Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time

Leaked days ago but now announced, it's the sequel to the original PSone trilogy!



The game's Twitter page promises "New abilities? More playable characters? Alternate dimensions? Ridonkulous bosses? ", but so long as it's staying faithful to what made those PlayStation games so memorable, I think this'll be the bollocks.

I'm excited, how about youse?

There's something uncanny about hearing Fatboy Slim blasting out over a modern looking Crash game.

The futuristic levels look pretty great. I still find the new Crash character model weird, but the trailer looks pretty faithful to the original trilogy which is a good sign.

I haven't played a Crash since the PS1. Maybe I should give that trilogy box a go and see if they're as bad as my Nintendo fanboy days made me assume . . .

I should be excited but I didn't really like the trilogy and do think Matthew Castle is right that only was good on PS1 as all we had (Well Spyro).

Also, funny they've done a Star Wars and everything after Crash 3 isn't lore.

That's kind of what I always assumed, but I know so many Playstation folks who have convinced themselves they're good games. Plus, I reckon I'd quite enjoy a linear platform adventure around now.

I can think of other games on other systems cough Xenoblade cough likely the same people only think are good because all they had

I often hear about TMNT on the NES now American YouTubers hate it but loved it as kids because that was the only game they had

I can take or leave the first Crash game, but 2 and 3 are genuinely ace. I can only presume 4 will be more in the vein of those two.

(Spyro always was better though)

masofdas wrote:

...Matthew Castle is right that only was good on PS1 as all we had (Well Spyro)

I disagree with this take. It's fair enough to think that Crash wouldn't be up there with Mario, but I don't think it's fair to say that it was only good because there was nothing else.

The first game wasn't all that and suffered from being really hard, but the other 2 games were really good. Bright, colourful, responsive controls, subtle assists for people who got stuck, time attack modes for experts, memorable soundtracks, varied level design, fun boss battles....

We've talked about it before but all I can say is I agree with him as I used to have Crash 3 in my top games as it was great, then I played the remake trilogy which I found to muh as I could be playing so many better platformers have between 1998 and now.

I mean besides Mario, sure, but I genuinely can't think of many other platformers that stack up to Crash 2 or 3. Muss's rundown of the game's key qualities really rings true in my eyes and that's not even talking about some of the brilliant setpiece levels like the polar bear or tiger levels.

It might just be me then but I used to love them and when played again didn't, which at the time saw various tweets like Castle's which I was like yeah you're right.

So Crash 4 unless it gets super reviews isn't for me if it's like the Crash games of old which it will be.

I only ever played that original Crash Bandicoot demo & even back then I felt the concept was a bit too simple compared to other platform games, almost like it was an updated version of Frogger without adding too much. I know it's tough to tell from this short of a trailer but it doesn't look like it does much different from the older games.

JayMoyles wrote:

I mean besides Mario, sure, but I genuinely can't think of many other platformers that stack up to Crash 2 or 3.

I think this is it. Mario IS 3D platforming. Nothing comes close. Maybe Crash is second best, but that's like saying a cool breeze is the second best physical sensation after ejaculation. Different leagues, different sports, different planets.

Muss wrote:

masofdas wrote:

...Matthew Castle is right that only was good on PS1 as all we had (Well Spyro)

I disagree with this take. It's fair enough to think that Crash wouldn't be up there with Mario, but I don't think it's fair to say that it was only good because there was nothing else.

The first game wasn't all that and suffered from being really hard, but the other 2 games were really good. Bright, colourful, responsive controls, subtle assists for people who got stuck, time attack modes for experts, memorable soundtracks, varied level design, fun boss battles....

He's a talented writer, but Matthew Castle has had some honking takes in his time, and this might be the honkingest (?). The PSone was loaded with quality platformers - Ape Escape, Jumping Flash, Abe's Oddysee, and so on - and Crash was genuinely great in it's own right. Muss sums it up very nicely. 

Buskalilly's analogy between Mario and Crash is poetry, pure poetry.

The take about Crash might be wrong but don't you think you might have liked something because that's what you had, though?

The Cappuccino Kid wrote:

Buskalilly's analogy between Mario and Crash is poetry, pure poetry.

I'd much rather be told this than see

The Cappuccino Kid liked this.

Crumpy Andy disliked this

To be fair, a bot that said that could replace you and nobody would notice

masofdas wrote:

The take about Crash might be wrong but don't you think you might have liked something because that's what you had, though?

Yes and no.

If you only have access to a small collection of games, especially if you're young and have to play what you're given, then obviously you're likely going to give more time to something that's a bit naff. I played Army Men: Sarges Heroes 2 for far longer than anyone should have because it was the only shooting game my parents thought was appropriate for me (aside from Small Soldiers).

But did I think it was a banger, a worldie? No.

Did I like it more than I would have if I'd had access to other games? Yeah probably.

I liked video games, so I was generally willing to see the good in things more than the bad when I was a child but that didn't stop me from thinking Beast Wars: Transformers (PS1) was terrible (it's terrible).

Of course, I can only speak for myself but one of the most frustrating things for me as a child was knowing that I felt a certain way about something whilst being unable to articulate why I felt that way about it - or perhaps more accurately, be able to talk to an adult about my feelings and feel like they were respecting them. This is probably one of the reasons that I'm fairly good at explaining things now. It's not like I didn't understand how I felt when I was younger, it's more that I couldn't describe those feelings. So sometimes I wonder, when children give illogical or random justifications for things, if it's really that they just haven't developed the language yet more than a lacking frame of reference.

That's not to say that my thoughts on Crash, or Sarges Heroes, or the Space Jam video game are the same as they would have been back then. Tastes change, I play about 1 JRPG a year now even though I used to think they were the pinnacle of story-telling [as a young teen], and I think Family Guy sucks now [even though Buska, I and friends would watch it all the time and think of it as the greatest show ever made when we were in GCSE/A-Level years].  Don't get me wrong, I was a tribal shit about the PS being better than the Xbox at times, because that's what I was given. But really, I think that was probably more a reactionary response to a schoolyard culture that was, at some level, saying "your family sucks because you have the wrong box" rather than any sense of reason. I understand where you're question is coming from. But my Family Guy U-turn is more down to learning about history and socioeconomics. I always felt Space Jam was wonky even though I really liked it. I'd like it less now, but I always knew it wasn't good

masofdas wrote:

The take about Crash might be wrong but don't you think you might have liked something because that's what you had, though?

I mean, I liked the games I played because... you know, I liked them. Even back when my only machine was the PS2 and I was an idiot child, I could tell that there was a clear gulf in quality between the likes of keech like Legend of Kay and the likes of Jak and Daxter.

Great post Muss and guess you as well Jay, I just thought it was a interesting take from Castle and the one I often hear about TMNT on the NES.

I reckon I personally could think of some licensed Mega Drive or PS1 games which I may have loved at the time but might be a tad gash now. That think you saying taste's change over time or having a better understanding of quality impacts this.

Anyway I hope you enjoy Crash 4.

masofdas wrote:

don't you think you might have liked something because that's what you had, though?

Sonic fans exist so this is definitely a real phenomenon.

I knew you'd chime in with a zinger like that!

Sonic games are an interesting case point though, very popular when it came out but were there many imitators? I think there were but most of them sucked.

It's such a different type of platformer to Mario or Crash though, with its heavier reflexive jumping and trial and error focus... at times it's almost like a rhythm game. That styles' a bit of a dinosaur today although you do still get the odd game like it. I feel like Super Meat Boy is a somewhat similar, but better, modern execution - although SMB levels are super-short for the most part, there is a huge emphasis on speed, and definitely on trial and error.

I liked Sonic at the time although I never had the right console for it. I'd probably still like it now. I really liked the graphics style at the time, and still do - everything on the PS1 was 3-d, at least everything I had was, so my 2-d platforming and spirtes were all from the Gameboys.

I like everything about Sonic games except the feeling of playing them! I just don't like the way he feels to control. Too much acceleration and momentum, so he feels great when he's going fast but horrible when there's any interaction to do. Super Meat Boy and Celeste are much closer to a Mario in terms of controlling the character.

Buskalilly wrote:

Too much acceleration and momentum, so he feels great when he's going fast but horrible when there's any interaction to do.

Yes. As someone who keeps trying to put physics numbers into game engines and getting it wrong, I get this - he feels a bit like a mistake, in that someone's set the top speed too high and the movement force too low. I think that's why I was quite happy playing Sonic 2, in that there was a lot going on, but the whole game was filled with things to help the lad get going.