Rayman Pirate-Community

My order would be something like R2 > RL > RO > R3
Rayman 1 is excluded, because... because... I have never played it. My first Rayman game was R2, and I never had a chance to actually play Rayman. Don't hate me for that pls

Rulez wrote:

sergiomonty wrote:

Rulez wrote:

sergiomonty wrote: You're turning a terrible game design decision into a positive? woah... I... I guess you truly love the game but... well... ehm... woah.

stupid

Yeah, I know, that's so stupid.

no you is stupid cuz you Com PLETELY not underesting of what he say xDD its ok sergio cuz ur loos buthoel i find vary atractiv and ur good person afterall.

Drolpiraat wrote: Tell me if it works! I have a friend who might make an achievement guide for Rayman Legends and that kind of information would be quite handy for it.

If it is the area I'm thinking, I also passed above the aquariums, I really wasn't trusting in the blinking sentry lights enough to pass side to them.

Alright, well since I'm in school now (I finished all my work and have free time), I'll make this quick.
Sergio, what is it with your dark thoughts against Rayman 2 and 3? Seriously, I think these two games had some of the best 3D environments of any Rayman game, FAR from dull. If anything the problem I had with RO was it's rather dull levels for me, as Haruka previously mentioned, the thing. Especially jibberish jungle, RL's polishing of most of these levels make them look so better. I'd much rather go with R3 over RO, any day. The levels were full of liveliness, and whiles Michels absence is rather... noticeable, I LOVED the combat system in this game, many complained the game felt too make like a 'beat em up', which I personally don't mind. I'm still a tad bit debating whether I like RL over R3. I do think R3 had it's few problems, however I didn't mind the humor, it's not something I'd want to see for every future installment, but I think it was done not so bad. I will admit the voice acting was rather... well, bad. However I gotta give the game credit, it truly felt magical, something RO totally lacked for me. Hell, Summit Beyond the Clouds? Remember how lively and beautiful that level was? It was ridiculously full of detail. Even though I did like the concept of Desert of Dijidiroos (excuse me if I spelt it wrong), but the actual level, my 2nd time playing through the game made me immediately bored. The actual color scheme didn't do it for me, I prefer Band Land greatly, looks at Band Land's color scheme. How is it too highly saturated? I think the brightness and such is at a fine place, it seriously is calming to the eyes and a beauty to look at. However, I'm giving RL the benefit of the doubt for being better than RO in every single aspect. RO seriously got tedious, I wasn't a fan of the 'bubbilized' enemies, they were really annoying and made 100% completion more annoying, especially with lum grabbing, having to hit the enemy twice, it was nice having to hit them once. I just don't understand the dark thoughts on R3.

TheTempurmental wrote:I appreciate a game for what it's trying to be. If it wants to be story-driven, than it should have a good story. RL is a Gameplay-driven game, and the gameplay is great, so in my book, that equals a good game. Criticizing RL for being too focused on gameplay is like saying a comedy movie has too many funny parts. I know the previous games have had deep plots, but all the Rayman games are unique, too! RL is just another addition to the collection of diverse games we call a franchise, I don't see why it has to be so much like the others.

Nice argument, dude!

Davoc wrote:

ssij xDD

Rulez, stop doing meth, Jesus fucking Christ.

Ah, blimey, since we got off the high of Origins, the era it has created has been most divisive, I guess it could be because we all expect and like different franchises for different reasons, perhaps that is the reason why some didn't mind the Titans series, while others loathed it, why some enjoyed the likes of the Lost Frontier, while others detest it.

For the Rayman series, I think many of us who contest Legends for its story do so because the world and story were one of the major traits that made us like the franchise, myself included. I won't contest, the gameplay in Legends is well done indeed, but it lacks something, something critical to many of us which detracts from the overall experience.

Rulez wrote:

Davoc wrote:

ssij xDD

What is this

Davoc's Polish, I believe. That's why Polish.

-edit- I misunderstood

yeah, I'm polish but why are you being so aggresive

anyway, we should stop posting offtopic and talk about rayman

Good God, Rulez! You sure are actin' funny today...

Rulez's just trolling, don't be afraid, he's a nice guy. Good to see more Polish users here on RPC

Rulez is a young boy with a big co-...heart.

Rayfist wrote:Alright, well since I'm in school now (I finished all my work and have free time), I'll make this quick.
Sergio, what is it with your dark thoughts against Rayman 2 and 3? Seriously, I think these two games had some of the best 3D environments of any Rayman game, FAR from dull. If anything the problem I had with RO was it's rather dull levels for me, as Haruka previously mentioned, the thing. Especially jibberish jungle, RL's polishing of most of these levels make them look so better. I'd much rather go with R3 over RO, any day. The levels were full of liveliness, and whiles Michels absence is rather... noticeable, I LOVED the combat system in this game, many complained the game felt too make like a 'beat em up', which I personally don't mind. I'm still a tad bit debating whether I like RL over R3. I do think R3 had it's few problems, however I didn't mind the humor, it's not something I'd want to see for every future installment, but I think it was done not so bad. I will admit the voice acting was rather... well, bad. However I gotta give the game credit, it truly felt magical, something RO totally lacked for me. Hell, Summit Beyond the Clouds? Remember how lively and beautiful that level was? It was ridiculously full of detail. Even though I did like the concept of Desert of Dijidiroos (excuse me if I spelt it wrong), but the actual level, my 2nd time playing through the game made me immediately bored. The actual color scheme didn't do it for me, I prefer Band Land greatly, looks at Band Land's color scheme. How is it too highly saturated? I think the brightness and such is at a fine place, it seriously is calming to the eyes and a beauty to look at. However, I'm giving RL the benefit of the doubt for being better than RO in every single aspect. RO seriously got tedious, I wasn't a fan of the 'bubbilized' enemies, they were really annoying and made 100% completion more annoying, especially with lum grabbing, having to hit the enemy twice, it was nice having to hit them once. I just don't understand the dark thoughts on R3.

I don't have dark thoughts about Rayman 2 or 3. I just see their flaws. I still adore them. Well... maybe just love R3, but I do adore R2. Actually, I'd love to replay R2, but so far I've heard the 3ds port is bad.

About the atmosphere. In R2 it is perfect, but I hate when people say it is GORGEOUS and full of fantasy and magic... because it isn't.... it's just forest. Very atmospheric forests.

R3... I don't like it at all when it comes to atmosphere. There are a few magical moments. I expected something big when I saw the Fairy Council... but it ended flat with the Tower of Leptys.

Also, I don't know why are you defending the idea that R3 is better than RO... I mean, that is obvious. Well, at least for me. I'm aware that RO is full of flaws. RL isn't. At least not as much as Origins or R3 itself. But yeah, I still prefer R3 over Rayman Origins, but I still love both.

sergiomonty wrote:

Drolpiraat wrote:Oh but it does. There are people who, unlike you, not only play a game simply for its gameplay, but also for its story, environments, music, etc. Are you saying this is only important in tv shows?

I hate to say this, but yes. Well, movies too.

That's depressingly stubborn of you. Regardless of what you yourself enjoy, video games are an art form just like any other; as an artist yourself, I thought this would be a give-in. What if there were a game that derived all of its joy from the visual experience and very little challenge? If the game was made well enough, like with anything, then that could end up being just as rewarding an experience as a game with excellent, intricate challenge but very simple graphics. Again, where your interests lie is another thing, but your judgement of what certain kinds of art should and should not include is not needed or wanted.

TheTempurmental wrote:I used to like to think deeply as well, but all the arguments I would get into would ruin my mood and make me stay up too late thinking about what to type next, ect. One morning I decided I would be a lot happier if I didn't take things too seriously all the time and just had fun. It's worked so far!

Yeah, and that's just depressing, no adjectives attached. You clearly had the ability to have a good mind, but... whatever works for you, I guess...? Just don't go around preaching your misunderstood perception of open-mindedness, if it really pains you that much to think about what you say.

sergiomonty wrote:Like Call of Duty, Halo, Madden, etc. All of them are the exact same game when you replay them. The different strategies are what make it different everytime.

Yeah, but all those games would get boring as shit pretty quick if they all only had one game mode.

sergiomonty wrote:

Drolpiraat wrote:Excuse me? Rayman Legends is far more linear than the 3D Rayman games. There are only a few levels I can name that weren't extremely linear in Rayman Legends, and they were: Mansion of the Deep, the Amazing Maze, uh... hmm... can't find any others at the moment.

Sure. Please name a few in Rayman 3.

????????.,..//?

Almost every single area in Rayman 3 has multiple paths you can take to obtain all your collectibles and large areas to explore, it's not just one straight line you have to move in. Take the first area in the Bog of Murk for example: you have to wander around the entire circular area to make sure that you've gotten everything. Take the area with the staircase as an example in Land of the Livid Dead: you spend quite a long time in that area, taking offshoot paths and returning to that area, and solving puzzles within that area. There, off the top of my head, I just mentioned a couple of areas, both of which are far larger and far lengthier than both of those two Legends levels combined.

sergiomonty wrote:It's not like in Rayman 3 you had to restart the entire world if you didn't get the perfect amount of jewels with a perfect timing in one single area of one single level, right? That wouldn't be frustrating anyways, right?

Well no, it's not like that actually. If you missed something, just reload your saved game, and you're about five minutes behind where you were. You don't need a ridiculously high score to unlock everything, and the competition for scores to the point where it could be perceived as 'frustrating' is purely for those who strive for such perfection. Personally, I find the those that can almost never be perfected, where there's always room for improvement, to be the most long-lasting single-player games.

Enough, Ad. You're not gonna make your preferences more true than mine. Just let things be.

sergiomonty wrote:Enough, Ad. You're not gonna make your preferences more true than mine. Just let things be.

I was purposely avoiding preferences to point out the very notable and direct flaws and in your arguments. If you'd have read my post, you would have known that.

TheTempurmental wrote:I appreciate a game for what it's trying to be. If it wants to be story-driven, than it should have a good story. RL is a Gameplay-driven game, and the gameplay is great, so in my book, that equals a good game. Criticizing RL for being too focused on gameplay is like saying a comedy movie has too many funny parts. I know the previous games have had deep plots, but all the Rayman games are unique, too! RL is just another addition to the collection of diverse games we call a franchise, I don't see why it has to be so much like the others.

If you're not going to even attempt to avoid every single fallacy in the history of logic through your preference of a 'stupider' mindset, then don't join in. Not only was your argument irrelevant, it's just dumb and makes no sense, and let me go into a little bit of detail as to why:

You claim that criticising a comedy for having too many comedic moments is ridiculous, when in fact, that's one of the main criticisms of many comedies: that there's no balance, it's just a barrage of jokes coming after jokes to no end with no structure. In addition, you also somehow decided to compare this to the focus of gameplay, which doesn't at all work because the equivalent comparison would be literally saying "Rayman Legends has too much gameplay", and that physically makes no sense.

According to you, the quality of your thoughts are entirely left up to your own discretion.

Adsolution wrote:

TheTempurmental wrote:I appreciate a game for what it's trying to be. If it wants to be story-driven, than it should have a good story. RL is a Gameplay-driven game, and the gameplay is great, so in my book, that equals a good game. Criticizing RL for being too focused on gameplay is like saying a comedy movie has too many funny parts. I know the previous games have had deep plots, but all the Rayman games are unique, too! RL is just another addition to the collection of diverse games we call a franchise, I don't see why it has to be so much like the others.

If you're not going to even attempt to avoid every single fallacy in the history of logic through your preference of a 'stupider' mindset, then don't join in. Not only was your argument irrelevant, it's just dumb and makes no sense, and let me go into a little bit of detail as to why:

You claim that criticising a comedy for having too many comedic moments is ridiculous, when in fact, that's one of the main criticisms of many comedies: that there's no balance, it's just a barrage of jokes coming after jokes to no end with no structure. In addition, you also somehow decided to compare this to the focus of gameplay, which doesn't at all work because the equivalent comparison would be literally saying "Rayman Legends has too much gameplay", and that physically makes no sense.

According to you, the quality of your thoughts are entirely left up to your own discretion.

Adsolution wrote:

sergiomonty wrote:Enough, Ad. You're not gonna make your preferences more true than mine. Just let things be.

I was purposely avoiding preferences to point out the very notable and direct flaws and in your arguments. If you'd have read my post, you would have known that.

Sorry Ad... but when I read your posts I just expect a bunch of sarcasms and silly ways to contradict other people. I was like "FUCK IT" when I saw you typed a new wall text because... let's be honest: I'm already tired of this discussion. But oh well... now that I read it properly, I think it could have been worse. I still don't see the AMAZING exploration that you mention from R3, and I know about the save states, but that doesn't heal how poorly designed that level selection menu is. Also, excuse me, but earning a smily Murphy on every level is TERRIBLY HARD. It's so hard I didn't even want to 100% it. It was just too frustrating for me.

Don't defend R3 with me, though. I already gave you my thoughts on facebook, even if they were terribly written because of lulz. I will retain my position with RL as one of my three favorites.

Adsolution wrote:

TheTempurmental wrote:I appreciate a game for what it's trying to be. If it wants to be story-driven, than it should have a good story. RL is a Gameplay-driven game, and the gameplay is great, so in my book, that equals a good game. Criticizing RL for being too focused on gameplay is like saying a comedy movie has too many funny parts. I know the previous games have had deep plots, but all the Rayman games are unique, too! RL is just another addition to the collection of diverse games we call a franchise, I don't see why it has to be so much like the others.

If you're not going to even attempt to avoid every single fallacy in the history of logic through your preference of a 'stupider' mindset, then don't join in. Not only was your argument irrelevant, it's just dumb and makes no sense, and let me go into a little bit of detail as to why:

You claim that criticising a comedy for having too many comedic moments is ridiculous, when in fact, that's one of the main criticisms of many comedies: that there's no balance, it's just a barrage of jokes coming after jokes to no end with no structure. In addition, you also somehow decided to compare this to the focus of gameplay, which doesn't at all work because the equivalent comparison would be literally saying "Rayman Legends has too much gameplay", and that physically makes no sense.

According to you, the quality of your thoughts are entirely left up to your own discretion.

Surprise, you managed to post something even more irrelevant!

Also. Excellent response, TheTempurmental.

Aw, thanks, pally!

sergiomonty wrote:How weird. I actually enjoy RPG's for their gameplay. The story is more important in those because well... They're RPG's. They're slow paced so they must remain interesting.

Platformers. Those don't need a plot to be enjoyable. A plot makes them more interesting? yeah. Can it be the most important aspect? Not at all. A platformer with an interesting plot but with clunky gameplay is immediately dead.

I would agree with this completely, if it weren't for the fact that you're confusing the word platformer with the word pure platformer. Rayman Legends is a pure platformer. Rayman 2 and 3 are just platformers. They're not pure, because they have action-adventure elements as well. Thought has been put not only in the gameplay, but also in the other aspects of the game. While the focus of the gameplay is on the platforming, the grandeur of the other aspects of the game is often enough to take the focus of the game itself away from its gameplay. This is where Rayman Legends is lacking. The game is challenging and has a lot of levels to play through, but once you've completed it, there is simply nothing left to remember, because all that time, you were focusing on the platforming.

sergiomonty wrote:About the atmosphere. In R2 it is perfect, but I hate when people say it is GORGEOUS and full of fantasy and magic... because it isn't.... it's just forest.

• The Woods of Light - forest
• The Fairy Glade - forest
• The Marshes of Awakening - swamp
• The Bayou - swamp
• The Walk of Life (sublevel) - forest
• The Sanctuary of Water and Ice - beach, then temple
• The Menhir Hills - forest
• The Cave of Bad Dreams (sublevel) - cave
• The Canopy - forest
• Whale Bay - beach, then underwater
• The Sanctuary of Stone and Fire - temple
• The Echoing Caves - cave
• The Precipice - cliffs
• The Top of the World - only partly forest
• The Sanctuary of Rock and Lava - swamp, then temple
• The Walk of Power (sublevel) - forest
• Beneath the Sanctuary of Rock and Lava - temple
• Tomb of the Ancients - tomb
• The Iron Mountains - mountains
• The Prison Ship - pirate ship
• The Crow's Nest - pirate ship

You have just ignored more than half of the game.

sergiomonty wrote:R3... I don't like it at all when it comes to atmosphere. There are a few magical moments. I expected something big when I saw the Fairy Council... but it ended flat with the Tower of Leptys.

I'd say you have again ignored more than half of the game, but you already said that you didn't like all those atmospheric worlds. Too bad.

sergiomonty wrote:Surprise, you managed to post something even more irrelevant!

What Ad said there was perhaps one of the most relevant things that have been said in this whole discussion.