Talk:Jacquouille

Switch it back

I’m not sure who decided that this was a good idea, but I would like to politely ask to please put this information back in the Livingstone article. These enemies are simply variations of the Explorer Livingstones, and aside from their clothes, they don’t act much differently. It’d be like if we made a whole separate article on the Hunters from the GBA version of Rayman Raving Rabbids just because of their different clothing. As for the name, at least in the audio files, there is only one file that calls them “Jacquouilles”, and that is, to my knowledge, only used for ambience in the Breathing Fire! level. Their voice clips and other audio files call them “bandits”, which I believe fits them better, especially taking into account their Ancient Egg heist in the opening of Rayman Adventures. I do believe that there may need to be a slight change in the article to distinguish the bandit Livingstones from their explorer counterparts, but I do not believe that it deserves an entirely different page. At the end of the day, they are still Livingstones, just in different clothing. -RayGamer99

Hi, the change was made in response to this post, which requested a split at the end of last year. I suggested a compromise at the time, and eventually went ahead with it today after almost 9 months (!) without a reply.

Since the change is apparently not so consensual, I suggest we collect more feedback in the next few days and organize a vote if the outcome of the discussion is not clear. What do you think? — 17:18, 23 August 2024 (CEST)

Hi, I suppose your suggestions would be good courses of action. That way we can get more of the Pirate-Community's consensus on the change and see if more people do or don't feel this change is a good idea. Do what you must, and we'll see how it shakes out!

Also, gee whiz, nearly 9 months without a reply? I suppose people just forgot about it and needed to attend to more important matters, like alphabetizing their sausages or something. -RayGamer99

Thanks for your reply! Looks like we won't have to wait 9 months this time, Droolie already chimed in here. — 21:46, 23 August 2024 (CEST)

Thank you for the reply Droolie! I only have access to the audio files (I still haven’t cracked the code of how to get to the game files; if anyone knows how to do so with the Switch version, I’d love to hear it!), so that was what I was basing my points on. I didn’t know all of this internal info, but I’m glad I know now. The “Explorer” name was just the name that I assigned to the Lividstones to distinguish them from their other counterparts; that was never their actual names. The main reason that I didn’t believe that the “Jacquouilles” deserved their own page was because their behaviors were the exact same as the existing Lividstones, albeit with a few new moves. Upon further consideration, I suppose that this might be enough for them to deserve their own page.

Additionally, “jacquouille” is only their internal names. Now sure, there are no official names for them at the moment (seriously, we need some official names for a lot of these enemies), but “Jacquouille” would take a lot of getting used to, especially since I’ve called them Livingstones all my life. If calling them Jacquouilles and giving them their own article is the preferred course of action, then I’m open to it, but I personally still see them as the same character, but in different clothes.

Side note: Droolie is also right about the fact that the RRR GBA Hunters seem like essentially different Hunters thanks to their completely different appearances. I guess a better example would be if we made a separate page for the red Missiles because of their different color and behavior, or if we made a separate page for the Legends Blue Punches because of their ability to turn red upon charging the punch and their appearance being different from the Origins versions. However, they are in the same page despite these differences, and I feel the same should go for these “Jacquouilles”. But it’s up to y’all at the end of the day. -RayGamer99

Update: I've done a little bit of digging, and in Sandbox's description in Rayman Adventures, it says that "Lividstones attacked their castle". Since "Jacquouilles" are commonly found in castles (and since the Origins Lividstones are, to my knowledge, only found in one Toad Story level in Adventures), it is likely that they are referring to the bandit-dressed Lividstones. They are also referred to as Lividstones in that one social media post with the Swordsman Ninjas (which, according to Sakura's description, is not stolen from the RayWiki and is indeed their official names). Not sure if this changes anything, but I just wanted to put here that there is, in fact, an official source that calls the "Jacquouilles" Lividstones. -RayGamer99

Sakura was added to the game about two years after the Swordsman Ninjas, so it's still very much possible that all names from that social media post were taken from RayWiki. Also, it says "Livingstones", not "Lividstones". Not that this consideration really matters, because you can never tell for sure what is part of a feedback loop and what is not. More important to this social media post is that it was almost certainly written by a random community manager intern at Ubisoft, and therefore not of the highest level of canonicity.

The part about Sandbox is interesting though, and I also understand it as referring to the Jacquouilles. Now, the wiki does currently state that Jacquouilles are Lividstones, only a particular variant of them. A bit like little Livingstones are a variant of Livingstones with their own article, but they are also mentioned in the main one. Sometimes it's hard to decide when to create a "sub-article" for a variant, and when to keep everything under the main one. Anyway, should I host a poll to see what people think about this one? — 22:09, 10 September 2024 (CEST)

I read the whole feedback loop thread, and at this point, I’m appalled (and a little proud) at how much Ubisoft copies from the RayWiki. They use our character names, our images, our information, and yet they refuse to credit us? I say this calls for action. A court case is definitely a lot, but we ought to do something. We can’t have them “borrowing” our stuff and not even giving us credit (or Rayman 4)!

Anyway, I understand that the “Jacquouilles” are still Lividstones, but my point is that unlike the aforementioned little Livingstones (in their case, they’re half the Livingstones’ normal sizes and twice as annoying), there are no physical or functional attributes that are particularly distinct from the Origins Lividstones that would warrant their own article. Now sure, if they charged at the player, used shields, and sometimes had parachutes, then they might be able to have their own article. Oh wait… yeah this is a difficult subject to debate, even for me. You can set up the poll if you wish, but I’m not sure enough people would care about this matter to make as big of a stink about it as we have over the past month or so. -RayGamer99