Talk:Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy

Will it be released on more platforms as well?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Will it also be released on more platforms as well as the PS4 version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.130.213 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, this game is PS4 exclusive. --Apolo13 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAFORUM, but this is a PS4 only, and is likely to always be due to Sony's small involvement in the title. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

More than likely - TIMED exclusive. There're STILL nothing concrete, but also a LOT of hints that it will also release on other platforms. And it will make total sense, too. -- TVippy  16:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

voice cast

should it be mentioned that most of the voice cast from Mind Over Mutant will reprise their respective characters? From what I saw in the intro, it looks like Lex Lang and Maurice LaMarche will reprise Cortex and N. Brio respectively...Visokor (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be located, then perhaps such information belongs in the article in prose form. Cast lists, however, should be excluded per WP:VGSCOPE. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible sequels

I think the fact that the devs have been asked about followups and they've at least expressed interest, a Possible sequel section should be put back Osh33m (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be more than a "Yeah we'd love to do another one"—essentially just generic promo speak. If there's official talks of VV exploring a sequel, then perhaps it may be notable enough, but for now I think otherwise. – Rhain ☔ 13:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Error on Page

I don't know where else to put this but there's an error. In the article under the "Overview" it says "It also features high-definition 4K resolution and remastered audio and cutscenes, featuring newly recorded dialogue from past voice actors from the franchise." The game running at 4K is false. It actually runs at 1440p and the term "Fur-K" they used for marketing was misleading. Here's my source. http://wccftech.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-1440p30fps/ 4.31.34.209 (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Andrew 9 August 2017

 Note: Adding template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227063716/http://beefjack.com/news/crash-bandicoot-co-creator-id-love-to-see-an-hd-version/ to http://beefjack.com/news/crash-bandicoot-co-creator-id-love-to-see-an-hd-version/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2013/05/07/the-other-naughty-dog-co-founder-of-the-uncharted-studio-chats-next-gen-the-last-of-us-and-how-hed-fix-crash-bandicoot/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot rumors since 2013

So the reasons that were given to remove this section of the development were as follows:

• it's badly written.

-if that is the case, then please help to reword it instead of remove it. this information is insightful given the history of Crash with PlayStation (it is notable no matter how you look at it) as well as what the actual information delineates.

• some of these sources are unreliable.

-then please specify which of those you see are as such. the sources I posted were IGN, Destructoid, among several other sources I've seen being used on wikipedia all the time.

• there is no proof this "rumor" was this game, it could have just been fan created stuff

-there's no proof that this rumor was not (the development cycle of) this game, either and evidence point towards this being the actual case. not only that, some of the evidence came directly from Sony - such as the 4Theplayers trailer, that was an official Playstation video as well as the official Playstation Brazil twitter tweeting Crash Bandicoot (then subsequently deleting). That's not fan work. Osh33m (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Rumors of a new Crash Bandicoot game for the PlayStation 4 were heard since November 2013, the launch of the console - Rumors, meaning it wasn't confirmed. Unreliable source too, so this should be removed

1. PlayStation 4's #4ThePlayers campaign featured a road sign with a silhouette of Crash Bandicoot, and an arrow pointing towards the orange diamond logo of Sony Computer Entertainment - Trivial, who cares? Should be removed.

1. It was also noted by publications such as IGN that Crash had been removed from Activision's official website, - first party "source" that says to "Search for Crash Bandicoot on Activision's website". What's this even have to do with the game? They published it so this is false anyway.

1. PlayStation Brazil posted a picture of Crash Bandicoot on their Twitter handle, but it was shortly removed. - Again, trivial cruft that doesn't belong. Unreliable source, removing.

• So as you can see, this leaves us with basically "Rumors of a new Crash Bandicoot game for the PlayStation 4 were first heard in 2013, with an Activision representative stating that they still owned the rights to the series and were exploring ways to bring it back" as the only non-trivial claim with a reliable source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Dissident. A brief mention like he says is fine, but the detailed version talks about too many trivial details may or may not have had anything to do with this game in particular. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese release

Just recently, Sega announced they would be publishing the Nintendo Switch version of Crash N.Sane Trilogy in Japan on behalf of Activision, on October 18th 2018: https://twitter.com/SEGA_OFFICIAL/status/1021937136906395649

Before that, the PS4 version was originally released in Japan on August 3rd, 2017 and it was published by Sony: https://www.jp.playstation.com/blog/detail/5083/20170606-crashbandicoot.html?tkgpscom=dc_crashbandicoot_ps_tw_20170606

Plus, a Bonus Edition (which is the updated v1.06 version with the DLC levels) will get released in Japan by Sony again on August 2nd of this year: https://www.jp.playstation.com/blog/detail/7178/20180703-crashbandicoot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.226.176.248 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep in mind this doesn't belong in the lead or infobox, but it can (and should) go in the release section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Remake / remaster

This is boring, because it's again about the same remake vs. remaster thing, but the remaster article itself (Remaster#Video games) states the following:

A video game remaster typically has ambience and design updated to the capabilities of a more powerful console, while a video game remake is also updated but with recreated models.

though the source is barely passing.

Another in Video game remake:

a newer interpretation of an older work, characterized by updated or changed assets [..] are considered remakes of their original versions for the Nintendo 64, and not a remaster or a port, since there are new character models and texture packs. [..] would be considered a remaster, since it retains the same, albeit updated upscaled aesthetics of the original

I'd propose finally changing it to "remake" because of that definition. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

To add on this, for example, Destructoid review, thegamer article, Venturebeat, Screenrant all call it a remake, so "Per sources" argument in regards to "remaster" doesn't really hold water.

Because there's of course are mixed opinions in gaming media, with mixed usage of "remake" and "remaster", we should then defer the decision to the definition in Video game remake, as quoted before. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As stated within the article, the developers describe the compilation as a "remaster plus", as the fundamental design was replicated rather than reinterpreted as it would be in a remake. Even with that description aside, the developers' own classification trumps all other sources. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That "reinterpreted" argument doesn't really hold the water too, because for example, Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen is considered a remake of, Pokémon Red and Blue, while not "reinterpreting" anything.

"Own classification" is not an argument either, see WP:PRIMARY, while a lot of secondary sources contradict it and call it a "remake". Secondary sources, in general trump the primary ones. -- Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nintendo outright described the Pokemon titles as remakes upon their announcement, while Activision has firmly described the N. Sane Trilogy as remasters, as do other reliable sources (GameSpot, Game Informer, EGM). Besides, Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference for such matters. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

1. And we actually do not use the Nintendo's definition, and should not; and if it's sourced like that, we should remove the reference, because using it would be unacceptable. WP:PRIMARY points that secondary sources trump the primary. The point here is that in this regard secondary sources are in agreement, that's why it's listed as a remake -- because other sources say so, not Nintendo.

2. I'm afraid that you're missing that I'm pointing that other sources (as listed before, Destructoid review, thegamer article, Venturebeat, Screenrant) do contradict the sources that you have listed. So we need to resolve the contradiction (or to state both definitions in article); again, WP:PRIMARY points that secondary sources trump the primary, so we do not accept developers viewpoint.

3. You're mistaken, I do not use Wikipedia itself as a reference for such matters, I refer to the definition that is sourced in the corresponding article. So I'm going to copy-paste the whole paragraph here from Video game remake, and point that it's sourced:

A remake offers a newer interpretation of an older work, characterized by updated or changed assets. For example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D for the Nintendo 3DS are considered remakes of their original versions for the Nintendo 64, and not a remaster or a port, since there are new character models and texture packs. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker HD for Wii U would be considered a remaster, since it retains the same, albeit updated upscaled aesthetics of the original.

In the end, the argument should be made against the sources referenced here, not the "wikipedia itself". Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's an absolute authority that explicitly and specifically classifies the N. Sane Trilogy as a remake or a remaster, I don't see any surefire way to resolve the inconsistency in how the trilogy is described by otherwise reliable sources. If the secondary sources themselves can't even decide, then what's supposed to be the dealbreaker if not the developers themselves? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I argue that it's not on them to resolve, but on a definition itself. That's to where the disagreement comes down to. - Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for a description to be decided by a definition that no central authority has proclaimed rather than what a consensus of reliable sources determines, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. All statements on any given Wikipedia article must be verified by what reliable sources dictate, and as it stands, they evidently can't figure it out one way or the other, so neither can we. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References