Talk:Rayman 2: The Great Escape
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Spelling error ...if you obtain 100% of the game's lum total.
Merging Rayman 2 and Rayman Revolution
Just to start this duscussion, I would say no to merge Rayman Great Escape and Rayman Revolution. they're both different in the first place, as in worlds, alternative cutscenes (as mentioned below), and other important features, of course i've only known so little about it.. ~bearflip
- I don't understand what is the problem about merging these pages. All the so called "important" differences about Revolution could easily fit in this article. --Mika1h 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"unique storyline, in which the player could go back to earlier levels of the game and finish certain tasks" That's not right to call this unique, cause this fashion had already been even in Rayman 1. And also in Super Mario World, Super Mario 64 and probably several other games. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdfgsdfgsdgf (talk • contribs) 12:54:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Peacock terms and NPOV
I'll be frank: this article is reads like an obsessive fan-rant. I'm sorry, that was a harsh way to put it, but this article is extremely biased and of questionable accuracy. I love Rayman 2, but since when has it been "the best 3D platformer Ever"? Who made that claim? The plot described is neither "unique" nor original - it could be the plot of a dozen games I could mention, several of which preceded this one. Similarly, I see no reference to whoever claimed it set new standards for graphics, game play or anything for that matter. Likewise, there is no way we can claim it had an "absolutely fantastic" soundtrack. It was a very good soundtrack, I'm not denying it, but to state that outright does not show a neutral POV. Please, people! RobbieG 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're exaggerating a bit, but the article indeed needed some sources. I added links to reviews (from influential site) to most claims and removed those which just weren't true or verifiable. But please do add more. -mrbartjens 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote that a while ago, and since then, most of the quotes I was objecting to have been removed. This article has come a long way. RobbieG 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Rayman 2 development
"Very early into the development of Rayman 2, it was a 2-D game for the PlayStation. This was later scrapped for the 3D game that Rayman 2 became. Pictures of the 2D version and concept art (a green villain with a chainsaw) and mentions of powers such as the platform fist were published in gaming magazines such as EGM."
I just purchased the Playstation 2 version yesterday (19 Jan 2008). The differences explained by this article regarding the playstation versions are incorrect. The cutscene with the guy eating the yellow lum is still there, and the cave of bad dreams is still accessed through the swamp/marsh of awakening. marp (talk)
Underground lava pit
Ok, I know it's only a minor thing but the battle with razzorbeard in the grolgoth is not underground, but deep with the buccaneer. This is evident as rayman and the grolgoth, after partaking in the first section of the battle, fall down into the ship as the floor cracks under them, not over the side of the ship. Just a small statement that Iv'e tried to fix several times now, but it is fiercely replaced with the original sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gennaroc (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Rayman 2 on vista
The article states that the game runs fine on Vista, which is not true. It doesn't run on mine and by entering "Rayman 2 vista" into Google you'll get lots of accounts of people unable to get it to work, but no solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Level descriptions and other changes
I see someone keeps editing the article to include summaries of each level in the game and a trivia section, removing my (in my opinion) better content which is more encyclopedic and has sources. See for example WP:GAMEGUIDE; this article doesn't need a single paragraph on every level, and trivia sections are discouraged on articles. Please think about it before you revert again and at least try to find a good compromise with the current version of the article. Cigarettizer (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)