Bradandez wrote:The original trilogy is inferior.
The UbiArt games are superior.
Gee, what a surprise. With 12 years of technology gap between them, they better be superior.
So far, from the original trilogy, I find myself replaying Rayman 2 (incl. Revolution) the most. So between those 3 (and the dreadful, multi-only, no keyboard-only Rayman M), I have to say "Rayman 2".
After a few years we'll see how Origins/Legends fare the trial of time, and which of them better (probably going to be Legends, if only for the fact that it contains most of Origins).
Rayman Origins and Legends can't be better than Rayman1, 2 and 3 because they haven't the same karma and R3 R2 and R1 are most popular than the furthers games of Rayman.
Rayfist wrote:Responding with ponies makes me want to agree with Brad.
Sweet. You're 20% cooler.
BestXIII wrote:Rayman Origins and Legends can't be better than Rayman1, 2 and 3 because they haven't the same karma and R3 R2 and R1 are most popular than the furthers games of Rayman.
You're right. They don't have the same karma? Charm? I'm going with charm. All of the Rayman games have different charm to them. That's what makes the series unique. But I digress. The original trilogy is more popular with older fans and the new UbiArt games are more popular with the general audience. That's how I feel personally.
Bradandez wrote:The original trilogy is more popular with older fans and the new UbiArt games are more popular with the general audience.
Isn't this almost always the case, though? The general audience is more familiar and prefers to play the modern games, whereas the older fans tend to have an emotional attachment to the old games, the games of their childhood, and the like.
Bradandez wrote:The original trilogy is more popular with older fans and the new UbiArt games are more popular with the general audience.
Isn't this almost always the case, though? The general audience is more familiar and prefers to play the modern games, whereas the older fans tend to have an emotional attachment to the old games, the games of their childhood, and the like.
Well I hope that's different with Sonic Boom: rise of lyric
With a few tweaks, M/Arena's battle mode could have been REALLY fucking good. Unfortunately, while I still enjoy the battle mode at the end of the day it comes off as a kind of mediocre Arena shooter (similar to the likes of Quake 3 and such, or Half Life 2 Deathmatch), with not much else to it. Even on the pc version the cursor on screen acts very odd, and the maps themselves aren't big. A lot of the modes feel kind of unbalanced and a little repetitive, lum spring just has lums randomly spawning anywhere, so it could easily spawn next to an opponent, and in capture the fly, if you know the correct routes to take you can easily escape a foe trying to capture with no problems as long as you make a lot of quick turns and jumps. Lum Fight was the only mode in battle with a bit of polish on it, it just really lacks what it's trying to accomplish: being competitive. Though something about this mode even feels rather off to me, I feel like there's just not much to what it's trying to be, the gameplay just gives you a random item to use against an opponent only giving you a small amount of health, I'd rather it be like other arena shooters where you're given a set amount of fist power (amount of times to use your fist, "ammo" if you will,") and the game would have you take cover against enemy fire using tactics such hiding behind pillars or corridors, and maybe even having crouching as a dodge tactic. There's really nothing much to it's battle mode, there's no "Evade" there's no "guarding", nothing, you just run and jump simultaneously hoping your opponent doesn't hit you.
This is why Arena/M's lacking of online is a letdown, especially since Arena shooters older than Rayman M have always had this option. The race mode I still enjoy, but the battle mode lacks being a proper Arena shooter to me.
Elite Piranha wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 5:03 am
There is this thread that talks about the same thing, I think it should be locked since it can't be merged with this one: viewtopic.php?t=7807
That topic only has posts from 2012, while this one has a gap from 2011 to 2015, so I went ahead and merged them together anyway.
Hunchman801 wrote: Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:37 pm
That topic only has posts from 2012, while this one has a gap from 2011 to 2015, so I went ahead and merged them together anyway.
I still have the playstation disk of RM1 I played to death as a 3 year old. Course, I got a new one when I remembered what Rayman was later down the road thanks to RM3 because I wondered where the other games were, you just don't start at 3. (But it's funny that I played the first game when I was 3.)
From what I've been told by grandparents and aunts, I did actually beat the first game somehow. I was a tot with a lot of time on my hands I guess, maybe I just fumbled about until I found everything. I really wish I could see that somehow, but I'm a natural at RM1 so maybe they're right. I'm skeptical and have to take it with a grain of salt though.
(I like all Rayman games but 1 just happens to be my fav, it just looks so strange...In a good way...Compared to the rest and oddly barebones being just a buncha platforms here and there sometimes.)
I'm still going to say it's likely Rayman 2, because it's just a really good game with a nice concept. It might not be that difficult, but it's not all about that or graphics to make a good game.
.
