Talk:Sonic Generations

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleSonic Generations has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2011Articles for deletionKept
December 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
October 22, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

A quick note from the people at WP:GA

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]


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? TarkusABtalk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. TarkusABtalk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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

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. TarkusABtalk 04:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address these later today; I'm just not able to right now. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: I've responded above and resolved the issues. JOEBRO64 18:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: replied above TarkusABtalk 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: I think I've resolved everything. Responded above. JOEBRO64 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: OK everything looks good. Yea sorry I mixed up the sentences but you figured out what I meant and resolved both issues. Pass TarkusABtalk 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Mania in legacy

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Similarities or not

[edit]

Please explain why did you remove "Like the original, it received positive reviews". You know reviews are similar, so what's wrong with the comparison. Why do you keep removing something that dosent need to be removed? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there a better or more efficient way of noting it? It's not always black and white, yes or no options. Sergecross73 msg me 22:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue a remastered game getting similar reviews to the original isn't really significant enough for the lead, because it's what everyone expects. It would be more notable if it got much higher or much lower reviews. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberlink420, explain why it isn’t significant enough for the lead? It should. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're saying that remasters commonly get the same scores as the original because they're commonly the same thing with some minor upgrades. It might be better to refocus on the reception of Shadow Generations which is specifically new content. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow Generations has it's own article. Your not making any sense. And besides, it doesn't has to be the same scores. The reception can still be similar no matter what. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow is still discussed in the article, but that aside, how often do remasters get drastically different scores? Name some that did substantially better or worse. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about and what does that even mean? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception for Sonic x Shadow Generations

[edit]

I think we should add the critic scores for Sonic x Shadow Generations to the Sonic Generations page. However, I have seen two different ways of doing this. I saw the Super Mario 3D World page added the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury critic scores to the reception section but Sonic Colors created a new section for Sonic Colors: Ultimate with the reception separate from the original. If my explanation doesn't make sense, you can compare the pages for yourself. My question is which of these should we do. I am not qualified to do this so I'm asking someone else to. Anonymous29345 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mario example is probably more relevant, considering its more similar in structure and concept. Both feature a remaster and a separate completely new add-on. Sonic Colors Ultimate was largely just a basic remaster, and doesn't have a separate article either (nor should it.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to try to mention more details about the "3DS version" on this article rather ther than split it. PawPatroler (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the mentions about the 3DS version of "Generations" be split into a separate page called Sonic Generations (3DS). The cotent from the 3DS is only marginally related to the main article, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page, since they have differentgameplay, and ratings. PawPatroler (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Are you both supporting and concurrently rejecting your own proposal...? Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adding support and oppose options, as pre Wikipedia:Split. PawPatroler (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's their guidance on actually responding to it, not on creating a proposal. You don't need to provide options when it's clear there's only two options - splitting or doing nothing. And you certainly shouldn't sign your signature to both options separately like that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for anyone who may be reading this after the fact, my above comments were in reference to this iteration of the discussion, prior to it being stealth-edited out. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There isn't actually that much 3DS-specific content on the page as it exists now, and any new page would probably overlap pretty substantially since they obviously share a development history and both play fairly similarly (there's not THAT much difference between Rush style and Unleashed style). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The reviews of the "normal" version were "generally favorable", while the 3DS' reviews were "mixed or average",. Also, in the "normal " version, "Classic Sonic's gameplay is restricted side-scrolling gameplay similar to the original Sonic the Hedgehog games released in the 1990s, and requires him to use moves such as the Spin Dash and the Spin Attack. Modern Sonic's gameplay follows the gameplay style of Sonic Unleashed (2008), and Sonic Colors (2010), featuring an amalgamation of third-person and side-scrolling perspectives and techniques such as boosting and homing attacks.", while in the "3DS" version, Morden Sonic moves in 2D. this should split pre these reasons. PawPatroler (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's already noted that the 3DS and console versions had different reception, and the thing about gameplay seems like it can be fixed with one additional sentence (or just tweaking the existing one), not a full split. Also, you really don't need to put down a vote of support; it's kind of implied considering you were the one who started the discussion. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started my own draft, Draft:Sonic Generations (3DS), so when it does spilt I can publish it then. You can edit it if you want.--PawPatroler (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This highlights exactly why it shouldn't be split - it's extremely redundant. This isn't helping your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing to say about the 3DS version that can't be said here. Yes, it has different levels and got separate reviews, but I don't think there's anything unique about its development and release to warrant a split like there is with the old 8-bit games. JOEBRO64 23:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have send my draft to be reviewed. I have alter some mentions of the "normal" version of the game, and now it is just "Sonic Generations".--PawPatroler (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting a draft to create a new page while the matter is still being discussed (and multiple people are telling you not to, at that) is incredibly poor wiki etiquette. Do not be surprised if the draft gets rejected as a result. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. It's not appropriate to rip half the content of an established GA and run it through AFC. We don't need that sort of review. We're talking about how to present the information. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how a separate page for the 3DS game would improve its coverage rather then worsening it. How it's done here seems fine. λ NegativeMP1 01:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons listed above. GSK (talk • edits) 01:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Saw this brought up by the proposer on WT:VG, where they were begging for support. I don't see the point in splitting. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry for being like this; I merely just wanted the article to be split. --PawPatroler (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article even states "Sega considered making the 3DS version a port of the console versions, but instead chose to develop from scratch to make it unique". It is a totally separate game, and combining games just because their titles are the same makes little sense. I do think that the nominator acted poorly in attempting to influence and pre-empt the discussion, which is clearly influencing people's opinions now against the proposal, but that doesn't change the fact that their proposal is sound, and in the vein of numerous other articles such as Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Game Boy Color video game) for example. I don't even think it's controversial enough to require a split discussion, though I do have concerns about whether the proposer can split it while maintaining its good article status. Nevertheless, treating GA as a sacred cow that cannot be touched, does not help the encyclopedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything is "controversial enough" for discussion of its being challenged in good faith, and there's currently 6 separate editors opposed to it. What an absurd thing to say. It's been hard enough to get this new editor on the right path to learning Wikipedia, don't give terrible advice like that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Serge, this is a user who has been here for a while. At least listen to them... PawPatroler (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the 6 editors opposed to a split have all been here quite a while too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, so I don't really mind if people aren't swayed to "my side". When I make a statement, I am usually confident that policy backs it up. In this case, I feel a split makes sense and a failure by the article's author to consider this prospect does not immediately disqualify it from taking place. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong, I am yet again baffled on your stances on article splitting and merging, but I wasn't chastising you for that. I am only chastising you on your advice to a new editor that it wasn't worth discussing the split. Not only just bad advice, but particularly puzzling thing to say in an ongoing discussion where the consensus is already strongly against it. Anyone with any common sense would see that a bold split would be have been immediately reverted and we would be right here discussing anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you believe that there are aspects of the 3DS game that are not adequately covered or explained in this article, or are covered to such an extent that it warrants a size split? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The differences between these versions can be noted in the gameplay/reception section. A split is not necessary. OceanHok (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for a week, so I'm now closing the "split proposal". We'll just try to mention details about the "3DS version" more.--PawPatroler (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.