# Talk:Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex

I have read on quite a few fan websites that the PS2 platinum version of this game is supposed to have shorter level loading times (here for example). If anyone knows this to be true and can reference it to a credible game review site could we add this to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.50.228 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_game#Top_PC_sellers_by_genre <- says that it sold almost 5 million copies and was a top 20 selling game on PS2...that's one hell of a sucess

Shouldn't the synopsis be at teh top of the article? Well anyway, I'm moving it. Abby724 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think it's pretty long? I'll leave in the important parts, but do we really need "brainless orange marsupial" in there? The synopsis seems to be somewhat POV... I'd clean it up, but I think I'd make it too short.
If you haven't noticed, the brainless orange marsupial part is in those double apostrophe things, which means that's what a character in the game believes, so technically it's not really POV. Just wanted to point that out. Cat's Tuxedo 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, folks, how about the 100RR???? Call for Mediation, or propose each other for IPBan (I will gladly vote for all of you) but give it a rest! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, in order to stop this stupidity that's going on here, we talk about this here. OK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CBFan (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Fair enough. For my part, I feel the statement about the game following from Warped should be removed, as it can't be verified. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A fan site can't just be cited, as it is not a reliable source.
If it was written down word for word, then yes it can. Look at that fansite...just about every piece of information has been written out of a website/manual. Why else would I be trying to include it?
But you can't prove it was written word for word from an official source. The other stuff on the site isn't. They don't mention it coming from an official site. Fansites are not reliable sources. Personal websites should not be used as secondary sources.
Show me evidence that the polar bear in Crash Bandicoot 2 and Warped is Polar. (Klaus Kratchet)
What does that have to do with this discussion? If you want to discuss Polar, do it on the Polar article.
Your argument is that if there isn't any official statement, it shouldn't be written. By that logic, Polar shouldn't be listed as being in Crash 2 or Warped. (Klaus Kratchet)
Fine, but discuss it on the Polar article. This is for discussion of the Wrath of Cortex article.
No, he's trying to get you (not trying to be rude) to shut up by doing what you're doing...editing out articles because they are unreliable. This is an official statement, the Crash community knows about this.
But it's not verifiable and, again, inclusion on Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. Now I'm going to remove it from the article because I think until we've settled this, the article should be neutral, so I won't mention anything about it continuing from any other game.
No, you're removing it because you want to. It's the truth and we HAVEN'T finished this. Revert back. I suggest you LEAVE it and let someone ELSE edit it. It WAS verifiable.
But it's not verifiable any more. So it shouldn't be here. and the article is only this way because YOU edited it to be that way, so let's keep it neutral until we've resolved this.
It's NOT neutral, because YOU keep insisting that it doesn't exist. You're the one CONSTANTLY editing things with your opinions, going against Naughty Dog (as you did in the CTR section) and VU as a whole (as shown here)...heck, you insist your opinions even when someone makes a simple mistake (see Dingodile). I told you, YOU don't edit this. Let someone ELSE do it.
Look, have you read the Wikipedia guideline on verifiability? This may be true, but it's not verifiable. Verifiability, not truth. For all anyone knows, that link is just a fan piece. And the page is only like that because you edited it. We're approaching breaking the 3 Revert rule, so let's keep it neutral unitl we've settled this.
Which is what I'm trying to do, but you keep editing it saying that the statement doesn't exist. That's not neutral. Plus, you're ignoring everything I'm saying about letting someone else OTHER than yourself or myself edit it.
No, it doesn't mention it at all. That is neutral. It is only this way because YOU edited it directly before you started this disscusion. Now, the article doesn't mention the argument at all. That is neutral. Leave it that way until we've come to a decision.
Not mentioning it means it doesn't exist. That is YOUR opinion. You're denying its existance and that is NOT neutral and never can be. Keep it neutral for crying out loud. Besides, this is 2-against-1 at the moment.
Mentioning it in the article as fact is certainly not neutral, not by any possible meaning of the word. The disputed content should be removed from the article until said dispute is solved. To this end, please read the page on verifiability, and the page on reliable sources.
You're the one who refuses to accept it as varifiable. YOU'RE the one who constantly edits this. I made this discussion to settle this once and for all, but you're STILL female-dogging about it 'not being true because it isn't varifiable'...when it clearly is and I have at least two back-ups. You ruined the Dingodile page, and you're ruining this page. It's the bloody truth, Wikipedia is about truth, for heaven's sakes, ACCEPT IT!
Read the rules, specifically where it says that it's verifiability that's important, not truth. Your fansite does not prove it and you can not prove it. Per Wiki guidelines, it should not be here. Accept it.
It is NOT my fansite. It is TRUE information. You're the one who is REFUSING to accept TRUE information. I've given you the best verifiable source I can, but you STILL won't accept the TRUE information. I might as well add "Crash is a drunk", because you'll accept that.
I meant the fansite you linked. It does not matter if it is true, because it is not verifiable. Read the guidelines, please.
It IS verifiable. That is the best verifiable information I have. It's the ONLY verifiable information ANYONE has as far as I'm aware. Most of the Crash community are aware of the official statement anyway. If the old website was still around, I could have linked you right there, and it WOULD have been verifiable. This is the best I, or anyone, can pull off. Now, read your Talk page. See what's happened? You've been given a warning because of your silly reverting nonsense (as have I). Keep it neutral, otherwise BOTH of us will be in trouble.
But it is NOT veriafiable NOW, and that is what counts. Accept it. The only way to keep the article neutral is to not mention it at all.
By your logic, half the stuff written on the ENTIRE Wikipedia would be unverifiable "now". Your comment really doesn't do ANYTHING to help your cause, at all. It was verifiable, that's what is important. Now accept it. Really, that comment only made you look silly.
Please, read the guidelines. It's not verifiable now, there's no way to prove it was, it should not be here. End of.
There was an N-Tranced website. I know because I've been there. I could mention it, but you wouldn't let me, I'm sure, because it "Isn't verifiable", even though I've BEEN there. Just because YOU don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. I'll co-operate with your silly game, but I won't like it.
I'm not completely sure, but I the official guide for WoC said that Cortex came from a family of clowns, like on the original website. If what I believe is correct, it should also say that it continues directly from Warped! (Klaus Kratchet)
Well IMO, I don't think it can be proven that WoC follows on from Warped, because after Warped Naughty Dog sold Crash to Universal and went off to wow us again with Jak and Daxter. So Naughty Dog doesn't know, heck, maybe even Universal doesn't know. I think because of this, it should just be stated, like Warped's article, there's still speculation over whether WoC actually follows on from Warped. I'm fairly sure you can at least agree that there is speculation over whether WoC follows on from Warped. --L337 
kybldmstr 07:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Bro, have you even played the game? I've seen the same thing spewed on some amateur's page over in Bandipedia.

I would like to ask whether adding The Best Time Trial Record for this game is appropriate for wikipedia. Thanks. Xcarvengerx 09:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone add the link to the italian version? Thanks --BMonkey 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is for on the article!

Rok-Ko - Fought in the jungle
Wa-Wa - Fought on a lake during a thunderstorm
Py-Ro - Fought near a volcano
Lo-Lo - Fought in the sky
Crunch - Fought in the Cortex Vortex

Seeing as the GC and Xbox versions were released in 2002, should this be in Category:2002 video games as well? --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 13:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello On crash bandicoot: wrath of cortex’s, wiki page there is no section on `Development` of the game. There is some very interesting articles stating that Mark Cerny was going to design this game as he had designed all the original games and Sony was going to publish it, but Universal Interactive fell out with them both and travellers tales (the development team) had to go from a free roaming game to a standard Crash game with a reduced time-line - 12 months - and having to design the game themselves from scratch.
It would be very, very helpful if this could be stated on the wiki page with a `Development` section as all the other crash games have this section but this does not, and not many people know this. If any evidence is required go on to Crash Mania on the games section and click on wrath of cortex mysteries as well as "Gamasutra interview with Jon Burton (the head of travellers tales)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.240.208 (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 

Aku Aku Power (Bronze)
Awesome Superpowers (Silver)
Beginner of the Relics (Bronze)
Complete Edition (Gold)
Crystal Clear! (Bronze)
Dawn of the Relics (Gold)
I'm True Bandicoot (Silver)
Next Point (Bronze)
Nitro Master (Gold)
Nitro Strikes Back (Bronze)
Panty Wars (Gold)
Sneaky of the Relics (Sliver)
The Great Crate Adventure (Bronze)
The Wrath of Cortex (Platinum)
TNT of Boom (Bronze)
for the first time ever only on PlayStation 3 and PlayStation Vita. --58.168.45.111 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to believe Sales numbers equal commercial success. Crash Wrath of Cortex was a financial disappointment. Including being made fun of  IN the sequel came because the game did not sell within expectations. The sales on the platforms it was available on eventually reached a high number but they had already lost money before that point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeroyhim (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 

Per WP:V, sourced sales numbers are more reliable than your unsourced recollection of an in-game joke, but feel free to return if you can provide actual sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness I think he does have a point here.  A million seller is not automatically commercially successful and we do not actually have a source that states it was a success.  I am going to take out the words "commercial success." The rest of what he says is certainly original research though, so we likewise cannot say it was a "financial disappointment" without a source. Indrian (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. 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/20070421003854/http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.shtml to http://www.the-magicbox.com/Chart-USPlatinum.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. 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/20090610070701/http://ps2.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm to http://ps2.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901013922/http://gamecube.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm to http://gamecube.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007012455/http://xbox.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm to http://xbox.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r18394.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The article's "Release and reception" section has too many direct quotes from sources, especially within three of the four paragraphs, so I've placed the {{oq}} tag there. I propose improving the section by simply removing or paraphrasing the quotes (either by myself or someone else). – Hounder4 05:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hounder4: I paraphrased the best I could, seeing as I have never played this game and have zero interest in it. My main concern is tidying up, or delisting, Good Articles with Tags on them. I am far from happy with the result here. About 2/3 of the reviews are saying the same thing, that the game offers nothing new from the previous ones. Why this can't be consolidated I don't know. It was a tedious read before and is still one now. It is all over the show. I will tag it for a copy edit as I cannot bear to go through it again. I won't reassess it just yet, but will revisit it the next time I run through the cleanup list. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to replace certain reviews restating certain opinions with those that provide other thoughts. In any case, at least it's not overfilled with quotes now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is better. Just as I was going through it I felt like each reveiwer was saying the same thing, just different quotes were being pulled. A paragraph about how it was not much different to its predecessor, followed by a paragraph on other review aspects would probably be the way to go. I don't know the game, but given my read through this seems to be the main conclusion so it should probably be emphasised, just not in the haphazard way it is now. AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I've fully beaten the game more than once and could probably help scout out different highlights. It could take some time to find new things to emphasize, though, as the internet wasn't nearly as advanced when this game was released as it is now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Just consolidated the comments about repeating previous games' elements here. Hopefully it helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Much better. Good enough for a good article at least. If you are interested in this I came across similar issues at L.A. Noire. A lot more paragraphs though. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Glad you feel it was an improvement. Not sure how I'd go about that other article, though (if at all). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20020619161517/http://ciberpais.elpais.es/d/20010823/ocio/ocio3.htm