One of the best things about PC.If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion besides ‘Shut up you guys’, then I suggest that you do not post.Greenbottle3 wrote: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!
Say that to the French. The mutilation of the portal is all they’ve done this year. I’d ask for clarification on the ‘old married couple’ part but you wouldn’t give any.iHeckler9 wrote:Also, if you two could stop arguing like an old married couple the portal wouldn't be clogged up as much..
Me and ParadoxJuice? No, never before. Ever.Greenbottle3 wrote:They argue like this often?
Yes? That’s kind of how every debate works. What exactly is your point? If you have nothing worthwhile to say, then do not say anything.Greenbottle3 wrote:This argument has gotten old.
Now it's like:
This is what I think.
But your wrong! This is what I think!
I'm gonna post a big long post talking about how wrong you are.
Indeed, Candish. I remember one where Spiral called Xenon names it was HILARIOUS XDJewish Candy wrote:I personally love reading 'Spiral vs someone else' arguments... even when the participants start to repeat themselves.
I don't just read them for the lolz - it's nice to see somewhat stimulating (if eventually samey) debate on a forum like this.iHeckler9 wrote: Indeed, Candish. I remember one where Spiral called Xenon names it was HILARIOUS XD
Besides, arguments are supposedly seen as healthy by Jews. 
But I must admit, when there are more than 6 posts, each about 5 paragraphs long, proclaiming the EXACT SAME OPINION of the author over and over again, Candish gets very sleepy. Though she's probably done that very same thing in some Spiralscussion she's dropped into...I wonder what you mean by that. I guess that your contributions to the forum are much more worthy than ours then. But mutilating the portal was orsum.spiraldoor wrote:Say that to the French. The mutilation of the portal is all they’ve done this year.iHeckler9 wrote:Also, if you two could stop arguing like an old married couple the portal wouldn't be clogged up as much..
You versus anyone, however, is something I knew about you before I even saw you post.spiraldoor wrote: Me and ParadoxJuice? No, never before. Ever.
I agree, Rayman is at a decent level of consistency, however, I think Ubisoft could strive for greater.spiraldoor wrote: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.
I still disagree. What possibility? That Ubisoft will cover it in a future story? Clearly not Ubisofts intention. If they actually gave the plot hole some thought before the fact ("What happened to Polokus?" "I don't know, Rayman". Yes, this is too blatant to have any place in the games. No, I'm not a good writer.), than I could believe that this is Ubisofts intention. Even if they did cover it later and it made a great plot, than good for Ubisoft, they noticed a plot hole and covered it up. But I don't think you should intentionally make plot holes to cover in a later plot.spiraldoor wrote: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.
Wait, wait, wait...did you just propose that Ubisoft accidentally wrote something better than what they ought to be capable of?spiraldoor wrote:Do you have any proof of this? And why should the developers’ ‘intentions’ matter when the results are the same?
spiraldoor wrote: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.
Polokus can do absolutely anything while touching the ground. There is absolutely no reason he couldn't wish the hoodlums away. Or rather, dream up a being specifically designed to fight the hoodlums. He could do it in the blink of an eye, and even if you come up with some explanation, the games don't outright explain why he doesn't do just that. What possibility? Something for a later story to touch upon? Well, if that was Ubisofts intention from the start, fine, but I doubt it.spiraldoor wrote: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!
I agree! While they're horribly annoying and tedious when you're involved with them, reading them is quite fun.Jewish Candy wrote:I personally love reading 'Spiral vs someone else' arguments... even when the participants start to repeat themselves.
I found the middle of the arguement, when it gets interesting. Xenon calls Spiral 'Mr Spellcheck and I think Spiral calls Xenon 'Mr Stupid' or something.Jewish Candy wrote:I don't just read them for the lolz - it's nice to see somewhat stimulating (if eventually samey) debate on a forum like this.iHeckler9 wrote: Indeed, Candish. I remember one where Spiral called Xenon names it was HILARIOUS XD
I really want to check that Xenon-name-calling one out now - got a link or anything?
Let's hope this particular Origins debate (if it continues) doesn't slip to the same base standards as that one.You can wait sitted. Rayman Origins is 3 months away.Jewish Candy wrote:Let's hope this particular Origins debate (if it continues) doesn't slip to the same base standards as that one.
Alert: spotted an impacient fan.
The French forum is a bit pointless these days. All you guys do is quote each other recursively, tearing the portal into shreds. Perhaps it would be better to just delete the entire French forum once and for all.DesLife wrote:I wonder what you mean by that. I guess that your contributions to the forum are much more worthy than ours then. But mutilating the portal was orsum.spiraldoor wrote:Say that to the French. The mutilation of the portal is all they’ve done this year.iHeckler9 wrote:Also, if you two could stop arguing like an old married couple the portal wouldn't be clogged up as much..
Please spiral, teach me the ways of being a good member. I hope I'm worthy of your teaching.
They certainly should, as long as their efforts to maintain consistency are careful and intelligent and do not devolve into a reboot-worthy mess, as happens with most comic books. Bad explanations would not help the consistency of the series.ParadoxJuice wrote:I agree, Rayman is at a decent level of consistency, however, I think Ubisoft could strive for greater.
As I said, ‘Bad explanations render good explanations of any sort impossible’. That includes both official explanations and unofficial explanations. It would be better to leave the games somewhat ambiguous than to clog it with stupid, stupid explanations. If it is ambiguous, then we can ignore the ambiguity or examine it imaginatively as we see fit. Stupid explanations are both more difficult to ignore and more restrictive upon the imagination than ambiguity.ParadoxJuice wrote:I still disagree. What possibility? That Ubisoft will cover it in a future story? Clearly not Ubisofts intention. If they actually gave the plot hole some thought before the fact ("What happened to Polokus?" "I don't know, Rayman". Yes, this is too blatant to have any place in the games. No, I'm not a good writer.), than I could believe that this is Ubisofts intention. Even if they did cover it later and it made a great plot, than good for Ubisoft, they noticed a plot hole and covered it up. But I don't think you should intentionally make plot holes to cover in a later plot.
Shadow of the Colossus benefits deeply from its ambiguity. I see no reason why the Rayman games should not benefit in exactly the same way. Do you? I enjoy the ambiguity; I delight in it. Do I care whether the developers wanted to achieve this most excellent effect? As long as they keep doing it right, not at all. Do you have any proof that the Rayman games are deliberately meant to be ‘not vague’? Any quotations from the developers saying ‘We want to achieve exactly the opposite effect to Shadow of the Colossus’ or anything like that? The Mario series has a similar level of vagueness to the Rayman series; do you have similar issues with its ‘plot holes’, as you insist upon terming them?ParadoxJuice wrote:Wait, wait, wait...did you just propose that Ubisoft accidentally wrote something better than what they ought to be capable of?spiraldoor wrote:Do you have any proof of this? And why should the developers’ ‘intentions’ matter when the results are the same?ParadoxJuice wrote:Again, Shadow of the Colossus was intentionally vague, Rayman isn't.
HAL did not explain why he was trying to kill Dave Bowman. This is left a mystery in the film. His response is vague and arguably evasive. Why do you think it’s a substantial benefit if the writers merely ‘acknowledge’ that something is mysterious? So hanging a lampshade on an unexplained story element without actually explaining it will make everything fine? In case you were wonder, the book 2001 was based on contains more information regarding the source of HAL’s attack on the crew:ParadoxJuice wrote:Not explained, huh? This is basically what I'm expecting from writers when it comes to plot holes. An explanation. Not a ridiculous explanation that grinds the story to a halt. The explanation doesn't even have to be good, it just has to be present, at least that way the writer shows they acknowledged it.
None of this is true. Nowhere in the games does it say that ‘Polokus can do absolutely anything’; in fact, his powers are shown to be quite limited, as he requires the external assistance of Rayman to free him from his dreams. He cannot do so himself. Nor is there any indication that Polokus can control his dreams and so manipulate them into spawning some sort of Hoodlum-destroying creature. (It’s also clear from Rayman 2 that his power does not depend on whether or not he is touching the ground, but whether or not his target it; however, that is beside the point.) If Polokus is asleep during Rayman 3, then he obviously cannot be reawakened without Rayman gathering the four Masks together once more (and that’s assuming that they can even be used more than once). I see no reason why the writers need to explain Polokus’s absence from Rayman 3; all the answers are plain from Rayman 2.ParadoxJuice wrote:Polokus can do absolutely anything while touching the ground. There is absolutely no reason he couldn't wish the hoodlums away. Or rather, dream up a being specifically designed to fight the hoodlums. He could do it in the blink of an eye, and even if you come up with some explanation, the games don't outright explain why he doesn't do just that. What possibility? Something for a later story to touch upon? Well, if that was Ubisofts intention from the start, fine, but I doubt it.
Who says that the writers are obligated to explain Polokus’s absence from Rayman 3? Why should they? How would it benefit the game to do so? The answers can easily be found by playing Rayman 2. Do you think that Stanley Kubrick was a bad writer because he chose not to include an explanation of the monoliths in 2001, leaving their origins, workings and purpose a ‘plot hole’?ParadoxJuice wrote:The explanation would be too easy to handle for a good writer, which Ubisoft clearly isn't if they can't come up with one and work it into the story. You can come up with a good explanation, you say? Great! You're a decent writer. But you're not Ubisoft, and you're not writing the game, and no one will see what you wrote except for those who go to the Rayman Pirate Community.
Better to deactivate it until RO's release. ¬¬StaceyW wrote:I only ever have the main English Rayman and PC Sites forums on my portal RSS but it still gets clogged up ¬¬
You want plot holes just so you can speculate? I don't think it's worth it. I do agree with you, though, leaving a few things untidy is fine.spiraldoor wrote:As I said, ‘Bad explanations render good explanations of any sort impossible’. That includes both official explanations and unofficial explanations. It would be better to leave the games somewhat ambiguous than to clog it with stupid, stupid explanations. If it is ambiguous, then we can ignore the ambiguity or examine it imaginatively as we see fit. Stupid explanations are both more difficult to ignore and more restrictive upon the imagination than ambiguity.ParadoxJuice wrote:I still disagree. What possibility? That Ubisoft will cover it in a future story? Clearly not Ubisofts intention. If they actually gave the plot hole some thought before the fact ("What happened to Polokus?" "I don't know, Rayman". Yes, this is too blatant to have any place in the games. No, I'm not a good writer.), than I could believe that this is Ubisofts intention. Even if they did cover it later and it made a great plot, than good for Ubisoft, they noticed a plot hole and covered it up. But I don't think you should intentionally make plot holes to cover in a later plot.
Yes, it's an unexplained aspect of the story. Which is a plot hole, in this case. It does create a logical flaw, he just suddenly disappeared. I don't see how him being absent in R3 makes it easier to write him into an R4. Yes, my enjoyment of the game has been damaged by lack of mention of Polokus, not severely, but still. If I did what you suggest, I'd basically be lying to myself. I have no idea what happened to Polokus. The game doesn't say. There was a need for the developers to spell it out for us, Polokus was a major character. R2 was all about Polokus. You spend the entire game trying to awaken Polokus. Than, he's gone. I would very much like an explanation for this, but you don't want one because you want to speculate, you think Ubisoft is incapable of explaining (but contradict yourself by saying that it would only take a minute of thought).spiraldoor wrote:You continually refer to Polokus’s absence from Rayman 3 as a ‘plot hole’. That is not what it is. It is an unexplained aspect of the story. It contradicts nothing; it creates no logical flaws or paradoxes. It allows for the possibility that Polokus may return in a future game. It allows for you to fill in the gaps with your own interpretation if you wish. Has your enjoyment of the game been severely damaged by the lack of any mention of Polokus? Of course not; it doesn’t matter. If you really need an explanation so badly that you cannot do without one, just say ‘Polokus went back to sleep’. And there you have it. There was no need for the developers to spell it out for us in black and white. We’re not fools.
I never thought of the Force as mysterious, and how it works is something I didn't even think of until the explanation came. But the explanation seemed fine to me. Yes, I think it is better that they explained the Force than not.spiraldoor wrote:Consider the Force in the original Star Wars films. It was a vague, ambiguous and mysterious stary element. It was never explained. Did you think that this was a ‘plot hole’? I guess you must have been pretty pleased when the prequels came out and George Lucas ‘revealed’ that the Force was actually made of midi-chlorian bacteria, right? A bad explanation, but better than no explanation at all, right?!
Shadow of the Colossus was intentionally vague, you can just tell. The Rayman games have no amazing vagueness, with a story that can be interpreted in multiple ways. It's a story with plot holes, can't you see, there is no way you can compare Rayman to Shadow of the Colossus. You're average Mario game has practically no plot. A lot of things have been left unexplained over the series, but I don't buy the next Mario excited to hear if Peach will get captured this time.spiraldoor wrote:Shadow of the Colossus benefits deeply from its ambiguity. I see no reason why the Rayman games should not benefit in exactly the same way. Do you? I enjoy the ambiguity; I delight in it. Do I care whether the developers wanted to achieve this most excellent effect? As long as they keep doing it right, not at all. Do you have any proof that the Rayman games are deliberately meant to be ‘not vague’? Any quotations from the developers saying ‘We want to achieve exactly the opposite effect to Shadow of the Colossus’ or anything like that? The Mario series has a similar level of vagueness to the Rayman series; do you have similar issues with its ‘plot holes’, as you insist upon terming them?ParadoxJuice wrote:Wait, wait, wait...did you just propose that Ubisoft accidentally wrote something better than what they ought to be capable of?spiraldoor wrote:Do you have any proof of this? And why should the developers’ ‘intentions’ matter when the results are the same?ParadoxJuice wrote:Again, Shadow of the Colossus was intentionally vague, Rayman isn't.
spiraldoor wrote:HAL did not explain why he was trying to kill Dave Bowman. This is left a mystery in the film. His response is vague and arguably evasive.ParadoxJuice wrote:Not explained, huh? This is basically what I'm expecting from writers when it comes to plot holes. An explanation. Not a ridiculous explanation that grinds the story to a halt. The explanation doesn't even have to be good, it just has to be present, at least that way the writer shows they acknowledged it.
Intentionally vague=/=plot hole.Wikipedia wrote:Clarke and Kubrick wrote the novel and screenplay simultaneously, but while Clarke ultimately opted for clearer explanations of the mysterious monolith and the Star Gate, Kubrick chose to keep the film mysterious and enigmatic.
spiraldoor wrote:None of this is true. Nowhere in the games does it say that ‘Polokus can do absolutely anything’; in fact, his powers are shown to be quite limited, as he requires the external assistance of Rayman to free him from his dreams. He cannot do so himself. Nor is there any indication that Polokus can control his dreams and so manipulate them into spawning some sort of Hoodlum-destroying creature. (It’s also clear from Rayman 2 that his power does not depend on whether or not he is touching the ground, but whether or not his target it; however, that is beside the point.) If Polokus is asleep during Rayman 3, then he obviously cannot be reawakened without Rayman gathering the four Masks together once more (and that’s assuming that they can even be used more than once). I see no reason why the writers need to explain Polokus’s absence from Rayman 3; all the answers are plain from Rayman 2.ParadoxJuice wrote:Polokus can do absolutely anything while touching the ground. There is absolutely no reason he couldn't wish the hoodlums away. Or rather, dream up a being specifically designed to fight the hoodlums. He could do it in the blink of an eye, and even if you come up with some explanation, the games don't outright explain why he doesn't do just that. What possibility? Something for a later story to touch upon? Well, if that was Ubisofts intention from the start, fine, but I doubt it.
He desires to purge the hoodlums, surely.Knowledge of the World wrote:One day, the Lums focused themselves into thought, and their consciousness brought to life a strange and marvellous creature, Polokus. His power is such that his smallest dream or desire becomes reality.
This is why he went to sleep in the first place. But time has clearly already been created, so he has no reason to continue his slumber.Knowledge of the World wrote:After having created all the creatures who live in this world, a harder task remained: creating time. So, Polokus went to the place where all the gods of all the worlds meet, and together they set about dreaming up the future.
Everything I have to say about this has been addressed above.spiraldoor wrote:Who says that the writers are obligated to explain Polokus’s absence from Rayman 3? Why should they? How would it benefit the game to do so? The answers can easily be found by playing Rayman 2. Do you think that Stanley Kubrick was a bad writer because he chose not to include an explanation of the monoliths in 2001, leaving their origins, workings and purpose a ‘plot hole’?ParadoxJuice wrote:The explanation would be too easy to handle for a good writer, which Ubisoft clearly isn't if they can't come up with one and work it into the story. You can come up with a good explanation, you say? Great! You're a decent writer. But you're not Ubisoft, and you're not writing the game, and no one will see what you wrote except for those who go to the Rayman Pirate Community.