R3 was not stupid (fart jokes? I don't remember any of those, and I literally just played through the game for an LP with a friend.) It was in no way stupid.

And why does 'dignity'= better? People for generations have enjoyed bringing up baby because it's a timeless, silly movie that allows people to laugh. It doesn't make it any less better than something like the untouchables or citezen Kane as a result. I can only assume you all have the ability to be very easily pleased by something so empty.

Sure Rayman 3 has a decent following. I fucking love Rayman 3; I think it’s a great game, and I’ve played through it at least a dozen times. I just don’t it even comes close to the other two. You accuse me of saying that no one should enjoy it, but that simply is not true. You call Rayman 2 a ‘lacklustre game that doesn’t even hold a candle to anything you’ve played before or after it’, which is your most ridiculous statement yet. Why the hell do you think it has a rating of 90% on Metacritic? It’s a brilliant game and that’s why everyone loves it.

Oh please, we're going to take in the official critics words now? The fail that is game jounalism these days is not to be trusted. They all praised Bioshock 2 despite it being woefully worse than its predecessor and hated by fans. They all condemned Crash Bandicoot as a mario clone despite it coming out in the exact same time- Jason Rubin was even surprised Mario was announced at E3 when they first unveiled crash and really liked what they had done. The critics shouldn't be accounted for the publics taste.

Also, judging by the amount of platforms this damn game has been on, no-one has truthfully played the same game twice. It's a misnomer.

I see no irony. He said that Rayman 3 was ‘a bit too concrete for his tastes’ and you have consistently attacked him for it. I agree that Beyond Good & Evil is more ‘concrete’ than Rayman 3 (although it’s still a fantasy space opera with absolutely no basis in reality); Ancel specifically said that the reason he created BG&E was that he had loads of ideas which did not fit in Rayman’s world. He created a brand-new franchise to express these ideas because he thought that BG&E’s story and characters were incompatible with the Glade of Dreams. Rayman and BG&E are not the same thing – they were meant to be extremely different from the outset – and to criticise Ancel for not wanting the Rayman series to strive for similar levels of realism betrays your fundamental lack of understanding for both franchises.

No, I'm not talking about realism- fuck realism, it's why I was never a fan of gritty FPS's. I just find it hilarious that he would go out of his way to condemn a game not designed by him to be concrete and then make games that follow a much more concrete style than even R3. Ever heard of pot calling the kettle black? Just because you make something good doesn't mean you should be pardoned for making biased claims against other people's work. Again talking about Crash, Jason Rubin disonwed anything after the ND era, despite Twinsanity being the only game past thier era to genuinely please the fans. I call it arrogance.

When did I say that platformers cannot be ‘concrete’? Never; you’re simply putting words in my mouth again. But the Rayman games have always been surreal and fantastical, whether it’s landscapes sculpted from solid sheet music or metaphysical halls filled with stars. Concrete is exactly what Rayman is not. Does that mean Ratchet & Clank cannot be concrete? No. But you overlook the fact that Ratchet & Clank is not Rayman. How can the genre be ‘versatile’ if there are people like you demanding that all platformers be ‘concrete’? You claim that Rayman 2 lacks ‘soul’ and ‘inspiration’: you are wrong.

:V

I'm not demanding it at all! I'm saying R3 WASN'T, but if it was, would it really matter? I then pointed out the other games that have taken a supposedly more concrete approach and they haven't failed to please people so far.

I like that you claim that R2 has soul and inspiration. I suppose you thought 9 was a charming movie because it suffers from the same problems. R2 is probably the biggest dissapointment I have ever played. The characters didn't make me care, the same environments are constantly reused throughout the game with little thought behind where they should go, and the story is pitifully dull. It gives me nothing. It literally fills up needless space. There is nothing that can possibly change my mind, and I'm loving that Rayman origins completely ignores that pretentious crap.

[iambored2006]

Now you're all just being hypocrites. When this damn argument started, everyone agreed that the Rayman games are all good, some are good at this and others are good at that. Now some of you LOATHE R3 and some DESPISE R2! Also, you're getting well off topic here!

I seriously want to discuss RO for a change, and not as a side game that is referenced! I want to compare it to the other games, so I made this-

First of all, the dark creature in the new trailer has not been confirmed to be Mr. Dark and already someone put him on MR. Dark's page as the "main antagonist of RO"! This needs to be changed!!! I found this out-


This may be possible, since they both have the same hat and maybe he was possessed by Polokus' nightmares.

It's interesting to compare these pictures-

I was intrigued by your comparisons of the different levels and situations in the series, so I made this-

That's it for now.

[K.NARREN]

In fact there's something I wanted to add

I am bitterly dissapointed that people truly believe that R2 is a gem. Because it isn't. None of you have done anything to prove that it provides in any way, nor that any of you have learned from the mistakes it made. It's like you're all just completely stuck on this one game that isn't as great as when you played it all those years ago.

The only thing I'm getting is that you all like R2 BECAUSE IT WAS PRITTY AND EPEEK. I'm sorry, but that's disgustingly shallow.

[bunnieblaster]

I like that you claim that R2 has soul and inspiration. I suppose you thought 9 was a charming movie because it suffers from the same problems. R2 is probably the biggest dissapointment I have ever played. The characters didn't make me care, the same environments are constantly reused throughout the game with little thought behind where they should go, and the story is pitifully dull. It gives me nothing. It literally fills up needless space. There is nothing that can possibly change my mind, and I'm loving that Rayman origins completely ignores that pretentious crap.

I don't understand how you could call Rayman 2 crap. It was so amazing in many ways.

[K.NARREN]

I'll remember how amazing it is after I've died for the 100th time on a rocket simply because the hitbox coding is screwed beyond belief.

2 boss battles. Only 2! Still blows my mind. How lazy.

[Tmsp95]

"I seriously want to discuss RO for a change"
So do I, so I made a little thing also.
I dont know if this was already asken here, but why did the mage Teensie changed from blue in the 1st screenshoots to black in the new ones?

[spiraldoor]

I'm not demanding it at all! I'm saying R3 WASN'T, but if it was, would it really matter? I then pointed out the other games that have taken a supposedly more concrete approach and they haven't failed to please people so far.

Of course it would matter if a Rayman game took a more concrete approach. The previous games were fantastical, and making the series more down-to-earth would take away its surreal charm. Ancel would have plugged his BG&E ideas into Rayman 3 rather than going to the trouble (and risk) of launching a new franchise if he thought it would work well – obviously it would not. Would BG&E’s story have worked in a game like Jak & Daxter or Ratchet & Clank? Perhaps it would, as those universes are not so different. But to say that Rayman can be concret simply because it is a platformer shows that you underestimate the significance of whimsical fantasy to the series.

I like that you claim that R2 has soul and inspiration. I suppose you thought 9 was a charming movie because it suffers from the same problems. R2 is probably the biggest dissapointment I have ever played. The characters didn't make me care, the same environments are constantly reused throughout the game with little thought behind where they should go, and the story is pitifully dull. It gives me nothing. It literally fills up needless space. There is nothing that can possibly change my mind, and I'm loving that Rayman origins completely ignores that pretentious crap.

I thought 9 was all-right but not great. MLII is a fan of the film; perhaps you should ask her what her views are on all this. Rayman 2 is one of the very best games I have ever played. The characters served their purposes but as always I cared more about the world itself. The environments were diverse but frequently blended. The story is epic and features an interesting ‘science versus religion’ conceit. You claim that the story ‘literally fills up empty space’; a sentence which makes no sense whatsoever. You declare that you will not change your mind, no matter what; this was already clear enough. You claim that Rayman Origins will completely ignore Rayman 2’s story, despite the fact that there are numerous obvious links between the two; in addition to the entire Bubble Dreamer concept being based on the Knowledge of the World unlocked by collecting the Yellow Lums in R2, the two games shares a great many visual details, as you can tell by looking at the new forest level or the Land of the Dead. You call R2 ‘pretentious crap’; idk lol.

My feelings towards Rayman 3 have always been mixed. Consider the moment in the Land of the Livid Dead where the player first glimpses Céloche. We walk through a tunnel and find ourselves staring out across a dark lake, while the painterly clouds flow through the sky. To our right, the glowing ruins of an ancient Teensy structure lie half-submerged, topped by a Celtic portal dolmen. In the distance stands Roméo’s office, like some sort of strange ship with metal sails. To our left, a colossal mechanical tripod strides majestically across the countryside. It’s a magnificent moment, as good as anything in Rayman 2. And then we hear the irritating squawk of that little idiot, André: ‘Globox, stop eating your boogers!’ I cringe every single time I hear that line. All of Rayman 3’s flaws are summed up perfectly in that one moment. It’s a great-looking game with tremendous potential bubbling away under the surface, but its stupid tone and attempts at humour always hold it back.

[K.NARREN]

Of course it would matter if a Rayman game took a more concrete approach. The previous games were fantastical, and making the series more down-to-earth would take away its surreal charm. Ancel would have plugged his BG&E ideas into Rayman 3 rather than going to the trouble (and risk) of launching a new franchise if he thought it would work well – obviously it would not. Would BG&E’s story have worked in a game like Jak & Daxter or Ratchet & Clank? Perhaps it would, as those universes are not so different. But to say that Rayman can be concret simply because it is a platformer shows that you underestimate the significance of whimsical fantasy to the series.

Yes, how dare they try and do something different! Everyone knows that trying new things that haven't already been done to death is a stupid idea! You're quite clearly right! It's not like Jak 2 blended 2 jarring ideas! It's not like the wind waker ever took a much more fantastical route, because obviously zelda should only be realistic! You must be a fuckin genius!

I thought 9 was all-right but not great. MLII is a fan of the film; perhaps you should ask her what her views are on all this.

My views are that the entire film lacks purpose. You can't just use over the rainbow and expect the juxtaposistion to just work straight away. It doesn't have any purpose. Likewise the ending is screwed because only the faults of humanity died and only they will make up the new human race. It's horribly flawed.

Rayman 2 is one of the very best games I have ever played. The characters served their purposes but as always I cared more about the world itself. The environments were diverse but frequently blended. The story is epic and features an interesting ‘science versus religion’ conceit. You claim that the story ‘literally fills up empty space’; a sentence which makes no sense whatsoever. You declare that you will not change your mind, no matter what; this was already clear enough. You claim that Rayman Origins will completely ignore Rayman 2’s story, despite the fact that there are numerous obvious links between the two; in addition to the entire Bubble Dreamer concept being based on the Knowledge of the World unlocked by collecting the Yellow Lums in R2, the two games shares a great many visual details, as you can tell by looking at the new forest level or the Land of the Dead. You call R2 ‘pretentious crap’; idk lol.

What can I say, you just like forcing things to be epic because you can't come up with anything better :B. RO shares just as much with R1 and R3- and to make something clear, I do like some of the visuals of R2, but they don't reach very far. It was hard to care inbetween the horrible dialogue. There's a reason no-one in Mario was allowed to have a lot of speech.

My feelings towards Rayman 3 have always been mixed. Consider the moment in the Land of the Livid Dead where the player first glimpses Céloche. We walk through a tunnel and find ourselves staring out across a dark lake, while the painterly clouds flow through the sky. To our right, the glowing ruins of an ancient Teensy structure lie half-submerged, topped by a Celtic portal dolmen. In the distance stands Roméo’s office, like some sort of strange ship with metal sails. To our left, a colossal mechanical tripod strides majestically across the countryside. It’s a magnificent moment, as good as anything in Rayman 2. And then we hear the irritating squawk of that little idiot, André: ‘Globox, stop eating your boogers!’ I cringe every single time I hear that line. All of Rayman 3’s flaws are summed up perfectly in that one moment. It’s a great-looking game with tremendous potential bubbling away under the surface, but its stupid tone and attempts at humour always hold it back.

You ever have that annoying person who thinks they're great, and you just wish they could see themselves and how crap they really are? TBH you probably think that of me right now, but R3 is that. It doesn't let itself get too involved in its own ego and it's great that it deflates itself like that. I hate stoic stuff unless it has purpose. R2 is a waste of space because it has no purpose. Rayman learns nothing, even on a basic level, nothing is truly at stake, and the villains never ramp thier game up. Lazy, lazy, lazy.