How did you become a Rayman fan?

[Zikken]

How I did seems a bit weird( to me it is ) but at 3 years old I was already playing video games ( what a way to spend childhood ). Spyro was my first game, but sometime later on my dad bought Rayman for the PS1. Played it and loved it. Never got past Picture city though, those damn crayons. Been a fan ever since but then kind of went away after rayman 3 due to rabbids happening . I recently got back into rayman due to mom buying me Origins last month and discovering Adsolution's Revenge of the dark though. Which obviously led me here on the Pirate-Community.

[OCG]

Playing games at 3 is not weird at all. There is even rating that says 3+ if you by games rated by PEGI

[spiraldoor]

Playing games at 3 is not weird at all. There is even rating that says 3+ if you by games rated by PEGI

That only means the game's content is suitable for three-year-olds to watch. It has nothing to do with difficulty or playability.

[Adsolution]

and discovering Adsolution's Revenge of the dark though. Which obviously led me here on the Pirate-Community.

Good lord, this is a three-strike combo so far.

[Zikken]

and discovering Adsolution's Revenge of the dark though. Which obviously led me here on the Pirate-Community.

Good lord, this is a three-strike combo so far.

Oh my god I just spent 20 minutes wondering what "three-strike combo" means and I feel like an idiot.

[OCG]

Playing games at 3 is not weird at all. There is even rating that says 3+ if you by games rated by PEGI

That only means the game's content is suitable for three-year-olds to watch. It has nothing to do with difficulty or playability.

Well, I never said that it means game will be easy for them. Just that it is not weird for 3 year old to play game that says 3+ by PEGI's rating (I believe all Rayman games except for Origins and Legends are rated 3+ while those two are rated 7+)

[Haruka]

Playing games at 3 is not weird at all. There is even rating that says 3+ if you by games rated by PEGI

That only means the game's content is suitable for three-year-olds to watch. It has nothing to do with difficulty or playability.

This proves that OCG is not aware of the true purpose of the PEGI ratings. PEGI ratings only inspect the visual (and other details like sfx/music or ingame themes) content of videogames by testing with people of different ages and taking notes of their reactions. Like this, parents know if they are buying a game suitable for their kid's age without having a negative impact in his/her growth/education. For example, take a look to Rayman Origins. It is rated with PEGI 7 and owns the Fist and Spider icons. This means that PEGI concluded that the game shall not be played by small kids (less than 7 years old) because of containing violence (cartoon violence in fact, with the punches, slaps, explosions, bubblizing characters when they are killed, missiles, etc.) and visual/audio content that can scare small children (I do believe it can be visual content, mostly the nightmare form of the Four Kings). It is not anything related with the difficulty level of a game, because if it was because of that, I am sure that almost all Nintendo games since the NES era would be rated PEGI 16 or PEGI 18 , ridiculous!

As an apart, I was 2 years old when I played my first videogame: Super Mario Bros., and somehow I rescued Peach and discovered some secret areas by my own like the Warp Zone and hidden blocks. And at my 10, it was when I met the Oddworld franchise and played Abe's Oddysee for the first time, a PEGI 12 game. Of course, the rating was accurate, because I got shocked and scared with the well illustrated violence and blood. With the time I got used anyway, but again, the ratings are not linked with the difficulty of a game.

[OCG]

I maybe did not express myself correct but I never wanted to say that PEGI ratings have to do with difficulty. I always knew it was for content in game. Looking at my post again, I see that it is rather confusing and it can easily be mistaken what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that it is no weird for 3 year old to play 3+ games because it is suitable for them after all because of content. Now will they be able to beat it, that is different case but I know difficulty is of course never rated because there is no need for it of course. Speaking of rating and stuff, I noticed that many 12 year old kids are playing 18+ games. What is your opinion about that people? I know some stores will sell games to anyone because they want money and some parents buy game anyways just to shut up their kid.

[Master]

Here, I believe there's a law in place where you need to be the right age to purchase a game, of course, that doesn't stop someone else getting it for you.
Personally, I think it depends really, on the person, and what they can handle.

[OCG]

Here, I believe there's a law in place where you need to be the right age to purchase a game, of course, that doesn't stop someone else getting it for you.
Personally, I think it depends really, on the person, and what they can handle.

I guess it depends on game store. Some sellers ignore law.
And I do agree that it depends on person and what can they handle.

[Shrooblord]

I played Halo (which is 16+ I believe) when I was about 12 or something - maybe younger. I handled it just fine, although some scenes were genuinely scary, but in a thrilling way, not a fearful way (but then that's my knack of liking horror, so there).

I think the PEGI system should give you just an indication. You as a parent - hell, you yourself - should know whether or not the child can handle the game or whether it's suitable. If they're very manipulable, maybe playing 18+ games at the age of 11 isn't such a good idea.
Stores being obliged to not sell 18+ games to 11 year olds is fair, in my opinion, because otherwise there's no real reason why the store shouldn't do so (unless the vendor has a strong moral opinion about the matter). But it being illegal to play these games if you're below the suggested age limit is ridiculous in my opinion. It's a suggested PEGI rating. There can't be a general rating of suitability for your child, just as there can't be a general definition of what is funny and what isn't.

[Master]

It's not illegal to play a game depending on age rating, but illegal to purchase depending on age rating, so it's rather easy to just get a responsible 'un to do it, which I think is a wise endeavour.
I think this'll explain it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19042908

[Shrooblord]

Ah yes ok, that's what I thought the system was like. I don't know why I thought playing the games would be illegal too. Something I must've picked up somewhere.

[Haruka]

In Portugal there isn't control for the gaming purchase. I have seen kids buying PEGI 16 or 18 games with all the normality, but parents do not seem to give a care or even know what are the PEGI symbols or the enterprise itself.

[OCG]

In Portugal there isn't control for the gaming purchase. I have seen kids buying PEGI 16 or 18 games with all the normality, but parents do not seem to give a care or even know what are the PEGI symbols or the enterprise itself.

Same case. And yeah, parents do not care about PEGI ratings. I got Conker when I was 11 or something around that age.

[Master]

Hm, since my brother and I do play games over our age, we are required to have our parents there in order for the purchase to be made.

[The Jonster]

Bump.

I have been a fan of Rayman since 2000, and have been a fan for many years.

[Steo]

1999 myself. Ever since my cousin gave me Rayman 1 I loved the game and still do

[Birds858]

I’m a fan of Rayman since 2006/2007 with Rayman Raving Rabbids (who is in fact, my first video game) on PS2. Then i got Rayman 3 on PS2 and many other games.

[Thebananacrafter!]

My mother bought me the DSiWare version of Ray1 and i've loved the series ever since