Rayman Origins

[technology4617]

Exactly! And in this case, given their limitations, they did a great job porting Rayman 1 to PC.

No, they did a sloppy-ass job complete with poor sound effects, hideously awful backgrounds, and a cut soundtrack. If they did such a "great job," why weren't all these things fixed? The port job was honestly terrible, but the quality of the game at hand saved it from being a colossal failure.

Also, if they had "limitations," why didn't they move to another platform that was more able to handle that game, such as Windows 95?

You made the mistake on two different occasions in this discussion however, and you didn't fix them both times until someone told you.

Um, what? I've already told you that I've fixed my mistakes within five minutes of my original post without a prompt from any other user.

[Adsolution]

Um, what? I've already told you that I've fixed my mistakes within five minutes of my original post without a prompt from any other user.

I've witnessed otherwise, and so have the moderation logs. Also: viewtopic.php?p=886601#p886601

No, they did a sloppy-ass job complete with poor sound effects

We've been over this nine-thousand times in the past: the sound effects holster the exact same quality, they just aren't (in my opinion awkwardly) pitched-up like they are in the PlayStation version.

hideously awful backgrounds

This only noticeably affects a small percentage of the game's backgrounds, and if you're not comparing them directly to their PlayStation counterparts, they look aesthetically and artistically fine. I actually thought that when I first played the game, the less-gradient-esque look of the PC version's Gong Heights background for instance was a stylistic decision to have it looking more watercolour/pastel-like, and if you look at it in that way without knowledge of it being so due to a technical limitation, then it succeeds very well.

On a fun little note, reducing an image down to 256 colours without heavily editing it would cause something to look incredibly 'scanned'. They clearly put very meticulous effort into obtaining the best possible result they could within their 8-bit limitation.

If they did such a "great job," why weren't all these things fixed?

How do you 'fix' any of these things? They literally are not things you can fix, and there's a reason why they are the way they are.

Also, if they had "limitations," why didn't they move to another platform that was more able to handle that game, such as Windows 95?

Maybe because Windows 95 and Rayman were released within literally two weeks of eachother? Use some common bloody sense: how are you supposed to develop a game for a week-fresh operating system in one week? I'm sure you're aware of the obvious fact that unlike with consoles, game developers don't for some reason receive early beta releases of operating systems.

I'm quite sick and tired of you going on about this. Every time you bring it up I refute your arguments on the PC version being 'total shit port', you admit defeat and that things like the SFX pitching are obviously left up to personal opinion, yet only a week or two later you turn around and reinstate your same totally over-exaggerated PlayStation-fanboyish hatred towards the PC version with your arguments only modified ever-so-slightly, and I counter them the same way, you admit defeat, and then the same thing happens again. Stop complaining just for the sake of wanting to 'have an opinion', because you're completely wasting your time demonstrating an abhorrent lack of common sense and technical knowledge on topic of development, and not only once, but over, and over again. I've been quite busy lately and only have time to pop in here once for a brief moment every day or two, and for once it would be nice if this didn't solely comprise refuting some kind of dumbassery.

Sure, there will always be room for improvement when doing absolutely anything, including porting games obviously, but I'm afraid to say that as someone obviously heavily involved in development myself, I'm quite bothered by your reinstated ignorance as to why the PC version is, in my view, such an admirable port, and not even over having collected the incorrect data, but due to your actual want to hate it.

[technology4617]

This only noticeably affects a small percentage of the game's backgrounds, and if you're not comparing them directly to their PlayStation counterparts, they look aesthetically and artistically fine.

This is an example of a difference in our standards of porting more than anything else.

I actually thought that when I first played the game, the less-gradient-esque look of the PC version's Gong Heights background for instance was a stylistic decision to have it looking more watercolour/pastel-like, and if you look at it in that way without knowledge of it being so due to a technical limitation, then it succeeds very well.

The first time I saw this, I realized it was a technical limitation.

On a fun little note, reducing an image down to 256 colours without heavily editing it would cause something to look incredibly 'scanned'. They clearly put very meticulous effort into obtaining the best possible result they could within their 8-bit limitation.

The "limitation" was due to their own choices, as there were obviously computers technically superior to the PlayStation at that time. But for the sake of argument, let's say that every computer at that time was technically inferior to the PS1. My judgement of ports, in most cases, involves comparing the port directly to the original game, and analyzing whether they did a good job of preserving the atmosphere and impact of the game, which, in this case, is a resounding no. In Silent Hill 2 for the PC, they heavily compress the FMVs and sound effects to save up disk space, but I still bash it for that reason, since the PS2 version had much better FMVs and sound effects. While you can argue that I'm not taking development time and effort into account, to me the only thing that really matters is how enjoyable to port is compared to the original, and whether they did the original game justice. Our judgement of the PC is clearly based on how we judge the quality of ports, which seems to be very different.

How do you 'fix' any of these things? They literally are not things you can fix, and there's a reason why they are the way they are.

OK, what about the combined CDDA tracks? Were those really necessary? A "technical limitation" required them to put in an alternate CDDA TOC?

Maybe because Windows 95 and Rayman were released within literally two weeks of eachother? Use some common bloody sense: how are you supposed to develop a game for a week-fresh operating system in one week? I'm sure you're aware of the obvious fact that unlike with consoles, game developers don't for some reason receive early beta releases of operating systems.

I'll admit defeat here, though common sense would dictate that PCs that were more powerful than the PS1 existed at that time, especially considering the fact that Rayman was developed on PCs.

And now you're going to tell me that there wasn't a PC available at that time that had superior technical specs to the PS1? That's the argument you're gonna make?

I'm quite sick and tired of you going on about this. Every time you bring it up I refute your arguments on the PC version being 'total shit port', you admit defeat and that things like the SFX pitching are obviously left up to personal opinion, yet only a week or two later you turn around and reinstate your same totally over-exaggerated hatred towards the PC version with your arguments only modified ever-so-slightly, and I counter them the same way, you admit defeat, and then the same thing happens again.

Well, that's one thing we agree on, as I really don't want to talk about this any more either. Every single one of my posts so far has been a RESPONSE to someone arguing with me, to which I restate my opinion and go on my merry way. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, more just explaining my reasoning.

I admitted that the PC version's sound effects were at the normal pitch, but I never said they sounded better to the ears than the PlayStation ones did. It's clear that they did everything in their power to make the PS sound effects sound as good as possible, and, to me at least, the same effort was not put into the PC version. Though, admittedly, I shouldn't have brought it up again, as it is left up to personal taste at the end. I was just quickly restating my reasons for liking the PS version, and that happened to be one of them.

Also, in-game, the PlayStation sound effects actually do sound better when you're not just comparing the audio rips, as the PlayStation has a form of audio interpolation that makes the sound effects sound as though they are higher-quality than they actually are, which is absent in the PC version.

And by the same token, I refute your arguments saying the PC version is an excellent port. Each side has a differing view, and you aren't instantly right just because you can refute the point of the other person. I am quite capable of doing the same thing.

I also never bring it up unless another person does, usually accusing me of judging the quality of the port too harshly, after which I explain my reasoning.

For fuck's sake, stop complaining just for the sake of wanting to 'have an opinion', because you're completely wasting your time demonstrating an abhorrent lack of common sense and knowledge on the topic of development, and not only once, but over, and over again. I've been quite busy lately and only have time to pop in here once for a brief moment every day or two, and for once it would be nice if this didn't solely comprise refuting some kind of dumbassery.

So now you've resorted to insults simply due to a disagreement. Real mature.

Also, my "wanting to have an opinion" is simply having a higher standard for the porting job than you do, apparently. Sure, you can enjoy the PC version well enough, but there's no question that it is absolutely inferior to its console counterparts. There's a fucking difference between having an opinion and complaining.

I've witnessed otherwise, and so have the moderation logs.

Maybe I didn't submit the edit quickly enough a couple of times due to having to leave the computer for a bit (such as when I'm at school), but I do take the time to the time to read my posts after they have been submitted to scan for any formatting errors. I never read a prompt for me to fix the issue. I did it on my own, even if it was much later on. If a response was submitted coincidentally, that's evidence built solely on ignorance. I'll hit "preview" before I submit a post next time.

PlayStation-fanboyish hatred

lmao

[Adsolution]

This is an example of a difference in our standards of porting more than anything else.

Actually, I'm simply taking into account all the factors in play, in this case, the limitations of the platform you're developing for, case-in-point, Windows 3.1.

Obviously the PlayStation is technically superior, no doubt, but in my mind, hatred of the kind you're giving off should be reserved for a case like that of Rayman 3 HD, which is embarrassingly incompetent on every level, and I find it really quite pathetic that you're legitimately mad at it and will hound it mercilessly at every corner for doing the best that it could in most regards. I don't know enough about regular storage space back in '95 and beforehand to comment properly on the music, but that should be your only piece of valid criticisn unless you can explain or show to me what in particular they could have technically done better.

The first time I saw this, I realized it was a technical limitation.

Because you played the game first when you were already invested in technology, and you also had a point of reference (the PlayStation version to compare it to). Obviously once you see the PlayStstion version you realise that that's the way it was meant to be, but my point is that they clearly spent some time editing the backgrounds to - I believe - give a more pastel look to accommodate the limitation, and that they didn't just stuff it through a downsampler. There was effort involved, and I have a hard time seeing it be done much better than it was.

And now you're going to tell me that there wasn't a PC available at that time that had superior technical specs to the PS1? That's the argument you're gonna make?

Yup:

The "limitation" was due to their own choices

No. You are aware that 3.1 only had a 256-colour pallette, right?

And by the same token, I refute your arguments saying the PC version is an excellent port. Each side has a differing view, and you aren't instantly right just because you can refute the point of the other person. I am quite capable of doing the same thing.

Nearly every one of your points however either stem from either pure opinion or are actually factually incorrect. Or, in the case of the sound effects argument for instance, you've gradually shifted over from stating that they're lower-quality and 'butchered' to stating that you simply like the way the PlayStstion (i.e. a piece of hardware not even related to the software running through it) processes it better.

So now you've resorted to insults simply due to a disagreement.

Also, my "wanting to have an opinion" is simply having a higher standard for the porting job than you do, apparently.

No, it's not understanding the factors taken into account.

If this is all simply your 'opinion', why do you keep bringing it up over and over? Everyone is aware of the PC version's limitations, but I sense an overwhelming desire in you to make it known to the world that "Rayman on the PC is absolute shit". You've said it probably on about five separate occasions. This is what I mean when I say stfu, no one cares to hear you glare on constantly about issues everyone is aware of, especially with arguments littered with contrivences and downright misinformation.

[OCG]

How can anyone dislike PC ver now that Mega Patch exists

[technology4617]

Actually, I'm simply taking into account all the factors in play, in this case, the limitations of the platform you're developing for, case-in-point, Windows 3.1.

Fair enough, though I think the finished product is what counts.

Obviously the PlayStation is technically superior, no doubt, but in my mind, hatred of the kind you're giving off should be reserved for a case like that of Rayman 3 HD, which is embarrassingly incompetent on every level, and I find it really quite pathetic that you're legitimately mad at it and will hound it mercilessly at every corner for doing the best that it could in most regards. I don't know enough about regular storage space back in '95 and beforehand to comment properly on the music, but that should be your only piece of valid criticisn unless you can explain or show to me what in particular they could have technically done better.

I think numerous factors, especially the combined music tracks, spoil the perfectly-crafted atmosphere that was in the PlayStation/Saturn versions. (There, I named both consoles so you can't falsely accuse me of being a fanboy again.) The game took up 97MB in total, as it installed the FMV to the hard drive, rather than keeping it on the disc (which makes no sense, as the CDDA audio track for the FMV was on the disc anyway), and slightly different programming for the CD tracks shouldn't have been that big of an issue, especially considering the fact that the CDDA tracks themselves were on the disc, and not moved to the computer during installation.

Perhaps I exaggerated my dislike for the PC version of Rayman, as I know ports far worse than it, but I still think it is far from perfect, even considering the limitations.

Because you played the game first when you were already invested in technology, and you also had a point of reference (the PlayStation version to compare it to). Obviously once you see the PlayStstion version you realise that that's the way it was meant to be, but my point is that they clearly spent some time editing the backgrounds to - I believe - give a more pastel look to accommodate the limitation, and that they didn't just stuff it through a downsampler. There was effort involved, and I have a hard time seeing it be done much better than it was.

I disliked the "pastel" look of the PC Gong Heights background, not because it wasn't exactly the same as the original, but because it simply looked ugly to me. The rest of the backgrounds actually look somewhat presentable, though, in a side-by-side comparison, the muted colors and simpler backgrounds become quite apparent.

And now you're going to tell me that there wasn't a PC available at that time that had superior technical specs to the PS1? That's the argument you're gonna make?

Yup:

You do realize Rayman was made on PCs? logicz

No. You are aware that 3.1 only had a 256-colour pallette, right?

Rayman...was...fucking...made...on...PCs...

Nearly every one of your points however either stem from either pure opinion or are actually factually incorrect. Or, in the case of the sound effects argument for instance, you've gradually shifted over from stating that they're lower-quality and 'butchered' to stating that you simply like the way the PlayStstion (i.e. a piece of hardware not even related to the software running through it) processes it better.

There's a difference between being misinformed about something and "shifting" something to match your argument. I didn't realize the PC and PS core samples (with the obvious exception of the Ting, helicopter, running, and rock enemy sounds) were the same quality until you told me, though the PS sound effects do sound much better on the ears, most likely due to the interpolation that the PS1 had. And I also can't believe BETA versions of Windows 95 weren't available for testing at that point.

So now you've resorted to insults simply due to a disagreement.

What the fuck? You called me a dumbass and a fanboy, insults that were uncalled for, and simply springing up to put more "passion" behind your argument. Note how I never insulted you in any of my posts, as it's simply a disagreement that doesn't warrant judging and insulting one another for. It's a pretty fucking stupid argument anyway.

No, it's not understanding the factors taken into account.

Again, the finished product is what I think matters.

If this is all simply your 'opinion', why do you keep bringing it up over and over? Everyone is aware of the PC version's limitations, but I sense an overwhelming desire in you to make it known to the world that "Rayman on the PC is absolute shit". You've said it probably on about five separate occasions. This is what I mean when I say stfu, no one cares to hear you glare on constantly about issues everyone is aware of, especially with arguments littered with contrivences and downright misinformation.

As I said, I'm responding to others, such as you, that argue my points. I'm entitled to explain my reasoning. I didn't just go onto numerous threads typing "RAMEN FOR PC SUX RAYMAN FOR PC SUX." On the contrary, I usually bring it up during a certain discussion (and I've only done this twice, mind you), I don't just spam it everywhere. And I agree that ports like Rayman 3 HD and Silent Hill HD Collection are far worse, but the PC version seemed to me to be just a quick way of spreading the game around, without actually putting much effort into the porting. It's the same thing with the Silent Hill 2 PC port, not terrible, but not great.

And being misformed about certain facts, such as the sound effects, doesn't instantly make my argument and opinion invalid.

How can anyone dislike PC ver now that Mega Patch exists

I mainly use Mega Patch to play the spin-offs, but I do admittedly play the PC version sometimes to practice certain levels.

[Raymanarenaps2]

There aren't many Rayman homebrew games for psp, And some of you are game designers, or training to be one. MAybe we could make a Rayman game with the Rayman Origins style for psp. I wouldn't expect it to be just as good as the console versions, but at least Rayman Origins has a chance to be on psp, and if it turns out good, maybe you could try Rayman legends?

[technology4617]

There aren't many Rayman homebrew games for psp, And some of you are game designers, or training to be one. MAybe we could make a Rayman game with the Rayman Origins style for psp. I wouldn't expect it to be just as good as the console versions, but at least Rayman Origins has a chance to be on psp, and if it turns out good, maybe you could try Rayman legends?

PSP is a previous-generation console, thus not many current games are liking to come out on it. There is already a very good port of Rayman Origins of the PS Vita, thus there really isn't any reason for people to put effort into creating a port for the PSP.

[OCG]

There aren't many Rayman homebrew games for psp, And some of you are game designers, or training to be one. MAybe we could make a Rayman game with the Rayman Origins style for psp. I wouldn't expect it to be just as good as the console versions, but at least Rayman Origins has a chance to be on psp, and if it turns out good, maybe you could try Rayman legends?

Buy Vita versions

[Adsolution]

You do realize Rayman was made on PCs? logicz

Rayman...was...fucking...made...on...PCs...

And? You can develop via the usage of devkits or other dedicated art interfaces. I don't really get your argument here, 3.1 does not have the ability to display more than what the PC version delivered, that's that.

What the fuck? You called me a dumbass and a fanboy, insults that were uncalled for, and simply springing up to put more "passion" behind your argument. Note how I never insulted you in any of my posts, as it's simply a disagreement that doesn't warrant judging and insulting one another for. It's a pretty fucking stupid argument anyway.

I didn't call you either of those things, I simply called your hate for the PC version reminiscent of that of a PlayStation-version fanboy's, regardless of what you actually are. Saying that I found your arguments dumb (dumbassery) is also very far from calling you a dumbass.

And being misformed about certain facts, such as the sound effects, doesn't instantly make my argument and opinion invalid.

It depends on what you're misinformed about. In the case of 3.1 having only an 8-bit palette just to name one, it almost entirely invalidates at least half of your argument.

[technology4617]

And? You can develop via the usage of devkits or other dedicated art interfaces. I don't really get your argument here, 3.1 does not have the ability to display more than what the PC version delivered, that's that.

It depends on what you're misinformed about. In the case of 3.1 having only an 8-bit palette just to name one, it almost entirely invalidates at least half of your argument.

I'll admit that I'm not that familiar with '90s hardware/software, and thus my arguments will likely be flawed in that area, but my main discouragement with the port is that, though perhaps impressive for the technology it was released on, it failed to perfectly capture the original atmosphere for the game overall, at least for me, and things like the combined CDDA tracks killed the experience a lot.

I didn't call you either of those things, I simply called your hate for the PC version reminiscent of that of a PlayStation-version fanboy's, regardless of what you actually are. Saying that I found your arguments dumb (dumbassery) is also very far from calling you a dumbass.

Well, admittedly, I do have fond memories of the PS version, it being the thing that got me into old-school gaming in the first place, and am mainly angry at the PC version for not being able to keep the same atmosphere that the PS and Saturn versions did However, I am actually very anti-fanboy, as I think associating yourself solely with one thing is stupid. I've played both versions quite extensively, and thus am able to form a rather unbiased opinion.

But, meh, I don't really want to talk about this any more. It's clear that we have different opinions, and this argument is doing nothing more than wasting our time. Let's talk about more contructive things such as R1 speedrunning.

[Bradandez]

Yeah so... I think I'm going to do a Walkthrough of Rayman Origins. Hope you're interested.

[OCG]

I do question something. This game was released on PC in 1995 for Windows 95. Why couldn't Rayman be released too? I know it was a new OS but Crystal Dynamics made an identical PC port of Gex for it:

Yeah so... I think I'm going to do a Walkthrough of Rayman Origins. Hope you're interested.

That would be cool I guess.

[Adsolution]

Rayman 1 supports 95 though, and it's "identical" to the experience on 3.1, like you said that Gex was.

[OCG]

I said that Gex was a PS1 game that was made on Windows 95 and NOT for DOS or 3.1. I said that because you said that R1 came around Win 95 and that OS was too new to be made specifically for it. Of course that it is compatible since Win 95 uses DOS, but Gex was not made for DOS at all, and it was released in 1995 for Windows 95 platform, you can run it in window mode and everything. Not to mention that PS1 version and PC version of Gex are exactly same, while PS1 and PC version of Rayman are not.

I was just trying to say that it Ubi could have made Windows 95 port instead of DOS despite it being a new OS at that time like Crystal Dynamics did with Gex.

[technology4617]

Heeey!

[Adsolution]

I said that Gex was a PS1 game that was made on Windows 95 and NOT for DOS or 3.1. I said that because you said that R1 came around Win 95 and that OS was too new to be made specifically for it. Of course that it is compatible since Win 95 uses DOS, but Gex was not made for DOS at all, and it was released in 1995 for Windows 95 platform, you can run it in window mode and everything. Not to mention that PS1 version and PC version of Gex are exactly same, while PS1 and PC version of Rayman are not.

I was just trying to say that it Ubi could have made Windows 95 port instead of DOS despite it being a new OS at that time like Crystal Dynamics did with Gex.

Ah alright, I knew literally nothing about the game. Anyway, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if it were only utilising a 256 colour scheme, since the graphics honestly look like something out of the SNES.

[technology4617]

Wouldn't it still have been possible to create a W95 version of Rayman 1 with a full color scheme, though?

And in my last post, I found a page listing BETA version of W95, but Ancel knows if Ubisoft got them.

[Haruka]

Yeah so... I think I'm going to do a Walkthrough of Rayman Origins. Hope you're interested.

Feel free to share it in the walkthroughs topic!

[Hunchman801]

It's a pretty terrible port in all honestly, being both released for the wrong platform (a Windows 95 release would allow for everything the PS version had and more) and lacking some of the original art and music that made the game great.

I found none of these issues to be disturbing, I guess you care about the details 99% of players will never notice more than I do.

Also, the "great exclusive content" is really nothing more than an alternate map (which is really not better at all; just different) and a breakout game. Do those things really count as great content?

I don't care about the breakout game but I like the first part of Bongo Hills a thousand times more in the PC version, as it features unique sceneries and acts as a transition between the Dream Forest and Band Land.

Most of those issues are caused by the omission of a

Code: Select all

[/quote]

which makes it a bit hard to know about. And considering I usually fix these issues within two minutes of me posting, I don't see how this is that big of an issue.

I had to fix several of these in a single page, which you had obviously not taken care of. If you don't see the issue with making your posts illegible to other users, then there's probably nothing I can do for you. Anyway, just show some consideration for others and use the preview function, it's there for a reason.