I might sound a bit prudent saying this but I’ll never understand the mentality that future Crash titles should abandon the linear gameplay and follow in line with it’s competitors have been doing (open world platforming) or something akin to Twinsanity. (1)

Maybe it’s just me but it reeks of this “linear=bad / open world=good” intellect that’s been lingering around. Why dump a winning formula in favor of something that almost every game has been doing on the market for 25 years? (2)

The remakes are STILL selling and managed to reach 10 million in less than two years. If there’s room in this world for a new Genesis-inspired Sonic title AND rehashes of the NSMB that Nintendo churns out, then what’s stopping Crash? (3)

I’ll rustle a few jimmies here but I don’t think Twinsanity’s gameplay isn’t all that it’s hyped up to be. What made the original Crash games so charming was its linear gameplay and level design. It kept players engaged, to reach that next checkpoint and to the end goal.. (4)

What does Twinsanity do? It abandons all that and you’re left with this big empty world and nitro spammed up the ass for “challenge.” You see what I mean? (5)

Enter the crates. They were added because the devs realized that the levels were ruthlessly lacking any real fundamental challenge. If you break them all, you earned a gem. Twinsanity has them scattered & there’s no real incentive in breaking them other than to rank lives. (6)

Before you start @ing me, I’m not completely calling Twinsanity an awful game. There’s a few things that I believe make up for it but they managed to sacrifice a lot of the core elements that made Crash, you know, Crash. (7)