Rayman 3

[Shrooblord]

I was just saying something like that would do - I don't do the graphics around here!

[TeensieKing]

It shuold be more small

Yeah, favicons should be 16x16 pixels, and this one is 24x19.

I have a favicon in my forum which is 32x32

[The Real Rayman]

It shuold be more small

Yeah, favicons should be 16x16 pixels, and this one is 24x19.

I have a favicon in my forum which is 32x32

Ah, OK. That's four times as large. I'm no favicon expert, but I think the image would need to be shrunk to fit.

[Shrooblord]

It shuold be more small

Yeah, favicons should be 16x16 pixels, and this one is 24x19.

I have a favicon in my forum which is 32x32

Ah, OK. That's four times as large, so I think the image would be shrunk to fit.

I would rather say that's twice as large, no? But yes, I too have once used an icon for a site that was quite large - the site sized it down.

[TeensieKing]

No,it doesn't shrink,it looks normal and proportional

[The Real Rayman]

16x16 = 256 pixels, and 32x32 = 1024 pixels. 1024 is 4 times as large as 256. If measured in pixels, the image is 4 times as large.

And I'm pretty sure the space in my browser's tab bar reserved for favicons is only 16x16 pixels. If a site has a 32x32 favicon, wouldn't my browser shrink that so the whole image actually fits? If not, it would be ugly.

[Shrooblord]

Huh, I thought with 16x16 you meant 16x16 pixels... but ok, you're right - it looks like there's some binary calculation involved there and that's not my area of expertise at all.

And yeah, about the size, that's what I was thinking. Maybe it downsizes it in such a way that it actually still looks like it's the same size, but really isn't.

[The Real Rayman]

Huh, I thought with 16x16 you meant 16x16 pixels...

I did mean pixels

And yeah, about the size, that's what I was thinking. Maybe it downsizes it in such a way that it actually still looks like it's the same size, but really isn't.

A 32x32 image has the same shape as a 16x16 image (a square) so downsizing it wouldn't change the shape of the image, just the size.

[Shrooblord]

Oh yeah... I was being foolish. If you double the two sides of an object, its area becomes four times as large in total.

[TeensieKing]

Oh yeah... I was being foolish. If you double the two sides of an object, its area becomes four times as large in total.

I'll think of it and I'll tell you when I understand

[Keane]

...and then they say I go off-topic...

[TeensieKing]

...and then they say I go off-topic...

Please,don't post useless comments xD

[Fraz]

I'm currently playing Rayman 3 again since it has been a while and I've forgotten how awesome it is. I used to think that 3 was significantly weaker than the first two games but this is not the case at all!

[stan423321]

Do you know: 99'999$ is just ~50% of 199'99$.

[Keane]

I'm currently playing Rayman 3 again since it has been a while and I've forgotten how awesome it is. I used to think that 3 was significantly weaker than the first two games but this is not the case at all!

Why does everyone think Rayman 3 is nice but not nice enough? That game brought so much joy to the world!

[Shrooblord]

Wow, Ray, I really like your new sig! Really joyful!

Yeah, Rayman 3 was good, but I had grown up with 2 and the GBC version of 1, so my Rayman world seemed so much more magical than the Ray3 world seems to portray it. I don't know why I say it that way, but I think it's because of the previous games' way of art, that made it look very cartoony, yet also realistic at the same time, which kind of clinged to me to be 'the Rayman thing'. The excessive scruffyness Rayman 3 has was so different that my view of it as a game is excellent, but my view of it as a Rayman game is... different, yet still fun.

[Keane]

Wow, Ray, I really like your new sig! Really joyful!

Yeah, Rayman 3 was good, but I had grown up with 2 and the GBC version of 1, so my Rayman world seemed so much more magical than the Ray3 world seems to portray it. I don't know why I say it that way, but I think it's because of the previous games' way of art, that made it look very cartoony, yet also realistic at the same time, which kind of clinged to me to be 'the Rayman thing'. The excessive scruffyness Rayman 3 has was so different that my view of it as a game is excellent, but my view of it as a Rayman game is... different, yet still fun.

Then you must check out the link on my sig and pay me lots of tings to get one too!

GBC Rayman 1 was pretty good, but found it strange that half of the game took place in forest's that have no story or what-so-ever. I think I got all three Rayman games around the same time. My brother played Gold when he was little, but my parents sold it for some reason, and got him Rayman 2. Both of us played it a lot (Never beat it), so my parents got Rayman Advance. That one was a lot of fun, so the then Rayman 3 quickly entered my family. It was an instant favourite of mine, just like the other two.

[Shrooblord]

You still haven't beaten Rayman 2? Where are you?
Oh, whoops - no, answer that in the Ray2 thread.

[stan423321]

GBC Rayman 1 was pretty good, but found it strange that half of the game took place in forest's that have no story or what-so-ever.

It makes technically more "sense" than game in which final level is castle made of cake, and in which you explore weirdly bend bells not talking about oceans of ink. The overworld of R1 is simply full of forests. Like Poland or something. On the other hand, I don't know any of those "Everything Islands" in RL.

[Keane]

GBC Rayman 1 was pretty good, but found it strange that half of the game took place in forest's that have no story or what-so-ever.

It makes technically more "sense" than game in which final level is castle made of cake, and in which you explore weirdly bend bells not talking about oceans of ink. The overworld of R1 is simply full of forests. Like Poland or something. On the other hand, I don't know any of those "Everything Islands" in RL.

Yeah, but cake, instruments and pencils are much more fun! That's what made the game so great!