Given its status as a PlayStation classic, you’d be forgiven for assuming the N Sane Trilogy would remain a PlayStation 4 exclusive. After all, Crash himself was originally Sony’s mascot. The games themselves were the company’s equivalent to Mario. And well, with all the marketing Sony is doing for the title, the remake’s status as a PS4 exclusive almost seemed like a guarantee.
But now it seems that’s not the case! Why?
Because a concept artist working on the game has posted a very interesting video of the game’s menu online. Here it is:
As you can tell, it features Xbox One icons for the buttons. In other words, it’s a look at the N Sane Trilogy’s menu as if it was being accessed on an Xbox One version of the game.
And that’s really interesting. After all, didn’t Sony say it’d be an exclusive?
Yes. Yes they did.
But from the video posted, it seems that may be a lie. Instead, the exclusivity could merely be a time limited one. A quick way to keep Sony fans happen for a while before porting to the game to other platforms to bring it to an even wider audience.
Which isn’t really a bad thing. N. Sane Trilogy is a great remake of the first three games, and one many Xbox and Nintendo fans would like to play.
So to see it come to other consoles would be amazing. It’d be a way for millions of people to try out some of the best 3D platformers ever made.
Can you really be unhappy with that? I know I can’t.
Still, what do you think anyway? Are you happy Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy could be coming to other consoles?
Or does it feel weird having this remake potentially get ported to other systems?
Post your thoughts on the matter here or on social media today!
Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy Artist Shows Save/Load Screens with Xbox Prompts (Reddit)
Prior to Yooka-Laylee, FreezeMe and Poi, there was one other 3D platformer that started the whole genre revival off. Named A Hat in Time, the game starred a character called Hat Kid as she collected pieces of time in various worlds, all while avoiding the machinations of the evil Moustache Girl. It looked great, did really well on Kickstarter (raising over $296,000 in funds there) and eventually kicked off the entire N64 collectathon revival altogether.
But while the games it inspired came and went, A Hat in Time has continued trucking away in the background.
We’ve seen fantastic new levels set in places like a train and a film studio. We’ve seen interesting costumes and mechanics from the game posted on Twitter.
And in general, we’ve seen a lot of things that indicate this will be an amazing 3D platformer. Perhaps even the true return to form the genre has needed.
Yet for all that, it wasn’t ever really announced for consoles. Somehow, the latest in a genre made for home consoles has remained a PC exclusive since the start of the development.
But that’s now changed! Why? Because as the title suggests, A Hat in Time has now been announced as coming to the PS4 and Xbox One! Here’s the official trailer about these two console releases for the title:
It’s pretty good all things considered. However, it still leaves one very obvious question here.
And that’s why it’s not been announced for a Nintendo system yet. Seriously, this game is made for the Nintendo audience. It’s inspired by Mario Sunshine, Banjo-Kazooie and the Legend of Zelda The Wind Waker.
It’s a game the Nintendo fanbase would adore, especially if you take their interest in Yooka-Laylee and Super Mario Odyssey as an indicator here.
Meanwhile the players on the other systems are… perhaps a little less endearing towards games like this.
=Remember, Rare tried it on the Xbox and Xbox 360. It’s why Microsoft bought them, and why Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Viva Piñata, Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts and others were released on Microsoft’s systems.
Yet their fans didn’t really care. The games just didn’t sell to the Xbox demographic.
Which is something I suspect may be the case here too. A Hat in Time is a good game, and it’s nice its coming out on Xbox One and PS4…
But it’s just the wrong type of game for those consoles in general. It’s one Nintendo fans would likely buy into more.
So let’s hope Gears for Breakfast takes some notes and announces a Switch port at some point. Cause if so, I’m buying the game on day 1!
As any Nintendo fan likely knows, Michael Pachter has a… tendency to make some rather stupid arguments in his analysis. He claimed the Wii would fail in 2006, then said the same thing over and over till the console generation ended.
He argued that home consoles would be finished in 2014, with the likes of the PS4 and Xbox One being non existent.
Add his constant comments on Nintendo going third party or his rude attitude towards Satoru Iwata back in 2016, and you’ve got that someone no one in the gaming world takes seriously.
Which his latest ‘argument’ won’t be changing one bit. Why? Because Pachter quite literally calls Japanese games irrelevant. He does this in an interview with Game Bolt stating that:
Japanese games don’t matter in the larger scheme of things, You are talking about 2 million units, I mean, a piece of crap like Mafia 3 sold 5 million units, and that game is a piece of crap. So, no, 2 million units is a rounding error, that doesn’t matter. No one is making money off of that.
It’s a very general view, and I guess I can see where he’s coming from.
But at the same time, his arguments also have a lot of flaws in them.
For one thing, they kind of assumes that every Japanese title is niche and every Western one isn’t. Because hey, Persona 2 (a niche title) only sold 2 million copies whereas Mafia 3 (a less niche one) sold 5 million.
But that’s not the case in any region of the world. In fact, a large percentage of games in the West also sell as much or less than Persona 2.
And that’s absolutely fine. If you’re making game for a niche audience (or as part of an unpopular genre in general), it will sell less than a mainstream ‘shoot everything’ title would. That bullet hell shooter, that super hard platformer, the visual novel or comedy RPG… they’re always going to sell less than the likes of Call of Duty or Halo, regardless of their quality.
Yet that’s not something that makes them irrelevant. I mean, imagine if you applied that logic to the real world. Could you really say every other restaurant is ‘irrelevant’ because McDonalds sells more on a daily basis? How about that all drinks sellers outside of America are irrelevant because Coca Cola has so much of the market?
You couldn’t, because many of these other products and businesses are not directly competing with McDonalds or Coca Cola.
So you’d compare say, the top soft drink brands, or the top beer brands, or the top tea brands with each other, not with the market as a whole.
On that level… Street Fighter V might be a success, since it’s popular in the fighting game community. The Resident Evil games may be successful, because they’re popular among survival horror fans. And while Persona 5 may not be up there with Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, it’s still pretty popular and well liked among RPG fans.
That’s what really matters here. Not whether one or two niche titles from Japan compare to one or two less niche titles from Western developers.
And this is especially true given that said niche/mainstream titles are only a tiny part of their respective markets.
Seriously. Go and compare Mario, Pokémon, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Smash Bros or Splatoon to mainstream Western games. Those (and many more) sell at roughly the same level, because they’re also mainstream titles meant for a general audience.
If you want to compare your Western triple A games to anything, compare them to Japanese triple A titles like these:
Not the niche titles that aren’t aiming to sell 20 million copies in the first place.
But Pachter didn’t do that, because comparing mainstream titles to other mainstream titles would show that the Japanese gaming industry is not ‘dying’ or ‘dead’ compared to the Western one.
It’s like saying the ‘Western’ market is dead because you compared Shovel Knight to Pokémon.
But hang on, you argue. Doesn’t Pachter discount Nintendo as ‘different’ to Japanese games as a whole?
Yes he does. Problem is, with that logic you could argue a lot of questionable things. Remove what’s considered ‘outliers’, and you can twist the truth into anything.
I mean, imagine if you said ‘social networks aren’t that popular, with the exception of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat’. That’s pretty misleading isn’t it? You’ve cut out four of the most popular social media sites and made a claim that’s very clearly wrong by any normal way of thinking.
Or how about some others?
If you ignore the USA, UK, Australia and Canada, English isn’t a popular first language worldwide
Ignoring Disney, animated movies haven’t done that well in the last decade
Eh, no one uses search engines any more. Assuming Google doesn’t exist
Either way, it’s the same case here. You’re basically removing the number 1 player in the Japanese gaming market if you pretend Nintendo doesn’t exist. Or is somehow ‘different’ from the rule.
You may as well by saying this:
And that’s the case here. By comparing niche games to mainstream ones and deliberately leaving out any evidence that disagrees with his theory, Pachter is being dishonest and making the Japanese video games industry look worse than it actually is.
So no, it’s not ‘irrelevant’. The Japanese gaming industry is doing just fine.
You just need to stop comparing apples and oranges here.
Japanese Games Are Still Irrelevant to the Mass Market, says Michael Pachter (Gaming Bolt)
A while ago, it was announced that Call of Duty WW2 would have a Nazi Zombies mode. This was good news for fans of the series, since Nazi Zombies was one of the most popular parts of the entire series.
However, that’s all we knew about it originally. Yeah we knew it existed. But we didn’t know if it would be a return to the good old days of World of War or Black Ops.
Or some sort of weird copy that didn’t understand the appeal of the original. We didn’t know.
Until now that is! Because a video has leaked online showing zombies mode in Call of Duty WW2!
Here it is in case you haven’t seen it yourself:
In the last few weeks, I’ve seen an interesting trend occur online. Put simply, a lot of people have started to treat video game glitches like they’re a bad thing, and decided that their existence in a game is somehow proof the developer got lazy.
And this can be seen on my videos for games like Breath of the Wild. I’ve seen people call out the QA team for every instance where I managed to get Link to clip through a wall. I’ve seen others say that Nintendo is lazy due to allowing these bugs to get into the game. Heck, in some cases I’ve even seen joke comparisons to Sonic 06. As if the presence of these glitches in Breath of the Wild means its an obvious beta that was rushed out the door as quickly as possible.
People assume this stuff is possible only because Nintendo is competent:
However, this isn’t necessarily the case.
Yes, it’s possible a game could be rushed out early. Or simply wasn’t tested properly for whatever reason. Something like Action 52 might be an example of that.
But a game isn’t necessarily bad (or broken) just because it has a lot of glitches.
There are a few key reasons for this. Reason 1 being that ambitious games will almost always have more glitches than unambitious ones.
Obviously there are a few exceptions here. Mario & Luigi Paper Jam is glitchier than Dream Team for instance. Despite being built on the same engine with a lot of recycled content.
But for the most part, an ambitious game will have more glitches than an unambitious one. Take Pokémon for example. The original games were ridiculously ambitious, and had to really struggle to fit all the content in a single Game Boy cart.
As a result, they’re packed with glitches. That’s because the way they were coded was optimised for size rather than error checking. They had to fit a lot of code onto small cartridges.
So to get it to fit, things were skipped. Checks were removed. Etc.
And the resulting games are perhaps some of the most glitch filled games in history, with everything from glitch Pokémon like Missingno to being able to wrong warp to the Elite Four or even rewrite the game’s programming on the fly.
However, that doesn’t make them bad. They’re amazingly fun games which set off a huge fad back in the 90s and maintain a steady fanbase even today. It’s just that due to how hard they tried and how many technical boundaries were pushed, glitches crept in.
What’s more, the same goes for all manner of other great games throughout history. Super Mario 64 (and its DS port) are littered with glitches, but that’s in part because of all the ground breaking ideas and tech they put into practice. No one had ever made a 3D platformer quite like Mario 64 before, and Nintendo themselves were learning as they went along. So again, glitches crept in.
The same goes for almost every Zelda game. It goes for Smash Bros Melee and Mario Kart. GoldenEye, Crash Bandicoot, the classic Sonic games, the classic Mega Man games… the list of great games filled with bugs goes on and on.
Yet it’s not just ambition you have to consider here.
It’s also plain old game testing limitations.
Put simply, no company can ever find all the bugs in a game. It’s impossible. Every piece of software in existence has more potential flaws and security problems than can ever be truly fixed.
And this is magnified up to eleven when the games are released to the public. Remember, Nintendo’s testing team is both limited in size and strapped for time. They don’t have months or years to test every minor wall and character interaction in the game. Nor do they have the unlimited time and resources to fix every little thing that might be found.
So while they do the best job possible, things will slip through the radar. Or they’ll be marked as ‘won’t fix’.
Then when you add however many million players into the mix (Breath of the Wild has sold about 3 million copies so far), those things will get found. There are simply more players looking for glitches (or just playing in ways unforeseen by the development team) than there were doing QA testing.
Let’s not forget how much free time gamers can have either. Again, remember that for Nintendo’s in house teams, quality assurance is a job. They have to move between one game and another every few weeks or so to make sure all of said games work well. They can’t test Breath of the Wild forever.
Players on the other hand… they can. They could spend eight hours a day looking for bugs in the game and do so for years. They could test every wall and object in the game. See how every character interaction goes.
Hence they’ll find more glitches. Look at Stryder 7x and Pannenkoek2012 for instance. They play almost nothing but Paper Mario and Super Mario 64 respectively.
So guess what? They find numerous bugs in these games.
And when speedrunning communities and glitch focused sites and YouTube channels (who like the ad revenue these glitch demonstration brings) are factored into the equation… well, a game is likely to be broken to all hell within weeks or months. It’s the same sort of situation as with computer cybersecurity. Microsoft might try to patch all the issues in Windows, but they can’t really compete with the hordes of security researchers, bored users and hackers trying to find said issues for their own personal gain.
So don’t worry too much about glitches in games. They’re bad if they cause problems, but for the most part they’re simply a fact of life that you cannot ever avoid. Every game has them, and every ambitious game will have them by the thousand.
They do not necessarily mean a game was poorly coded, not tested properly or tossed out the door by the development team.