I hope they try their hand at a new Crash game in the same line of the classics but with better platforming and level design first, give Crash series what Donkey Kong Country: Return and DKC:TF gave to the DKC series.You guys know that regardless of how you feel about Crash, we also have to buy this game in order for the Spyro Trilogy to be possible as well. And sweet baby Jesus I fucking NEED the Spyro Trilogy.
How does other recent platformer games had performed in the review part? Like Tropical Freeze, for example
...it might pain you to realize that Crash's original adventures aren't as inventive or surprising as they were 20 years ago.
The Games Machine 8/10
http://www.thegamesmachine.it/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy/crash-bandicoot-trilogy-recensione-ps4/
IGN Spain 9/10
http://es.ign.com/crash-bandicoot-remastered-ps4/120419/review/crash-nsane-trilogy-analisis-para-ps4
Gamesradar 3.5/5
http://www.gamesradar.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-review/
Meristation 8.8
http://meristation.as.com/playstation-4/crash-bandicoot-n--sane-trilogy/analisis-juego/2132744
Tropical Freeze got a 6/10 from GameSpot (ironically, difficulty played a part in that score as well) and 83 on Metacritic. I think the only platformers to get above 90 on Metacritic since the beginning of the PS4/Wii U era are 3D World (93) and Rayman Legends (92). Even some of the bigger names like Yoshi, Kirby and NSMBU got roughly 80 or so.
It's really difficult for platforming games to get into the higher scores, so 80 or so for a trilogy of 20 year old remakes is a solid performance for Crash.
From the Gamespot Review:
This might be one of the stupidest things I've seen written in a video game review this year - I really, I can't even.
Tropical Freeze got a 6/10 from GameSpot (ironically, difficulty played a part in that score as well) and 83 on Metacritic. I think the only platformers to get above 90 on Metacritic since the beginning of the PS4/Wii U era are 3D World (93) and Rayman Legends (92). Even some of the bigger names like Yoshi, Kirby and NSMBU got roughly 80 or so.
It's really difficult for platforming games to get into the higher scores, so 80 or so for a trilogy of 20 year old remakes is a solid performance for Crash.
TF only having a 83 Metacric is genuinely mind boggling to me. I know it was disappointing to some that Retro were working on a new DK instead of Metroid or another IP, but they're among the absolute elite in terms of platform level design. The only real flaw in TF was the boss fights, but everything else is top notch for the genre.
Gamespot is notoriously one of the sites that suffers from git gud syndrome.
I dont normally like to say that cause it deters people from games like the Souls series but they REALLY arent good at platformers.
TF only having a 83 Metacric is genuinely mind boggling to me. I know it was disappointing to some that Retro were working on a new DK instead of Metroid or another IP, but they're among the absolute elite in terms of platform level design. The only real flaw in TF was the boss fights, but everything else is top notch for the genre.
From the Gamespot Review:
This might be one of the stupidest things I've seen written in a video game review this year - I really, I can't even.
From the Gamespot Review:
This might be one of the stupidest things I've seen written in a video game review this year - I really, I can't even.
Why? Mario 64 isn't as surprising now like it was when it came out, the same for Halo, Half Life, etc. It's natural.
Why? Mario 64 isn't as surprising now like it was when it came out, the same for Halo, Half Life, etc. It's natural.
Could(n't) give a shit about these scores. Game was good then. Game is good now.
Yeah it kind of goes without saying that a 20 year old game isn't surprising, why even mention it.
Because there will be people buying this game that never played the originals and should know that yeah, its gonna feel a little dated?
Why? Mario 64 isn't as surprising now like it was when it came out, the same for Halo, Half Life, etc. It's natural.
That kinda inherently comes with it being a remaster. As it's described on the package.
If they haven't played them that statement doesn't ring true.Because there will be people buying this game that never played the originals and should know that yeah, its gonna feel a little dated?
If you are talking gamespot the reviewer explains that the game will feel dated for newcomers. They mention that the platforming will feel rudimentary and that the incredible visuals can't hide this. That isn't "stupid" it's just an opinion that doesn't align with yours. I'm buying the game regardless of what any reviewer says because I know that I will enjoy it (despite never playing a crash game) but the amount of people getting riled up over a 6 is alarming. It's just a score.That anyone would think otherwise according to this guy is the ridiculous thing. Of course it won't be surprising or inventive. It's a remaster/remake. Lowering the score because of that is pretty stupid.
It literally does not hurt anything to say it then?
If you are talking gamespot the reviewer explains that the game will feel dated for newcomers. They mention that the platforming will feel rudimentary and that the incredible visuals can't hide this. That isn't "stupid" it's just an opinion that doesn't align with yours. I'm buying the game regardless of what any reviewer says because I know that I will enjoy it (despite never playing a crash game) but the amount of people getting riled up over a 6 is alarming. It's just a score.
This is by far the best quote; "Deaths sometimes feel unfair". The person who wrote the review should not play any Souls games. :lol
This is by far the best quote; "Deaths sometimes feel unfair". The person who wrote the review should not play any Souls games. :lol
I feel like buying the game in spite of that Gamespot review.
I replayed all Crashes last year and they hold up fine.
I honestly don't get the whole it's too hard argument and people not elaborating on it. That challenge and conquering is an amazing feeling. I love that sense of accomplishment. Do people not like fun anymore? Are people so used to hand holding nowadays? Dark souls is praised for its difficulty but a tough couple levels in crash warrants a deduction in points? I don't get it to be honest. And that reviewer at Gamespot needs to finish the games and amend his review imo.
I honestly don't get the whole it's too hard argument and people not elaborating on it. That challenge and conquering is an amazing feeling. I love that sense of accomplishment. Do people not like fun anymore? Are people so used to hand holding nowadays? Dark souls is praised for its difficulty but a tough couple levels in crash warrants a deduction in points? I don't get it to be honest. And that reviewer at Gamespot needs to finish the games and amend his review imo.
That kinda inherently comes with it being a remaster. As it's described on the package.
If they haven't played them that statement doesn't ring true.
The sentence in the review implies that people thought the remake would be groundbreaking or something, when it's clear that it's just a remake and wouldn't be innovative.
Isn't it a remake though? That's what GAF is telling me.
From what I gather the difficulty does not seem fair because times have changed. For example, in the souls series if you die it's entirely your fault. You can't blame the controls, physics, or anything else which is what makes playing them so rewarding. Crash on the other hand is filled with 'cheap' deaths that are a product of outdated game design.
This is false, Crash 1 is a lame game and pretty much always has been. Can't have stiff movement in a platformer, sorry. And that save system is just a clusterfuck. Excessively hard to 100%, too.
2 and 3 are indeed great, though.
He could give the game a score of 3 for all I care, it's his opinion (Although he didn't finish any of the three games, which I generally dislike in reviews). But I don't understand why anyone would go into the game expecting innovation according to him.
Get better?
It's not that difficult.