Talk:Sonic Mania/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Being developed"

"Sonic Mania is an upcoming side-scrolling platform video game being developed by PagodaWest Games"

There is no advantage to using "being developed" over "developed". Because the same sentence states that the game is upcoming, it follows that it is unfinished, so it adds no information.

It's also ugly. As a general rule, gerunds ("-ing" words) are kind of nasty and worth avoiding when possible, though sometimes, of course, they're necessary.

"It's standard" isn't an argument; bad writing is bad writing no matter how common it is. You gotta explain why it isn't bad writing. Popcornduff (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just going with what I've seen tons of other yet-to-be released games state. Personally, I agree with you, but if we always followed personal style instead of clear policies and guidelines (if this was one), then there wouldn't be a point to either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool. There seems to be no policy or guideline about this, though. A lot of what tends to become common on Wikipedia - particularly across articles of similar types - can be attributed to habit, the same people writing articles of similar subjects, and people blindly copying other articles without questioning it (and sometimes even enforcing it simply because that's how other articles do it!). Popcornduff (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Will/would

"Will" is the future (things that haven't happened yet). "Would" is the "old future" (things that were going to happen in the future relative to some point in the past).

So, from the Shenmue article, this is correct: "Sega announced that it would release the Shenmue saga as multiple games." This was, from the perspective of that point in the past, an anticipated future. That point has already passed, so it's the "old future". Therefore "would".

From this article: "Sega announced that Sonic Mania will also be released for the Nintendo Switch console" is correct because it's the simple future - that future point hasn't happened yet.

This is nothing to do with recentism. Popcornduff (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• The announcement is the point that took place in the past, not the future release. "Would" is correct here, and will be even after the game releases, which is not the case for "will". If you were retroactively adding this post-release, you wouldn't put will here, so always try to think in a long-term perspective when writing articles, which is what WP:RECENT was for. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The announcement took place in the past, but the future event of the game being released hasn't happened yet, so "will" is correct. This explanation from Stack Exchange might be better than mine: "Would is a past-tense form of will. If you are writing about past events, you can use it to indicate something that was in the future at that point in time, but is not necessarily in the future right now."

This really, really isn't recent-ism. By that logic, we should write the entire article in the past tense ("the game was released in 2017") because in the fullness of time that will become true. Tense states change over time, obviously. Popcornduff (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to think of another example sentence to show what I mean: "At a press briefing yesterday morning, Jackson announced that he will run for mayor in 2018." (He announced in the past, he will run in the future.) "Would" is not correct because the future event of running for mayor remains a future event and hasn't come to pass. "Would" is either used for hypothetical stuff ("If I had a million dollars I would buy a big house") or, as in the case of the mayor or Shenmue, for events which were in the future at the time but are now in the past. Popcornduff (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dissident93, I totally understand what you're saying. But I think maybe you're not understanding what I'm saying. Try this example:

A: "Jackson announced that he will run for mayor."

B: "Jackson announced that he would run for mayor."

These are two different tenses. Both are perfectly grammatical and mean different things.

A: Jackson running for mayor hasn't happened yet. It is, at the time of writing, in the future.

B: The point at which Jackson ran for mayor, or would have run for mayor, has passed. Either he ran for mayor, or for whatever reason it didn't happen. At the time of writing, the event or expectation of Jackson running for mayor is completely in the past and finished.

Our Sega example is A. I know to you B might seem more natural, and actually some might agree with you, as this is a common grammatical mistake. But them's the facts of English. Popcornduff (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. In this case it was better to just re-write the sentence to avoid something like this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay preview?

This is a gameplay preview (by Nick Robinson BTW): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEfKC4sxTG8

This is not a gameplay preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCc2U_A4YzE

It just isn't. Plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.84.194 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are is *some* gameplay in the video, but it is not primary gameplay, and at the very least, it is not in the same category as the first video. BTW, I put up the original citation of Nick (as well as a whole host of updates since the game's announcement), of course I watched the video. My IP keeps changing, which is annoying. I should probably make an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.84.194 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're setting up arbitrary standards here. It's not like "gameplay preview" is some sort of technical term with a formal definition or something. There's no "it has to be 25% gameplay or its not a gameplay preview" or something. If there's any gameplay at all, it could be considered a gameplay preview. Or you could call it something else. I don't see any importance in this argument at all, especially considering this is the type of junk that usually trimmed away once real reviews start coming, which isn't that far off. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, did you watch the video? Robinson stated, that despite having initial doubts, after he had personally played one of the previews of the game, he had these thoughts. I'm not calling the video itself a "gameplay preview", so I don't see the issue, but perhaps it could be worded better. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline placement?

Does anyone have any idea where in the Sonic timeline this game falls under? Visokor (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, and this type of discussion isn't really wanted here, per WP:NOTAFORUM. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

CRT filter placement

Why does this keep being put in the gameplay section? It has nothing to do with gameplay. I tried placing it in the development section, and I was revert on the grounds of it being irrelevant to development. That doesn't make any sense - it has everything to do with development. Dev sections cover things like design philosophy and stylization of the game. This game is being my developed as a homage to games developed in the CRT era of televisions, so it has everything to do with design/development of the game to say it has a filter to match that era. It's tied into the game's whole creation, but as s nothing of its gameplay mechanics. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind putting it in the dev section. I mean, that's where I was going to put it, but I felt like my sentence and the source didn't really specify it as being a part of the game's development. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Reworded the sentence and restored your edit. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That rewording makes it relevant to the section, so thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that wording even better. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Release Date Leak

The release date is leaked in the European Steam page for Sonic Mania. I've got links that state so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWzUoT3Qblo https://www.gamespot.com/articles/sonic-mania-release-date-potentially-revealed-by-s/1100-6450366/ 109.238.146.86 (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and here's the official trailer in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Fxrlg0S_M 109.238.146.86 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The key word is "leaked". It implies it is not official. If it's not official, then it should not be in the infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • E3 is only two weeks away. Mostly they'll show Sonic Forces but we'll probably get the official release date of Mania there. 95.212.190.95 (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Highly likely, but until then, it's not to be considered official, especially now as the trailer on Steam was replaced with one that now just states Summer 2017. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Coming back to this, I still don't think we should add any mention of the leak into the article. It was only noteworthy prior to the official reveal, and won't be important in the longterm. Would any of you remember 5 years from now that the date was accidentally put on Steam for a few hours? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Wouldn't it still be good to include info on the leak? It's definitely notable, and an effort to include it in the article was swiftly reverted. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The scenario was, more or less, that the release date leaked like a day before it was officially announced? I could take it or leave it. It happened, and it can be sourced...but its not going to be the type of thing that ages well, or has much significance in the future. We often trim sentences that say "On January 3th the game was announced to be released on March 15th" to "The game was released on March 15th" anyways. This would happen here too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's barely worth mentioning. A sentence at most. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I don't see how it's important enough to be listed anymore. If it has to be included, then it should be merged with the current sentence about the release date. So something like "Prior to the official announcement of the August 15 release date, the game's Steam store page briefly listed the date before being removed." But even then, it just sounds unimportant and better to not mention at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I think a sentence mentioning it is still fine. I plan to bring this to GA after it's released, and info like that is good for use. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

By the time you'd be bringing this to GA (after release), this sort of trivial info would likely be trimmed from the article though, per my comment above. Sentences like this are not helping it get towards GA status. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Source

Albeit an excellent one:

• https://www.redbull.com/int-en/how-sega-can-fix-sonic-mania-red-bull-games

~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Article seems to be deleted now? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• The link is working for me as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• It must have been server related then, since it just loaded for me, albeit after a few refreshes. Anyway, the article just suggests ideas on how to make the game better, I'm not seeing much that could be used in the article outside of reception. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute resolution

@Popcornduff and Dissident93: I'd like to open this discussion between you two as I notice you're both talking back and forth to each other about the content in the article and would like to suggest that you two discuss the issues you're both facing here. From what I understand, the issue is something in regards to how the Music section is written? Please confirm. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Dissident93 and I tend to revert and tweak each other's stuff a lot across various game articles, but I see it as pretty healthy. Dissident93 has improved lots of my text this way (he's been a recipient of many a Thank from me) and I hope I've improved some of his, too. He's an editor I trust enough not to get prickly when I revert stuff - reverting/rewriting with an explanation is the fastest way to iterate until further discussion becomes necessary - and I don't see it as edit warring. When we need to, we discuss stuff in more depth on talk pages (see above, for example). I hope he feels the same way. Popcornduff (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no personal issue between us or whatever, just moments of minor misunderstandings (mostly to due with grammar, tense, or styles of writing) that tend to get cleared up quickly. Maybe this isn't what Wikipedia's policies say, but to me, edit warring is more when edits get reverted in a short period of time without any real effort to come to an agreement or compromise, which of course both editors need to agree on. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was confused about the back and forth conversation. The statements from both of you have helped clear this all up for me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If you meant making a minor edit just so we could use the edit summary as a discussion field instead of the talk page, then yeah, that was a bit lazy, but I don't think it's an issue if it's only done once or twice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Discovery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was change implemented by Dissident93. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

I wanted to get a consensus on mentioning the game's pitch name, since it's been removed several times and this stuff is prone to edit warring. I think it'd be worth mentioning Sonic Discovery in the dev section; it was the game's working title, and we mention Sonic 4 and Sonic Forces' working titles in their development sections. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are confusing working title with pitch title. The game's working title was actually never changed from Sonic Mania, according to Iizuka. This is not the case like Project Sonic 2017, which was publicly announced under that title and known by it for a number of months. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dissident. Changing my vote to Support per Dissident93's suggestion below, but my statement still stands. Though it was mentioned in the source's video per the IP, it was never a working title and was always known as Mania. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - It's not out of the ordinary to mention early working titles of games (or music for that matter) if it can be sourced. For example, WP:GA Crash Bandicoot (video game) mentions the "Sonic's Ass Game" internal title, even though that was obviously at no point a public or intended title. I'd be against spending much time on it at all, but as a fraction of one sentence, with proper, source-backed context, it's fine, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it could be reworded as "Pitched to Sega under the title of Sonic Discovery" then? This at least gives it a more historical purpose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, absolutely, assuming that is what was said. (I have't seen it transcribed anywhere yet, and haven't watched the video personally, but I've seen it mentioned enough to assume it is correct to some capacity.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Whitehead directly states it here, where Iizuka also gives the year that the project officially began (in early 2016). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eggman's name

The summary and plot synopsis had to have Dr. Robotnik's name changed back into "Eggman" due to the former never being used in promoting the game and to maintain consistency with how SEGA has been handling the character since "Sonic Adventure." Xgenmasta (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I personally haven't noticed either way. Do you have some examples? Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it really even matter what we call him? I personally don't see the harm in calling his Robotnik, but I would be fine with Eggman too. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't - either version wiki-links/redirects to the same article, where it's explained immediately in the opening sentences. Just like the whole Sega Genesis/Mega Drive debate - people obsess over which term to use, but either links to the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay in Studiopolis suggests he is referred to as Eggman in the game (his name is visible on some set pieces). TarkusAB^talk 14:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the game itself is using Eggman, so I don't see why we'd use Robotnik here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning behind taking out the name "Robotnik" was because SEGA pretty much doesn't use that name anymore. What I failed to clarify earlier was that ever since the release of Sonic Adventure in 1998, the name "Robotnik" began to fall out of use in favour of the character's original name "Eggman" which was what has always been used in Japan and had never changed over there. "Robotnik" is only ever referred to by that name as a reference to the pre-Modern era of the games, and even then, these moments don't even exist in the Japanese scripts. Oh, and to answer Sergecross73, You can see that Eggman is referred to as "Eggman" in the source for the plot synopsis on the article. My point is, "Robotnik" is more or less a relic of the past. While "Dr. Ivo 'Eggman' Robotnik" is what SEGA states to be the character's full name, it is almost never used in the games themselves after Sonic Adventure, (Or Sonic Adventure 2, if you count the instances you see "ROBOTNIK EMPIRE" on a TV Screen in one cutscene) and that goes for the entire franchise as well. Xgenmasta (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but I don't think any of that matters since the game itself uses Eggman. If they had used Robotnik instead, we would be using that here as well, but that isn't the case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I would've left the article the way it was if that was the case. Xgenmasta (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Gemstone Name

Resident name stickler here. Shouldn't the mysterious gemstone in the game's synopsis be referred to as the "Phantom Ruby" as per the plot description on the game's digital manual? Xgenmasta (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To avoid spoilers, we actually don't mention specific names. I might be wrong here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem to be much of a spoiler though, considering the name comes straight off a digital manual one can access in-game from the get-go. Xgenmasta (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't care about spoilers. WP:SPOILER Popcornduff (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, was going to say the same thing as Popcornduff. Quite the opposite, Wikipedia doesn't censor in the name of "spoilers". (Just as well, some people call some truly mundane thing "spoilers", so it'd probably be impossible to define when to do it anyways.) As for the original question, I don't know. Did we maybe not know the name until recently, and no one had updated it yet? If they're called a "Phantom Ruby" in the game, then we probably should make mention of it here too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I already went ahead and did so, and someone else seems to have contributed to that as well. Thanks guys. Xgenmasta (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

April 2017 Famitsu article

So I found scans (page 2) of the Famitsu article, but was wondering how useful this would be as a source, as its in full Japanese? The only English sources that translated the info are all considered unreliable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, are the translations that do exist consistent with each other? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but they are hosted by TSSZ and the Sonic Stadium, which is my issue. I guess I could just source the Famitsu article itself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was going to say, if they're consistent then just source Famitsu. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Should we add this, then? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be using fansite translations of RSs though. Does it have anything in particular that is both worth noting, and not covered by any other sources? Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant that we should use the actual article, not the fansite. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but my concern would be that we'd still be using the fansite in the capapcity of using their translation/interpretation of it though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article, an interview with Iizuka, has info that wasn't reported on by English RS for some reason (unless I missed it). In addition to info also relevant to Sonic Forces, the article reveals that Mania began development in 2015, and that the art direction (and gameplay I suppose) of the game was meant to be in between the capabilities of the Genesis and Saturn, like what a real Sonic 4 in the mid 1990s would have been. The unofficial translation can be found here, if curious. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that bit about keeping the graphics between Genesis and Saturn levels is rather interesting for the game concept, and not something particularly covered elsewhere. I'll leave it up to you guys on whether or not to include. I won't oppose it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's also been directly stated multiple times by Whitehead as well, but no reliable source, as far as I know, has mentioned this for some reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, based on some of the things Joebro has linked to in the past, it looks like he comments frequently on the fansite forums, but it rarely seems to catch the attention of the mainstream, general video game journalists. (Which I guess makes sense, probably not many journalists hanging out in the Sonic forums to ever see it.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Back on topic, but should we use cite web with a link to the scans to the article, or cite book? I think option 2 is preferred, but option 1 wouldn't be seen as "bad" either. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Option 2 sounds better to me. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've come up with something to add, but we'd need to wait to do this after the game comes out because the Retro Engine is still unconfirmed:

Sonic Mania was developed using Whitehead's Retro Engine, a game engine tailored for creating 2D games.[1] (this source is considered "situational" but it's author has written for the Escapist and Arcade Sushi) The game's visual appearance was designed to be a cross between that of the graphical capabilities of the Sega Genesis and Sega Saturn. (Insert Famitsu here). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In reply to some of the comments above....non-English sources are OK on English WP. The Famitsu article should be sourced directly. The question becomes how much do we trust a translation from a non-RS website. I would say no more/less than if any editor came in here, said they understood Japanese, and wrote whatever they want. Then the question becomes, do you trust the editor? I am mediocre at reading Japanese so I could check the translation against the original and verify its accuracy, if that makes people feel better. I need to ramp up my reading practice anyways. But again you don't know me :O ... ;) TarkusAB^talk 22:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why I advocated against the use of non-English sources in another discussion. Sure we can directly source Famitsu, but if you don't understand Japanese, and I'd argue that 99% of readers of this article won't, it may as well be written in complete gibberish. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

TarkusAB Yes, I'm aware we can use non-English sources, my concern was just merely that none of us could actually verify that the Japanese content ourselves, considering no one here knew Japanese. But if you can do your best to roughly verify that its saying what we want to add, (which is likely, since English developers have said similar things too, just not from any sort of RS) then we'd be good to go with just using Famitsu. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The quote to support JoeBro's proposal is: グラフィックの基準としては　”メガドライブ以上、サターン未満”　くらいです。 The quote is towards the end of the second column on page 2. This translates to "In regards to the basis/reference for the graphics, it is　roughly 'greater than Mega Drive, less than Saturn.'" I think if we place the JP quote in the "quote" field in the source template, folks can use a free translator to verify if they want. TarkusAB^talk 14:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In case it makes anyone feel better, I live in Japan and speak a little Japanese, and can back up that translation. Looks straightforward, though I'm hardly an expert in the language. Popcornduff (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Review table

Since this game is on multiple platforms, shouldn't the {{Video game reviews}} template be in the Multi-platform layout? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Most of the time this hurts more than helps, as most publications only review one version of the game that covers all of them, so most of the table would be empty. It's fine the way it is. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, I dont think we need it. All versions are identical, and mostly getting the same scores, as far as I can see. I think the differences in aggregate scores is basically boiling down to the difference in who is reviewing platform-specific versions. (The Switch version has received less reviews and reviews from some Nintendo-only type review sites, etc.) I think the only time its worth mentioning is times like Sonic Unleashed/Sonic Generations/Sonic Lost World, where some versions are entirely different games, with very different scores. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for GA?

Since the article was just upgraded to B status, I feel like together we should work on this article and get it to the point where it can be brought up to GA status then nominate it when we're ready. Who's willing to support either a GAN or a PR before GA? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I'd like to. Even though it's B-class now, there's still some work that needs to be done (improve the promotion section and add some release info there, expand development, refine the gameplay and reception, etc.). I'll begin making some big edits once I can get a good time to have a long editing section (I can't at the moment). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Tornado

@TheTimesAreAChanging: As you told me to do, I've checked Sonic Adventure from top to bottom to confirm who out of Sonic/Tails owns the Tornado. However, the only thing I found was: The next morning, Tails' test of his Chaos Emerald-powered airplane, the Tornado, fails and he crashes. Am I missing something here? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant check the game itself, not Wikipedia, as the latter is not a reliable source. Or watch this Let's Play at 10:24: "Sonic to Tails: 'Why not just use my plane, the Tornado?'"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and saving me another revert. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I say we just remove it still, as it's a trivial, in-universe fact that has no relevance to the gameplay or larger plot. Unless somebody can present a valid reason for keeping the plane's name or owner, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, remove it. I would not source Sonic Adventure for this because the Sonic universe isn't that cohesive and consistent with details like that. If it's not mentioned in Mania why are we mentioning it here. TarkusAB^talk 11:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The series is terrible on continuity, the "canon" the fanbases grasps at...is a bit of a reach much of the time. I also agree that it either shouldn't be mentioned, or should just be "a bi-plane" or "the tornado" - the ownership really doesn't matter. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I say just call it "The Tornado" without establishing ownership; the plane is a recurring element in the Sonic series and has been referred to as both Sonic's and Tails' over the years, so it's not like there's much consistency. The plot description on the Sonic 3 page even refers to it as "their plane, The Tornado", which honestly seems like the best route to satisfy all parties. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The way Dissident93 described it in one of his edits as just "a small plane" makes it clear to someone who isn't familiar with the Sonic universe. I say we leave it as it is now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

But considering the Tornado is name-checked in multiple other Sonic articles, including 2, 3, Knuckles, Adventure, etc., it'd be inconsistent and might suggest that this is somehow not the same vehicle. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

...But by it that important to note? What's the significance in whether or not its the same plane to begin with? Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

While I do agree with Serge on this one, and what I'm about to say might be considered WP:OR, but isn't the sprite for the plane the same as Sonic 3? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The sprite has been redrawn, but it's clearly the same vehicle. To Serge, though, I offer a counterpoint: What's wrong with referring to it by name, especially when all the other Sonic articles do so? Besides, "their plane, the Tornado" only adds a single word compared to the current draft in an already very short plot summary, so it's not like it's pushing the article length unnecessarily. And "their plane, the Tornado" is no more or less clear to someone reading the article with no outside context than "a small biplane", so why not go with the version that maintains continuity with the other articles? I genuinely don't understand why the name itself is such a problem, ownership argument aside. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm overall neutral on its inclusion, I just didn't agree with your particular assertion of importance. I don't feel its exclusion hurts the article, but I don't feel its inclusion hurts anything either. Whatever consensus dictates. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if my statement came off like I was pushing this as some major important change that was essential to the article or something; my point is that the ownership argument is a moot one considering Sega themselves have been inconsistent in declaring whose plane it is, but it comes off a little weird for this to be the only Sonic article to not use the name. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added the exact name of the plane for consistency reasons. However, as stated above, ownership is not of importance to this specific game as there is no dialogue to suggest such ownership, unlike Sonic Adventure, where it's mentioned in-game. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I added what the Tornado even is, as unless somebody was a Sonic fan to begin with, there is no way that they would know that the Tornado is the name of a bi-plane. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we shorten that down to just "their biplane, the Tornado"? The current verbiage is kind of unwieldy. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That's better and what should have been written there from the very start. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible physical release on Nintendo Switch

• http://comicbook.com/gaming/2017/08/07/sonic-mania-physical-release-leaked-gamestop/ ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That's...good to know...but retail leaks aren't good enough sourcing to confirm this sort of thing... Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added "possible" to this, just in case. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If this was legit, wouldn't they have announced this weeks ago? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes games get released digitally primarily at first, and then get physical releases down the line. Like Rocket League or Minecraft. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware, but both of those games were already top-sellers for a number of months/years, so to announce a retail version right before its has even had a chance to sell and miss the August 15 launch date, is just odd. I'll believe it when Sega confirms it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to this, but as I've tried to avoid Sonic Mania in the last few weeks due to spoilers (from the PC delay), but has there been any news regarding this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I'm not the type to care if a game is physical or digital, so it's not something I'd seek out, but lots of people do freak out about this sort of thing on my newsfeeds, so I'd probably have heard of it if it was announced. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Who are the developers?

https://www.facebook.com/teelopesmusic/photos/a.442189185866537.1073741825.111203265631799/1059639347454848/?type=3&theater https://twitter.com/PagodaWestGames/status/759174613146345472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.79.181 (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a 6 man dev team contracted by SEGA. Christian Whitehead is an independent programmer. Tom Fry is an artist/animator from PagodaWest games. Jared Kasl and Greg Dawson are from PagodaWest Games. Simon Thomley is a programmer who formed Headcannon, and Tee Lopes is a musician from PagodaWest Games (source: http://pagodawestgames.com/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.17 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's what I had put before users continued to claim Sega was a co-developer. (why would they need 2 obscure studios to help then?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They may be obscure studios in public eyes, but for the Sonic fan community, this is an all-star dream team. All members of the dev team were very active and prominent in the Sonic fan community with the exception of Greg Dawson. The other three members of PagodaWest games met through the Sonic 2 HD fan project (which is ongoing with some different contributors), and the two programmer's history with the fan community is well-documented. SEGA is playing it safe by contracting fans who know what other fans want in a classic Sonic game, after the embarrassment of Sonic 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.32.148 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little baffled as why people always claim that Whitehead and Headcannon shouldn't be listed as main developers because they're independent developers, leaving only PagodaWest Games in the main credits. The game is, and always has been, stated as a collaboration between Christian Whitehead, Headcannon, and PagodaWest Games, each with their own company logos; not the former two working as part of the latter. There are no sources that explicitly state Whitehead and Thomley worked in-house with PGW. Far as we know, it could've all be done over the internet across the three different developers. There are quite a few games where the development team is one person, so it seems like flawed reasoning. Simon Thomley's one-man development team is called Headcannon, Whitehead's company is simply called Christian Whitehead. Simple as that. Wonchop (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Who is saying they shouldn't be? You seem to be making an issue out of nothing. According to the infobox documentation, only companies belong in the developer/publisher field, and single-person devs under their real name (Whitehead here) belong in the staff section instead. There is no company called "Christian Whitehead", unless you can prove it. A logo doesn't count, as individual people can have them as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Transcribing JP paper sources

I'm going to transcribe the Japanese paper sources into print and translate what I can with the help of google translate. Unfortunately the scans are low resolution, so kanji I can't make out will be replaced with an underscore "_". I will go back later to fill holes. Others can help fill in the blanks.

Transcription

Famitsu Magazine Spril 2017, page 23

「ソニックマニア」はマニアが作るマニアのためのタイトル！

Q: 続いて、「ソニックマニア」の企画がスタートした時期と経緯をお聞かせください。

A: ２０１５年ごろにアメリカ側から「２Dソニックを移植したい」という話を持ち上がったのですが、会話のときに私がふと「（リメイクではなく）過去作のいくつかのステージと新しいステージをいくつか混ぜた完全新作を作ったらどうだろう」と＿索したところ、ものすごく盛り上がったんです。そのときに、そんなゲームを説明するのにホワイトボードに書いた言葉が、「ソニックマニア」だったんです。

Q: それがそのままタイトルに！？

A: そうなんですよ（笑）。彼らにゲームのコンセプトを伝えるための名前のつもりだったのですが、開発がスタートしてからも誰も＿＿を唱えることなく正式名称となりました。

Q: マニアが喜ぶというのは具体的には？

A: 2Dソニックは複数タイトルがありますが、今回はあくまでオリジナルであるメガドライブ版５タイトルの延長線うえにある新作です。過去作からのステージをピックアップしているのですが、さらに”そのステージを知っているからこそ、この展開がおもしろい”というゲーム作りをしたかったのです。

Q: では、具体的にはどのように制作が進んでいったのでしょうか。

A: さっくり言うと開発チームからのステージ設計を私が添削する流れです。何しろ開発者全員が「ソニック」に関してマニア中のマニアなので、すごくいいツボを押さえてくるんです。２Dソニックのマップを作るのはけっこうスキルがいるのですが、旧作を遊び尽くしているため、いいマップを上げてくるので驚きました。

Q: 2Dグラフィックは、とのように制作しているのですが？

A: 基本は昔と同じドット絵です。　ソニックたちの動きはキャラパターンを描いて表現しています、背景もいわゆるBG（バックグラウンド）面のルールに則って描いています。いまの技術があれば、ポリゴンで作って動かしたほうがよっぽどラクなのですが、「ソニックマニア」のコンセプトは当時の「ソニック」の続編を作ることですから、未来の技術を多用してしまうと、どんどん違う作品になってしまう。表現として使いたいごく一部分にだけポリゴン描画を使っていますが、基本はあえてドット絵で描くようにしています。グラフィックの基準としては　”メガドライブ以上、サターン未満”　くらいです。

Q: プレイ感覚も当時のまま？

A: アクションの挙動は「ソニック３」そのままです。ゲームシステムも「ソニック３」を踏襲していて、キャラクターごとにスタート地点が違ったり、フレイム、アクア、サンダーのバリアの効果もそのままです。

Q: 開発は＿調ですか？

A:　残念なのですが、発売を２０１７年春から２０１７年夏に延期させていただくことになりました。とういうのも、開発スタッフのこだわりが強すぎるので、当初の開発スケジュールより遅れているのです。スタッフを追加したりと、遅らせないような手は尽くしていますが、なにせこだわりの人たちなので。楽しみに待っていただいているファンの方には申し訳ありませんが、発売までもうしばらくお待ちください。

Translation

Sonic Mania is a game made by the mania, for the mania!

Q: Please tell us about the time and events that started the planning of Sonic Mania.

A: Sometime in 2015, people from America came and presented an idea that they wanted to make a 2D Sonic game. In the conversation, I suddenly said "Why don't we make a new game that mixes up old stages with new stages?", and became very excited. At that time, when I was explaining the game, I wrote the words "Sonic Mania" on the whiteboard.

Q: And the title stuck!?

A: That's true (laughs). The purpose of the title was to better explain the idea of the game to them. Even after development started no one disputed the name so it became the final title.

Q: What is being done to please the "mania"?

A: There are a few 2D Sonic titles, but this time we are making a new game that follows the original 5 Mega Drive games. We are picking up qualities from the past stages we made, but making them in a way that people will say "I know this stage, but the way they expanded it is interesting."

Q: From that, how is the development coming along?

A:　To keep it brief, the flow is that I review the stage plans that the development team creates. Since the developers are the "mania" of the "mania" (as in, they are more maniacal for Sonic than anyone), they are able to hit the spot. Creating a 2D Sonic map takes quite a bit of skill, but by playing the old games to exhaustion, they surprised me with good maps.

Q: What kind of work was done with the 2D graphics?

A: We used the pixel art of the past as a basis. The movement of the Sonic characters depicts and draws a character design, and it also must be drawn in accordance to the rules of the background and scenery. If you use the technology available today, it is much easier to make with polygons, but the concept of Sonic Mania is to make a continuation of the games of that past era, so if you use future technology too much, it becomes a new and different work. For the presentation we want to create, we are using just a bit of polygon designs, and are trying to keep it to a basis of pixel art. Our graphics basis is something like "better than Mega Drive, but not quite Saturn".

Q: Was the gameplay feel also taken from that time?

A: We kept the action gameplay of Sonic 3. The game system also follows Sonic 3, like how each character starts in a different location, and the "flame", "aqua", and "thunder" barrier effects were kept as well.

Q: Is the development _____?

A: Regretfully, we decided to postpone the release from spring 2017 to summer 2017. Even so, it's because of the development staff's strong determination that we are behind schedule. (Don't understand sentence here). I am sorry for the fans who are waiting for the fun, please wait a little longer for the release.

TarkusAB^talk 19:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't bother transcribing the last question because it's along the lines of "Anything else to say?" and Iizuka-san goes on a little PR rant about all the upcoming Sonic stuff. That took longer than I thought, I couldn't do another, but maybe someone will get something out of this. TarkusAB^talk 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, due to this I was able to expand the prose in the development section a little. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Another source

• http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/features/a-chat-with-fan-turned-creator-of-sonic-mania-w501581

~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Great article, but this is better fit for Whitehead's page than here, as it doesn't really say anything new about the project, from what I see. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• It did say, though, that the special stages were inspired by the DS games, which I've added to the article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• When you get into the later games in the series, like Rush and Colors, I view those more as a platformer mixed with a racing game, rather than a pure platformer. There’s a lot of focus on drift mechanics and traveling at a high speed. The core game in Sonic Mania basically sticks to that classic formula, but, in particular, the 3D Special Stages take inspiration from the newer games. ~ Unless I'm misreading it, it seems like he means more of the 3D era than the DS games in particular. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yea it sounds like he is talking about the speed in Rush along with the drift mechanics in Unleashed, Wii Colors, etc. So I think it's fair to say the special stages were inspired by the high speeds and drifting gameplay of modern Sonic offerings. TarkusAB^talk 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Which could probably be added to the article still. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture's caption under development section very misleading

The picture comparing two screenshots demonstrating Mirage Saloon's inspiration from Dust Hill, a scrapped zone from Sonic 2, has a very misleading caption; in addition, the photo choice of Dust Hill is also questionable. The caption, which I attempted to correct, falsely implies that the upper screenshot is from Sonic 2, despite it being from a ROM hack simply recreating what Dust Hill may have been like. There is only one official screenshot of Dust Hill, and even that was likely a mock-up image created by the marketing team as Sonic is off-center. A few examples of said screenshot are here:

http://info.sonicretro.org/images/3/3e/DesertlevelCorrectColor.JPG

http://info.sonicretro.org/Images/2/02:00/Mag_compare3a.jpg

http://info.sonicretro.org/images/3/35/Desert_preview.jpg

The upper screenshot simply shows a recreation of the official screenshot with better clarity. However, no assets from the original Dust Hill are publicly available or known to exist, aside from the 'Gator' Badnik. The caption or the upper screenshot should be changed accordingly. --MeanMotherJr (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Source for it being a ROM hack? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • He doesn't need a source to prove it wrong when there's no source to prove it right. As far as I've read, he's right. The only actual Dust Hill image is this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Is there even a source to show that the stage was inspired by Dust Hill in the first place? I don't see it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It's mentioned in the kotaku source. MeanMother is right though, it is a ROM hack. When I uploaded the image, I thought Dust Hill was in one of the early builds like the Simon Wai proto, but that's only Wood Zone and Hidden Palace. Maybe the upper screenshot should be replaced with the official screenshot. Thoughts? TarkusAB^talk 03:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I added the source to the caption so the source for the claim is clear. As for the screenshot, we definitely shouldn't use the romhack image. We should either delete it or replace it with the early mocked-up screenshot released by Sega back in the day. Popcornduff (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
          • All, the image has been fixed, thanks for pointing this out. TarkusAB^talk 19:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Denuvo DRM and Steam user backlash

It has been shown that the game has an always-on DRM on Steam, and that has generated a massive backlash within hours from release on the platform. I guess this needs to be documented on Post-Release Reception. 月夜丸ゼロ (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

こんにちは～...Do you have a reliable source that talks about it? TarkusAB^talk 21:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've heard fans complaining...but they do that about everything always. It's not worth including until reliable sources (video game journalists (IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer etc) start covering it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right now it's only the Steam review section that is showing this reception. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ars Technica has published an article about it: [2]. Sparkpin (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear, that source only covers the fact that the DRM exists. It doesn't really cover any of the proposed "fan outrage". Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is always fan outrage against DRM (as it is an anti-consumer practice), most people complaining about it will move on to another thing in a week. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

An edit has been made here on this, which I believe is the best way to handle this from an encyclopedic standpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Which I still had to adjust, as the offline thing officially has nothing to do with DRM. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn't having to be "always online" considered a form of DRM? Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It would seem so, but Sega said that the game was always meant to be played offline, so the previous wording in the article here felt more like an assumption (even if they weren't technically wrong), than what the official word from Sega stated. As for the fan outrage, Steam itself is DRM, and people will forget about this soon anyway, so I don't think there needs to be anything further written on it here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be edit warring on whether or not the fact that the DRM was cracked should be included. It was covered by some of the most mainstream VG sources out ther - like Polygon - so it seems worth mentioning (and not worth the effort in maintenance in keeping it out.) Just a sentence, or even half sentence even (and not in the lead, where some have randomly placed it. Definitely not that important.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I don't know if I agree. People have already been mislead by it in thinking that it has been fully removed, when all that happened was now a cracked version exists for pirates. Sega has yet to remove Denuvo from any of their games on Steam, so its unlikely they do it for Sonic Mania. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd feel that it would be hard to convey that idea with the right wording though. Especially considering how easily you just did on this talk page just now... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not just the wording, it's the fact that Denuvo being cracked isn't the breaking news it used to be. Pretty much every PC game gets cracked, DRM or not, and just because sources reported on it doesn't mean it has to belong in the article. Unless Sega themselves get rid of it, I remain unconvinced that it should be added here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Polygon and a number of other mainstream websites disagree with you. They dedicated whole sources to it. It got a lot of coverage, and all that's necessary is half a sentence. Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Even the published articles I've read really say nothing other than "it was cracked a week after launch". In them, they have more written about the whole ordeal with the always-online play issue and public criticism of it, which has already been covered here. And if it has to be added, then what should the sentence say? "A week after launch, a cracked version of the game was released"? Personally, I still fail to see how this belongs here, but it seems others don't agree with me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

All the sources say "it was cracked in a week" and all it needs to say is "it was cracked after a week". Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

But then users who aren't so tech savy will wonder what exactly that means, so it has to be elaborated. Sega is also unlikely to remove it from the game themselves, so will there be there any lasting effect of it, outside of pirates now being able to play it? It would be helpful if others would give their opinions on this matter before re-adding it (or not). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Connections with Sonic Forces

On behalf of the IP that added this information, I will start this discussion. Here are the sources provided by the IP that provided the connection to Sonic Forces: [3] [4]. I have not seen these videos, so I cannot confirm their verifiability at this time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• The powers of the Phantom Ruby are spelled out in this video: "Virtual reality weapon: the Phantom Ruby. A weapon that takes control of people's visual and depth perception to feed false information to the brain, creating a new reality for them! Like a dream so real, if you bump your self in it, your sleeping self will bruise? It's hard to believe." And with Mania ending with Sonic getting sucked into a wormhole, this Forces cutscene shows him emerging, where Tails explicitly states he's a Sonic from another dimension. And that's ignoring the circumstantial evidence such as Sonic striking the pose from the original Forces teaser in Mania's ending. There's not a whole lot of room to debate interpretation here. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Leaked footage" from a random YouTuber is not a reliable or usable source on Wikipedia. A different source would be necessary at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that this footage would become an acceptable source after the 7th when the game is out. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If the game is out, and the statement is made literally and directly so that there is no reasonable argument for doubting it, then yes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

But the game is out in a week, hence why we have footage from people who obtained copies before street date, and the statement is made literally and directly in this footage by one of the characters. This isn't some YouTuber making an argument, this is spoken dialogue directly from the game. Here's the same scene uploaded by another user without commentary (along with the rest of the story), proving it wasn't just some fake Besides, when I tried to make a hidden warning not to add details from leaked footage before release on the Forces page, I was reverted and told that leaked content was okay as long as it was verifiable. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. YouTubers fail WP:USERG unless it's a verified account like a reliable source like IGN or Eurogamer. They can't be used as sources. Games can only be sourced if they are readily available for verification. Whoever told you leaked info was usable was incorrect. People upload altered/fake/hoax stuff all the time. Just chill out for a week. It's a minor fictional detail about a video game that's not even heavily story based. The world can wait a week. If it's that important, more reliable sources will report on it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I have to question whether this belongs at all, sourced or not. It's more trivial than need-to-know information, as it has no real impact in Sonic Forces beyond why classic Sonic appears. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've written the hidden note to explain that the connection to Forces is an easter egg. That's how I feel about this. JOEBRO64 00:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, but does EASTEREGG says what you think it does? Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm just imagining someone doing something like After the battle, the Phantom Ruby reacts with the Chaos Emeralds, creating a wormhole that engulfs Sonic and the ruby as Little Planet vanishes. That's really why I added it there. It's still an easter egg so I don't think it belongs. I think this fandom tries to make pointless connections between games all the time; I'm trying to prevent this. JOEBRO64 00:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your stance fully, I just thought EASTEREGG, on a Wikipedia level, was more about misleading piped Wikilinks. Regardless, outside of that, your argument is sound. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross, Joebro's example text there includes an WP:EASTEREGG link. I assume that's his point.

Anyway: this entire argument is doubly redundant because the information isn't relevant to the Sonic Mania plot. Sequels continue stories, that's not notable. It doesn't warrant inclusion even when a reliable source becomes available. Popcornduff (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Information given in sequels should not be included in the original game's article. (The Sonic fandom isn't even the most annoying about this stuff; it's probably the Five Nights at Freddy's one. [5][6]) JOEBRO64 20:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Music sub-section

So I'm planning on adding a "Music" sub-section using the info on the soundtrack that's already here, but I wanted to get some thoughts on if its necessary. Anyone agree? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see it having enough written about it to warrant its own subsection. Keep in mind that tracklistings are considered WP:GAMECRUFT, if that's what you meant. Any further info about the music can just be put into the dev section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't mean tracklists (I had to remove the one at Super Mario 64 a while back), I just think there's enough info on the music to make a sub-section. Like how other Sonic games do have sub-sections. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to what's planned here, but what Dissident93 is saying is it's not like Rocket League where there's a separate article for a soundtrack for the game (see Rocket League x Monstercat Vol. 1.) There has to be enough sources for there to be a section on the subject of music, even more for a separate article. See #15 of the gamecruft page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• I doubt you could find enough to write two or three paragraphs about the music, which is usually when it has its own subsection. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Id just expand it where it is for now. Whether or not I'd support a section split would highly depend on the amount of non-crufty content added. Right now, it doesn't seem warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I've added one. Found a good PCG article about it, what inspired Tee Lopes, and what he sampled. JOEBRO64 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Starting an archive

Would I be in the wrong to archive most of the discussions here? It's getting pretty long (25 discussions). JOEBRO64 16:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course not! Archives are good! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's normally handled by a bot, but perhaps they need to be added to a list beforehand? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The bot was never set up for this talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Bots handle it, but only if someone sets it up to do it. But yes, feel free to start up an archive without asking. Unless you're manually archiving conversations that are actively still being discussed in, you're unlikely to have any opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Stuff I fixed in my recent edits:

• Development, music and release/promotion are different things covered in sufficient depth that they deserve independent sections.
• "composed and arranged by Tee Lopes" - you don't need both composed and arranged, arranged is implied by composed unless otherwise stated
  • edit: Dissident93 points out that he did actually only arrange, not compose, half the soundtrack, good call. I forgot half the soundtrack was remixes.
• "Lopes wanted the soundtrack to sound like that of Sonic CD's" - you've written "of" and used the possessive apostrophe?
• "consisting of both remixed tracks from previous Sonic games, alongside new material". Both remixed tracks AND WHAT alongside new material?
• "Excited after seeing the potential," just silly hyperbole that adds no information, all we need to know is he approved the project.
• "calling it as" - was this supposed to be "describing it as"?

I suspect it was reverted because I changed a lot of things and someone panicked rather than inspect the changes properly. If I "messed with refs", please point out where the mistakes are, I'll fix em. Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Popcornduff, I do thank you for these edits, but they were a bit sloppy. You had a "dev and release" and a "promo and release" sections and repeated the Famitsu reference. Also, the music should be part of development because that's where it's relevant. I'm on mobile right now so I couldn't really see the full content. Sorry. JOEBRO64 15:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

If you're on mobile and unable to properly inspect lots of edits, maybe hold off reverting them? It's not hard to delete a repeated reference. I'll restore my fixes for now. Popcornduff (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, that took all of 60 seconds, keeping the previous headings intact and removing the duplicate ref.

The development, music and promotion /release stuff should be three different sections, in that order. Right now the reading order goes:

1. Development history
2. Release (going up until after the game development ended)
3. Music (... going back to development again)

Isn't that weird? Just group Development and Music so they're next to one another, then begin the Release section, separate topic. The fact that the game was promoted with a retro infomercial, for example, has exactly fuck-all to do with the development. Popcornduff (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There. Release is separate. Happy now? And is this over? JOEBRO64 15:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I can go to bed now. Popcornduff (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Development expansion

Are there any more developer interviews or articles we haven't used yet? I feel like the dev section is missing something but I don't know what. JOEBRO64 01:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the Dengeki interview at the top of the page, Iizuka said that the designers based the gameplay on Sonic 3's and designed the first act to seem familiar, and the second act to have new features. This seems important. JOEBRO64 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like that was obvious, but it being directly stated is nice. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Something I feel is missing is a more clear explanation of what exactly "remixed" means, in regards to the old stages being brought back. Along with this, the way in which stage gimmicks were mixed and matched is omitted, like how Oil Ocean act 2 features aspects from Sandopolis act 2, and Chemical Plant 2 features the bouncy floor from Wacky Workbench. We don't need to call out specific examples, but it needs more explanation. TarkusAB^talk 19:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It could simply say "remixed stages, which consist of both new elements and recycled gimmicks and ideas from other retro-era Sonic stages." or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

yea something like that TarkusAB^talk 20:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Friends

Re: this edit @TheJoebro64: The domain isn't listed on RS, but this source links the video from the artists with the title of the song. Would this be sufficient? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't know that was the actual title, since I haven't played the game and didn't see it in any reliable sources. JOEBRO64 01:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Forces in plot

Why can't we let them know that the story isn't over? They were practically released alongside each other! Mania was referenced in the Forces page.2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C190:44EA:5C67:FC9F (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The plot is a very minor part of either game, and the plot connection is very weak. It'd be one thing if we were talking about detailed, direct continuation of games in something like Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, or the individual entries of the Xenosaga trilogy. But there's very little to connect between these 2 games. It's not worth mentioning. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's trivial in-universe information, so it doesn't belong per WP:GAMETRIVIA. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Mania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can do this one, though I would warmly welcome additional feedback from other editors, particularly ones more involved with video game articles than I am. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Generally, the year of publication is important enough for the reader's context to be included in the first sentence. Perhaps: Sonic Mania is a 2017 2D platform game published by Sega. or alternatively Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published in 2017 by Sega. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've used your first suggestion. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @TheJoebro64 and Dissident93: I was about to pass this, but I noticed that there is a dispute ongoing regarding this point. I searched the archives of WT:VG, and I presume you guys are referring to this discussion. I can't confess to being overly familiar with the intricacies of video game article style, but what I do know is that many good/featured quality video game articles do conform to this practice of including the year of release in the first sentence even when a fuller release date is described in a later paragraph.
      I read the discussion, and I'm not sure there is a consensus either way beyond a "case-by-case" approach. I can understand the views on both sides of the aisle: on the one hand, it feels a little redundant to include when a fuller release date is repeated later on in the lead, but on the other hand, time is an important piece of contextual information that we should solidify with the reader as soon as possible. I would accept a compromise solution of removing the year while simultaneously shifting the sentence that reads, "Sonic Mania was released [on various platforms ...] in August 2017.", closer to the start of the lead. Ultimately, however, I feel that the way it is presented right now is the most most natural way of doing it and the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Mz7 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • the way that reflects how most other video game articles do it. Yet I would tend to disagree, as most game articles that I watch or have seen generally just include the exact date/month of release rather than the year in the opening sentence. And not to sound elitist, but shouldn't we confirm more to MOS:VG/WT:VG consensus rather than a single GA reviewer's opinion, one who is admittedly unfamiliar with VG specific guidelines? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, I do tend to write my articles with the generic year in the first sentence, and most GA/FA articles I see do the same. JOEBRO64 01:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
          • @Dissident93 and TheJoebro64: If there were truly an explicit guideline on this, then I would be happy to follow it, but the WT:VG discussion recommended a case-by-case approach with few parameters other than avoiding redundancy. In this case, I can definitely see your point that the release year in the first sentence is redundant to the release year in the third paragraph of the lead. However, I still think the time of release is important enough context that it should be first mentioned further up in the lead. I think the time context is especially significant in this case because this particular game attempts to recreate the style of an earlier era of its franchise. My argument here is backed in part by the general MOS:BEGIN, which states that identifying contextual information such as time should be included in the opening paragraph. An alternative solution is to change the first sentence to read, Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published by Sega in August 2017., and then remove the in August 2017 in the third paragraph. This would resolve the redundancy issue. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
            • I've gone and used your suggestion. JOEBRO64 11:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
              • The problem here outside of personal preference was redundancy, which was taken care of with this edit. However, there was still room for improvement. Saying it was just "published in August 2017" makes it seem like it has been out of print since (this matters more the older the game gets). So, I changed the wording from that to "Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published by Sega, which released worldwide in August 2017", which I think everybody can agree on. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
                • Looks good. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "As with Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992), players can play as Sonic and Tails simultaneously, or a second player can control Tails independently" - source does not mention Sonic 2 and focuses specifically on the ability of Tails to carry Sonic in the air in single-player mode, rather than a general explanation of Tails' role.
  • Someone's done this. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• "players survive hits as long as they have at least one ring, but their rings scatter and disappear after a short time." - the rings scatter only when you are hit, right? currently, this might be a little ambiguous and may imply to a completely lay reader that rings scatter and disappear regardless of whether you are hit. it may be helpful to change the last part to "… but if hit, their rings scatter and disappear after a short time"
  • Done. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• "Giant rings hidden in each act … lead to pseudo-3D special stages similar to those in Sonic CD" - what is different about these special stages that make them "pseudo-3D" as opposed to just "3D"? Mz7 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically, they're not really "3D", they're just rendered with polygons, so I think "pseudo-3D" is correct. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Development

• Ref 25, the "(Unofficial) Live Sonic Mania Developer Playthrough" by Simon "Stealth" Thomley, is a very long video (7 hours). It may be helpful to provide the location in the video when Thomley verifies the information in question. I'm also leery of linking to unofficial walkthrough videos per WP:COPYLINK, but this case is a gray area because the walkthrough is done by someone who worked for SEGA
  • I'll do this later, so I'll respond to this point again when it's done. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "The desert-themed Mirage Saloon Zone was inspired by the unfinished Sonic 2 level Dust Hill" - This might be nitpicky, but the source observes that Mirage Saloon Zone resembles Dust Hill, but I'm not sure it states specifically that the developers were directly inspired by Dust Hill (it's likely, but make sure we're not presenting speculation as fact). Perhaps change to: The desert-themed Mirage Saloon Zone resembles the unfinished Sonic 2 level Dust Hill Zone and was inspired by the Monument Valley region of the United States
  • Here's a quote from the source that verifies the information: "Hidden Palace and Dust Hill, were resurrected officially in the iOS remasters and Sonic Mania."
• "It also features an optional CRT graphical filter" - I may have missed it, but although this statement has 4 citations supporting it, only ref 28 (Polygon) mentions it. Mz7 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed; that's because it had some other information in it that was later put in another part of the article. JOEBRO64 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @TheJoebro64: Apologies for my slight inactivity on this. Something came up in real life and I have been without a stable Internet connection for a few days now. I’ll definitely finish this by the end of this week, though. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Release

• "... the twenty-fifth anniversary Sonic event at the San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) event in July 2016" - it sounds a little awkward to repeat the word "event" here. maybe instead of "event" change to "the San Diego Comic-Con (SDCC) convention" Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. JOEBRO64 10:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• Not 100% sure whether Cubed3 is reliable - listed as "situational" at WP:VG/RS. I also hadn't heard of Comic Book before now, but it looks like it has sufficient editorial oversight, so for me it's not a blocker for GA. Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Per this discussion, Cubed3 is acceptable for Nintendo-related content. Since the one used here is a review of the Nintendo Switch version, it should be fine. JOEBRO64 10:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• "Polygon cited frustrations with controls and enemy placement as examples of Sonic Mania's dedication to the original games to a fault." - I think this sentence could be reworded to more clearly capture the main idea of the article. It's a little confusing to a reader who hasn't read the article how "controls and enemy placement" relates to "dedication to the original games". Maybe something like "Polygon commented that frustrations with controls and enemy placement which were present in the original Sonic games continued to be present in Sonic Mania". Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've reworded it. JOEBRO64 13:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall

@TheJoebro64: Overall, I think you and the others involved with this article have crafted a good resource for anyone interested in this game. Great work! I reviewed the rest of the article, and I don't think there are any glaring issues remaining that would bar promotion to GA. Since I published my notes as I went, and you've already responded to most of them, I don't think there's any need to put this one "on hold". I raised a note about the Polygon review above; once that's resolved, I would be happy to pass this review.

One small punctuation nitpick that isn't that important: when a sentence has two predicates/verbs, the article tends to split them with a comma. My understanding is that most style guides consider this incorrect. For example, the following sentence in the lead section does not actually need a comma: "The team built the game using Whitehead's Retro Engine, and aimed for a graphical quality between that of Genesis and Sega Saturn games." Here's a blog post on the APA style website that has more information. —Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you for the review! I've reworded the Polygon sentence and added the event time in the video. I'll keep an eye out for the commas; I removed the one you pointed out. JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased Introduction

"Many viewed it as a return to form for the series following a number of poorly-received Sonic games released after the 1990" This needs to be edited out as it seems to be an informed biased view from the author. There have been lots of successful Sonic games after 1990 Some of the best selling Sonic games have been the 3D ones after Sonic 2. Generations, Colours, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Heroes, Sonic Rush, for example (Even though the latter is 2D but still a modern game). Please disregard the last statement in the opening of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.202.180 (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's well sourced in the article. Popcornduff (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note, the wording does not say "every single entry since the 90s is bad". It just says "a number of poorly -received titles", something that, even the biggest fanboy/fangirl would be hardpressed to be argue against. As noted above, many professional reviewers have noted the same thing as the current wording. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Popcornduff. The exact wording doesn't matter, it still implies that the aforementioned handheld games as well as any spin-off game were just as weakly-received as the any of the "main series" titles. As a website that's supposed to cover events with a neutral perspective, this is unacceptable. I've have edited the article accordingly. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're following this discussion correctly. Popcornduff, as far as how I read it, was against 114.77's proposal. He's saying that the current wording is well sourced, not that this proposal was well sourced. That's what I was saying. I could be wrong about Popcornduff...but if he agreed with 114.77, it seems like he would have implemented the changes 4 months ago, back when we were still discussing thing actively... Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

My question is how people are assuming that the current wording implies that all Sonic games after 1990 were bad. This isn't said anywhere in the article. JOEBRO64 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

People just read what they want to see. The "a number of" part should imply that not every game in the series was viewed this way. Perhaps it could be written more clearly, but it should not be removed, as sources commented on how this was a return to form for the series, which couldn't be the case if the series was basically never seen in anything but a positive light, such as the Mario games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is clear, neutral, and supported by the sources. I suspect MarcoPolo250 misattributed the IP comment to me. Popcornduff (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonic's New Era

Sonic has good games repetition in the 1990s that continued through the early 2000s and the article says after the 1990s which they think Sonic Can't work in 3D which is obviously a hoax. Sonic's poor reputation for numerous of games being released after the year 2002 roughly except for handheld games because they have well received so it doesn't count as well as Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations. (SonicTV64) (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• The sources don't really agree with you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• As I've pointed out to others, please read what the article actually says. It doesn't say "all 2000s games were terrible". It's just saying that Mania was seen as a return to form to the 90s games, which were also well received. You're reading things that the text in the article doesn't actually say. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, Sonic Mania returns to the roots only from some fans but it is just the return of the classic Sonic gameplay, Sonic has returned to his roots in Sonic Colors after his past games from the mid-late 2000s which these games were poorly received. Sonic Colors received well along with Sonic Generations. I thought that the text says that Sonic Adventure 2 and onwards weren't received well but it has been the last well-received sonic game before it's declining.
  • Sonic's declining years were from 2003-2009 and 2013-onwards. Sonic was trying to bring back to the series' roots ever since 2006 which after seeing Shadow the Hedgehog's bad received. Sonic Forces is also trying to bring back to Sonic's roots with Sonic Mania. Mabe by 2020, there will be another best Sonic game to be well received or 2021, I guess Sonic fans should just have to wait.
  • Sonic has some well recieved games during the 2000s and there are some poorly recieved games during the 1990s and 2000 with Sonic Shuffle but that game is not really a main series title.(SonicTV64) (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Encore Mode in plot?

Should Encore Mode be mentioned in the plot section? It does seem to take place right after Forces after all... (Mania Adventures was just there to build up to Plus' release) Visokor (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware it even continued the narrative (I haven't played Plus yet). I don't think a small sentence or two would hurt, but it shouldn't be anything major. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• That was my stance too. Does it add/alter the plot meaningfully? Or is it just like “and now Knuckles was in the background watching the event” or something trivial like that? Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Why'd you add a CN tag, the cite was already there"

Joebro64: Good question. I don't even remember adding it. Must have been a copy-paste fuckup or something. Thanks for fixing it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I've noticed the Visual Editor get sorta spazzy sometimes while using it. JOEBRO64 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

My name is not Sam Sailor.

Who reverted my edits? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Plus release dates in the infobox? Unless I've just missed new discussion about it since then, it was decided to not include it there because it's more bundled DLC than some new release version of the game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed with Dissident. JOEBRO64 01:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
• Thirded. Popcornduff (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Special stages

Re [7], here's my reasons for reverting.

• It's overwritten. An example: players dodge obstacles and collect colored spheres to increase their speed, allowing them to pursue a UFO carrying a Chaos Emerald → To catch the UFO, players can collect spheres that increase their speed, which makes it easier to catch it, but requires players to exercise greater control of their character at higher speeds.
• Besides that, the prose isn't good. Example: Like the Blue Sphere stages, players must complete a unique course hitting every blue sphere on it. Not to mention people can go to the Sonic 3 & Knuckles to learn how these stages work.
• I highly doubt the sources go into this level of detail.

Any objections? JOEBRO64 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to copy edit the current version but I realized I was just bringing it closer to the earlier version, so I'd support a revert. Too much detail for a side portion of the game. TarkusAB^talk 20:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"...It does not imply that EVERY Sonic game released since the 1990s has been poorly-received."

Yes it does. Sonic Colors was considered an improvement over previous main series installments, but wasn't released in the 1990s. The handheld Sonic Advance and Rush series also received more positive reviews in comparison to most of the console games released at the time, but again, they weren't released in the 1990s. The "1990s" is clearly another term for the Genesis games, and I've changed it accordingly to due to the obvious bias. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As if said before, "the exact wording doesn't matter, it still implies that the handheld games as well as any spin-off game were just as weakly-received as the any of the "main series" titles. As a website that's supposed to cover events with a neutral perspective, this is unacceptable..." a number of poorly received games released after the 1990s" does NOTHING BUT imply that that EVERY Sonic game released since the 1990s has been poorly-received." How is that not anything but opinionated bias? MarcoPolo250 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The key phrase is "a number". There have been dozens of Sonic games released since the 1990s. There is no bias in the sentence; it is simply fact. The sources present in the article support it, and look at how much commentary there is about it at the Sonic the Hedgehog article. JOEBRO64 23:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "a number" just means "several". The sentence is fine and supported by sources. I think this is cut and dry. Popcornfud (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

And what is "several" supposed to mean? Bias.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the Sonic commentary section, its irrelevant. The opinions of a few game columnists don't represent the opinions of the entire fanbase, let alone the majority of gamers. Besides, it only reinforces my point that not all modern Sonic games should be lumped in as if they were terrible. My point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. At the very least, "following a number of poorly received games released after the 1990s" is vague. How can it not mean anything other then Genesis games? MarcoPolo250 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to document the sentiment of “gamers” or “the fanbase”. It documents what reliable sources state. In the Wikipedia context, this means professional publications. Beyond that, the text just simply doesn’t say what you say it does. It doesn’t say every game since the 90s is bad. This wording has been in place for a long time. Trust me, there’d be a lot more fanboy complaints going on if people were reading it the same way you appear to be. But they’re not. Now please stop edit warring or you’re going to get your account blocked or the page locked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an edit war if you knew what the word "bias" means. I'd tell you to piss off, but that would be rude.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you re-read what I just linked you on edit warring, you’d understand that what you just said is not how we handle edit warring at all. I strongly recommend you slow down and start learning how Wikipedia actually works before arguing further. Every comment you make seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of policy. If you don’t stop, a stop will be implemented for you... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

MarcoPolo250, At the very least, "following a number of poorly received games released after the 1990s" is vague. How can it not mean anything other then Genesis games? Well, yes, all but one (or two depending on if you count Sonic CD) of the main Sonic games of the 90s were released for Genesis, so this means the Genesis games plus Sonic Adventure (Dreamcast). Since then a number of poorly received Sonic games have been released. I am still not seeing your objection here. Popcornfud (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Genesis + Dreamcast? I'm sorry, what about the other console platforms? You say, "a number of poorly received Sonic games have been released", but are you still talking about consoles or handhelds? Bias.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As the man, the myth, the legend Videogamedunkey once said, you can't just resort to calling people who disagree with you "biased". That's not helpful, and you're not providing any evidence to show that what was in the article is not true. JOEBRO64 11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sonic Team

Wasn't Mania co-developed (or at least supervised) by Sonic Team? One of the cited sources here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04nBdQU9rbc) claims it was. 190.139.39.251 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

They worked with Takashi Iizuka contributed a little, but that's already documented in the article, and wouldn't really lead to a Sonic Team credit really. Sergecross73 msg me 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Hyper Potions" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hyper Potions. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Hyper Potions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"PagodaWest Games" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PagodaWest Games. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#PagodaWest Games until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Game developed in Australia"

An editor keeps adding this category, citing Christian Whitehead being Australian. This is flawed reasoning - just because he's Australian doesn't mean he made it while in Australia. So there's a few questions here:

1. Did he?
2. Even if did, is that enough? This game is a global property with developed team members scattered across the world.
3. Even after that, does it pass WP:DEFINING? This is a pretty well-developed article and the fact that it was developed in Australia isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone shown as a defining characteristic.

I could be wrong, and if I am, so be it. But I wanted to be wrong for the right reasons, not the lackluster explanation I was given. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, we'll need a source before we even consider adding a category. Popcornfud (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree that just because a dev is of a certain nationality doesn't mean the game was developed in that region. I can't think of any example where the dev's nationality wasn't where the game was developed at the moment but I"m sure there is one out there. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Tantalus Media, who are based in Australia, did also partially develop the Switch version too, which is sourced, and I still think they should be credited for that in the developer list. And even disregarding that, I still think this game counts as an Australian-American co-production, so it should be listed in Video Games developed in Australia.Vesperius (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)