Talk:Sonic Generations

Super&Hyper

Have there been any word on Hyper Sonic,or Super Tails,or Super Knuckles,or Hyper Knuckles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.25.111 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That hasn't been announced yet. Surely, if/when it is, it'll be all over the article (and probably the internet too.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC) feature video proving that sonic generations will include super sonic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PK8h2-YKT0

Oh cool!:D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay screenshots and pictures of the classic and modern interprations of Sonic.

Anyone have some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbwiki (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I do think that the article could use a shot each of Classic and Modern gameplay for illustration purposes. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm the guy from the top(talk),there are screen shots on the Sonic Generations on the Sonic News Network Sonic Generations page.(talk)

Nintendo 3DS

There appears to be an ongoing edit war about this subject, so let's get this resolved. - wANINOKOZ ^♪♫♪ 22:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no gameplay of the 3DS version so it's still a rumor.--Sonic100jam (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need gameplay footage. Multiple source that are considered legitimate by Wikipedia standards have reported on the existence of the 3DS version. Furthermore, we have scans of the Nintendo Power issue confirming its existence, including screenshots and a Q&A with Iizuka. That's more than enough evidence to move this from "rumored" to "confirmed". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Scans for proof. Again, MORE than enough evidence. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sonic100jam, will you please stop editing the page until this is settled. If you continue to do so, then action will be taken. - wANINOKOZ ^♪♫♪ 22:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are confirming it, that's all that matters. Sonicjam has no valid argument. Put/keep it in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the images and people make fake stuff like that all the time.--Sonic100jam (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you all ever heard of SEGA's Hedgehog engine?--Sonic100jam (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The 3DS version doesn't run on the Hedgehog Engine; if you actually read the article and looked at the screens, you'd see it's a separate port entirely, with the modern stages playing like Rush and the DS version of Colors. Again, you have absolutely NO evidence to support your belief that these scans are fake. "It looks shopped" isn't enough; the burden of proof is on you at this point. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I know but there's still a possibility that it may be fake because it's just pictures and there's no video or footage of it yet.--Sonic100jam (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe that this is fake, especially considering the same information is coming from multiple people who own copies of the issue. If you really think it's fake, you're going to have to prove it. Otherwise, you argument has nothing to stand on, and the 3DS entry will stay on the page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well OK! But for not it's still a rumor. It's has been confirmed yet.--Sonic100jam (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, for now it's confirmed because we have screenshots and multiple legitimate sources validating its existence. According to Wiki standards, that constitutes fact. It stays confirmed unless you can prove it wrong. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats how the game would look but there's no gameplay yet.--Sonic100jam (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure where you got the idea that gameplay footage is needed in order to confirm something on wikipedia. It's not. Also, the Nintendo Power has an interview with a game developer, so it's certainly more than "just a rumor". See here Sergecross73 msg me 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So if Sega's website was wiped entirely and replaced with the worlds "Sonic Generations is coming to 3DS", you still wouldn't be convinced because there's no video? Your argument is incredibly flawed. Again, the page stays as is unless you have some way to prove the Nintendo Power scans aren't real. -- Cyberlink420 (talk)

Why don't we just stop arguing over a stupid video game that really isn't that important in life.--Sonic100jam (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Because we've got lots of proof and you've got your flawed logic backed by nothing? Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that if agreement not to add the term rumor (due to the strength of the sources) unless there is solid well sourced evidence that the scans were fake this should blow over quickly and that no one would need to argue anymore.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't want this article to be wrong so lets forget this because Video Games are not that important in life.--Sonic100jam (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The stuff i wrote

Why did you erase the stuff I wrote,I had soures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.130.51 (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of reasons. In general, it's not necessary to create these lengthy lists, as per WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Beyond that, some parts are redundant (there's no point in listing that 2 sonics are playable when it's already clearly stated), and while you had a few sources, you had far more information on there that was not sourced or confirmed. I mean, one of the list headings was literally "Hinted", and contained no sources. You need reliable sources to confirm information. But again, longs lists of minute details isn't needed to begin with. 19:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

November 22?

The article says it launches November 22, but there is no source. Also, the official website merely says "Late 2011". Provide a source or it goes away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.82.251 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Planet Wisp has been confirmed as a stage for the HD versions

It's on Sonic Retro somewhere.. I'll find the link later. ScienceApe (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing on the front page, nothing on the megathread, and no screens or details in the Generations page of the Info section. If you're talking about the big leak from June, we're keeping Sky Sanctuary, Speed Highway, Crisis City, and Planet Wisp off the list until we get OFFICIAL confirmation. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. People keep trying to add it, but they keep using screenshots from an unofficial leak, while using Sonic fansites as the source. It should continue to be removed until Sega officially announces it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is Planet Wisp not included when it's already been confirmed through the demo and through screenshots? But most importantly why is it not up there but Speed Highway IS? Speed Highway was mentioned on a fansite stating that official reviewers mentioned it but a quote was not provided. Either way it's not really confirmed yet until they show it probably tomorrow if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.189.158 (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's very simple. If there's a reliable source stating a stage is in the game, it's included. If there isn't, it's not included. For instance, games that have shown up in "leaked trailers" or random observations of "hey, that stage looks like it's the one from (given Sonic game)", it's not included, because that's not official confirmation through a reliable source. If you feel other levels aren't sourced well enough, feel free to remove them as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Found a reliable source for Planet Wisp, and re-added, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CLASSIC TAILS

Tails and Classic Tails are in here,I saw a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great addition, if you can provide a reliable source proving it. (Like a link to a website/article. "I saw it" doesn't count as a source.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is true I saw a video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The characters are there but they aren't playable.68.9.64.70 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Crisis City?

I doubt Crisis City will be in the game, so stop adding it! 50.46.237.146 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we know for a fact that Crisis City is in the game because of several leaks. The problem is that until it's actually mentioned by a legit site like IGN or GameSpot, we can't add it to the stage list. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know that for a fact. Sometimes leaks have features that are left out of the final release. But yes, it does seem likely, but there's still no reliable source stating it so. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the giant flaming tornado among the achievement icons coupled with the original leak is a pretty good indicator. But yeah, either way, we can't add it until Sega gives word. (which will probably come in the form of a new trailer in two weeks or so) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But Sonic Generations is about them going back in time. Crisis City is in the future for Pete's sake 50.46.237.146 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So what? I doubt this is going to be a real plot intensive game. I'm sure they'd come with some sill throw-away reason why he'd be going there. Or maybe they won't. It doesn't matter, the point of the game is remaking classic levels, not telling an epic story...>_> I don't think they'd add or discount a level on those grounds... Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "only remaking classic levels and not telling any story"? Then what's this I'm hearing about the Time Eater who kidnaps Sonic's friends and scatters them across the timeline, and Modern and Classic Sonic teaming up to rescue them and defeat the Time Eater? If that isn't enough of a story, I don't know what is, so think before you post something like that again. 96.42.117.232 (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the focus is not going to be on the story. What you just described was a mere few sentences, like 30 seconds worth of story. Not in-depth at all, in comparison to story-based games like Final Fantasy 13 or Mass Effect. It's very bare-bones, and not being advertised as being a main-draw of the game. (but rather, playing classic levels, is.) With such a little emphasis on story, I was saying it's unlikely to be a reason to discount a level. Not that it really matters though, since Crisis City has now been officially announced. For future reference, assume good faith as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think Kingdom Valley is more likely to be put in the game 50.46.237.146 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What you doubt or what you think is more likely has nothing to do with it. Whether you like it or not, we have evidence to support that Crisis City is in the game, and nothing's going to change that, save the possibility of another 2006 stage in the 3DS version. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't Crisis City erased from the timeline after the events of Sonic 2006? 96.42.117.232 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to this game article. If a reliable source reports it as a level, then its included. Until then, it should be off the list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

multiplayer

--Ronnie42 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Clearly showing on the product page for 'Game' shop that offically ps3/xbox 360 have multiplayer. You can either use this search or look yourself manually:

http://www.game.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/AjaxCatalogSearch?storeId=10151&catalogId=10201&langId=44&pageSize=20&beginIndex=0&sType=SimpleSearch&resultCatEntryType=2&showResultsPage=true&pageView=image&predictiveSearchURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.game.co.uk%2Fwebapp%2Fwcs%2Fstores%2Fservlet%2FAjaxPredictiveSearchView%3FcatalogId%3D10201%26langId%3D44%26storeId%3D10151&searchTerm=sonic+generations&searchBtn.x=0&searchBtn.y=0

Anyway I can also confirm the ds has multiplayer too:

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/3DS/Sonic+Generations/news.asp?c=33075

Details on what the 360/ps3 still have been mentioned yet but Game has clearly confirmed it on their page, feel free to prove me wrong but I can't find a single source to say differently.

Is there any information on the multiplayer gameplay? (Your links aren't loading for me, so I can't check myself...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Not really sure why not but maybe its better to search sonic generations in the game store website, it clearly shows them as 1-2 players, haven't heard what the multiplayer contains, all I know is thats what game are claiming.

Casino Night DLC for PS3/360

Should it be moved out of the main level list and put into a separate DLC subsection or even a different chart in the same section. As it is right now, it doesn't really fit in with the rest, considering

1. Right above it, it says there are only 9 levels, but this puts it over to 10 levels.
2. It's DLC, not a standard part of the game.
3. It sounds like it's just a minigame, not a full-blown level?

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read it sounds like the level in question is just a pinball side game - but as it's portrayed in the article it gives the impression it's a full level. I should be mentioned somewhere though, until we get more information perhaps somewhere in the prose is best. Яehevkor ✉ 17:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait DLC means?

DLC=Downloadable Content Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I seen a video of Casino night in modern mod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? We don't question if it exists. We were wondering if it was a minigame or a full-fledged level, and depending on that outcome, how/where it should be mentioned in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a full level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.48.207 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to provide a source? Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So, now that the game is out, can anyone confirm if this was a full-on level, or just a minigame? I've been working on cleaning up the Sonic 2 article and wanted to know how to word it in it's "Legacy" section about Sonic Generations. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a minigame on console/PC, but a full level on 3DS. See 3DS footage and console footage here. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Release dates

The 360 and PS3 ones are sourced, but the PC and 3DS ones are not. Have these been confirmed yet? Or are they more "Amazon's best guess" type dates that need to be removed? Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

3DS is confirmed, as is PC. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

True. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks legit then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Is Destructoid considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? Because it’s basically just a blog without much editorial oversight whose writers are paid on the basis of hits, and its reviews have been subjected to controversies in the past due to some of them being based on very little time with a game. There seems nothing controversial about this particular review, but we should remember that Sterling's review for Sonic Colors wasn't included in the article on that game because it was filled with insulting language and comparisons of the game to fecal matter. It also seems hard to accept as reliable a critic who gave Colors a 4/10 and this an 8/10, when they play identically and the consensus among many critics (such as Joystiq) is that Colors is slightly better.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's best to use the most 'reliable' sources available. Sonic Generations is not an indie or obscure title, it's a major triple-A game that will be covered on every major gaming website (Eurogamer, IGN, GameSpot etc.) and in all the relevant magazines. I don't personally see any need to use gaming blogs for sources on this one, particularly for reviews. Someoneanother 21:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Sergecross also agrees, then I will remove the source (I'm pretty sure it wasn't counted by MetaCritic, either). I'll give him time to weigh in before acting.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Destructoid is considered a "situational source", where it's kind of figured out on a case-by-case basis, depending on what else is out there too. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/RS#Situational_sources. While I don't see anything especially wrong with this particular review, there's no shortage of reviews available either. I'm find with removing it, though I wouldn't argue hard against anyone who presented a case why it should be used either... Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's situational, then there are two things to consider in this context: 1) There is nothing in this particular review which has been objected to by any editors; 2) There are a lot of other sources which are used on a more regular basis that have reviewed the game, and this review doesn't appear to offer any unique insight. It could go either way. Personally, I continue to lean towards removing it, because it is not a standard source and there is no exceptional reason for including it, even though it appears to be generally in line with the critical consensus. One could argue this stance is a bit like assuming Destructoid is guilty until it is proven innocent, but if the standard sources are thorough enough in covering a game, "situational" sources probably aren't neccessary. I'll wait a day before removing it to given any potential dissenter a chance to respond. We should also add one of those review tables.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your wrong,if you continue to lean towards removing it, because it is not a standard source g to be some fighting and bitching.~Tailsman67~

Let it be known that the user above is continually breaking wikipedia policy, I'm constantly reverting his unconstructive edits. Everyone's allowed their opinion, but he's shown little to no effort to even learn policies, let alone make a call in something like this... Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's allowed their opinions,I own the Wikia,I'm trying to fix it up.

It doesn't matter what you own, no users "own" wikipedia. I don't know the standards for your wikia, but here, things boil down to reliable sources and discussing things to gather consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't all that big on info.

I recommend continuing to work on "your" Wikia rather than here, Wikipedia has stricter content policies and being argumentative and hostile about it won't get you very far. Яehevkor ✉ 17:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. I will remove the source. Tailsman67, please remember to assume good faith in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Joystiq--which I added--is also deemed a situational source. I didn't realize that, but in the interest of remaining consistent, I'll remove it as well (even though there is nothing wrong with the review).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that one either. Still, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would challenge sources like that being in there, so if it's an especially good review, you or anyone else could probably include it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Main theme

Since the page is locked, I'd like to point this part out under "Music": "The game's official theme song, Tenderoni is done by Kele Okereke of the band Bloc Party, which were used on the promotional trailers of the game." Um... Tenderoni is not the official game's song. It's not even in the final game. So... That needs to be taken out. The Satellite (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

...*Sigh*, you're right. That what I get for not checking the source given in that section. This article sure is subject to a lot of vandalism/ridiculous edits... >_> Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Story update and boss list

Ugh, idiot vandals... In any case, with the HD version of the game already being released for over a week, would it be alright if the Plot section was updated accordingly?

On another note, since we already have a level list, should we add a Bosses list to go with it? Instead of having them in the development section (don't know why it's even there), we place them onto the Gameplay section as it would be more appropriate. What I was thinking is that we would follow along the lines of the Level list (Bear with me though, I forgot I even had an account on here, and the most I've done to a wiki page as an unregistered user was adding text and sources, I'll try to get used to it). For the list, we could follow the Boss / Stage / Original Game format, namely the name of the boss, the stage the "arena" is based on, and the game either the boss or stage have originated from.

The HD (Xbox360/PS3/PC listing) version

• Metal Sonic - Stardust Speedway - Sonic the Hedgehog CD
• Death Egg Robot - Death Egg - Sonic the Hedgehog 2
• Shadow the Hedgehog - Space Colony ARK - Sonic Adventure 2
• Perfect Chaos - Station Square - Sonic Adventure
• Silver the Hedgehog - Crisis City - Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)
• Egg Dragoon - Eggmanland - Sonic Unleashed
• Time Eater - [blank] - Sonic Generations

The 3DS version

• Metal Sonic - Casino Night - Sonic the Hedgehog 2
• Big Arm - Launch Base - Sonic 3 & Knuckles
• Shadow the Hedgehog - Radical Highway - Sonic Adventure 2
• [blank] - [blank] - [blank] (presumably for a Dreamcast Era boss)
• Silver the Hedgehog - [blank] - [blank] (no confirmation as of yet in *which locale or game this fight will take place)
• [blank] - [blank] - [blank] (presumably for a Modern Era boss)
• Time Eater - [blank] - Sonic Generations

If you wish for me to present sources, then I will. --Jeffrey the Hedgehog (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the plot...what exactly do you have in mind? I haven't played the game yet, so I can't comment in-depth, but in general, wikipedia plot summaries aren't supposed to be "play by play"/"scene by scene"- type summaries. That's what a number of users have tried to turn it to, and that's why it's been reverted back to what it is right now.

In regards to the boss list, I'd like to see what others have to say. Usually, there aren't supposed to be lists like the current level list even, as they fall into part of WP:GAMECRUFT. The level list was allowed because this is a special game, where the levels have special significance. Other lists, like "list of items" or "list of voice actors" would not be acceptable though. So I'm not really sure where to draw the line with this one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's really not a whole lot of story stuff TO update. Basically, just what's covered in the cutscenes before and after the final boss fight: Time Eater's identity, the villains' motivations, Sonic wins, the Classics learning a few tricks and going home, and the aftermath for the villains. Not a play-by-play, but just the main points.

As for the bosses, I could go either way. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe the boss list would at least have to be included because it is a special game that revisits the series as a whole. Just like the level list pulls significant moments and stages from past games that people would remember, the same can be applied to the bosses. Like the stages, the bosses were pulled from past games: Rivals are the among the most identifiable characters there are, with the Bosses holding a symbolic ground in the series. We have Metal Sonic in a stage from his premiere title, we have Shadow on Space Colony ARK all from Sonic Adventure 2, and Silver within one of the most memorable stages from Sonic 2006, Crisis City, where they both debuted. The Death Egg Robot being the final boss from Sonic 2, Perfect Chaos being the final boss of Sonic Adventure, the Egg Dragoon being the penultimate boss of Unleashed... And the Time Eater as well, since, despite the fact that he only appears in Generations, you found out that it's actually a mech (well, "roboticized", in a sense) piloted by both past and present incarnations of Doctor Eggman for the sole purpose of taking down Sonic.

Frankly, I agree that this shouldn't apply to video games, but it's as you've said. Since it is a celebration title, it's only fair we not only list the returning levels, but also list the returning bosses, right? "List of items" or "list of voice actors", however, that's a no from me too and would be way too much. Levels and bosses, only in cases like this, should be the limit. I'm not going to nitpick at everything else like the music or what not.

As for the plot... Well, it's surprisingly not that deep. Heck, it's practically bare bones and can be summed up pretty quickly, going perfectly with what Cyberlink420 suggested. Beginning, at least the middle part which describes how the Sonics are restoring time (as farfetched as it may seem to some), before and after the Time Eater battle, the ending and aftermath.--Jeffrey the Hedgehog (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As far as the chart for the bosses list, I'd say go for it. As far as the plot goes, I think Cyberlink420 has gotten it to where it needs to be. Sergecross73 msg me 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Cyberman got it down. So now it's just the bosses. Although I can't seem to do so myself... is it because my account is still relatively young or something?--Jeffrey the Hedgehog (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. You can replace the "examples" with the actual info, and copy paste it into the article when it's correct. (The 3DS version should probably be sourced until the game is actually out, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

Well, since the article appears to be protected and I can't seem to be able to edit it, mind if somebody just copy-pastes the following (and tweak it to make it look more appropriate)? I'll do the HD boss list now and have the 3DS one done by its own release, I guess.

v

Bosses

Besides the Time Eater, all of the featured bosses are taken from past instalments of the Sonic series, and mostly take place in their own unique environments, usually based off of their original setting.

Xbox 360/PS3/PC
Boss	Stage	Original Game
Metal Sonic	Stardust Speedway	Sonic the Hedgehog CD
Death Egg Robot	Death Egg	Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Shadow the Hedgehog	Space Colony ARK	Sonic Adventure 2
Perfect Chaos	Station Square	Sonic Adventure
Silver the Hedgehog	Crisis City	Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)
Egg Dragoon	Crimson Carnival	Sonic Unleashed
Time Eater		Sonic Generations

Along with the completion of the Planet Wisp stage, players are awarded a Chaos Emerald for every boss defeated before confronting the Time Eater.

^And that's it! As I've said, I'll do the 3DS list later on unless someone's game. Remember, I couldn't put this in because the page is still semi-protected, so any volunteers? --Jeffrey the Hedgehog (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

On the assumption it's all correct, then it was pretty much good. The only change I made was putting the game's names in italics. Added it to the article for you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Guy, Egg Dragoon was battled in EggmanLand, plus Crimson Carnival isn't even in Sonic Unleashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.237.146 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Crimson Carnival and Eggmanland are one and the same, just like Spagonia and Rooftop Run. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even remember EggmanLand even being avertised as Crimson Carnival, so I still think it should be changed to EggmanLand (Plus, does the battlefield in Generations even look like a carnival to you?) 50.46.237.146 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it looks like, just like it didn't matter that you didn't think "Crisis City" wouldn't be in the game because "it didn't make sense plot-wise". What matters is what it is called in the games, and by reliable sources. Anyone know which one is more common/why the discrepency? I honestly don't know, I don't keep track of such things usually... Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Locked

Unlock the page so I can write what got from a website. ~Tailsman67~

You can write it here, and someone can add it for you if deemed appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{edit semi-protected}} to request any changes, you should provide reliable sources also. There are several editors here who will be willing to incorporate any non-trivial, reliable and verifiable information on your behalf. See Wikipedia:Edit_requests for more information. Яehevkor ✉ 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

With 3DS reviews starting to come out, how should we arrange things? Should there be 2 subsections, one for the HD one, one for the 3DS one? Or should be do it by reviewer, so it's like "Gamespot gave the ps3 version a 7.0 and the 3ds one a 6.5", for example. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Colors integrates DS and Wii reviews under the same section, as does Unleashed with the SD and HD versions. I say stick with what works. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just checking. Sounds good. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Levels and Boss List to go

Now that the HD and 3DS versions of Sonic Generations are out, I think we should delete the levels and boss list. It's spoiling the game for pepole who haven't played it 50.46.237.146 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus above to include the lists, and per WP:SPOILER Wikipedia does not limit content based on any possibilities of spoilers - if you don't want to be spoiled don't read encyclopaedia articles that aim to be comprehensive. Яehevkor ✉ 23:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for reverting again, you should really follow the WP:BRD cycle and discuss before reverting without further explanation. Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 23:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor is completely right on all accounts. Besides, the fact that the game is out now it actually a plus, as it's all very official now. No chance of various references being wrong about levels anymore. (They were wrong about one of the 3ds levels, for instance.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I know you said there was some level of consensus to keep this in the article before, but I really don't think this belongs at all. It's pure WP:GAMECRUFT from an era where this sort of thing was more common. We should hold a new discussion on this at least. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new discussion, if you insist, but I’d still argue in favor of inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? How is it not a direct violation of #5 and #7? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, they’re both pretty short charts, so I wouldn’t really call that “excessive detail”. I don’t defend the boss list - If you want to trim it, go for it - but the level list is a short, concise list that help the reader understand the premise of the game better, and it’s with helpful wiki-links that link to the specific games they are from, so they’re not just some context-less list of names like most level lists. I’d also point out that it’s stayed well passed “the era where things were more lax” or whatever. Joebro may have just reworked them to GA/FA status in the last year or two, but I was cleaning out all the wikia-level garbage from Sonic games well before that - even like 2010. It’s been there well after the sloppy early era of Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually added an FAQ to the top of the article a little while ago explaining why the stages list isn't gamecruft because so many people were removing it on that basis. Basically, unlike the majority of games, the levels in this game actually have value beyond just listing their names. JOEBRO64 10:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I disagree, but if there is consensus for this, then fair enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Sonic & Knuckles" vs. "Sonic 3 & Knuckles"

For those of you who own the game, which one does it use for levels "Sky Sanctuary" and "Mushroom Hill"? It seems users keep arguing over which one it is. Now that the games are out, this should be pretty clear cut I would think. (But I still don't own the game, so I can't check myself...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the levels are meant to be "from Sonic 3 & Knuckles" and not "from Sonic & Knuckles", as SEGA sees Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Sonic & Knuckles as one game, and that is Sonic 3 & Knuckles. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like either one could be justified really, that's why I figured we should go by whatever it's referred to in game, or in the manual. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe both the game and the trailers solely use the S&K name. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only testify that in the 3DS version, there is no reference to either title by name. Nor is the manual any help. The reason this matter is still being contested is precisely because the game doesn't clarify things, unless the console version is more explicit. I would think that SEGA does view S3&K as one complete game, and they wouldn't have ignored Sonic 3 otherwise, but all of the levels are technically contained only on the S&K cartridge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, only the S&K name is used for Sanctuary, as seen in the credits and the Genesis trailer. Seems pretty concrete to me. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. S&K it is. Sorry, I didn't watch all the trailers, so I guess I missed that. The credits of the 3DS version don't show you footage of old games next to the game titles; they show you screenshots of the original and the remade versions of each level without any mention of which game they are from. But you clearly know your stuff and have the sources to prove it. Poor Sonic 3! TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's cool; glad we got that worked out. So as it stands, Big Arm stays 3, and Sky Sanctuary/Mushroom Hill stay K. Case closed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that was exactly what I was shooting for. And now we have a discussion to point people in the direction of if they argue otherwise. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GamesRadar Summary

I'm going to tweak the summary of the GamesRadar review. The article states that "GamesRadar...gave the 3DS version 7/10, praising its replay value but criticising some sparse level design." What the review actually says, however, is:

When you're playing for an S-grade, frequently hitting start-over at every screw-up, searching for the optimum route and finish time, there's a very pleasant turnaround. Seeing Sonic fair hurtle through these 3D environs, hopping over obstacles and locking onto enemies to reach new routes makes more sense, looks wonderful and makes you look (and feel) very clever. What at first looks like sparse level design actually becomes a complex test of controller dexterity and memory as you look for visual cues in the scenery to time your jump to perfection."

To me, that doesn't really sound like a criticism of the level design. Moreover, while they liked the 100 missions in the game, they were pretty harsh about the its' short length, so the comment about replay value is slightly misleading. Unless anyone objects, I'll change the line to "GamesRadar...gave the 3DS version 7/10, praising its level design and optional missions but criticising its short length as well as the fact that modern Sonic is restricted to a 2D plain of movement."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, it looks like the person who originally put it in may have misinterpreted the review. I just wanted to check though: The part about "modern Sonic is restricted to a 2D plain of movement" -- is that supported in the source? I'm not getting that from your quote above. If it is supported, then your changes are definitely better. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, GamesRadar wrote: "Why doesn't Modern Sonic run around full 3D environments like he always has done?...The new levels are just too unambitious and end up playing like Sonic's recent DS outings, only with polygonal visuals and 3D depth."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hedgehog Engine vs Reaper Engine

Now I recently did a check of the game's own credits, and discovered two things. Firstly, there's no mention of the use of the Hedgehog Engine throughout the credits, only a lot of departments working on assets libraries throughout SEGA and other companies. The second is that there is however mention of a engine known as the Reaper Engine, which was used with the Sonic Rivals games, and similarly went unreported. Now, I agree that the review does suggest it is the Hedgehog Engine, but I used the game's own credits, which specifically say 'Core and Reaper Engine Team', and Backbone Entertainment hides it's corporate logo in the near-bottom of the credits. I am willing to say it's the Hedgehog Engine if people want, but it's clear from a lot of the player reviews that something isn't quite right, since the frame rate is artificially throttled to 30 FPS on XBOX 360 and PS3, and only given 60 FPS by Devil's Details, which again suggests a third-party engine, since the Hedgehog Engine was optimized, very well I might add, for consoles and wouldn't need throttling. The final clue it's not the Hedgehog Engine is in the game's splash screens. None of them, in the demos or the final game, show the Hedgehog Engine logo, and Backbone, Devil's Details and Dimps don't get mentioned at all in any version. I leave this open to the fans. Am I crying wolf? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNOthxdlcMc&feature=player_detailpage#t=406s 81.109.216.85 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The mention of Reaper Engine team in the credits doesn't really directly confirm the use the engine itself in the game, it's a rather weak claim - especially considering no sources have confirmed this, sources contradict it, and it's a 5 year old engine designed to run on the PSP. Яehevkor ✉ 23:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking. I can't believe that a 5 year old PSP game engine would be the same one used for a 2011 PS3 game, in theory, or judging by how the actual games look. Perhaps it was a reference point when the developers started the game? Or a "special thanks" type mention? I know that's just speculating, I wouldn't want that in the article, I'm just trying to express that it wouldn't make sense for them to be the same engine... Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Aaron Webber confirmed in his appearance on CNET TV that the game is, in fact, running on the Hedgehog Engine. Besides, Unleashed obviously ran on the Hedgehog Engine too, and with only 30 FPS at that, so the framerate has nothing to do with it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay images

You know, it occurs to me that we should probably add images of gameplay for the sake of illustration. If so, do we want just one screenshot, or should we have one for classic AND one for modern? Also, should we draw just from the console version, or from the 3DS version as well? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like there should be screenshots showing classic, modern, and then a third one showing a 3DS screenshot. But I'm no expert at the image side of things, and I know you're supposed to use them sparingly technically, so I don't know if what I'm staying would really stand or not if someone challenged it... Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have the right idea. Considering that Classic, HD Modern, and 3DS Modern all play differently, it might be wise if we have one of each. Besides, if we find later that the article DOES seem over-saturated with images, we can always remove one of them. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a comparison of Green Hill or Chemical Plant. The former has probably received more coverage. As for 3DS, maybe, if the article is long enough. Do we really need File:Sonic_generations_CE.jpg this image? It's basically an advertisement.. Яehevkor ✉ 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I support what you're saying, Rehevkor. Either level would work: Green Hill would be more "iconic", but Chemical Plant could be better representative since it's never been remade before. (GH being remade in SA2 and all.) I also fully support removing the special edition picture you listed above. It's a rather small part of the overall article topic. Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I think this and the first pic on this page will serve rather nicely. Should we decide to add one, any votes for a zone for the 3DS version? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Chemical Plant pics have been uploaded, tagged, and added. Think we still need a 3DS screenshot, or are we good? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think those look really good. They do a good job of showing the 2 different ways of playing. I still say a 3DS one should be added too, in place of the special edition stuff picture. I think any zone would be good as long as it's 3DS exclusive. (ie not Green Hill.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it; added a screen of Modern in Radical Highway. Provided there's no issues with the screenshot, I think we're all set on gameplay images, though the special edition image still needs to be scrapped. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for doing it. (Side note: I thought that there was a much bigger discrepency between graphics between the 2 versions. Maybe that's just a flattering screenshot, but the 3DS version looks pretty similar there. Of course, the 3DS version is just side-scrolling though, so they are still quite different games...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Now that we've got images AND dev details, though, think it's worth getting this article evaluated for GA-status? (And to answer your side-note, the 3DS screenshot is actual-resolution while the console screen is downscaled from 720p resolution; while the former's graphics are good, the disparity between them is still pretty strong, and the former's lack of anti-aliasing doesn't help either...) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not the most familiar with all the GA type stuff, I haven't actually haven't even really messed around with rating/class stuff until quite recently. But I'd gladly help all I can, if you "lead the way" moreso. My only concern would be that, isn't "no edit warring" one of the criteria? I think that one IP who keeps on messing the charts might of set us behind on that one, with the 5-6 reverts he had 2 days ago. Or I could be wrong, again, I'm only semi-familiar with GA stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that IP (nor Tailsman) will be a problem; I'm sure whoever gives us the evaluation won't count us undoing the actions of one or two persistent vandals as "edit warring". But either way, I think we're ready to get the article looked at; I'll get us submitted ASAP. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for it then. If it's not there yet, certainly it's close/, and wouldn't take too much more to get it there. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of points, firstly I'd replace the collector's ed image with the 3DS one. The gameplay section is a bit cluttered and the collectors image is pretty redundant. Secondly, article has issues with bare urls, I'll try and work through some, although I doubt I have time to do them all. Яehevkor ✉ 17:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed what you said about the pictures. Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! I think I've cleaned up all the refs in the reception section, still a lot more to do though. Now I have to go pay attention to my cat before he claws a hole through my door. Яehevkor ✉ 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Section order

I've noticed that a lot of WP:GA's have "Gameplay" sections before the "Plot section". Is that an actual standard? Or just an optional trend I happened to catch on to?

If it's optional, I'd personally keep it as is. I think things could get cluttered with the gameplay pictures and infobox being closer together... Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL says that's normal, with exceptions. But it's just a guideline. Яehevkor ✉ 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay is post to be before Story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As the person just above you said, it's more of a "suggested order" than a "required order" type situation. As the above link says, "Here are a few ideas for how to organize articles. These do not necessarily have to correspond to the actual section headers and divisions, and they are no more than suggestions. Do not try to conform to them if they are not helping to improve the article." Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Hi I'm new here and I was wondering if we got better HQ pictures,cause those two just look bad.:(~ comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the ones that are there? Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There low quality(did I spell that right?).~ comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk) 25:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk)

Per Wikipedia:NFCC#3b non free images used under fair use must be of minimal quality. Яehevkor ✉ 18:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that.184.44.129.253 39:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk)

Zone edit warrior

• 69.142.51.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 75.151.188.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 173.15.134.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is getting tedious, aside from the traditional semi protection, can anyone think of anything to do? I'd rather not see this page protected forever. Communication seems to have failed in every respect. Яehevkor ✉ 23:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't as dynamic as I thought, user has been pretty consistently editing via Special:Contributions/69.142.51.56, fresh off a block. Яehevkor ✉ 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, otherwise, I'd support more page protection. In general, it seems like IP's bring nothing but WP:GAMECRUFT, useless trivia, and vandalism to anything related to Sonic... Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I keep reporting him, but he never gets banned for more than a few days at a time. At this point, I wouldn't object to extended semi-protection, seeing as we've had a spree of rogue IPs messing with the page over the last few months. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, 2 IPs are now reverting this again... Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting slightly tedious. Яehevkor ✉ 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to get this guy dealt with, having set up a SPI case some time ago, but have been getting little to no response. Isn't there any way to enact a more permanent solution? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's spread over several IPs now, IPs are rarely blocked for very long and even then, there's no guarantee it'd stop it. Indef semi protection for the article might be the best option at this point. Яehevkor ✉ 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The only other thing I was thinking of doing is making a section that more clearly spells out the position and consensus against what they're doing. It's clear us three are on the same page, and its obvious the IPs are doing this in bad faith, but to any Admins looking over the section, it may be less clear cut, with much of the discussion scattered over many differently titled talk page sections, edit summaries, etc. Perhaps it'd get the Admins to help us a little better/quicker. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've filed a request at WP:RFPP, if that fails we can still use the AGF avenue and try explain explain the situation to the IP(s) one last time. If that fails, further admin intervention will probably be needed. LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears to have worked, as it's protected for a month now. (Haha, I initially wondered who this "LxRv" was random helping out here.)Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(He's just this guy, you know?) Яehevkor ✉ 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How persistent is this guy? Яehevkor ✉ 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Was about to ask the same question. Might be worth taking to WP:ANI, as I don't think we can assume good faith much longer. After all, if this guy still refuses to let up after three months and multiple blocks/SG page protections, then I certainly doubt they're going to change their tune anytime soon. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, wow, this guy's unreal. Did he mark this day on the calendar and count it down with a stopwatch? Anyways, Let me know what you'd want to do, and I'd chime in and help. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• He's not IP hopping. He's editing from three locations around Point Pleasant NJ. The 69 address is Comcast Cable and although technically dynamic, they don't seem to change very often. The others are two business IPs, could be a cyber cafe or even be two machines in the same company, although that seems less likely as it would have to be two machines where other users also edit Wikipedia. Be interested to see if he goes back to editing from these. If he moves on to another Comcast Business IP on Comcast's Point Pleasant hostgroup, my money's on a cyber cafe. I've blocked 69, which is probably his home IP, for 3 months. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it (and blocking the IP), Elen of the Roads. Hopefully your input will help nip this in the bud. Яehevkor ✉ 00:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope so. Page is also semi'd to the 24th, just to discourage him walking down to the coffee shop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamecruft?

It seems like the Stages and Bosses sections are in violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. I've been reverted, so I am bringing this to the talk page. Please clarify why we need these sections to illustrate the article. All it just adds is pure gamecruft. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The level/boss lists aren't cruft because the whole point of this game is that it draws on content from 20 years of Sonic games. Whereas stage lists or boss lists would be crufty for other games, because those in Generations are all taken from past titles in the series, that gives them extra significance. Leaving them out would be like making an article about a band's Greatest Hits album and not listing the tracks included on it. Sure, we could just as easily make a list of unlockable skills in the game or list of songs from previous games included, but those WOULD be crufty considering they're nonessential, whereas you're not getting to the end of the game unless you beat every single one of those stages and bosses. It's a crucial feature of both the game and its marketing, thus making it a situational exception. See "Story update and boss list" and "Levels and Boss List to go" for previous discussion. - Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :As I was saying on your talk page, consensus deemed a special case, because the list had a value beyond just listing off meaningless level names, which is what WP:GAMECRUFT is trying to prevent. This game is based off remaking aspects of 20 years worth of a franchise, and this shows where and what was borrowed from various games. There's far more information there than just the typical "level list", and there's no way it could be portrayed as well in paragraph form either... Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Steam is required for PC

Both the download and disc version require Steam as far as I'm aware. As this requires you to have an account and download from Steam even if downloaded from another seller it's something that needs mentioning. Pleasetry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC).

Consensus is against you there I'm afraid, neither Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_85#Steam_promoting.3F, Template:Infobox video game, every video game article of any quality or apparent consensus here supports. Please don't edit war in the future, it could result in blocks. The link to Online distribution (click the link Steam is mentioned there) covers platforms such at Steam. If you still disagree you are essentially suggesting a Wikipedia-wide change and here is not the place to do so, I suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Яehevkor ✉ 11:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus or guidelines supporting your argument.What you're arguing against is mentioning Steam in general which is a different subject from this issue.

There are even comments on the page you've linked which understand this such as the one below

"As long as you are aware that there are competitors to Steam for the selling of games via digital delivery, any preferential treatment of the storefront is a bias that can be corrected. Mind, this is specifically for games that can be gotten other ways either due to being released before Steam or other situations (such as Telltale Games where you can buy and dl from their store). Steam-exclusivity is not in question - that should be mentioned, just like if there was other storefront exclusivity (eg Elemental through Impulse). The requirement of using Steam is also not in question - that should be mentioned too. But if neither case applies, and Steam is just one of the many ways to get and play the game, the availability of game through Steam just should not be needed. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)"

Pleasetry (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But it's not Steam-exclusive, and you don't need Steam to run it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me where it's available for the PC that doesn't require Steam?Pleasetry (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So you disagree with the link to Online distribution covers Steam? Either way, the game is available on Direct2Drive and Impulse to name two. The media field is just to describe how it's released, which DRM/platforms are irrelevant. Яehevkor ✉ 10:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed until now, but the discussion was brought to Template talk:Infobox video game#DRM Section. Яehevkor ✉ 11:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pleasetry has added info in the infobox about Steam being required to pllay the PC version. I recalled people saying that wasn't true, but PC gaming/Steam isn't my area of expertise, so I figured I'd mention it here rather than changing it back right away... Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The source [1] indicates Steam is required (but not as part of the requirements, as part of a disclaimer above), but it seems to just be selling codes that are then used in Steam. It doesn't imply that Steam is required for EVERY version of the game. It's failed verification in my eyes. Яehevkor ✉ 14:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing a little more research, Direct2Drive does mention "3rd party download" (but not Steam by name) [2], Impulse does mention Steam as a requirement (it also says Impulse is a requirement too) [3], but so far nothing official mentioning Steam as a required spec. Яehevkor ✉ 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

By way of a compromise I have added "Internet connection" as there is a source at least indicating Steam as a requirement [4]. I put connection rather than Steam as per Template:Infobox_video_game that field is for listing hardware requirements, not software requirements and is consistent with games like Half-Life 2. Яehevkor ✉ 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources have confirmed my claim.
It's not just for hardware.
I'm reverting the changes unless you can prove otherwise.Pleasetry (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide/include these multiple sources first. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I try to compromise and look what happens :/ The burden of evidence is on you. Template:Infobox_video_game specifically says hardware requirements "The hardware specifications or equipment required to run the game" Яehevkor ✉ 14:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also a little curious why you have to have Steam specifically mentioned? Also, multiple sources support, but none confirm. Яehevkor ✉ 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You're getting confused with the other topic.In this one we're listing what's required to play not DRM.Template:Infobox_video_game says more than just hardware such directX for example.
The sources are there but it's if you want to ignore them that's your choice. Pleasetry (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did I mention DRM? And comment on contributions, not contributors, accusing me of being confused is counter productive. Яehevkor ✉ 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a little rich considering your own comments like,"I'm also a little curious why you have to have Steam specifically mentioned?"
What did you mean by, "Also, multiple sources support, but none confirm." ? Pleasetry (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Enough bickering. Its confirmed that Steam can be used, but not confirmed that its a necessity. Let's leave it at that until more evidence is found. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking a question is not commenting on you. All the sources say that a particular website sells a game will require Steam, non say it's a requirement system-wide. I mean, Direct2Drive only says "3rd party download", no mention of Steam there. Do the retail discs require Steam? You say you have sources to *confirm* the claim, where are they? I'm still looking for sources but the burden of evidence is on you. Яehevkor ✉ 15:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So all the other downloads saying you need it and the sega blog post confirming the use of steamworks but you think for some reason because direct2drive says 3rd party download that means it doesn't use steam instead of direct2drive having a sloppy information policy.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2186970.html http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2254807 http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2254601 There's numerous forum threads on people having to download from steam having bought the DVD.It could be possible that they're all fakeposts or there are multiple versions of the DVD but it's doubtful considering the mounting evidence against it.Pleasetry (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Sega blog post specifies Steam (indirectly, it mentions "Steamworks features" etc) for the digital download version only. Forum posts are not reliable sources. I'm willing to relent however, while there's still no reliable sources confirming a Steam requirement across the PC board, I'm moderately happy to conclude that Steam is a requirement without them. Яehevkor ✉ 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Spacing

Should there be such a large gap between the "Reception" and "References" sections for the sake of the Reviews template when the template could easily continue down the right side of the page despite the section changes? Some featured articles like Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) do not have this gap, but admittingly I'm unaware of whether there's a Wiki policy on point or some other compelling reason, so I figured I would ask before removing the gap. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I put it a {{-}} there while I was organising the references in the reception section as the stupidly long review box was getting in the way of the references. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline specifically for or against it so I have no opposition if someone removed it. P.s. your signature violates the signature guideline, WP:SIG#NoTemplates. If you must, you should substitute the template, as long as it doesn't violate the length limit. Яehevkor ✉ 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Teancum's Edits

Teancum removed the boss list, but oddly enough kept the stage list, on the grounds that it is mere "trivia." I restored it because it was discussed at length here and consensus deemed this article a special case. He also removed several reviews from reliable sources, claiming that they weren't needed to convey the critical consensus. But I fail to see how this made the article more informative, and I don't see why one editor should be able to decide what reviews are seen by readers and which are not. In fact, by removing many sources, the ones that were left were mainly those that veered from the critical consensus, like the Edge and PALGN scores of 5/10 and 9.5/10 respectively. He made a further edit that inserted a reference in the middle of the text of a body paragraph, presumably on accident. I reverted these. In addition, Teancum removed a screenshot of the 3Ds version of the game. I'm not sure what to make of his reasoning, but I did not revert this. Do any editors believe the screenshot communicated important information that could not be conveyed as well with text about the 3DS versus the console versions of the game?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, I hadn't realized he changed that much. It's not that his edits are right or wrong, it's just that he did it without consensus or discussion, and you have challenged them (as would I, had I noticed). I side with you, I think the info should be in. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed these edits based on past experience, WP:GAMETRIVIA (item #6), and WP:BRD (of which we're now in the Discuss portion). I'm ambivalent as to whether we keep the tables. That's fine if so, but they absolutely don't need dedicated sections, and the tables can likely be organized into one. See Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 for an example of a more complex table. The Reception table was changed for multiple reasons: 1) The standard is that we don't need such an extensive list. Take a look at any video game Featured Articles. In the very few instances that the table is extensively long, the prose more than matches it. 2) It's not necessary to list so many reviews to show a trend, which is the purpose of the table. I did not attack specific reviews in my commenting out, so I'm okay if different ones are removed. In regards to the screenshot removed WP:NFCC dictates we should use the absolute least amount of non-free images necessary. As the 3DS' gameplay can merely be described, it did not pass non-free content guidelines, especially given that general concepts were shown in the other screenshots (I realize the 3DS plays differently). Lastly, please be careful of WP:BITE. I did not do this to cause a stir, but rather to put things in line with current standards. --Teancum (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the review box does need trimming down somewhat, it's rather ungainly at is is - we don't need to list every review, there're Metacritic and GR links for further reading. Яehevkor ✉ 23:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As TheTimesAreAChanging said, it's the fact that much of this has been discussed already at length more than anything, and that you removed particular reliable sources without any reason other than "too many", which, while legit, didn't explain why you chose those ones. (And I don't think BITE applies here either. No one has attacked you or said anything out of line, just expressed confusion and resistance to the choices you made.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the review table needs trimming, let's discuss which sources should be removed here first. And I kept a couple of your changes; I'm certainly not out to attack anyone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it

The 8-bit version of Sonic 1 has a separate article despite being pretty much a scaled down version of the Genesis version, yet the 3DS version of Generations doesn't have its own article even though it has much bigger differences in relation with the home console version (what with being a 2D game and having a different story, a totally different set of stages (with the exception of the GHZ) and bosses, and a slightly different name in Japan (where the console and handheld versions have different subtitles))? What gives? - ESE150 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure no one bothered to do it, or if they did, they did such a horrible job that it got merged back into here. I don't think it's really necessary though, it seems like the current chart covers the main differences pretty well. There's not a whole lot to be said really... Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Most games articles mention and expand upon other versions without the need to take up more than one article (I'm thinking of games with three different versions across multiple systems), so why should this article be any different? ggctuk (2005) (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, if anything, maybe we should merge the Sonic 8bit games, considering the small size, no reception, and a good chunk of the article is trivia regarding the game's music... Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the first stereoscopic Sonic game

While it is true that Sonic Generations is the first Sonic game that can be played in stereoscopic 3D on a console, it is not the first stereoscopic Sonic game in general. The PC versions of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Heroes can both be played in stereoscopy, through either the nVidia stereo drivers for Windows XP or the iz3D stereo drivers. If proof is required, I will provide stereo 3D screenshots. Devil Master (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Aren't they 3rd party processes rather than systems built into the games, developed and supported by Sega? Were they supported by Sega at all? Self made screen shots are not viable sources, reliable or otherwise. Яehevkor ✉ 17:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I too, would like to see a source regarding this, that this was something done by Sega and not some third party or hacker or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I can verify that the PC versions do not include stereoscopic 3D as a standard feature, and that the only way to do so is through the use of third party software. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, stereoscopy was not put in by Sega, because there was no need for it: Stereoscopy support on PC, for over a decade, has always been obtained through third party drivers. This is an iz3D driver manual, and the list of supported games includes Sonic Adventure. On the other hand, if Sonic Adventure does not count as a stereoscopic PC game, then the PC has no stereoscopic games at all, except for some obscure MS-DOS games where the code for stereoscopy was contained into the executable itself because there were no driver standards. Devil Master (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The other Sonic games don't count because Sega didn't design them that way. It's the same reason we don't include a list of levels added to Generations by random hackers. This documents the official game(s), not unofficial stuff fans do to it. As such, the label of it being the first Sonic game developed for stereoscopic 3D is accurate. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Stereoscopy support is not a mod added to a single game by a fan. Stereoscopic drivers are made by companies like nVidia and iz3D and add stereoscopy to all Direct3D games.Devil Master (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Either way, it's from a third party separate from Sega. Not an official feature of the game as developed by Sega. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. By the logic Devil Master is using, all N64 game articles should be labeled as supporting stereoscopic 3D because they can be played on PC emulators that are compatible with the aforementioned drivers. It just doesn't work that way. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Then, it must be specified that it is the first Sonic game to support stereoscopic 3D graphics on consoles. Stereoscopy support for the PC version was not put in by Sega (they didn't need to, because the drivers to do that already exist), so the PC version is, by definition, not stereoscopic. Devil Master (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. I'm looking at the options menu for the PC version right now, and there is a VERY clearly labeled in-game option to set Stereoscopic 3D. Unlike all the other PC releases, it's an incuded feature. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DLC

I prose we start a selection about DLC content,so I took it to myself to search Yahoo to find some,is this a good idea,or? ~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.142 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DLC? You mean the Casino Night pre order thing for consoles? Not technically DLC in the traditional sense. The article already covers that. Unless there is more I am not aware of there is not enough to warrant a separate section. Weren't you banned? Яehevkor ✉ 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty close to what I was going to say as well. Was there any beyond the Casino Night bonus stuff? (Maybe there is, I don't know. I still haven't played the console version very much yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no DLC aside from the Casino Night minigame, the unlock code for which is only available on PC; the console version of the minigame remains exclusive to those who pre-ordered. Sega has not announced any plans for further DLC expansions (or a general release for Casino Night, bizarrely) so the inclusion of a DLC section would be entirely unnecessary. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay,understood.98.71.52.142 (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sonic Colors

The game does take place after Sonic Colors, but I can't really find a reliable source to cover this. As such, I think the connection to Sonic Colors should be left out until such sources can be found. Also, I am going to do a complete overhaul of the plot summary so we can make it look like the plot summary of Crash: Mind over Mutant for example. I will have to find sources on this too, such as the setting, characters and story. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Eggman specifically says during the Time Eater cutscene "after my most recent setback" while showing his damaged ship floating in space exactly as it was in Sonic Colors. There's no ambiguity. Also, is it REALLY necessary to curtail the plot section as much as it has been? There's nothing really wrong with the version that's been used for the last year and a half, which was pretty short as is. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. I am trying to make it look like the Crash of the Titans plot section, which is a GA. I plan to take this up to GA soon. I think it's necessary to trim it down so that the Sonics's encounters of Eggman, rescuing their friends and getting the Chaos Emeralds are concise, as I think the previous description of some of these events were too much. If there is something well referenced about the game's setting and backstory, we should create a setting section to reference that and can also put that in the production section. The plot deals with this game, not Sonic Colors. The settings section should include level details and we may not need to use Easter egg links per WP:EGG. I also think we may need to make the story differences between the 3DS version and the home console version perfectly clear. Before we can add Sonic Colors again, I think a discussion here is necessary as I do not want to cause any edit wars here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PLOTSUM recommends 200-500 words for TV episodes and 400-700 words for feature films; the original version of the plot prior to all the revisions was 434 words, well within either set of parameters. There's also no real discernable difference in story between the console and 3DS versions; it's not like Colors where the story actually diverges in the latter version. And last time the article was under GA review, no complaints about the state of the plot section were made. If you really want to send this to GA again, that should be the last section you need to worry about. -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from and I have no argument with the GA review and the guidelines. Having been here for over 7 years as a productive member of the video games project, I know exactly what to do when I work on articles like these as well. I never intend to cause disruption in doing so, but if I ever did do so, then I apologize. I do appreciate your efforts though. I was only trying to help.

As of now, I am currently doing a major overhaul of the article actually for GA as well; I have been meaning to do that as well. My only concern here is that the plot section may need to include sections for setting and characters, as per Wikipedia:VG/GL#Organization, and the section needs to have a couple of sources (such as game quotes, which I am currently doing) as well. Also, the gameplay section may need to be reorganized as well. The levels section for example should be in the settings section. I think we should find interviews and replace dead citations if possible

I am also asking User:Sergecross73, an uninvolved administrator, for his advice about it and to also help work on the article, and have asked WT:VG for further input on this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

− I certainly support any efforts to trim the plot here, as these games are absolutely not plot heavy, and yet the fanbase always seems to insist in bloating the plot, noting trivial details, and trying for form some sort of meaningless continuity between titles. I don't see it important to mention Sonic Colors at all, there no meaningful connection between the two, merely a subtle "wink" to players who played both and we're paying close attention. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hedgehog Engine :T

I checked the Sonic Retro hacking guide and Sonic Generations uses the Havok engine to do the actual game physics. The Hedgehog Engine runs the graphics instead - the reflections, shadows and global illumination. Grigrass (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sonic Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.otakuusamagazine.com/Games/News1/Ken-Pontac-Talks-Game-Writing-and-Anime-5382.aspx
• Added archive https://archive.is/20160401070511/http://www.1up.com/news/japan-review-check-mario-kart to http://www.1up.com/news/japan-review-check-mario-kart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A quick note from the people at WP:GA

Hello editors- I have noticed, in my quick glance-over, that the first section of the artice doesn't have any sources. This makes it really hard for this article to obtain GA status. I must ask, if possible, for the first section to be cited. This will make it much more likely to obtain GA status. So far, this article is great! It just needs one more change. Cocohead781 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for trying to help, but please read WP:LEADCITE. Basically, there's not supposed to be sources in the intro paragraphs - they're supposed to only contain information that is covered later in the article, and as such, it would be redundant. If you browse through the article, the points you're talking about do indeed seem to be sourced later in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Generations/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 04:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay

• The levels are split into three separate eras:... - This whole sentence isn't backed up by the source.
  • Reference added.
    • I can't find where in the Eurogamer source it says the classic gameplay is similar to the 1990s games. Can't you point out the phrase to me? TarkusAB^talk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Whoops, I don't think that was the source I meant to add. Better footnote to IGN and Destructoid.
• Classic Sonic's gameplay is restricted to 2.5D, side-scrolling gameplay... - This whole sentence isn't backed up by the source.
  • Reference added.
    • Still not seeing it. I did a search for Dreamcast in both sources footnoted at the end of the sentence, and got no results. You're calling out that each room is identified to an era and even give them capitalized names. Information that defining should be in the source. If you can't find a source, then perhaps the sentence needs to be removed. TarkusAB^talk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you're talking about a different sentence, but I've added a few RSes on the eras.
• Classic Sonic's gameplay is restricted to 2.5D, side-scrolling gameplay similar to the original titles released in the 1990s - The way this is written implies the original titles released in the 1990s were also 2.5D, which is not true.
  • Fixed.
• You mention that missions appear in the hub world but don't mention what they are/how they work
  • Explained.
• The original Sonic the Hedgehog (1991) can be unlocked - Since we talked about how there are 2 different Sonics in the game, you may want to specify that this is a video game, not another character. May seem obvious to us but not all readers.
  • Done.
• On the tables, I think it's good information and currently I'm OK with them, but others may not feel the same way. You may want to look into some way of maybe collapsing them in the future, as they kind of break the flow of the article.
  • Alright, I'll try to collapse them. That'll probably be a good idea if I bring it to FAC.

Development

• in "vivid" HD graphics - replace with "in high-definition graphics" or place a (HD) after the first time you mention high-definition in the sentence. Either way, "vivid" doesn't tell us anything here.
  • Done.
• to make it "cool and unique" - replace with "to make it unique", "cool" tells us nothing, the key thing is unique and we don't need quotation marks for that.
  • Done.
• and researched "the core fanbase" - Does the interview go into any more detail here? like how they gathered from fans?
  • Unfortunately no -- Iizuka just said they polled each Sega worker and then researched the fanbase. My best guess would be that they used Sonic Retro forums or something, but that's not in the source given.
• visual element to "keep things fresh" - replace with "visual element to provide a new dynamic" or any rewording really to get rid of the quote.
  • Done.
• Iizuka stating "We didn't know how far we could push" the system's capabilities. - Replace with "Iizuka claiming they were unfamiliar with the system's capabilities and limitations."
  • Done; I've also worded it to be in the past-tense.
• Fans who attended a "Sonic Boom" event in Los Angeles on June 8, 2011 or the "Summer of Sonic" in London on June 25 I'm unfamiliar with these events. What was the nature of these events? Are they Sonic fan conventions?
  • Yep. Reworded.

Release

• and the New York Comic Con which year?
  • 2011.
• never before seen pictures, a documentary disc about the history of Sonic, a music album containing tracks selected by Sonic Team (see above) - Source doesn't say they are "never before seen"
  • Reworded to follow the source.
• a music album containing tracks selected by Sonic Team (see above) - Not a fan of the "See above", just write out the soundtrack name and the reader can make the connection.
  • Done.

Reception

• Nearly all the quotes here can be paraphrased. Quotes should only be kept when a critic says something so unique, particular, or just so well-written and fully descriptive of the game or game component that paraphrasing doesn't do it justice.
  • Paraphrased practically all of the lengthy quotes.

Lead

• It features two gameplay modes: "Classic", which plays from a 2.5D, side-scrolling perspective like that of the original Sega Genesis Sonic games - see above
  • dun

Other

• I recommend archiving your sources: https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle
  • Alright I will.

First pass, done. Way too many quotes that could definitely be paraphrased with a little thought and a thesaurus. Also, always be mindful with making sure the information is supported by the footnotes. I'll take another look once the above is addressed. TarkusAB^talk 04:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll address these later today; I'm just not able to right now. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I've responded above and resolved the issues. JOEBRO64 18:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: replied above TarkusAB^talk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: OK everything looks good. Yea sorry I mixed up the sentences but you figured out what I meant and resolved both issues. Pass TarkusAB^talk 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Mania in legacy

Just wanted to ask a question: does anyone know why IPs keep removing Sonic Mania in the legacy section? (Like this?) They're not providing edit summaries so I don't know why they're removing it. JOEBRO64 23:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a valid reason either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Me neither. The fanbase is weird in a number of different ways. I imagine this is one of their weird quirks or hangups. I don't see a valid reason for removal. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• It works for Runners and Forces since those games differentiate between "classic" and "modern" Sonic as if they're 2 different characters, but that doesn't happen in Mania, Sonic is just Sonic, nothing to do with Generations. (Yes I know about the connection between the 2 games, but that applies to Forces more than it does to Mania). DekuHero (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sonic Generations E3 2010.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)