# Talk:Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled

Need to update the cover art.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:9052:B901:A9C8:7325:2B5F:E267 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC) 

 is the official artwork now, it should be swapped unless updated without the region rating system 'G'. Rebirth3k (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Then get a version without the giant rating, shrink it down to a size within wikipedia guidelines, and upload it as a new version of the same file, not as a totally new one. It's not hard to find. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
If it's that easy to find, how come you haven't found it? Please use the correct cover art, and not the outdated one. Rebirth3k (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This honestly shouldn't even be a debate. Setting aside the fact that they went to the trouble of creating a model for Penta and inserting him into a cutscene where he wasn't before, the Characters paragraph cites a blog post from Activision that says, to quote its very first sentence directly, "Featuring all the kooky characters from Crash Team Racing". That's an official confirmation of Penta's inclusion, and to suggest otherwise would require a source beyond "he's not in this version of the character select screen". -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not an official confirmation of Penta's inclusion and you know full well that it isn't an official confirmation of Penta's inclusion. An official confirmation would be to call him out specifically. You bring up that blog, but continue to read past that first paragraph and you'll see a list of characters - all the characters we know for a fact are in the game, as of the writing of that list. Notice someone missing? That's right - Penta isn't there. His name is clearly absent from the list and he has yet to show up in any gameplay videos. The model argument is poor because it's clearly a reused model from N-Sane Trilogy, he WAS in the cutscene originally and that doesn't automatically confirm him as playable. Besides, Nitro Kart made the claim "Play as any character in the Crash universe", and we know for a fact that wasn't true.
Just wait until he is officially confirmed and gameplay of him surfaces before adding him. That's what we did before the Nitro Kart characters were confirmed. It's awkward enough when you say there are 26 characters when the current most up-to-date videos show a roster of 25. 85.211.129.184 (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I did read past that line. Note the phrasing. "Beginner characters have average speed, good ecceleration, and incredible turning abilities, like[...]" "Intermediate characters have good speed, acceleration, and turning, such as[...]" "Advanced characters have amazing speed, good acceleration, but limited turn and are for experts only! Examples include[...]" And Penta's model IS different from the N-Sane Trilogy penguin (note the scarf), and he was barely visible originally, whereas he's front and center now. Why would they go through the trouble of emphasizing him if he was cut?
There's a difference between a marketing line on the box and a PR statement specifically saying "every character from these two games are playable". If they say everyone, that means everyone, including Penta. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't count and you know full well that doesn't count, as well as why it doesn't count. The fact of the matter is, Penta has not yet been confirmed as a playable character directly. And not once did I say he was cut, what I said was he has not been confirmed. You keep digging into this "everyone is playable" thing, but that really means little without actual evidence - for example, Mortal Kombat 2011 was stated to be based on the original Mortal Kombat trilogy, but Rain, one of the characters from that trilogy, was not playable until he was added as DLC. Also articles kept saying Shao Kahn and Kintaro would be playable, but they weren't.
Just wait until Penta is officially confirmed directly, and then we can add him. As of right now, he's not confirmed based on the rules of Wikipedia so we can't add him. 85.211.129.184 (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Except that Wikipedia's rules say that information has to be verifiable. And the sentence I posted, "The playable character roster of Nitro-Fueled includes every racer featured in Crash Team Racing" is supported by the cited source , which says "Featuring all the kooky characters from Crash Team Racing". In the interest of compromise, though, I've removed the number from the passage and only left what can be directly attributed to the source. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And yet the same article does not list Penta in the list of characters. Stop obsessing over that one little sentence, it still does not confirm Penta's inclusion. Even if he is confirmed later, it wouldn't be the source that confirms him, merely hints at him. 85.211.129.184 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, see, now Penta has been officially confirmed, since screenshots exist showing his in-game playable existence where they didn't before. 85.211.142.108 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can the characters from Crash Tag Team Racing be added to the character section like the other Grand Prix characters? They have been confirmed to be coming to the game via the seasonal Grand Prix mode by an Activision representative during a stream. IceZoned (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

First you'll have to find a clip of the stream where they said it. Post it here with the timestamp so we can hear it in context. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVMiV1WyqnI (16:11 mark) IceZoned (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
From the clip: "[...]And then in addition to all of the tracks that we remastered, we also have all of the Crash Nitro Kart content, including the tracks and the characters, and then starting with the Grand Prix's, we're gonna be injecting Crash Tag Team Racing content in the game." Unfortunately, that statement is too vague on its own; it doesn't indicate if "content" means characters, tracks, and/or something else entirely. There's no rush, though; once we get concrete details in a few months, we can just add them to the article then. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Some seconds later, when the Facebook player asks if they're bringing the mechanics of Tag Team Racingto Nitro-Fueled, he denies the mechanics but says "It's just taking the the characters, the tracks and the content and pulling them into the game" (from 16:30 to 16:40) IceZoned (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
But again, does that mean all the tracks? Just some of them? Maybe tracks inspired by CTTR and not 1-to-1 recreations? Will Pasadena and Von Clutch be the only playable characters? Will Nina? Will Willie Wumpa-Cheeks be upgraded to playable? There's still too much that's up in the air. But again, the article's not going anywhere and neither is the game. We can wait a few months to find out exactly what they mean. Just be patient. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I know this is going to be an ongoing discussion for years to come because Video game companies choose certain words they believe will sell their game more. At this time, by definition, this game is a remake since they confirmed it was from the ground up.  [1], [2]. I also want to point out that in other languages, this game is recognized more commonly as a "remake" than a "remaster": [3], [4].Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What English-language sources say? (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I linked them in my post. Daily star and Push Square are examples.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Those are two sources calling it a remake. Are those all the English-language sources calling it a remake? What about the sources calling it a remaster? (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
[5][6] here's a couple from he article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
And what is more prominent in the sources? I ask because my geolocation brings me a lot of Spanish-language sources for "remake", but a lot of English-language source for "remaster". [7][8] (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Current media consensus is to call the collection accurately with its actual term, "remake" rather than "remaster":
"...the Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy in 2017, a remake of the first three games." - The Gamer
"...the trilogy of Crash remakes will be joined by fellow platforming remake trilogy Spyro Reignited Trilogy." - Gaming Bolt
"As does Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, which is another collection of impressive remakes." - T3
"...the dynamic difficulty adjustment that was previously only present in Crash Bandicoot 2 and Warped to its Crash Bandicoot remake." - IGN
"...Crash, will return soon with the N. Sane Trilogy remake." - WCCF Tech
"... a remake of Crash’s first three games," - VICE News
"...Vicarious Visions-developed Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy remake." - Eurogamer
"in recent years, with the complete remake of the first three games..." - Screen Rant
"...is a remake of the first three games." - Yahoo! News
Even NASDAQ calls it a remake when announcing Activision's sales milestone
Even Activision themselves quoted an Attack of the Fanboy review calling N. Sane a "remake"
We should call N. Sane Trilogy and Team Racing Nitro-Fueled remakes. The basis for the current usage of "remaster" was due to the initial confusion when the collections were announced. Vicarious Visions was adamant in calling them "remaster plus," a term from eight years ago that didn't even catch on in the industry and virtually has no meaning outside of VV's definition. We have moved past that. Over the years, as I have demonstrated in a large quantity of existing media articles I cited above, it became clear that they are, indeed, remakes, and should be referred to as such. Chuck Bartowski (Charles Carmichael) (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DatCrisi (article contribs).

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Afddiary (talk · contribs) 23:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I plan to review this article with the help of another more experienced editor who has volunteered to mentor me through the process, User:It is a wonderful world. Afddiary (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward to working on this! Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:
It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas."
IAWW (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Afddiary, just looking through your prose comments so far you are doing a great job of engaging with the article's content. This article appears to be well written for a GA, so don't feel pressured to find prose points if none immediately jump out at you. It's perfectly fine to say you found no issues relevant to the criteria. Two nitpicks on your review so far:
Note that archiving links is not necessary for GA – none of the GA criteria require it. Nonetheless it can be a good suggestion, so I would recommend including it in the "suggestions" section of the review in the future, or you can just archive them yourself.
There is an invisible comment at the top of the GA review source which says "please do not use level 2 headers...", so I will remove the one you added.
Feel free to ping me if you want a third opinion at any point, and best of luck with the rest of the review! IAWW (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah and one more thing: You have to sign your comments for pings to go through (hence I didn't receive the ping below). It's a good idea to sign your comments anyways to keep the page readable. IAWW (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the advice – and for fixing the formatting issues with the headers! That was my bad, and I'm sorry. About the archiving, I also apologize for that; it was a misunderstanding on my part, as I remember being told during a GA review for an article I had extensively written that it was a requirement for me to archive the sources I used, particularly those from Newspapers.com. I might have misunderstood; it might have been a requirement exclusively for sources from that site, or I might have just misunderstood entirely. I apologize to Cat's Tuxedo for the confusion. Afddiary (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Afddiary, no need to apologise, everyone makes mistakes on their first go. Archiving newspapers.com sources is also not required for GA, but it does significantly increase the verifiability as otherwise those sources are paywalled. IAWW (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
(I plan to delete the this comment later.) I want to preface this by stating that I do not intend to finish the review with this edit. This is only a partial review; the full review will be completed within the next few days, hopefully by the end of this weekend. (Also, I apologize for taking so long; things have suddenly picked up for me at work!) I'll also ping the reviewer who offered to help out: @It is a wonderful world - By the way, IAWW, thank you SO MUCH! :)
I also want to preface this by stating that I have heard about the game before and seen a bit of gameplay footage in the past, but I have never played it, so I apologize if any of my suggestions sound off-base because of my lack of experience with the game. Feel free to counter anything I suggest if it feels off-base or unfair.


### Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4)
#### Lead
The lead is written very well!
One (very minor) issue I had with it: by what metric is the game a "commercial success?" Selling 10 million copies theoretically could have been an underperformance. The "Sales" section does touch upon its commercial success, but more in the context of how it performed at launch, rather than in the context of how many games were sold overall and throughout June 2025. Two suggestions:

I would consider removing just the part about it being a "commercial success."
If you intend to keep it, I would include a tiny bit in the lead (within the preexisting sentence, definitely not more than 1 sentence) about its success. Integrating something from the "Sales" section like had the highest launch month total in the franchise's history might justify the "commercial success" designation a bit more.


#### Gameplay
At a glance, this section feels a little short for an article of this length and depth. It feels like it could benefit from the addition of more information to make it read as a bit more complete. A few slight suggestions:

If the sources adequately go into it, could you add more detail about what each mode entails? You could create a separate sub-section for Modes and then expand a little on what each one entails.
Source 6 mentions that the Classic adventure mode is designed to mimic that of the original Crash Team Racing in 1999. Maybe you could include something about that in the article.
Source 2 (GamesRadar) says there are seven modes. Reading the section, I gathered there were seven modes, but if it is possible to rearrange this section to make that fact more prominent, that MIGHT help you to expand on it.
Could you write a little more about online play? I understand if not. The review sourced for that information (Source 13, EGMNOW) says online racing is the most efficient way to earn Wumpa Coins; maybe that could be integrated into the article in some way.
Is the game's "story"/"plot" the same? If so, maybe go into that in a short section as well, similarly to the Crash Team Racing article.
The plot for the original Crash Team Racing is so bare-bones that I just merged that into the gameplay section. Figured I'd just do the same for the remaster, especially since reiterating the plot would've been redundant. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Other than the section's brevity, all the sources line up with the content in that section.


#### Development
I want to preface by stating I made some very minor edits to this section. I split one paragraph into two; other changes are described below.

"it was speculated" - By whom? (I added a "by whom" template within the article. If it is not possible to confirm who had this speculation, feel free to delete the template.)
Whatever the answer is, I feel that passive voice isn't necessary there. For example, if fans speculated there would be a remaster, I would reword it as: "fans speculated that Crash Team Racing would be remastered."
"repeatedly asked about it by fans" - Reading through the source to verify this information, I think the word "it" is a little too vague. Maybe "the possibility of a remaster" would work better. Massie was also asked about "hidden levels that never made it into the first game," and you could potentially integrate that into the article as well.
Could you go into a little more detail in this section about what exactly "updated visuals" means? I'm not entirely sure it would be self-explanatory to every reader that the graphics would be improved. What else went into updating the visuals?
Same concern with updated audio - what all does this entail? New sound effects? (I know a remastered soundtrack is mentioned later, but is there anything else about the audio that was updated?)
From what I can see, I'm afraid not. The pre-release press doesn't seem to go into any more detail than that, so attempting to elaborate would just come off as original research. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm just going to use this opportunity to respond to all your comments and edits so far, and to add one additional proposal for the Development section at my point #4:
1. Your integration of the plot into the Gameplay section is excellent. But given the changes, you may (optionally) consider changing the name of that header to Gameplay and plot.
Eh, the plot's not a big enough detail for that. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
2. Good call on avoiding original research re: the updated visuals and sound effects. That's a totally fair explanation. I agree that the sources don't elaborate much on what either of those terms entail. Do you know if there are any additional sources besides the pre-release press that elaborate on the updates? If not, just disregard this and keep it written as is.
3. Thank you for archiving all the sources!
--
4. I missed this the first time going through the Development section, and I apologize. "Beenox emphasized authenticity..." feels a little vague to people who don't check the source to gain full context as to what "authenticity" Beenox emphasized. The source says Beenox "[cited] authenticity to the original experience as a core part of the remaster's development." I definitely think you need to say something about how they prioritized the integrity of the original Crash Team Racing experience in making this game. I'm honestly not sure about the best way to word that, and I know my suggestion in the next sentence may be a little clumsy (and feel free to make whatever edit feels most appropriate if you're not feeling the suggestion below), but I do think elaboration there, in some form, would help with clarity.
Maybe something like this: Beenox's approach in developing the remaster prioritized authenticity and maintaining the integrity of the original Crash Team Racing gaming experience; to that end, they remastered the original soundtrack and refined the controls in a way they believed would appeal to both veteran players and newcomers.
Afddiary (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I think "authenticity to the original experience" will suffice. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
"The anti-gravity segments were excluded" - Based on the wording here, it is not immediately evident which game had these features that were excluded.


#### Marketing, release and updates
Is there wording you could use here besides "free seasonal content?" I only ask because that's identical wording to what is reflected in the IGN article. This is minor, and if there is no other way to word "free seasonal content" due to the uniqueness of the term, then just ignore this.
Regarding this – "Neon Circus Grand Prix (released on November 9, 2019)" – Should it be "held on" or "released on?" The previous mention of a Grand Prix event used "held on."
I think this particular instance should probably read "released on" since as far as I can tell there's no source verifying the full length of the event; the Grand Prix events, as previously established, ran for a specific number of days, so it would make sense that they were "held". Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Other than that, this section looks fine and includes ample and helpful detail!


#### Reception (+ Sales and awards)
Excellent utilization of notes to compile multiple sources here!
In general, I would make sure that in this section, any references to critics avoid the passive voice wherever possible. There was one area I found (which I edited out) where the article said, The game's handling was described as tight and responsive, though some noted it requires adjustment... but the use passive voice means the paragraph never defines who "some" refers to. I edited the first part of the sentence to read, Critics described the game's handling as tight and responsive, though some noted it requires adjustment...
Regarding "their infinite power-ups" during the boss fights – to what does this refer? The bosses' infinite power-ups? I think minor elaboration might be helpful there.
Fixed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
No notes on the "Sales and awards" section.


### Sources
At a glance, not every source has been archived. Most sources have been, but a few have not. This is a definite necessity. (I don't mind helping with that at all; just let me know! Also, I understand not every link on the web can be archived, so if that was the case with the few that have not been archived yet, make a note of that. I looked through the sources and noted these do not yet have archives; I do not know if there is any kind of restriction on the ability to archive any of them.)
Source 17: https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/26/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-hands-on-preview-and-interview-id-love-to-work-on-another-crash-game-6665337/
Source 22: https://twistedvoxel.com/crash-team-racing-nitro-fueled-director-reveals-reasons-behind-no-pc-port/
Source 60: https://www.gematsu.com/2025/06/crash-team-racing-nitro-fueled-sales-top-10-million
Source 64: https://www.pcgamer.com/control-and-death-stranding-get-eight-nominations-each-for-the-2020-dice-awards/
Source 65: https://navgtr.org/2019-nominees/


#### Health/formatting (Criterion 2a)
There is a reflist at the bottom of the page documenting all sources, and it is presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.


#### Reliability (Criterion 2b)
All sources are reliable. The article relies exclusively on reputable gaming sites for citations.


#### Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d)
I feel everything here was pretty much addressed above. I commend Cat's Tuxedo for doing all work necessary to avoid original research, for citing all information with reliable sources, for avoiding any failed verification throughout the whole process, for ensuring the article avoids copyright violations, and for excellent use of in-line citations.


### Copyvio (Criterion 2d)
No copyright violations, as far as I can tell.


### Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)
The article addresses the main aspects of the topic, and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail – although I did have minor concerns with the length of the "Reception" section, especially compared to the rest of the article. I could not help but wonder if that level of detail and comprehensiveness was fully necessary, although the section is well-written and well-sourced, commendably so. I will ask for a second opinion from IAWW on this minor issue. I hope this ping works properly; I signed this particular part because I THINK that'll make it go through? I'm honestly not sure. @It is a wonderful world: Afddiary (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Afddiary the ping worked perfectly :) I see no issues having a reception section that long, as long as that aspect of the article is covered in a very large amount of sources, which it appears to be. IAWW (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I have removed the clock; the only issue I had with that section was its length, and otherwise, I found it to be excellently handled and organized.


### Stable (Criterion 5)
This article is stable. No editing wars or disputes as far as I can tell.


### Media
#### Tags (Criterion 6a)
Great use of media; the infobox contains an image of the game's cover art, and the article itself contains one screenshot of gameplay footage that effectively compares the old game to the remaster. Another editor added both images, and they have properly been uploaded with reduced resolution to abide by Wikipedia's non-free-use rules. I do not think any other images would be necessary towards improving the quality of the article, and I also feel that it would be difficult to obtain further images due to free use issues.


#### Captions (Criterion 6b)
All media included in the article has necessary and relevant captions. (There is no caption for the infobox image, and the caption for the gameplay footage is sufficiently descriptive and relevant.)
Afddiary (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Afddiary: Pinging since it's been over a week since the last response. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I'm sorry about that - I'll make some more updates a bit later today. I'm at work right now so I can't do too much at the moment. Afddiary (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I apologize again for taking so long to publish this update, but I have added more here; I believe the review is almost finished, and to be completely honest, this article looks to be in great shape and only needs a few minor updates (and the addressing of one minor qualm, for which I requested a second opinion) before I believe it will have passed. Thank you so much for your patience Cat's Tuxedo, and thank you, IAWW, for your guidance! Afddiary (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
No worries at @Afddiary, congrats on finishing your first review. Well done for pulling through even though it takes an especially long time to do your first one. If you ever want any help in the future with GA reviewing, feel free to ping me. A review of a large article on a living person for example would require some more skills. IAWW (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all your help on this review – and thanks for offering your assistance in future GA reviews! That means a lot to me! It could be overwhelming at times, but I really enjoyed it and learned a lot from it! Afddiary (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)


### Conclusion
Hi @Cat's Tuxedo: – I have removed the remaining clocks. I think this article is in great shape, and you did an excellent job with it. I think this review is complete now; I'll try my best to finish it up from here and pass this article. Thank you again for your patience, and thank you for your cooperation and responses/explanations with all inquiries! Congratulations :) Afddiary (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll see you round. Btw you can change to clocks to ticks to make it extra clear they are completed IAWW (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)