Talk:Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] accurate on commercial sucess?
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
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
CVG To-do:
|
||
Anyone got any idea how to defeat the bosses at the end of the second section? Where you have to jump on the stepping stones.
-
- wikipedia, not a game FAQ
[edit] Moving Plot synopsis.
Shouldn't the synopsis be at teh top of the article? Well anyway, I'm moving it. Abby724 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Synopsis needs cleanup...
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)
[edit] Cry for Mediation in the wilderness
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)
[edit] Official Statement.
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)
[edit] The Best Time Trial Record
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)
[edit] Italian version
Can someone add the link to the italian version? Thanks --BMonkey 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bosses
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
