Boy have I got a hot take for y’all today:
The way people are comparing N. Sane Trilogy with 3D All Stars is pretty flawed and unfair
(I know someone recently made a post comparing the two and this rant isn’t meant to be attacking that person)
So... Yeah it’s pretty dumb what was missing from 3D All Stars. The lack of Galaxy 2 and 64 DS makes no sense, especially because Nintendo clearly has no plans to rerelease them somewhere else. There’s literally no benefit to keeping them from people, from a business stand point.
But still, N. Sane Trilogy is not miles ahead 3D All Stars. People say it is for two reasons:
- The price ($40 instead of $60)
- The games are remastered
Well... the price is a bit understandable to be honest: N. Sane Trilogy has a lot less content than 3D All Stars. It takes only like 5 hours to beat each Crash game, but the Mario games have much more content. It has over double the amount of content as the Crash collection! And remember The crash worlds are not open like Mario’s. They’re still fun, but not open, and not as immersive.
N. Sane Trilogy also has things that aren’t in the game for no good reason. Why isn’t the original version of each game playable? Why dosen’t it have any sort of gallery or soundtrack player?
And then there’s the “remastered” part... Yeah remastered is honestly just a buzzword here. They’re the same games. Obviously a lot of work went into remastering them, but they’re still games people have already played in the 90s. Don’t treat this collection like the new standard for rereleasing games because the graphics look better
This isn’t to tear into Crash, I love the collection, think it was a great way to revive Crash, and they absolutely made the right call doing what they did. It’s just that it kind of frustrates me when people are quick to jump to Crash, saying it’s alot better for no reason other than “mario runs on just an emulator.” It’s not as simple as that and I do think 3D All Stars is the most bang for your buck