Rayman Pirate-Community

Bzzit wrote:Haha just kidding dude, welcome!

Thank you ^^

Rayfanboy wrote:the Xbox 360/PS3 just doesn't have a very big library of games that aren't first-person shooters or gore-fests,

On the contrary, my friend. I own around 20 PS3 titles, and only one of those is an FPS. You clearly just aren't looking hard enough.

BzzitTheMoskito wrote:Rayman Origins Was A good Game when it comes to the platforming/ gameplay. But i dint like how they turned the Moskitos with the limbs, And the Magican Turned to A teensie.

I actually really liked the style, and to be frank if it wasn't for the PS1, PC and (whatever else R1 was originally released on)'s graphical limitations, I'm guessing all of the characters would have had limbs from the start. Hence really, I think they were simply trying to do now what they just couldn't do back then.

BzzitTheMoskito wrote:And The Story, Well i think the story was very weak.

Anyone who didn't think Origin's story was very weak probably needs their head checked, we all share your opinion there. I think.

BzzitTheMoskito wrote:And when I read the wiki here, When They Had A Game, Rayman 4, A 3D game, where there is Band Land and other locations from the original game. And Dark Raymans Lair and stuff. It make me Sad that they Cancelled it, It looked like a good game

Last I remember, that Rayman game wasn't being developed by Ubisoft.

Yeah, maybe it's good that it was cancelled. We barely know anything about Pheonix and Rayman's reputation may even have been ruined had Rayman 4 been released.
We probably will never know.

I see theres still not news about Legends. Maybe the new trailer will come about the same time when ROs Around the World trailer came.

@ remake discussion: In my opinion if Ubis gonna make more HD remakes of R3 for example, they should add some stuff like Nintendo did with SM64 DS. You know adding some more levels and/or playable characters without ruining the most important things. What if Globox would be playable character in the next R3 remake. In the original R3 you could only steer him when he drinks plum juice and starts to swim and well Globox also steers the Armaguiddon, but i mean you could play normally as Globox.

A nice idea, but not one that I would be head's over heels for, call me a purist, but if they want to add bonuses, I'd rather they did it in the way they did the bonuses in Rayman 2 DC, where they didn't cause change to the main story.

I hope Rayman keeps all his powers at the start of Legends. It'd kinda suck having to find them again. And, the game should be slightly harder than Origins at the least. That game was very hard, but I feel that sequels should always be harder (and better).

Genetic Destiny wrote:I hope Rayman keeps all his powers at the start of Legends. It'd kinda suck having to find them again. And, the game should be slightly harder than Origins at the least. That game was very hard, but I feel that sequels should always be harder (and better).

Not slightly, but a lot

Genetic Destiny wrote:I feel that sequels should always be harder

This poses some obvious problems.

Genetic Destiny wrote:...sequels should always be harder (and better).

Better? Yes.
Harder? Not necessarily, it's better to polish and refine what was given and make it more fun, rather than to increase diffculty, after all, games are made for entertainment, and increasing difficulty does not necessarily make it more fun.

It is hard for me to admit but now that I played RO three times from the beginning until the end, and tested out co-op, the game feels already old to me and disappointing. It just became the least good Rayman game from all the 4 for me for some reason. As a fan, I noticed failures in it. It isn't a bad game but... it misses something. I'm disappointed now that I see the game wasn't what I expected. I got illuded back in 2011 since I was anxiously waiting for a new Rayman game for 8 years and I was eating the informations I could find in the Daily Bubble. I somehow think they already did that in purpose to bring the excitement to veteran Rayman fans.

Genetic Destiny wrote:I feel that sequels should always be harder

Okay, so Rayman 2 should have been harder than Rayman 1 and Crash Bandicoot 2 should have been harder than Crash Bandicoot? Sorry but I strongly disagree.

I think that he meant sequels with virtually the same gameplay.

spiraldoor wrote:

Genetic Destiny wrote:I feel that sequels should always be harder

This poses some obvious problems.

Like alienating newcomers? If so, then they should maintain and improve the original's accessibility. Make it easy to pick up and play like the first, but notably harder to master.

Master4lyf1 wrote: Better? Yes.
Harder? Not necessarily, it's better to polish and refine what was given and make it more fun, rather than to increase diffculty, after all, games are made for entertainment, and increasing difficulty does not necessarily make it more fun.

I feel that they can successfully do both. Sequels tend to be more accessible and that can lead to making the game easier. Increasing the difficulty in relation to accessibility could be a way to balance things out.

TeensieKing wrote: Okay, so Rayman 2 should have been harder than Rayman 1 and Crash Bandicoot 2 should have been harder than Crash Bandicoot? Sorry but I strongly disagree.

I admit that those games were easier than the originals and I had more fun with them (took me years to beat R1 and days to beat R2), but games like Donkey Kong Country 2, and Ratchet & Clank 2 managed to be better than their predecessors while being harder.

Genetic Destiny wrote:

TeensieKing wrote: Okay, so Rayman 2 should have been harder than Rayman 1 and Crash Bandicoot 2 should have been harder than Crash Bandicoot? Sorry but I strongly disagree.

I admit that those games were easier than the originals and I had more fun with them (took me years to beat R1 and days to beat R2), but games like Donkey Kong Country 2, and Ratchet & Clank 2 managed to be better than their predecessors while being harder.

I didn't really like Ratchet and Clank 2 that much tbh, and to make matters worse when the third came out (Which expanded on everything which was introduced in the second one), it felt even worse to me, just the fact that looking back on all of the ideas in that game now, they all seem a bit... Half baked.
Still, can't argue that a harder sequel can make a better game. The TimeSplitters series would be another example, actually.

Sometimes sequels would do better to tone down the difficulty to cater to newcomers, first games in a series often falter between being to easy and being too hard, sequels are made to rectify this, whether it be to increase or decrease difficulty.

RayFan9876 wrote:I think that he meant sequels with virtually the same gameplay.

That would still be pretty chaotic, don't you think?

RayFan9876 wrote:I think that he meant sequels with virtually the same gameplay.

Crash Bandicoot games had virtually the same gameplay and if Crash Bandicoot 2 had been harder than the first one I would have never passed it, let alone Crash Bandicoot 3, which I got at the age of 5.

TeensieKing wrote:

RayFan9876 wrote:I think that he meant sequels with virtually the same gameplay.

Crash Bandicoot games had virtually the same gameplay and if Crash Bandicoot 2 had been harder than the first one I would have never passed it, let alone Crash Bandicoot 3, which I got at the age of 5.

Crash 2 was a great improvement in terms of difficulty they toned down the main stories difficulty spike greatly to a reasonable level, but of course they had the secret Gem trails and hidden warp room which boasted pretty good challenge. The difficulty in Crash one was often just plain annoying. For Legends I hope they keep the difficulty on par with origins, it was perfect imo it never got overly frustrating for me though I only played single player. However the game got progressively more difficult as you would expect and the final levels were fun to master. they also had the Chest chases which also added optional challenge. Origins would have been perfect in terms of game play and levels with boss battles were good...

Haruka wrote:It is hard for me to admit but now that I played RO three times from the beginning until the end, and tested out co-op, the game feels already old to me and disappointing. It just became the least good Rayman game from all the 4 for me for some reason. As a fan, I noticed failures in it. It isn't a bad game but... it misses something. I'm disappointed now that I see the game wasn't what I expected. I got illuded back in 2011 since I was anxiously waiting for a new Rayman game for 8 years and I was eating the informations I could find in the Daily Bubble. I somehow think they already did that in purpose to bring the excitement to veteran Rayman fans.

I have almost exactly the same feel. Maybe for me its just because i also expected more from RO.

At least im going to wait some time before playing it again. When it came for PC, i played it from there till the end of may almost EVERY day.

I enjoyed getting 100% on RO, but...it didn't feel the same to the time I had done it with the other games.
Maybe it's just because I'm older now and it just doesn't feel like as much of an accomplishment.