Talk:Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time

All Crash Bandicoot are not retconned.

Here is the Link I have that will show you proof that Every Crash Bandicoot game is considered canon but most likely take place in another universe like Crash of the Titans and even Skylanders.

Go have a watch. I have known this is proof that a fan of Crash and Spyro talked to a Director of Crash 4 says that all Crash games released in 1996 onwards happened.

Link: [1] SonicTV64 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

YouTube videos, especially fan-made, are generally not considered reliable unless it is from a reputable source and there's no written article to decently substitute it. Besides, far more reliable sources have established that IAT is the new proper fourth title. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop insisting on the game being a "retcon" when various developer interviews disprove this and the game never "firmly establishes" this

Seriously, genuinely don't understand why you keep doing this. Please stop. The game NEVER establishes itself as a retcon, unless you want to argue that Episode 3 of Star Wars being a thing means 4-6 are "retconned" just because the prequels were made after. I am very curious where in the game it establishes itself as a retcon, because having played it and seen a lot of the promotional and other side material, this is clearly not the case and Wikipedia is the ONLY place where such claim is being made presently. -- 109.48.208.106 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources cited in the article consider the game to be a retcon, and your argument conflating this to a series of prequels is fallacious. Unless you can irrefutably prove with reliable sources that the game is in fact not a retcon, the descriptor stays. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"The majority of reliable sources cited in the article consider the game to be a retcon" Incorrect. They do not. They present the possibility of the games happening in a separate timeline, but this is not conclusive (and for good reason). And as time went on before the game came out, they backpedalled on the possibility of a "retcon" more and more. This interview straight up says it's the eighth mainline game and the fourth chronolgically, ergo not a reboot but a mid-quel. So no, my argument is not conflating nor fallatious - the game takes place after the third, and before all the others. It is a midquel. -- 109.48.208.106 (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting how that fansite interview has been the single argument you can present when the bulk of established and reliable sources acknowledge it as a retcon, one of which stating unambiguously that the other post-Naughty Dog titles have been effectively de-canonized. We go by stated facts here, not "presented possibilities". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"has been the single argument" you asked for proof, I gave you proof. Whether you think it's a bad interview or not is completely irrelevant. The game director states it very unambiguously in the interview I linked. The article you linked is not a reliable source because the statement was made by the writer and NOT an actual authority on the game, ergo it is an OPINION FROM THE WRITER AND NOT A FACTUAL STATEMENT ("forgoing The Wrath of Cortex and all of the other main-series games since then" was stated by the author!). "We go by stated facts here, not "presented possibilities"." then admit your fault here, the interview I linked stated it very clearly and every other interview you link is either ambiguous or not even said by an authority figure at all. Thank you. -- 109.48.208.106 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The press's consensus is that the game is a retcon, regardless of how you personally interpret the director's statement on a fansite. Unless a reliable source backs up this alleged interpretation of yours, it will see no place within the article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Press consensus is not factual. What kind of logic is that? It's like you've completely given up. "personally interpret"? Dude, you clearly have not even read the link I posted! ("I mean, technically this is the eighth game in this line! (...) For us, chronologically, that's where the events pick up. (...) The other events that happened after [Crash Warped], they did happen. They may have happened in other alternate timelines, and those may be reflected in some ways in this, but this is a game that picks up right after Crash 3: Warped.") An interview WITH THE GAME DIRECTOR IS A MORE RELIABLE SOURCE THAN THE CONSENSUS OF PEOPLE NOT RELATED TO THE GAME OR ITS STORY. This WILL be in the article and if you refuse to acknowledge my points I will be contacting an admin to take a look. Please stop this nonsense. Thanks. -- 109.48.208.106 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"May have happened" isn't sufficient compared to what journalists on a whole have determined. You can contact anyone you like, but I doubt you'll be getting much support for your argument. The citations verifying the game's status as a retcon met no objections during the Good Article review, and I'm confident they won't now, especially compared to your lone presented source. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please actually READ THE THINGS PROPERLY. If he says something "may have happened," you CANNOT make a DEFINITIVE STATEMENT THAT IT DID OR DID NOT. Therefore, absolutist statements like "it's a retcon" should not be in the article. UNRELATED JOURNALISTS DON'T DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE GAME. What is actually wrong with you!! "The citations verifying the game's status as a retcon met no objections during the Good Article review" As far as I know, a Good Article is a general statement on the article as a whole, not the specific references of the game being a retcon. And even if it was, so what? People can make mistakes, not have enough context to determine if something should or should not be in the article, and the articles can have straight up incorrect info sometimes, and the article itself has had many changes since that review. I am pretty sure the article can still be considered a "Good Article" without this ultimately very minor piece of (mis)information, so arguing with that is completely pointless. You are so adamant about this unimportant piece of information that I can only assume you're reverting it based on emotional reaction and a strange need to hold authority over a wikipedia page. I will be contacting an admin anyway. -- 109.48.208.106 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: This discussion has been listed as requesting for a third opinion at WP:30. NotAGenious (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm inclined to agree with IP and not state that it's a retcon as fact. As IP pointed out a game designer is quite ambiguous about whether the events of the original sequels happened in the timeline of Crash Bandicoot 4. The fact that many secondary sources think it's a retcon can be said in the article, but we shouldn't treat that as fact. Note that IP's incivility through shouting and aggression did not help further their point. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: At the very least, I'm all for clarifying that the secondary sources' judgement is simply their own, and perhaps leaving the matter out of the lead altogether. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)