Rayman Origins

[spiraldoor]

Then I must testify that what you call ‘fanon’ is far better than what you call an ‘Ass Pull’ for players who have some imaginative and creative ability.

[ParadoxJuice]

Spiraldoor, let's say someone gave you a car with no engine and told you to build it yourself.

Let's say someone gave you a house with no windows and told you to just build them yourself.

Let's say someone gave you a story with large gaps and told you to just fill them in yourself.

Of course, smaller things are fine. A creaky door isn't so bad. A car radio which is sort of staticy isn't so bad. Small holes in a story aren't so bad.

But you'd still rather have them fixed than not fixed.

Sure, some stories benefit from leaving a lot to the readers imagination, but Rayman isn't one of them. What you're saying is that you're fine with Ubisoft leaving big gaps, speculation and fan fiction will fill it in. Sure, both of those can be interesting, but in the end, it isn't canon, and Ubisoft still has a big gap in their story.

[DesLife]

Ubisoft still has a big gap in their story.

Who fucking cares ? No explanation is needed, this gap may remain as it is, that wouldn't be a problem in any way.

[ParadoxJuice]

But some people here actually care about the plot.

I'm not one of them, though. Ubisoft clearly doesn't put much thought into them.

[spiraldoor]

Spiraldoor, let's say someone gave you a car with no engine and told you to build it yourself.

Let's say someone gave you a house with no windows and told you to just build them yourself.

Both of these comparisons are extremely flawed. A story with plot holes is not like a car without an engine.

Let's say someone gave you a story with large gaps and told you to just fill them in yourself.

What ‘large gaps’ are there in the story of the Rayman games? List them for me and I’ll take a look.

Of course, smaller things are fine. A creaky door isn't so bad. A car radio which is sort of staticy isn't so bad. Small holes in a story aren't so bad.

But you'd still rather have them fixed than not fixed.

Not if the official explanations are so dumb that I could have come up with something better myself after two or three minutes of contemplation.

Sure, some stories benefit from leaving a lot to the readers imagination, but Rayman isn't one of them. What you're saying is that you're fine with Ubisoft leaving big gaps, speculation and fan fiction will fill it in. Sure, both of those can be interesting, but in the end, it isn't canon, and Ubisoft still has a big gap in their story.

First I would like you to know that the Rayman series certainly does benefit from leaving much of its universe up to the imagination of the player. You obviously do not see it this way, perhaps because you lack the imaginative capacity to fully enjoy the games. Again, you make vague references to the ‘big gaps’ that perforate the story without telling me what they are. I have no interest in fanfiction but I greatly enjoy speculation – why does it bother you that speculation ‘isn’t canon’? It fills gaps perfectly well in the absence of official explanation, rendering official explanation largely unnecessary. Why ruin everything by asking for nonsensical official explanations that render well-thought-out unofficial explanations obsolete?

[ParadoxJuice]

The large gap I refer to is the Livingstones being in Rayman Origins.

Sure, speculating about these things is entertaining, and I myself have done this multiple times (conflicting with what I told DesLife), if Ubisoft has a story with such gaps in it that the fandom needs to fill them in, than Ubisoft has written a bad story.

Also, I don't see the problem with my 'cars and houses' analogy. The cars, houses, and story are all lacking something which the creator wants YOU to fill in. How is this a bad analogy?

EDIT: But the Livingstones being in Rayman Origins isn't really a big gap, just Ubisoft not being clear on who the 'strange characters' are. If no explanation is given, I'll assume that Livingstones are normal residents of the Glade, not strange characters. But I'd rather have an explanation given in story, because a good writer would be clear about these things.

[spiraldoor]

The appearance of Livingstones in Rayman Origins is seriously your main gripe with the series’s story? It never even occurred to me that their presence might conflict with the Magician’s statements. He says ‘freaks and hostile characters appear’ – in no way does this indicate that these ‘freaks and hostile characters’ had never existed before, that Livingstones were actually counted amongst their number, or that previous disturbances of the Heart of the World had not instigated the proliferation of the ‘freaks’, as was the case with the spiders, piranhas, caterpillars and Zombie Chickens in Rayman 2. Where’s the plot hole here? I don’t see it.

What sort of explanation do you want? Would you like a character in Rayman Origins to say, ‘Oh hey Rayman, these green guys are called Livingstones. They’re freaks and hostile characters that appeared when the Heart of the World was shattered into a thousand Yellow Lums. So if someone ever tells you that freaks and hostile characters are appearing, then yeah, that means they’re back.’ I’m sure newcomers to the series would feel alienated by such nonsense.

Games work fine without detailed, well-explained stories that leave nothing to the imagination. Cars do not work without engines.

[ParadoxJuice]

Perhaps the Great Protoon will get stolen again during RO.

Perhaps the Livingstones aren't 'strange characters'.

Perhaps the 'strange characters' are all revived members of an army that shall form during RO.

their presence might conflict with the Magician’s statements. He says ‘freaks and hostile characters appear’ – in no way does this indicate that these ‘freaks and hostile characters’ had never existed before, that Livingstones were actually counted amongst their number, or that previous disturbances of the Heart of the World had not instigated the proliferation of the ‘freaks’, as was the case with the spiders, piranhas, caterpillars and Zombie Chickens in Rayman 2. Where’s the plot hole here? I don’t see it.

So many things...but I don't think Ubisoft cares about the plot too much. I honestly don't expect an explanation. I'd like one, yes, but they probably won't give one.

So we've come full circle.

The explanation doesn't have to be as...not subtle as you say it would be, spiraldoor. It's possible to explain things without alienating people who are new to the series.

Games work fine without detailed, well-explained stories that leave nothing to the imagination. Cars do not work without engines.

Of course, smaller things are fine. A creaky door isn't so bad. A car radio which is sort of staticy isn't so bad. Small holes in a story aren't so bad.

I believe we agree that the presence of Livingstones in Rayman Origins isn't something that will destroy the (fictional) universe, and that it will be amusing to speculate about such things. But I still think Ubisoft should fill in all the gaps themselves, or else I will consider them 'bad writers'.

This is for a major flaw, though. For example, if they killed off Globox in Rayman Origins, they'd definitely need to explain how he appears in R2. But I think the Livingstones is a small enough gap to let it slide. I'd just rather have it be explained than not.

[spiraldoor]

Why should they explain the Livingstones’ presence? There’s no need. We have already been told specifically that many of the enemies in Rayman 1 and Rayman 2 (excluding the Robo-Pirates) appeared as a result of the displacement or sundering of the Heart of the World. Since the Heart is evidently destroyed during Rayman Origins, it can be assumed that the Livingstones appeared shortly afterwards as a result, then disappeared after Rayman collected the Yellow Lums. 99.99% of players won’t give a damn that the Magician said ‘freaks and hostile characters appear’ in Rayman 1, and the other 0.01% will be fans who have played Rayman 1 and Rayman 2, in both of which my explanation is implicit. Things that do not require explanation need not be explained.

[ParadoxJuice]

Really? I never knew that the enemies in Rayman 1 were created by the displacement of the Heart, I thought it was all the Protoon.

But spiraldoor, this is all speculation. I don't care how much you can fill in the gaps using 'imagination', Ubisoft still has a gap in their story.

Where did it say that the Livingstones were created due to displacement of the Heart? Because, if this is true, and the Heart is broken in Rayman Origins (as the presence of yellow lums suggests), there is no gap.

Though, again, I don't expect an explanation. I'd simply prefer one, regardless of how entertaining it would be to speculate.

[spiraldoor]

Really? I never knew that the enemies in Rayman 1 were created by the displacement of the Heart, I thought it was all the Protoon.

They are in all likelihood the same object, as I’m sure you’re aware. The Great Protoon mysteriously disappears at the end of Rayman 1 and is replaced by the ‘Heart of the World’ (or the ‘Primordial Core’, depending on who you talk to), which serves precisely the same purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that they are separate and there is abundant evidence to suggest that they are one and the same. If you think that you can successfully argue that they are different, feel free to do so. I’m sure it will be good fun. The game specifically states that ‘freaks and hostile characters appear’; I am unsure where you got the word ‘created’.

But spiraldoor, this is all speculation. I don't care how much you can fill in the gaps using 'imagination', Ubisoft still has a gap in their story.

Which gap are you talking about? The utter non-issue that Livingstones are in Rayman Origins and the line ‘freaks and hostile characters appear’ is spoken in Rayman 1? That’s a ridiculous complaint. I could easily come up with several plausible explanations, and so could you if you just stopped to think for a moment. Anyone with a brain could. I have no desire to be spoonfed an inevitably silly explanation for every single little miniscule perceived inconsistency between a series of games published over sixteen years. These ‘gaps’ should not matter unless one is both creatively vapid and obsessed with the chronological minutiae of the Rayman series.

Where did it say that the Livingstones were created due to displacement of the Heart? Because, if this is true, and the Heart is broken in Rayman Origins (as the presence of yellow lums suggests), there is no gap.

As I have already said, I do not know where you got the impression that they were ‘created’ when Mr Dark stole it, but yes, the conclusion that the Protoon is the Heart is the only logical one and requires no great leap of imagination. I find it strange that there are still people unwilling to accept this idea.

Though, again, I don't expect an explanation. I'd simply prefer one, regardless of how entertaining it would be to speculate. I want to enjoy a perfect game. One element of a game is the plot. Therefore, I want a perfect plot. Of course, Rayman Origins will not provide this, nor shall any game for years, possibly forever. But I'd still want to get as close to perfect as possible. Therefore, I'd want even the smallest of gaps to be filled.

Stuffing the game with pointless explanations for things that do not need to be explained does not make the game or its plot ‘perfect’. Whn Rayman 1 was written, Rayman Origins did not exist. Now it does, which will obviously create continuity errors (though I think the Livingstone one was a poor example for you to pick). Just how intensively do you think they should focus their efforts on keeping every single perceived contradiction explained? Next I suppose you’ll want Rayman to say, ‘Gee, this hoodie sure is uncomfortable, I think I’ll wear a neckerchief for the duration of my next adventure. Then I’ll switch back to my hoodie, which I will wear for the foreseeable future.’

[ParadoxJuice]

The Protoon and the Heart are the same thing?




They look pretty different to me.

Now, how many times do I have to say this? I don't care how much you can fill in the gaps with 'imagination' or 'creativity', it's all just speculation, which, while entertaining, isn't the reason I play these games. I play these games for entertainment, with the plot a secondary thing. Regardless, I expect Ubisoft to try and clear up all gaps, even if they do a bad job at it.

You seem to assume that Ubisoft will do a bad job filling in gaps. If they don't fill gaps in, we have an incoherent story. If they do, but they do a bad job at it, we have a bad story. If they do, but they do a good job at it, we have a good story. I'd rather take the chance of getting a good story than just give up and let the story be bad.

But the story won't be bad if Ubisoft neglects to explain the presence of Livingstones, because as I've said before, THE LIVINGSTONES PRESENCE IS A GAP THAT I CAN LET SLIDE. I'd rather have ALL the gaps filled, but I don't expect them to be, because I play these games primarily for gameplay, not plot.

So yes, I would rather be spoonfed an inevitably silly explanation (which has a possibility of being good and making the story all around better) for every single little miniscule perceived inconsistency between a series of games published over sixteen years. Because, it won't make it much better, but it will make it a little bit better, and any tiny bit of fluff is good for me.

But, I'd much rather they focus their efforts on gameplay. When it comes to plot, I'd rather they explain what in the world happened between Rayman 1 and Rayman 2. Not focus on something so small, such as the presence of the Livingstones.

As I have already said, I do not know where you got the impression that they were ‘created’ when Mr Dark stole it

Check out 1:09 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Flq65Qv5A .

Also, the plight of the Glade of Dreams is one filled with plot holes. You want more? Where was Polokus during R3? Presumably, he went back to sleep, but why? Why does Rayman not remember where he came from? Why can't Rayman run at the beginning of Rayman 1? Why do Raymans hands run off and scare that red lum? What happened to Razorbeard after he escaped?

These holes are things I'd much rather see filled than the Livingstones one. And, unless if the source is directly from Ubisoft, don't just use speculation. Speculation is entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a hole in the story.

Also, spiraldoor, how would your opinion be changed if Rayman was a series of novels published over the course of a few years, where such holes would be less likely to occur?

[spiraldoor]

They look pretty different to me.

You’d look pretty different too if you were shattered into a thousand pieces and put back together by Teensie or fairy magic. If you can find some real, substantive differences between the Great Protoon and the Heart of the World, and also suggest some way in which they can co-exist despite serving exactly the same function and mysteriously replacing each other from game to game, then I’ll take your suggestions more seriously.

Now, how many times do I have to say this? I don't care how much you can fill in the gaps with 'imagination' or 'creativity', it's all just speculation, which, while entertaining, isn't the reason I play these games. I play these games for entertainment, with the plot a secondary thing. Regardless, I expect Ubisoft to try and clear up all gaps, even if they do a bad job at it.

Your desires are misaimed. I am perfectly satisfied with the way the games have progressed so far – I do not want them to be clogged up with silly explanations for what you call ‘gaps’. Do you want some kind of retcon-heavy comic-book-style narrative where everything is explained in relation to everything else and no room is allowed for interpretation? If the plot isn’t even that important to you, why do you care so much about minor inconsistencies that you want an official statement on all of them? Simplicity is not a flaw.

You seem to assume that Ubisoft will do a bad job filling in gaps. If they don't fill gaps in, we have an incoherent story. If they do, but they do a bad job at it, we have a bad story. If they do, but they do a good job at it, we have a good story. I'd rather take the chance of getting a good story than just give up and let the story be bad.

As I have said previously, the lack of explanations for ‘gaps’ does not make a ‘bad story’. If your own enjoyment of the Rayman games has been hampered by the presence of what you perceive as plot holes, you have no one to blame but yourself. Adding too much detail will restrict the possibilities of future games – for example, if they had properly explained Rayman’s origin in the previous games, we wouldn’t be getting Rayman Origins.

But the story won't be bad if Ubisoft neglects to explain the presence of Livingstones, because as I've said before, THE LIVINGSTONES PRESENCE IS A GAP THAT I CAN LET SLIDE. I'd rather have ALL the gaps filled, but I don't expect them to be, because I play these games primarily for gameplay, not plot.

So the presence of the Livingstones is something that you are willing to ‘let slide’, but other ‘gaps’ you are unwilling to ‘let slide’? Then what will you do about them? Complain on the forums? Write angry letters to the developers? Boycott the games? Perhaps you should simply accept them, as you have done up to now.

So yes, I would rather be spoonfed an inevitably silly explanation (which has a possibility of being good and making the story all around better) for every single little miniscule perceived inconsistency between a series of games published over sixteen years. Because, it won't make it much better, but it will make it a little bit better, and any tiny bit of fluff is good for me.

Yes, more good explanations would be fantastic! I agree! But you sparked this discussion by specifically stating that you would prefer stupid explanations to no explanations at all. Good explanations have absolutely nothing to do with this. You seem to think that any explanation whatsoever would be welcome and would slightly improve the overall quality of the game – I don’t think so.

But, I'd much rather they focus their efforts on gameplay. When it comes to plot, I'd rather they explain what in the world happened between Rayman 1 and Rayman 2. Not focus on something so small, such as the presence of the Livingstones.

Yes, explaining what happened between Rayman 1 and Rayman 2 is a great idea. A genuinely interesting story that bridges the gulf between the two games could be told – unlike the presence of the Livingstones, which I can’t imagine being worked into the story in any good way. Unfortunately Rayman Origins takes place before the events of Rayman 1, so detailing what happened between it and Rayman 2 will not be possible without some ridiculous storytelling mechanism, like flash-forwards. I’d rather that story be left for another day.

Check out 1:09 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Flq65Qv5A .

‘In this now-unbalanced world, strange phenomena begin to occur. Freaks and hostile characters appear – capturing every Electoon they can find.’

I see nothing in the Magician’s words to suggest that the Livingstones or any of the game’s other enemies were ‘created’ as a result of the displacement of the Great Protoon. I think it’s far more likely that they had already existed in smaller numbers, in the darker corners of the valley, and that the removal of the Protoon made their proliferation and widespread wrongdoing possible. This was used as the backstory for the non-Robo-Pirate enemies in Rayman 2, and I see no reason to assume a different origin for those in Rayman 1. I doubt they just popped into existence and started capturing Electoons as soon as Mr Dark stole the Protoon. There’s nothing to suggest that the Livingstones as a species began their existence during the Rayman 1 intro sequence.

Also, the plight of the Glade of Dreams is one filled with plot holes. You want more? Where was Polokus during R3? Presumably, he went back to sleep, but why? Why does Rayman not remember where he came from? Why can't Rayman run at the beginning of Rayman 1? Why do Raymans hands run off and scare that red lum? What happened to Razorbeard after he escaped?

None of these are real plot holes, like Globox dying in Rayman Origins would be. All of these ones need no explanation, as they can easily be resolved: Polokus went back to sleep so that he could continue to create new wonders through his dreams; Rayman does not remember where he came from because he was the mental equivalent of an infant at the beginning of Rayman Origins; Rayman can’t run at the beginning of Rayman 1 because he lost his powers due to the displacement of the Great Protoon (which happened again shortly before the beginning of Rayman 2; besides, this is a gameplay issue and for this reason we should cut the developers some slack); Rayman’s hands run off and scare the Red Lum because he is a sleepwalker – if people in the real world were limbless, this sort of thing would happen all the time; after Razorbeard escaped, he was an intergalactic robot tyrant stranded in space without his army – what he did or did not do next is left up to the imagination, but it certainly isn’t a plot hole, as it has no bearing on the Rayman series. I enjoy this, in case you haven’t noticed. Delectable. More!

These holes are things I'd much rather see filled than the Livingstones one. And, unless if the source is directly from Ubisoft, don't just use speculation. Speculation is entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a hole in the story.

I didn’t use ‘speculation’ – I used a combination of simple logic and my own deep knowledge of the series to arrive at solid conclusions that are well-supported by the games. None of these are real plot holes – they are simply unexplained story elements. They do not harm the story in any way – they add to the mystique of Rayman’s universe.

Also, spiraldoor, how would your opinion be changed if Rayman was a series of novels published over the course of a few years, where such holes would be less likely to occur?

I cannot answer that question – if Rayman was a series of novels rather than as a series of videogames, it would necessarily be so wholly and utterly different that it would in no way be the series I know so well. I cannot even conceive what this hypothetical series of novels would be like, let alone answer questions on it.

[ParadoxJuice]

They look pretty different to me.

You’d look pretty different too if you were shattered into a thousand pieces and put back together by Teensie or fairy magic. If you can find some real, substantive differences between the Great Protoon and the Heart of the World, and also suggest some way in which they can co-exist despite serving exactly the same function and mysteriously replacing each other from game to game, then I’ll take your suggestions more seriously.

Hahaha, you brightened up my day.

Now, how many times do I have to say this? I don't care how much you can fill in the gaps with 'imagination' or 'creativity', it's all just speculation, which, while entertaining, isn't the reason I play these games. I play these games for entertainment, with the plot a secondary thing. Regardless, I expect Ubisoft to try and clear up all gaps, even if they do a bad job at it.

Your desires are misaimed. I am perfectly satisfied with the way the games have progressed so far – I do not want them to be clogged up with silly explanations for what you call ‘gaps’. Do you want some kind of retcon-heavy comic-book-style narrative where everything is explained in relation to everything else and no room is allowed for interpretation? If the plot isn’t even that important to you, why do you care so much about minor inconsistencies that you want an official statement on all of them? Simplicity is not a flaw.

I've never really read comic books, so I don't know what you mean by 'comic-book-style', but yes, I'd prefer EVERYTHING be explained in relation to everything else. And I can't believe that 'silly' explanations bother you so much. If the story has gaps that the community has to fill through speculation, interpretation, or imagination, it's a bad story.

You seem to assume that Ubisoft will do a bad job filling in gaps. If they don't fill gaps in, we have an incoherent story. If they do, but they do a bad job at it, we have a bad story. If they do, but they do a good job at it, we have a good story. I'd rather take the chance of getting a good story than just give up and let the story be bad.

As I have said previously, the lack of explanations for ‘gaps’ does not make a ‘bad story’. If your own enjoyment of the Rayman games has been hampered by the presence of what you perceive as plot holes, you have no one to blame but yourself. Adding too much detail will restrict the possibilities of future games – for example, if they had properly explained Rayman’s origin in the previous games, we wouldn’t be getting Rayman Origins.

No one to blame but myself? I can easily blame Ubisoft for not making the game absolutely perfect. Intentionally leaving gaps in the story for fans to notice and than build into its own story is interesting, but obviously not what Ubisoft is intending. I don't think I'm okay with plot holes just because they can be turned into a whole story later.

But the story won't be bad if Ubisoft neglects to explain the presence of Livingstones, because as I've said before, THE LIVINGSTONES PRESENCE IS A GAP THAT I CAN LET SLIDE. I'd rather have ALL the gaps filled, but I don't expect them to be, because I play these games primarily for gameplay, not plot.

So the presence of the Livingstones is something that you are willing to ‘let slide’, but other ‘gaps’ you are unwilling to ‘let slide’? Then what will you do about them? Complain on the forums? Write angry letters to the developers? Boycott the games? Perhaps you should simply accept them, as you have done up to now.

No, I'll speculate. But, even though speculating is fun, I'd rather enjoy the actual story as much as possible.

So yes, I would rather be spoonfed an inevitably silly explanation (which has a possibility of being good and making the story all around better) for every single little miniscule perceived inconsistency between a series of games published over sixteen years. Because, it won't make it much better, but it will make it a little bit better, and any tiny bit of fluff is good for me.

Yes, more good explanations would be fantastic! I agree! But you sparked this discussion by specifically stating that you would prefer stupid explanations to no explanations at all. Good explanations have absolutely nothing to do with this. You seem to think that any explanation whatsoever would be welcome and would slightly improve the overall quality of the game – I don’t think so.

You think no explanation is better than a bad one? Well, I can't really make you change your mind about that. I think bad explanations are better than none, you think no explanation is better than a bad one. I think we've met the end of this debate.

But, I'd much rather they focus their efforts on gameplay. When it comes to plot, I'd rather they explain what in the world happened between Rayman 1 and Rayman 2. Not focus on something so small, such as the presence of the Livingstones.

Yes, explaining what happened between Rayman 1 and Rayman 2 is a great idea. A genuinely interesting story that bridges the gulf between the two games could be told – unlike the presence of the Livingstones, which I can’t imagine being worked into the story in any good way. Unfortunately Rayman Origins takes place before the events of Rayman 1, so detailing what happened between it and Rayman 2 will not be possible without some ridiculous storytelling mechanism, like flash-forwards. I’d rather that story be left for another day.

Hmm, I honestly thought that this is what Rayman Origins would be about, how silly of me. Feel free to point and laugh at my idiocy.

Check out 1:09 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Flq65Qv5A .

‘In this now-unbalanced world, strange phenomena begin to occur. Freaks and hostile characters appear – capturing every Electoon they can find.’

I see nothing in the Magician’s words to suggest that the Livingstones or any of the game’s other enemies were ‘created’ as a result of the displacement of the Great Protoon. I think it’s far more likely that they had already existed in smaller numbers, in the darker corners of the valley, and that the removal of the Protoon made their proliferation and widespread wrongdoing possible. This was used as the backstory for the non-Robo-Pirate enemies in Rayman 2, and I see no reason to assume a different origin for those in Rayman 1. I doubt they just popped into existence and started capturing Electoons as soon as Mr Dark stole the Protoon. There’s nothing to suggest that the Livingstones as a species began their existence during the Rayman 1 intro sequence.

That's exactly the impression I got from that statement, but I suppose it's vague enough to be interpreted otherwise.

To me, vague statements such as these are a sign of bad writing, not the things that make the story interesting.

Also, the plight of the Glade of Dreams is one filled with plot holes. You want more? Where was Polokus during R3? Presumably, he went back to sleep, but why? Why does Rayman not remember where he came from? Why can't Rayman run at the beginning of Rayman 1? Why do Raymans hands run off and scare that red lum? What happened to Razorbeard after he escaped?

None of these are real plot holes, like Globox dying in Rayman Origins would be. All of these ones need no explanation, as they can easily be resolved: Polokus went back to sleep so that he could continue to create new wonders through his dreams; Rayman does not remember where he came from because he was the mental equivalent of an infant at the beginning of Rayman Origins; Rayman can’t run at the beginning of Rayman 1 because he lost his powers due to the displacement of the Great Protoon (which happened again shortly before the beginning of Rayman 2; besides, this is a gameplay issue and for this reason we should cut the developers some slack); Rayman’s hands run off and scare the Red Lum because he is a sleepwalker – if people in the real world were limbless, this sort of thing would happen all the time; after Razorbeard escaped, he was an intergalactic robot tyrant stranded in space without his army – what he did or did not do next is left up to the imagination, but it certainly isn’t a plot hole, as it has no bearing on the Rayman series. I enjoy this, in case you haven’t noticed. Delectable. More!

While I'd love to extend this part of the conversation, I think it's better suited to the Lore Thread.

However, despite the fact that you state this isn't speculation, it is.

a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); "speculations about the outcome of the election"; "he dismissed it as mere conjecture"

However, you may have enough hard evidence to get the name of THEORY.

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural fictional world

If you want me to be a bit more specific, let's look at the idea that Rayman is a sleepwalker, thus his hands sometimes run off. Do the games ever outright state that he's a sleepwalker? Negative. Thus, this is speculation.

These holes are things I'd much rather see filled than the Livingstones one. And, unless if the source is directly from Ubisoft, don't just use speculation. Speculation is entertaining, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a hole in the story.

I didn’t use ‘speculation’ – I used a combination of simple logic and my own deep knowledge of the series to arrive at solid conclusions that are well-supported by the games. None of these are real plot holes – they are simply unexplained story elements. They do not harm the story in any way – they add to the mystique of Rayman’s universe.

You think plot holes add to the theme? Well, I guess that this is another thing which I simply can't get you to change your mind about. Either way, these explanations are speculation, despite what you may think, as I said above.

Oh, and I must apologize for sticking with the Livingstones thing for so long. I didn't mean to debate about that small fact, but rather I wanted to debate about how a bad explanation is better than none, with the Livingstones as a mere example. I should of noticed that they were a bad example and moved onto a different example, as I eventually did.

But...do you really think plot holes add to the mystique? I can understand people disagreeing with me, but that just sounds strange. I guess I'm just wording it badly.

[spiraldoor]

Hahaha, you brightened up my day.

Actually, come to think of it, they don’t look that different at all. Both are effervescent pink orbs of light; the Heart is just half-hidden under the floor of the chamber. Perhaps all those tiny glowing specks revolving around the Heart are Electoons in their high-energy or ‘true’ form; after all, they’re seen scattering about the valley in the form of glowing dots of light during the Rayman 1 intro sequence, and in the same game Rayman’s constituent Electoons turn into balls of light before shooting up into the sky whenever he dies. Now this is real speculation. Isn’t it fun?

I've never really read comic books, so I don't know what you mean by 'comic-book-style', but yes, I'd prefer EVERYTHING be explained in relation to everything else. And I can't believe that 'silly' explanations bother you so much. If the story has gaps that the community has to fill through speculation, interpretation, or imagination, it's a bad story.

If absolutely everything is explained, Rayman’s universe will become clogged with hundreds of superfluous explanations which will contradict each other more and more as the series goes on. In order to explain these contradictions, more and more explanations and retcons will become necessary. We will end up with a series where half of the canonical information we have is just crap people made up to cover their own flaws rather than inspired storytelling.

No one to blame but myself? I can easily blame Ubisoft for not making the game absolutely perfect. Intentionally leaving gaps in the story for fans to notice and than build into its own story is interesting, but obviously not what Ubisoft is intending. I don't think I'm okay with plot holes just because they can be turned into a whole story later.

Your averseness to ambiguous storytelling is unusual and I’m glad that Ubisoft is not following your wishes. As far as I am concerned the stories are almost perfect as they stand; I would like more recurring characters and offhand references to the events of previous games to solidify my conviction that there is indeed a continuity, but apart from that I am entirely satisfied with the series’s simple, self-contained stories. Attempting to fill every ‘gap’, as you term unexplained story elements, would damage the series.

That's exactly the impression I got from that statement, but I suppose it's vague enough to be interpreted otherwise.

To me, vague statements such as these are a sign of bad writing, not the things that make the story interesting.

Vague statements are a sign of bad writing? No they’re not. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no place in fiction for vague statements? Play Ico or Shadow of the Colossus. Those games leave almost everything up to the imagination and have some of the best stories I’ve ever seen in a game.

However, despite the fact that you state this isn't speculation, it is.

If you want me to be a bit more specific, let's look at the idea that Rayman is a sleepwalker, thus his hands sometimes run off. Do the games ever outright state that he's a sleepwalker? Negative. Thus, this is speculation.

No, my conclusion that Rayman is a sleepwalker is not mere speculation. The game explicitly shows Rayman’s hands wandering off into the night while he sleeps; therefore Rayman is a sleepwalker (perhaps only his hands move when he’s asleep, but that’s beside the point). When you get up and start wandering about while you sleep, that’s called sleepwalking. If your hands start moving about and doing things while you sleep, that is also a form of sleepwalking, though it is not of the whole body. That Rayman’s hands were sleepwalking has always seemed so obvious to me that I never thought anyone would disagree with it. Does it really make so much of a difference to you whether the game shows Rayman’s hands sleepwalking or specifically explains it to you? Do you want Globox to wake up and say, ‘OMG Rayman, look, your hands are sleepwalking!’? The screenwriting rule of ‘show, don’t tell’ is particularly relevant here. The Rayman 3 writers found a way to very strongly imply that Rayman’s hands were sleepwalking without explicitly putting it in writing for us. This is a good thing; it means they have some talent. If you really think that every single tiny detail needs to be mercilessly explained because the audience is too stupid to infer the logical conclusions by themselves, then you would make a terrible writer.

You think plot holes add to the theme? Well, I guess that this is another thing which I simply can't get you to change your mind about. Either way, these explanations are speculation, despite what you may think, as I said above.

But...do you really think plot holes add to the mystique? I can understand people disagreeing with me, but that just sounds strange. I guess I'm just wording it badly.

You continually refer to everything that is not specifically and explicitly explained as ‘plot holes’. This is inaccurate. Killing off Globox in Rayman Origins would be a real plot hole. Everything else you’ve listed is an unexplained story element for which a plausible explanation can be found with no more than a few seconds of thought. If you’re not into thinking about these things, you can just ignore them and enjoy the rest of the story. As I have discussed above, my explanations for the ‘plot holes’ you put forward are not mere ‘speculation’ – they are plausible logical conclusions based on hard evidence from the games and other official material. Making up a fanfiction story explaining how Globox came back to life after dying in Rayman Origins? Now that really would be ‘filling a plot hole with speculation’, and I highly undesirable situation to find ourselves in. The actual examples you provided from the games are not undesirable; they are fine. They are not laid out for us in black and white but they are not damaging to the story in any way, as killing off Globox in Rayman Origins would. I would like to repeat my recommendation of Team Ico’s games. That is all.

[ParadoxJuice]

I think bad explanations are better than none, you think no explanation is better than a bad one. I think we've met the end of this debate.

This is my main point.

If absolutely everything is explained, Rayman’s universe will become clogged with hundreds of superfluous explanations which will contradict each other more and more as the series goes on. In order to explain these contradictions, more and more explanations and retcons will become necessary. We will end up with a series where half of the canonical information we have is just crap people made up to cover their own flaws rather than inspired storytelling.

I'd prefer this to a story full of plot holes.

Your averseness to ambiguous storytelling is unusual and I’m glad that Ubisoft is not following your wishes. As far as I am concerned the stories are almost perfect as they stand; I would like more recurring characters and offhand references to the events of previous games to solidify my conviction that there is indeed a continuity, but apart from that I am entirely satisfied with the series’s simple, self-contained stories. Attempting to fill every ‘gap’, as you term unexplained story elements, would damage the series.

If Ubisoft was intentionally being vague, than they'd be good writers. But they're not. Filling every gap may damage the series if the explanations are bad, but it's still better than no explanations.

Vague statements are a sign of bad writing? No they’re not. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no place in fiction for vague statements? Play Ico or Shadow of the Colossus. Those games leave almost everything up to the imagination and have some of the best stories I’ve ever seen in a game.

Again, Shadow of the Colossus was intentionally vague, Rayman isn't.

You continually refer to everything that is not specifically and explicitly explained as ‘plot holes’. This is inaccurate. Killing off Globox in Rayman Origins would be a real plot hole. Everything else you’ve listed is an unexplained story element for which a plausible explanation can be found with no more than a few seconds of thought. If you’re not into thinking about these things, you can just ignore them and enjoy the rest of the story. As I have discussed above, my explanations for the ‘plot holes’ you put forward are not mere ‘speculation’ – they are plausible logical conclusions based on hard evidence from the games and other official material. Making up a fanfiction story explaining how Globox came back to life after dying in Rayman Origins? Now that really would be ‘filling a plot hole with speculation’, and I highly undesirable situation to find ourselves in. The actual examples you provided from the games are not undesirable; they are fine. They are not laid out for us in black and white but they are not damaging to the story in any way, as killing off Globox in Rayman Origins would. I would like to repeat my recommendation of Team Ico’s games. That is all.

What you call a plausible logical conclusion based on hard evidence from the games, I call Wild Mass Guessing. Despite your insistence otherwise, everything that isn't explained is, in fact, a plot hole, of varying size and desire to be filled. Subtlety is possible, as you point out with Raymans sleepwalking, and I believe that all the other plot holes I mentioned could be explained subtly. If a Rayman 4 is ever made, there would likely be a brief explanation of Polokus at some point, which could include a statement that Rayman awakened during R2 but than he went back to sleep so that he could create new wonders, as you believe he did, for example. But until than, I have to wonder why Polokus was absent during R3.

[spiraldoor]

If absolutely everything is explained, Rayman’s universe will become clogged with hundreds of superfluous explanations which will contradict each other more and more as the series goes on. In order to explain these contradictions, more and more explanations and retcons will become necessary. We will end up with a series where half of the canonical information we have is just crap people made up to cover their own flaws rather than inspired storytelling.

I'd prefer this to a story full of plot holes.

There are no plot holes. The ‘plot holes’ you refer to are quibbles which can easily be explained. We do not need an official statement shoved down our throats every time a minor contradiction occurs. Any attempt to provide this would destroy the story when it is already perfectly at a perfectly acceptable level of consistency as it is. Globox does not die in Rayman Origins; if he did, that would be a plot hole. Nothing like that occurs in the series.

If Ubisoft was intentionally being vague, than they'd be good writers. But they're not. Filling every gap may damage the series if the explanations are bad, but it's still better than no explanations.

Bad official explanations are worse than a lack of official explanations. A lack of official explanations allows for the possibility that good explanations exist. Bad official explanations render good explanations of any sort impossible.

Again, Shadow of the Colossus was intentionally vague, Rayman isn't.

Do you have any proof of this? And why should the developers’ ‘intentions’ matter when the results are the same?

What you call a plausible logical conclusion based on hard evidence from the games, I call Wild Mass Guessing. Despite your insistence otherwise, everything that isn't explained is, in fact, a plot hole, of varying size and desire to be filled. Subtlety is possible, as you point out with Raymans sleepwalking, and I believe that all the other plot holes I mentioned could be explained subtly. If a Rayman 4 is ever made, there would likely be a brief explanation of Polokus at some point, which could include a statement that Rayman awakened during R2 but than he went back to sleep so that he could create new wonders, as you believe he did, for example. But until than, I have to wonder why Polokus was absent during R3.

No, the statement ‘everything that isn’t explained is a plot hole’ is woefully incorrect. Almost every great work of fiction has enigmatic and mysterious elements. You seek to demystify the Rayman series, but you fail to see how damaging that would be. Over-explanation does not ‘perfect’ the plot. Have you seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? The film involves the computer onboard a space station malfunctioning and attempting to kill the crew. The reason for the computer’s malfunction is not explained. Does this mean that 2001 has a huge plot hole at its centre? No, it means that it has an unexplained story element. Would you want one of the characters to say, ‘Oh, HAL 9000 is malfunctioning because he received two conflicting commands and his chain of logic caused him to decide that killing us was the only way not to disobey one or the other of his orders’? There is no way such an answer could be fitted into the framework of the story, and doing so would remove one element of mystery from the film and undermine its surreal aspect. I suppose you’d want a narrator to give a detailed explanation of the origins and exact functions of the monoliths too? That would reduce 2001 from a masterpiece to merely a ‘good’ film.

Memento is a film directed by Christopher Nolan; you most likely haven’t seen it. I just watched it for the first time last night – it was very good! The protagonist suffers from anterograde amnesia; by the end of the film, many conflicting interpretations are made possible, and it is not certain that any part of the film actually occurred. Would you consider Memento to be absolutely riddled with ‘plot holes’ because so little is definitively explained?

It is better that aspects of the Rayman games should remain unexplained and open to the interpretation of the player. Polokus’s absence does not damage Rayman 3 because it can easily be explained; if there are easy explanations, why should his absence bother you? In fact his absence benefits the story because it adds to its mystical aspect; Polokus is an all-powerful god, and he could be off doing something we cannot even imagine. Why destroy this possibility with a mundane, stupid, unnecessary explanation? Not all explanations are beneficial to a work of fiction!

[Nannerb3]

Seriously you guys!
If one person has another opinion than you, it's their problem, and maybe they could have a point.
Seriously, this whole page is one big argument!

[iHeckler9]

Seriously you guys!
If one person has another opinion than you, it's their problem, and maybe they could have a point.
Seriously, this whole page is one big argument!

Finally, somebody's making sense!
Also, if you two could stop arguing like an old married couple the portal wouldn't be clogged up as much..

[Nannerb3]

They argue like this often?