Rayman Pirate-Community

sergiomonty wrote:Well, genius. Tell me about a platformer that has over 3 months of replay value outside of the main "campaign".

Games shouldn't be viewed as disposable junk entertainment that you enjoy for a period of time and then discard. I dislike the "replay value" concept since it usually involves empty busywork like reaching a certain level or collecting a certain number of tokens. If a game's universe is compelling enough I'll return to it again and again. Whether the player has "completed it" or "gotten 100%" should never matter.

The official Nintendo magazine gave rayman legends a 92% and ranked it down for "not much fun for people who want to play it on their own". Makes sense

That's still a bloody good score though, similar to when ONM gave Rayman 2 on N64 something over 90%.

SlendeRayman wrote:not much fun for people who want to play it on their own

Am I the only one who often feels the opposite way? I actually had a more pleasant experience playing RO alone than with friends, but I guess that's just me. I'm most likely to feel the same way with RL.

For me it depends how good second player is. Of course that I have more pleasant experience playing games like New Super Mario Bros Wii, Donkey Kong Country Returns and RO alone if other player is my little bro. If other player is someone who is skilled, then that would be awesome. That is why I sometimes wish RO had a online Co-Op or RL. Imagine how awesome it would be if we could all play with eachother? But I do understand why is there not Co-Op because UbiSoft actually gave reason.

spiraldoor wrote:Games shouldn't be viewed as disposable junk entertainment that you enjoy for a period of time and then discard. I dislike the "replay value" concept since it usually involves empty busywork like reaching a certain level or collecting a certain number of tokens. If a game's universe is compelling enough I'll return to it again and again. Whether the player has "completed it" or "gotten 100%" should never matter.

I couldn't agree more with you. Nowadays, games love to give reasons for a player to replay a game. I can give the example of achievements. I honestly dislike these since they are just a way to virtualize the length of a game, because it mostly involves returning to a specific level and perform x or y action. When you notice, you are inside a repetitiveness cicle. I only replay a game if I really enjoyed it and want to return to the same experience, otherwise it stays stored in the shelf. Such thing didn't exist ten years ago and it was never a necessity to convince me to replay a game or not. Rayman's trilogy is an example. Quality above all.

Honestly lowering the score for a reason like that reminds me of the time the UK Official Nintendo Magazine gave Mario Galaxy a 97% because "It had to end some time". Wait, are these the same magazines?

But yeah, that's still a really good score. I'm not the type to complain about 9s.

Haruka wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:Games shouldn't be viewed as disposable junk entertainment that you enjoy for a period of time and then discard. I dislike the "replay value" concept since it usually involves empty busywork like reaching a certain level or collecting a certain number of tokens. If a game's universe is compelling enough I'll return to it again and again. Whether the player has "completed it" or "gotten 100%" should never matter.

I couldn't agree more with you. Nowadays, games love to give reasons for a player to replay a game. I can give the example of achievements. I honestly dislike these since they are just a way to virtualize the length of a game, because it mostly involves returning to a specific level and perform x or y action. When you notice, you are inside a repetitiveness cicle. I only replay a game if I really enjoyed it and want to return to the same experience, otherwise it stays stored in the shelf. Such thing didn't exist ten years ago and it was never a necessity to convince me to replay a game or not. Rayman's trilogy is an example. Quality above all.

I agree as well. Also about achivments. This is another reason why I don't like them:

Personally I don't mind achievements all that much, but I do fully agree with Spiral, replay value isn't a huge necessity for me, if I truly found that game enjoyable, I will come back to it, hence the original trilogy.

Other thing I dislike are unecessairly hard achievements. You know, like those achievements that require you a patience of a saint, or replaying a level or the game several times? I don't see what this adds in the enjoyement of replaying a game.

Hello
I have a graphic glich on the demo for PC. In the level Toad Story: the big leaves are sometimes flashing. Did you have this problem too?

@Haruka
Exactly! Not to mention in some Xbox 360 games, due to some programming errors or game glitches, it is impossible to get all achivements. Overall, I see them as a waste of time. If you earn achivment while regulary playing that is fine, but repeating the level and doing something hard on it is just not fun at all and as you said it does not add any enjoyement.
Anyways, look at the easiest game to get all achivements

Raven_Guardian wrote:Hello
I have a graphic glich on the demo for PC. In the level Toad Story: the big leaves are sometimes flashing. Did you have this problem too?

So far nobody complained about flashing leaves. Are your graphic card drivers up to date?

spiraldoor wrote:

sergiomonty wrote:Well, genius. Tell me about a platformer that has over 3 months of replay value outside of the main "campaign".

Games shouldn't be viewed as disposable junk entertainment that you enjoy for a period of time and then discard. I dislike the "replay value" concept since it usually involves empty busywork like reaching a certain level or collecting a certain number of tokens. If a game's universe is compelling enough I'll return to it again and again. Whether the player has "completed it" or "gotten 100%" should never matter.

Ok... stay away from reality, then. Keep replaying Rayman 2 over and over for the rest of your life.

SlendeRayman wrote:The official Nintendo magazine gave rayman legends a 92% and ranked it down for "not much fun for people who want to play it on their own". Makes sense

FUCK.

Positive
(+) A turnaround of ideas to rival Mario Galaxy
(+) Asymmetric Multiplayer finally done rights
Negative
(-) Not quite as good for the lone wolves

Review:
- multiplayer 'is more welcoming that New Super Mario Bros U's, mainly thanks to heroes being able to pass through each other and the absence of a life counter'
- sometimes the game's focus on multiplayer is at the expense of single player
- praise for the difficulty level
- 'core' levels are relatively easy (which will last around 7 hours apparently
- optional stages and 'invaded' have brutal difficulty
- on the controls 'this is what the Gamepad is for'
- great replay value

FUCK

Well... I knew the game was more of a multiplayer experience, but I don't see why they had to lower the score so much because of that . Oh well... at least Murfy truly justifies the use of the gamepad as Ubisoft promised, that's good.

But yeah... that review comes from ONM... I'll still be waiting for the other reviews, then check Metacritic.

Also, punishing a game for being difficult is the cheapest way to review a game. At least Rayman Legends is challenging in a way that it is still fair. Those reviewers clearly didn't play Rayman 1.

Well I went to Best Buy today. Unfortunately I couldn't come home with a Wii U just yet mostly because we have to deal with school right now. Mom is also a little bit stressed because we have to get everything squared away first but we'll be looking into it more over the weekend. Either way I'll make sure I get that Wii U before Legends comes out. There is a chance I'll miss out on Funky Ray but I won't mind that too much if it comes to that. I'll let you guys know how it goes over the weekend.

Aw too bad you might miss Funky Ray
Good luck with buying Wii U on weekend. Ever since I joined here, for some reason I started to realize that I actually want one for myself as well

sergiomonty wrote:Ok... stay away from reality, then. Keep replaying Rayman 2 over and over for the rest of your life.

A pigheaded response that doesn't engage with my points at all. I don't know why I expected anything else.

pretty good score! can't wait to see gamespot's! at the moment, i don't want to really go by ign's reviews just because the wonderful 101's crappy review... SERIOUSLY?! YOU DON'T MARK IT DOWN FOR DIFFICULTY LEVEL!! and spiraldoor, i love pigs and they did NOTHING to deserve a harsh offensive comment about them like that. i hope they EAT YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP!!!

I saw comments on The Wonderful 101 review by IGN, and it is really funny how some guys are arguing about Wii U in comments section.

OldClassicGamer wrote:I saw comments on The Wonderful 101 review by IGN, and it is really funny how some guys are arguing about Wii U in comments section.

I once saw on a Nintendo site how those nigger Nintendo fanboys are arguing about Rayman Legends coming to the PSVita too, and how they say it will suck and why not make it for 3DS... Just what are they expecting the game to be like on a 3DS, when all ports of Rayman games suck on it?