Top
220°

Rayman Legends lacking content on Vita

Rayman Legends on the Vita is not quite as complete as what you would get if playing on any of the other consoles. Released to pretty much all main consoles last week, the portable version of Ubisoft’s wacky platformer lacks any of the Invasion levels found on PS3, 360 and Wii U.

Read Full Story >>
gamesreviews.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Eonjay1569d ago

I kinda figured. It being $20 cheaper and all. Also, graphics are good but how man gigs can you cram onto that game pack.

admiralvic1569d ago

The largest PSN download is 3.3 gb, so at least 4 gb I would assume.

In either case, you also have to remember that the Vita has a smaller screen, which means a Vita game will use smaller images than the PS3. Something like 960 x 544 for the VIta and 1280×720 for 720 or 1920x1080 for 1080. However, this isn't the troubling part.

Despite Rayman Legends looking fantastic; Origins was only 1.4 gb for the PS3 version and 932 MB for the PSV version. Now some of this size difference was due to the removed MP, though the Vita also got some exclusive stuff. Regardless, I sincerely doubt that Rayman Legends WOULD be 3.6 times larger (matching BlazBlue CSE / Sly 4 in terms of the largest known Vita games) than Origins and still have cut content. I guess we will find out if / when the file size is revealed, though I suspect this might actually have to do with the Wii U version. Yeah the Vita version gets some unique content, but you still "need" the Wii U version for the full experience. Maybe this was a deal worked out with Nintendo for the delay or maybe this is "Ubisofts" way of showing the Wii U support (though they said in the same statement they supported the Vita...).

Also the $20 dollar remark is not a valid excuse. Especially when you consider Sony gave an "equal" experience of All-Stars / Sly 4 on the Vita and the Vita version of Dragon's Crown was equally awesome (actually probably better because the Vita supports cross game chat...) experience for $10 dollars less. Even some games like Disgaea 3 offer a LOT more content than the PS3 version did and still retained the $40 dollar price tag (this is also lower than buying the game + all the DLC on the PS3 would be) and the same goes for Disgaea 4.

Williamson1569d ago

Im still going to get the vita version but this does suck a little for me. Apparently the levels that are missing are the speedruns, which was really fun when I played one in the wii u/ps3 demos.

MartinB1051569d ago

Damn. I've been playing the Wii U version; just finished all the Invasion levels and they were a lot of fun. I have the Vita version on pre-order; I think I'll probably still get it anyway, but it kind of sucks that the Vita version is essentially incomplete.

Williamson1569d ago

How many invasion levels are in the game? I read online about 30 levels? Thats a lot of levels to be cut from the vita version if true.

MartinB1051568d ago

Each Invasion level is worth 3 Teensies, where the Vita version contains 85 less to collect. Dividing 85 by 3 gives you 28.333333 levels. Obviously there isn't one third of a level, so I'd guess there may be another non-invasion level missing, which is worth 10 Teensies. That would make 25 Invasion levels (5 per world does sound correct to me) and 1 standard level missing in the Vita version.

porkChop1569d ago

Well, that's one less game for me to spend my money on. I won't support crap like this.

Kingthrash3601569d ago

why is it crap? its not like a cart has 16 gigs....I think its only 4. thats why in so impressed with games like need for speed and sfvt on vita. nfs had 98% content and fit in 3 gigs while disc was 8 gig...smh peiple need to support games like this....I could understand if the 3ds version is compared to vita but we are not and as long as it plays and looks well. It should be expected that some content had to be removed.

admiralvic1569d ago

Apparently the Wii U version is only 7 gb and Vita carts go up to 4 gb I guess. While that 3 gb sounds huge (I mean it is almost twice the size!), you get a lot back when you downgrade the visuals / sound alone. Might not be enough to clear the gap, but they could have cut something less people cared about. Like the murphy stuff and wrote it off as them being nice to Wii U gamers. I mean that stuff is cool, but I rather have all the levels than the ability to control murphy with touch.

Kingthrash3601569d ago

what I think is they kept the visuals, because thay did a rayman already and if it looked worse well that would be worse...ti some. im not saying its ok to lose levels...but when compared to console which cost more to buy and has more memory...NO HANDHELD CAN COMPLETE. if it was the same price it would ve a bad thing but its $20 less....translation we are getting our moneys worth.

porkChop1569d ago (Edited 1569d ago )

It's crap because they could have kept those levels in. The Wii U version is 7GB. Vita cartridges are 4GB. When you scale everything down, downmix all the audio, remove the Wii U's second screen stuff, etc, you save a ton of space. They could have easily made everything fit if they really tried.

I would have been ok if they instead chose to just remove the 40 remastered levels from the first game, Rayman Origins. Instead of removing old content, they removed NEW content that Vita gamers haven't played yet. It's just such a stupid decision.

Edit: The digital version of Rayman Legends on PS3 is only 2.1GB, so no, this is most definitely not a size issue. It's clearly just pure laziness.

admiralvic1569d ago

@ Kingthrash360

"translation we are getting our moneys worth."

If you're going to reply to me and say something stupid, then do NOT use the pronoun "we".

Thats cool that you think you're getting your moneys worth, but I expect the full game and I expect it for $40 dollars. Plenty of other games didn't cut content (in fact most added content) and we don't need people like you telling developers we expect less for more.

"what I think is they kept the visuals"

I think you completely misunderstand my point. The Vita has a lower resolution than 720+ on the PS3, so the images are smaller. Since the Vita is a smaller screen anyway, the visuals look "as good", since they don't need as much to retain the look. Doing this will also lower the file size, which gives them more room to work around with.

Tei7771569d ago (Edited 1569d ago )

I don't think its anything to do with space. Its clear the Vita version was the last on their priority list with it being announced mere months from launch. I assume they didn't have time to port+ optimising everything. I think this admission is forgivable. it would be nice to make the speed runs available for download at a later point, even its at a minor fee seeing as the Vita version is $15 cheaper.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1569d ago
YoungPlex1569d ago

Nooooooo!!!!! Oh well still getting both the Wii U version for home play and Vita version for on the go. I kind of knew that it was too good to be true. Still a great game nonetheless!

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.