Ahh, yes. The game that started it all. --18.104.22.168 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that, with most other pages, we capitalize every word in titles' disambiguations. However, we don't currently do it on this page. Should it be changed? Koala Kong's #1 Fan 01:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerns over Analysis Section
I have major issues with the anaylsis section of the first Crash Bandicoot game - it's been very poorly written and a lot of the content there is incorrect while many of the statements simply aren't supported, neither by the author nor the events of the game. There are a lot of assumptions made which hold true for later titles but which weren't known for certain when the first game was released and the attempts to identify symbolism reveal an intent to write about symbols sheerly for the sake of writing about symbols; in other words, there is no refinement.
A big flaw in the analysis is present in the very first line - while the mention of "rich themes" is very dubious", the claim of there being an influence of Elizabethan idealogy is downright wrong - there's no evidence at all in the game or in the analysis to indicate this and this omission undermines the analysis from an early stage. If "Elizabethan" is a reference to Shakespearean tragedy (as raised in the fourth paragraph), this too is incorrect, because Crash Bandicoot is not a Shakespearean tragedy in any way, shake or form. There's no presence of hubris, catharsis (though it is incorrectly referenced), gods, animal imagery in speech or the redemptive force of love (note "redemptive", hence Crash rescuing Tawna does not qualify) and furthermore, Cortex simply isn't a tragic hero. In order to fulfil this criterium, he would have to have fallen from grace, attempted to redeem himself and evoked a catharsis of pity and fear, hence his battle with Crash is not an example of catharsis.
There appears to be inherent in the analysis an assumption that the game is a conflict between good and evil, nature and industry. Once again, this is not properly supported, it is merely a personal opinion presented as being true. Considering Crash is the only concrete protagonist (Aku Aku supports), the idea that Crash represents all that is good is nonsense - furthermore Cortex is a manifestation of evil and therefore must not be confused with representing evil in general. There is no real moral dimension to the game (Crash can barely even speak!) and the consciousness of the player doesn't extend beyond acknowledging that what Cortex does is wrong - it's very clear to see that Crash is not quite a white knight in shining armour! In fact, if this was in any way a conflict between natural and man-made, Crash would not have to fight through the hostile native environments of the first couple of islands - this game is primarily an adventure and one can very much make the case that the industrial and natural environments exist to lend variety to the game, not to represent a conflict. In any case, nature and industry never once come to a direct conflict, hence the idea of there beng a conflict of ideologies holds no water.
Further attention must be given to the identification of symbolism, which in many cases gives the impression of any old link constituting a symbol. This is flawed thinking, and for a case-in-point, see the island symbolism - the islands don't represent a start, middle and end, they just happen to fulfill that function. The former implies that there's a deeper meaning to this, but in reality there isn't; Crash Bandicoot is a logical story, just like any other game and looking for a symbol in the fact that there are three islands is clutching at straws. It is stated that the TNT crates represent the coming conflict and countdown meaning the journey across three islands - this is utter nonsense and isn't supported at all. If one focuses too much on symbolism, one misses the basic function of an item, eg. the fact that TNT crates are merely meant to be obstacles. While the claim that the islands start bright and become menacing and threatening is true, the idea that Crash has an "innocence" which he subsequently loses is once again not evidenced and is yet another assumption by the author, as is the idea that the upturned turtles represent chaos - a reference in the analysis to Eastern mythology simply doesn't prove this to be the case and is another example of one-dimensional thinking.
Before ending, I must leave some further examples of poor analysis:
"Opposites, according to the game, are meant to be in balance."
"His “evil plan” is merely his own attempt to restore balance by exacting his revenge on those that first attacked him."
"Crash, the instrument of the natural order, restores balance, but in doing so loses his innocence."
"The islands also reflect the changing mindset of Crash and the destruction of his innocence"
"The events on the third island reveal to the player that the civilization failed because it went against nature, indicating the cause of the second civilization’s destruction."
"Therefore, the message of these civilizations is that those who do not coexist harmoniously with nature will be destroyed by it."
These are all statements which are simply assumed to be true and are in any case inaccurate. The purpose of an analysis is to make the connections and links and then to explain them properly, using examples to back up general statements. In order to make any kind of decent analysis, the functional aspects of the game must be understood and this hasn't been done by the author; many of the details in the game are simply there to provide the challenge of the gameplay and to make the landscapes more vivid (eg. TNT, turtles, etc.). Overall, not a proper analysis and I will leave this for a while to allow discussion and I will propose an alternative at some point in the future. 22.214.171.124 07:38, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you. I just found this wiki and the first game's page was the first thing I read here; the analysis section immediately bothered me. It feels like someone was reaching way too hard to find hidden, deep meanings in a goofy comedy platformer about a cartoonish, mutant marsupial and an evil scientist with a giant "N" plastered on his forehead. I feel the bits about messing with nature hold some weight, but that's about it. Everything else should likely be removed, because it comes off as a very unprofessional personal speculation. EBsessed (talk)
Going to remove most of the analysis section except for the truly obvious and relevant bits unless anyone objects. I'll give it a couple days and if there isn't any dissent, I'll move forward with it. EBsessed (talk) 18:06, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
^That first post is nearly 5 years old. Just saying. Do what you think is best for the wiki, that's all we can ask. If we don't agree we have undo and rollback so it's fine.18:19, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
I understand it was old, but it was still relevant because it was left unaddressed, and important because the section still read terribly and frankly hurt the credibility of the entire wiki. I cleaned up the Analysis section nicely and reading it should no longer inspire any eyerolling as it did before. I left only the most believable pieces that make total sense within the context of the game without absurd leaps in logic and reaching for depth that isn't there. EBsessed (talk) 00:02, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
Personally I would say this is the hardest game of the series not because of the level design, but because we are not allowed to die in order to collect the gems, and that we cannot freely save the game. Nikel Talk 12:30, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
The trivia section on this page is way longer than it should be. References of level names should only be kept on the pages of said levels. Things like gameplay elements should be not featured in trivia but in the gameplay section, and so on... Pauolo (talk) 09:59, July 29, 2019 (UTC)
Removed the references of level names from the trivia section and moved them to their respective levels' page. -WoomyMetal, 10:20, July 29, 2019 (UTC)