Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (video game)/archive 3

Final Zone/Scrap Brian Zone
In the story section of this article, it says that Eggman was defeted by Sonic in Scrap Brain Zone, yet I,m petty sure that when I played the game, I defeted Eggman in Final Zone. I know Final Zone is more of an extention of Scrap Brian, but still. (68.230.159.169 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

Release Dates
I added Virtual Console Release dates in (but I forgot to log in so it'll just show my IP)Edude7 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged with Xbox Live Article
I merged the Xbox Live version of Sonic 1 into this article under the Rereleases section. --67.161.40.202 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Box art changed?
Any particular reason why this was changed? Original picture was larger and of higher quality in my opinion. --Steerpike 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to know too, this article used to use the original (Megadrive) box art and seemingly the only reason it has been changed is that it was not the North American box art. As a matter of fact the Megadrive box art has been deleted...! Avae01 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

about the neutrality and gamecruft
This article is full of NPOV and gamecruft material such as: "It is notable for being both simplistic and engaging for players.", "This was all accomplished without any slowdown in framerates, adding to the experience.", "If the player collects 100 rings they will gain a life, and gain an additional life for every 100 rings after that, provided the rings are not lost.", Just to name a few.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eggman the Dictator???
Someone made a hack called Eggman the Dictator in Sonic the Hedgehog where you play as Eggman, cannot get rings or break monitors and you are invincible. Should this be put into the article?66.72.200.177 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I don't think a hack qualifies for inclusion in the article, unless it's notable for some specific reason --Lashiec (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Section Proposed for deletion- content of section not relevent to article!Fakecatholic (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Second the deletion, that info should have its own page and not in here!Edude7 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

250, 000 point bonus on original version
"The first version also gave the player an enormous 250,000 point bonus if a stage was cleared in less than 30 seconds. Subsequent revisions cut the bonus down to 50,000"

I don't think this is correct. I have tried this playing the standard first release of the game and I only get a 50, 000 point bonus. I used an emulator to test this. I can't find any other mention of this bonus anywhere else on the internet either. Maybe it was a special version of the game or something but we should probably take this bit out of the article unless someone can confirm that this bonus does actually exist.

Gee79 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gee79 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that the bonus was a "perfect bonus," gained when one got all of the rings on a stage. Seeing as how the special stages took all of your rings and it was otherwise a pain to collect everything over again, I've only run into the bonus on the first act, first stage. If I replay and find otherwise, then I'll link to a screenshot. Otherwise, I'll say it's incorrect as well. 72.166.240.223 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of a perfect bonus, I'll go and try it and see if anything happens when I grab every ring in an act but I'm pretty sure there's no kind of bonus for it.

I'm not sure what you mean about the special stages taking your rings, you might be thinking of Sonic 2's special stages - "whether the player is able to obtain the emerald or not, Sonic is transported back to the last star post he hit in the zone when the special stage is over and has zero rings. However, any rings obtained prior to entering the Special Stage will be replaced on the level as if they were never collected" (from the Sonic 2 wikipedia article)

In any case I'm going to remove this paragraph from the article now, I'm fairly certain it's false Gee79 (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like someone put it up again or it was never deleted, so I will delete it again. I could not find any info on a 250,000 point bonusEdude7 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Playstation Store release
"In 2004, Sega released Sonic The Hedgehog for PlayStation and the PlayStation Store for $3.95c for the PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 3."

I think that this paragraph is wrong. It's not that well written but I take it to mean that the game was made available for purchase through the Playstation Store digital distribution service. The Playstation Store wikipedia article contains a list of all games released through Playstation Store and the list doesn't contain Sonic The Hedgehog (although Sonic 3 has been released through Playstation Store). There is also a next-gen Sonic game which bares the exact same title as the original so this might have led to some confusion as well I guess. I also note that it says it became available in 2004 but the Playstation Store service was only launched in 2006. In light of all this I am going to delete the offending paragraph. Gee79 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This states that the game is coming to PSN later this month. March 2011. Sarujo (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Think I've found some more errors
"The game was also present on the Danger Hiptop's Sidekick 3, Real Arcade and GameTap (along with most classic Sonic games)."

I found out a bit about the versions that are mentioned in this sentence. First of all I think that the Real Arcade version is probably a different game completely and shouldn't be mentioned in this article. I had a look at the Real Arcade website and searched for Sonic The Hedgehog but it didn't find anything. Searching on Google it became apparent to me that at some time in the past there was a Sonic The Hedgehog game on the Real Arcade website when I stumbled across a forum thread discussing the possibility that some users had got a computer virus after downloading the game from there. Later in the thread somebody points out that the game is available at another website (http://www.mostfun.com/Details.aspx?GameID=BAMSONICTHEHEDGEHOG) The game on this website is not a port of the original Sonic The Hedgehog but is actually titled Ultimate Flash Sonic and is based on Sonic Advance 2. There is more about Ultimate Flash Sonic at the Sonic Retro website (http://info.sonicretro.org/Ultimate_Flash_Sonic).

I don't know if the Hiptop version deserves a mention either as the Hiptop has support for J2ME so there is a high likelihood that this is just the same J2ME version that is available for other mobiles mentioned a few paragraphs before.I'm not 100% sure of all this stuff but I do think it's very likely.

Sonic The Hedgehog is available through the GameTap service. I think that a sentence about this should be added to the previous paragraph so that all releases through digital distribution are covered in the one paragraph. I also think that the next paragraph mentioning Stealth's proof-of-concept Game Boy Advance port should be moved further up the article and added to the section on Sonic The Hedgehog - Genesis as the port was a response to that games release.

I won't make any changes yet, it would be good to have some discussion about it first because I'm not totally sure about it all. Gee79 (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

MS-DOS version
Was there really an official MS-DOS version of this game?? According to MobyGames there isn't. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GBA cover art
Is that picture really necessary? It uses the same art as the Genesis one. --Mika1h (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonus Stages
This article makes absolutely no mention of the Bonus Stages, the successful completion of which is a requirement of getting the "good" ending upon completing the game. 71.129.85.65 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's worth adding, go ahead. But keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a place for walkthroughs and the like. Read WP:GAMECRUFT for more information.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% I think I will add that part myself. It is a pretty important part of the game. Saprissy (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Level Select and Debug Mode
Seems to me that this section does not belong in an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.17.13 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name
I think this one should be Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) if there are two with this title which are the 1991 and the 2006 video games. --FrancineFan3883 1:31 February 28th, 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Mega Mix
There is a hack called Sonic Mega Mix,it is very famous,and it was released for Sega Mega Drive and Sega CD,should this be mention.~74.163.16.27~-Tailsman6767 of Sonic News Network and others
 * No, in general, unofficial "hacks" or "fangames" are not notable here at wikipedia... Sergecross73   msg me   17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing information: What happened in the American version with the checkpoints?
In the Japanese version, if a checkpoint is activated and a life is lost as a result of running out of time, the time at the checkpoint will reset to 0:00. If Sonic loses all his lives, the game is over unless he obtained continues from Special Stages, in which case Sonic returns to the beginning of the Act with three lives. What happens in the American version?  D r e a m Focus  00:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. The only thing I can think of is that a few months ago, I removed a bunch of trivial, unsourced differences between the different releases. Perhaps that's some remains I missed? Anyways, I removed the bolded part.  Sergecross73   msg me   01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then the information might be invalid. If that only happened in one version, not the rest, then you need to specify the difference, or not list it at all.   D r e a m Focus  01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It happened in all versions, so a region need not be mentioned at all. And I changed it accordingly. Case closed. Sergecross73   msg me   12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Went back to the old version in April. If you look here, you'll see that it used to make some comment about how in the Japanese version the timer reset to 0 when someone hits the checkpoint.(versus saving the time in which the checkpoint was touched it.) That bit was removed, possibly by me, for being trivial. That really has virtually no bearing on the game's overall gameplay. Just one of the endless useless unsourced trivia removed since last April... Sergecross73   msg me   15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dev section Ref

 * http://www.1up.com/features/essential-50-sonic

Just putting here for future reference. Sergecross73  msg me   20:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apple products
Hey I didn't see any mention of the Apple releases. Maybe this should be mentioned around the Windows release? Anyone have any objections to this? Dreambeaver (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it already in there? Copy and pasted from the article right now: ''Additionally, it has be released digitally on a number of other mediums as well. In 2007 the game was made available on the iTunes Store as a game for the iPod Nano with video, the iPod Classic, and iPod with video. Sega made the first two games available for Apple's iOS in the spring of 2009.  Sergecross73   msg me   20:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow completely missed that. I did a search for "iPhone" and got nothing but that makes sense. Dreambeaver (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't, however, see it on that link or under some of the specific games. Maybe putting in a different one would be better?Dreambeaver (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sega Master System
Information was just removed that mentions Sonic being the last US game produced for it. Although I don't know if it really is true, I can't find any information that mentions that it isn't. This piece is still in Sega Master System. Anyone have any insight on this? If it is false then it should be removed from the SMS as well. Dreambeaver (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree a statement like that needs a good source. Another article that mentions it is List of last games released on video game consoles. -- Nick RTalk 21:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always found that statement fishy. It doesn't seem right, considering, for instance, it's sequel Sonic 2 was released on the Master System. Seems like that would have come out later, right? Sergecross73  msg me   22:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is whether Sonic 1 was the last SMS game released in North America. There were loads of Master System games released later in other regions, but apparently not in the US. (Obviously 8-bit Sonic 2 came out after Sonic 1, but North America didn't get the SMS version, only the GG version.) The thing we need to confirm is: when exactly was the cut-off point for North American SMS releases? -- Nick RTalk 23:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize NA didn't get Sonic 2 SMS. Not real up on my SMS facts. Sergecross73   msg me   02:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable. But we definitely do need to check on the cutoff point for the NA SMS releases. I know that I'll at least be taking a look around to see if I can come up with anything. Unfortunately, there is not much out there, so it might take some digging. Dreambeaver (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mega-Play version
Sergecross73 recently removed another user's addition of info on the arcade version of the game, because of the questionable reliability of the cited source. I played that version once, and as far as I know it was an official Sega release, and therefore it should receive at least a brief mention in this article.

Unfortunately, most of the online info on the hardware and this version of Sonic comes from arcade fansites like The Arcade Flyer Archive and Sonic fansites like The GHZ, which obviously don't meet the criteria for reliable sources. (Although having said that, The GHZ is currently cited as reference #9 in this article... and to be honest I think I might've been the one who originally added it...)

Does anyone know of any mentions of the Mega Play version in games magazines or other material that can be used as reliable sources?

The hardware is also mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, at List of Sega arcade system boards and Variations of the Sega Mega Drive - those could do with some references, too! -- Nick RTalk 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a 2003 Edge article which I've added to those two articles as a source for some of the more general statements about the Mega-Tech/Play hardware:
 * It doesn't mention Sonic games, though! -- Nick RTalk 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to including it if we can get some verification through reliable sources, so it does look like we're getting closer. If I think of it, I'll try to do some searching later too. Sergecross73   msg me   20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to including it if we can get some verification through reliable sources, so it does look like we're getting closer. If I think of it, I'll try to do some searching later too. Sergecross73   msg me   20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

50 Hz PAL version of the game
Shouldn't the article mention how the 50 Hz PAL version of the game ran noticeably slower to the 60 Hz NTSC "normal speed" version (with the gameplay and music), since the game was known for its fast gameplay? This game, along with Castlevania on the NES, are used as examples of how PAL versions of video games used to clock at a slower speed. So the IGN quote in the article: "which allowed for the incredible rate of speed the game's known for", cannot be also said for the PAL version of the game, even with the Virtual console rerelease.-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I'm remembering right, it was something that I removed years ago because it had been left unsourced for months/years. If you can source it and think it's noteworthy, you can fit it into the Dev section or something. Before, the way it was written, it just sounded like trivia and/or uncommon tech jargon. Sergecross73   msg me   21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this source here which mentions how the Virtual console version of Sonic the Hedgehog runs slow at 50 hz in the PAL region. But I'm unsure if the source is reliable.-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary?
I just noticed that there was no plot summary in the article. Should we include a summary with a description of the characters and storyline or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it a ways back, from all of the Genesis Sonic titles, when I was reorganizing them into the same format of GA Super Mario Bros. (Or rather, what little concrete content there was, I merged it into describing the premise of the gameplay.) The plot for the games are extremely  minimal, almost entirely occur in the instruction manual, and there always seemed to be IP's adding original research, for example, trying to fabricate a sense of continuity between the games. If you want to put something together, I wouldn't stop you, as I wouldn't want it to hinder your attempts at making it a GA, and trust what you'd write would adhere to guidelines. However, if it were strictly up to me and no one else cared, I wouldn't add it.  Sergecross73   msg me   23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Box Art
Since the NA boxart has a revised artwork of the character and game (unlike the european and japanese version), I propose a change for the box art of the EU version which has the original character design of Sonic. LusoEditor (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The NA boxart is more commonly used, in compilations, digital re-releases, etc. Revised or not, it appears to be more representative of the game. Sergecross73   msg me   14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sergecross73's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency with rest of the series' articles (Sonic 2's should change to NA too). This said, the current cover is way too dark and oversaturated. It should be swapped out for a better scan. For reference, here's a comparison between NA, EU, JP covers. czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I support all of this as well. Sergecross73   msg me   12:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. czar ♔  04:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Improperly sourced dev info
An editor keeps re-adding this information:

''The character and concept art were sent to Sega of America who felt the character needed some adjustments to make it more suitable for the western market. Madeline Schroeder, product manager at the time, was asked to redesign Sonic. This was reflected on a different cover for the game on North America and related marketing material. However, the character redesign was not well received by Sonic Team in Japan.''

Can this information be reliably sourced? So far, it's been added using a youtube video from a fansite, IMDB, both unusuable, and a Sega Blog which does not support the information. Can it be sourced? If not, it should be removed. (I've removed it, but another edit keeps on re-adding, so I'm discussing here to avoid edit warring.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed for now unless we have a reliable source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sergecross73   msg me   18:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

June 12, 1991 release date error?
Apologies for potentially stirring the pot here, but I was reading some old Usenet archives and it looks like the widely accepted release date for Sonic 1 is off by ~10 days. Not sure how easy/possible it is to cite this, but contemporaneous reports point to 6/12/91. There are many other threads from the same time period offering thoughts & impressions from people who had purchased the game in mid-June. From past experiences with the group-think present in modern day video game sites, I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet (and even Sega itself) just had this sort of thing wrong. Brideck (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The stores could have just broken the release date. (another Usenet thread) I couldn't find any corroboration for June 12th, but lots for the 23rd. Furthermore, we'd have to go on what the RS say, over any original, untested discoveries that arise. (I.e., if this were true, it'd have to be published by someone else first.) czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of chaos emeralds?
"In an attempt to steal the seven Chaos Emeralds ..."

The seventh chaos emerald was first introduced in Sonic 2. Shall the number in this sentence be changed to six?--77.11.187.222 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The soundtrack with the Mega Drive\Genesis music tracks (How were they recorded)
I think if possible some good information to have would be if the Mega Drive\Genesis tracks on the 10th anniversery CD were recorded from an actual Mega Drive hardware and upped to 44Khz or how was it done? It does sound accurate, and sourced from 22Khz Mega Drive, but even so what model etc. would be interesting for some people to know.

Is there any information on this and a source? User:Bacongull (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Have bad ports tarnished this game's reputation?
In contrast to (say) Sonic Adventure, where reviewers explicitly commented on how the game showed its age; the cited source is plainly insufficient to assert that "Despite the original game's success, some later versions were highly criticized for what was seen as bad replication of graphics, music, and the overall flow of gameplay in general." The GameSpot review of the obscure GBA port is negative, but does not indicate that several poor versions of this game have "tarnished its rep" (as Sergecross put it in his edit summary). What other versions are we talking about? I would also argue that citing the same GameSpot review of an obscure port in two different sections is undue for such a brief article (although Sergecross is doubtless correct that it does not "clutter" the very concise "Reception" section).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I largely agree. The implication that "several" ports have been criticized is unsupported by the source and thus original research.  Furthermore, as this article is about the Genesis game, the reception section should be limited to that version.  The GBA version is a port and should be mentioned in that section.  I do not see any problem with briefly mentioning the negative reception of the port there. Indrian (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When multiple versions are released, but only one article exists, its very common to have multiple sections listed in the Reception section, so I don't know where you're getting that stance from. Besides, the article is "about the Genesis version" because all the versions are very largely the same, except for some sloppy porting in some versions. Sergecross73   msg me   19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit summary was a little melodramatic, but I fail to see the problem with one sourced sentence about it in the reception section. Also, let me do some research. Pretty certain some of the early mobile phone versions were highly criticized as well. (Like the version for blackberry phones.) Sergecross73   msg me   14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * GBA version
 * GameSpy gave is a "poor - 1.5/5" rating.
 * Modojo gave it a 1/5 rating.
 * In general, it holds a "33% rating" at Metacritic.


 * iOS version
 * The original 2009 port was very unfavorable by Slide to Play
 * 2009 port got just a 6/10 by IGN


 * It strikes me as pretty relevant that Sega was putting out some less-than-perfect ports in the 2000's... Sergecross73   msg me   19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure it is, but it is not relevant to the critical reception of this 1991 Sega Genesis game. As I stated above, I would have no problem with these games being listed in the ports section with a brief sourced note about how bad they were.  Unlike the original poster, for me this is more a matter of placement than relevance. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its absolutely relevant to the 1991 video game, its later releases of the same game. Unless GBA Sonic gets its own article (it shouldn't), then it belongs here. Keep in mind, the "1991" is there disambiguate it from the entirely different 2006 game of the same name. It's not there to keep us strictly on the 1991 release. Sergecross73   msg me   20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am well aware what the 1991 is in the title for, but you remain incorrect about relevance. The entire article discusses only the original game with the exception of the ports and alternate releases section.  Therefore, this is clearly the place to discuss any issues related to other versions.  This is especially true in this case, where the negative reviews had nothing to do with the gameplay of the original, but rather with the quality of the translation of the game to other formats many years after the original game was released.  Placing this info in the reception section is therefore highly misleading.  I am at a loss as to why you are fighting so hard to keep it there.  I am certainly not advocating removing the material, just moving it to a more appropriate section. I am offering this as a compromise.  While I would be satisfied with a mention in the port section, I would rather join the original poster in having this info removed entirely in lieu of having it in an inappropriate area.Indrian (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fighting it because it's part of the game's over reception, and the reception section is already small as it is. Reception goes in the Reception section. I'd understand the objection if it was bloating a huge section, if the info was incorrect, or incorrectly or insufficiently sourced, but none of those things are issues.
 * Its nonsense to refer to it as "misleading" when its clearly labeled as only referring to the GBA version, and there's a huge review table, and "Legacy" subsection, that shows how popular and influential the original release is. Do you think people are going to read those 2 sentences in the middle of the, make a judgement on that, and disregard everything else? Sergecross73   msg me   21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was not advocating removing this content. Under "alternate versions and ports", we find: "A new version of the game, retitled Sonic the Hedgehog Genesis, was released for the Game Boy Advance (GBA) on November 14, 2006 as part of the original game's 15th anniversary celebrations. It included a few new features, such as the ability to save game progress, a level select option, and a special "Anniversary Mode" featuring the Spin Dash move that was not originally implemented until Sonic the Hedgehog 2. In addition, the view is slightly zoomed in and adapted for the GBA's widescreen aspect ratio.[14] The game received mostly negative reception from critics, especially concerning the slow frame rate, music, and glitches.[15]" Like Indrian, I believe the content should be here, and one mention is sufficient.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The short length of the reception section only makes the repeated coverage of the GBA port more undue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the games subsection is the place to say there were glitches/issues, whereas the reception section is where we put how the critics reacted to them. Sergecross73   msg me   01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies then, it appears TheTimesAreAChanging and I are in agreement. Indrian (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename
Shouldn't this article be named Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit)?--Thejfh1999 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not ideal since general audiences may not know the significance of what "bits" are. I think the 8-bit.Sonic is only tied that because no one would come up with a better title. Or maybe that should be changed? Sergecross73   msg me   03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the 8-bit article's title should change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well one SHOULD change, but if we were to change the 8-bit, what would we change it to? Maybe by system names (Genesis/Mega Drive and Master System)?--Thejfh1999 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Helloooooo? Did anybody not see my last post?--Thejfh1999 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Try reading over Wikipedia's article naming guidelines. You'll see there are some problems with your proposal. (Namely, they're supposed to be as concise as possible, and ones with a "/" in them are also frowned upon. The other problem is just that there are soooo many things titled the same thing, it complicates things. Considering its also the name of a series, character, 2006 video game, and game.
 * As such, most of the typical methods of disambiguation don't work very well. Its hard to do just "year" because there were multiple Sonic releases per the year. (2 games of the same title were released in 1991)
 * Its hard to do it by platform due to each game being released on multiple platforms. (The original was released on Genesis, SMS, and GameGear, the 2006 one on PS3 and 360.) Its also compounded how people constantly fight over whether we should call the Sega Genesis or Sega Mega Drive.
 * I'll try to think about it some. The current title isn't great, but it does seem to be "the least bad" as well. Sergecross73   msg me   13:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the current title makes the most sense here, as this is the page that most people will be interested in and this is the least bad title. If we change the SMS Sonic title, I would change it to "Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 Sega Master System game)". It's not concise, but "8-bit" isn't really informative enough (or completely accurate...wasn't the game gear 8 bit?)  1991 8-bit video game could work, I guess.LedRush (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I was wrong above. The "8-bit makes sense as the article is on both the Game Gear and the Master System games.  I would keep everything the same.LedRush (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really like using these "8-bit" or "16-bit" terms either though, sure, gamers understand that, but the general populace don't. (Especially now, where no one uses "bits" to describe the power of a system.) Would your typical grandfather, or little sister, who knows nothing of video games, know what the "bits" mean? No, typically not. But since we're Wikipedia, and not some gaming Wikia, that's who we're writing for too. Sergecross73   msg me   15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, but if someone is looking explicitly for an article on the SMS/GG version of Sonic, chances are they know what 8-bit is. Everyone else would be directed to the article through other Sonic articles.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So...what do we do???--Thejfh1999 (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There doesn't really seem to be any consensus to change it. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we don't change anything. You could start up a discussion at WikiProject Video Games if you really want to pursue this further. Sergecross73   msg me   03:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)