Talk:Rayman (series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

CVG Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

CVG To-do:

1 The Omniscient
2 Rayman Golf
3 Rayman 3 - Mediocre?
4 Dates out

[edit] The Omniscient

"The Omniscient that features in Rayman 2 is the main source of information and knowledge in Rayman's world." What exactly is the Omniscient and how is it different from the Lums? I don't remember it mentioned in the US N64 version (if that matters) but I could be wrong :/Rayeli 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rayman Golf

There is also Rayman Golf for the cellphone and an N-Gage game. --Luigi 13:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that existed! *adds* --MajorB 17:23, 18 Jul 2004 (EST)

Rayman is still one of my all-time favorite games. Ground 23:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please explain in general what kind of games they are, eg talking about the graphics, movement, combat etc. Kappa 05:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've finished the Rayman Golf, Rayman 2: Revolution, and Rayman Gold articles, so now there are no more red links. :D --TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rayman 3 - Mediocre?

From the article:

"Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc was seen as being mediocre, effectively turning its back on the mix of fantasy, humour, and story that had gained the previous games acclaim, and instead creating a game that was satrical about the genre, and series as a whole."

It was seen as being mediocre by whom? Can we provide a source for that? I think that's what we call "weasel words." Also, the series was, as noted, already humorous (you can't honestly claim they were taking themselves seriously with the Zombie Chickens or the Plums on heads, can you?). Rayman 3 did contain a developed fantasy world (the Knaaren people, the Livid Dead Teensies' tower, the Fairy Council, etc.) and I would certainly argue that the story was equal to that of Rayman 2, if not better - let's face it, they've never been exactly Charles Dickens' standard, have they? The difference is that Rayman 3 placed a greater emphasis on the humour, which doesn't automatically ruin the game. It says on the box that Official Nintendo gave it 9/10 (which presumably means they scored it at 90% or more, because NOM didn't mark out of ten, they worked in percentages). I see no reason to disbelieve that claim. RobbieG 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read in a Nintendo Power article that points out Rayman 3 was generally seen from the fans as somewhat of a disappointment related to Rayman 2. The whole deal wasn't the humor--yeah, zombie chickens and such seemed silly, but at least their existence had some grounds and didn't appear just for kicks; R3 missed the atmosphere, seriousness, and strong storyline that the previous two games had--the gameplay was a huge difference as well. Much shorter, switching to the point system, and just the gameplay overall broke away from the traditional line and was considered by fans familiar with the series a stepdown. The developers focused on humour rather than the elements that made the predecessors what they are, and the fact Michel Ancel took no part in the development is a big factor. In fact, he stated somewhere that R3 didn't all reach his level of expectation (or something to that degree...I'll look for the source if needed). Sort of like the Starfox situation, when people who knew the series weren't all the happy with the deviation to Starfox Adventures.

I'd be grateful if you did cite the source; we don't want weasel words in there. I can see where you're coming from. However, I for one liked Rayman 3 better and so did a lot of people I know - though nobody important enough to cite. I should look up the NOM score; it's bugging me now. I personally felt the points system added to the replay value and the lateral shots made the battles more interesting. Plus some of those cutscenes were hilarious. I also thought the story wasn't too bad. I'm sure it was no weaker than Rayman 2's story, anyway. RobbieG 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Found the article (subsection)--

Talking Points As any dyed-in-the-wool Rayman fan will tell you, the limbless one's third adventure was something of a dissappointment. It was missing a lot of the magic that made Rayman 2 so special, due in part to the injection of more "attitude" via big-name Hollywood voice acting. Fortunately, Raving Rabbids marks a return to the charming gibberish spoken by Rayman and friends in his precious adventures. According to Ancel, "I didn't work on Rayman 3, but it was a bit too concrete for my tastes. It was interesting because that team wanted to work in a humorous dimension. In this Rayman, the humor will come from the visuals and the situations rather than voice-overs."

                                        -Nintendo Power September 2006/Vol.207 p.37

Cheers!

That's just Nintendo Powers' verdict though, so maybe opinions were divided. I'm going to keep looking for that NOM score, but Google turned up nothing, so I'll have to see if I can get hold of a copy myself. Trouble is, that could take a while, so don't hold your breath or anything... RobbieG 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)