Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 3, 2011.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
 

Ryan Drummond and David Humphery[edit]

according to the Internet Movie Database, Ryan Drummond and David Humphery voice Sonic and Shadow respectively in this game, but are uncredited. Does anyone know if this is true or, as I would put it, "unsourced fanboy information"?

No. It is not true. It is merely, as you would put it, "unsourced fanboy information." Plus, you spelled David Humphrey's last name wrong.

Jason Anthony Griffith voices both Sonic and Shadow in this game and onwards. Though the original voices (excluding the deceased Deem Bristow, who voiced Eggman) could be coming back. No-one knows for sure. Mkrox (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

I notice that the review section is obviously heavily biased against the game. Considering it got an "average" or something on game rankings, it probably had a similar amount of complaints and praise. But this sectoin is almost entirely negative. Shouldn't it be balanced out a bit better? Someone who doesnt know any better may get the impression that this game had only bad points and wasn't praised for anything. MindWraith (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well actually I already added in SOME good reception a long time ago last year when I edited that section. I added in the sentence of GameTrailers giving the game an 8.3 and also, at the bottom of the reception section, there is a paragraph that states how the game did better with reception towards the non-reviewers. such as the average user rating on a gamesite to be a 7.7 or something. Do you think we should add better reception? The only game sites that praised the game were GT and Nintendo Power, and a couple other un-popular game sites that I can't recall.--S200048 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)s200048

Sequel?[edit]

Has there at least been any hints by Sonic Team that there is going to be a sequel to this game (or a game in a similar gameplay style with a different character)?58.174.98.29 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, sorry Titan50 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this game has alot of replay value. There was a magazine that announced a sequal and showed some very realistic-looking screenshots but im pretty sure it turned out to be fake in the end. MindWraith (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the name of the magazine? Lightman2 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On Sonic's YouTube channel they did an April Fools joke about Shadow The Hedgehog 2, go watch it, it's HILARIOUS! youtube.com/sonicschannel Wiki Morris (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Endings[edit]

Is the list of endings really necessary? They make the article seem too game-guide-ish, which is what Wikipedia is not. Can we get rid of them?--142.77.234.78 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I went ahead and tagged that section. BlizzardandBlaze (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

I saw this in the article: "The game's most well-known tagline is; "Hero or villain? You decide." Others include "Who do you fight when you don't know what you're fighting for?"; "Will he be good? Or evil? No one knows but you - Shadow the Hedgehog..."; "This time... Evil will face Evil!", and "Find the computer room!""

Is the "Find the computer room!" quote really that necessary? I don't think it is because it's not describing the game like the other quotes, just highlighting an annoying line from the game. Lightman2 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mere humor from a vandal. If it appears again just delete it Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the RenderWare!!![edit]

Somebody keeps putting RenderWare as the game engine. Why? No matter how many times it has been said, somebody keeps thinking that just because this game uses the Sonic Heroes character models, it automatically means that it's the same engine. Please stop doing that.--S200048 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)s200048

But they did use RenderWare,I think.~74.163.16.27~-Tailsman67 of Sonic News Network and others

Dutch page[edit]

Here's the dutch page to the Shadow the Hedgehog article. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_the_Hedgehog_(computerspel) If anyone could put it on the language list... (I don't know how to) Thanks. 82.139.71.119 (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Can anyone find any sources for the controversy section? I've looked on the internet but can't find any. Tezero (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales[edit]

I think this article would be improved with some information on how it sold, regionally and worldwide, as well as how it did with sales compared to other games released around the same time. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found the number of copies currently sold (1,000,000) but I've yet to look for comparative sales. Thanks for the tip. Tezero (talk)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

Review by Drilnoth (talk · contribs)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Great work! A well-written and informative article. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gamespot":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 16:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings[edit]

"Mixed ratings" should stay as that has been used and is verifiable. Classifying it as anything else would be POV. BOVINEBOY2008 04:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who has called these mixed ratings? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see why we really have to say either. As far as I know, there is no source that says anything about the majority of critics's reviews for this game, so it seems to me that this statement is original research that comes from editors' experience with these reviews (which admittedly do seem mostly negative). Even worse is that it is the subject of edit wars with an apparently biased point of view on one side. Wouldn't the best solution be just to find a source for it or just delete it? CIGraphix (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew very little of this game before I started working on the article; I didn't have a pre-existing POV about it. I still think it should be with "mostly negative". The reviews shown demonstrate how that is the case; there are only two positive ones. Tezero (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not picking on you Tez, but I think your argument shows a classic example of OR (as I understand it): make an original assertion (original in that it is not stated anywhere else known, in this case the assertion that most reviews are negative), then back it up with supporting researched information (a list of reviews that are mostly negative). Since it is just used to introduce a section, this seems like a minor case of OR; so I'm not proposing cases like this be cut from all articles. But because this one has created a disruptive edit war, the case is different. I think the statement should be sourced or deleted. CIGraphix (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I agree with removing the summary of "mostly negative" altogether. We can show that reviewers each said this and that; we can show a NPOV, representative sample of opinions; but I'm uncomfortable with drawing a blanket conclusion for the reader. Let readers judge for themselves how to interpret the ratings. For what it's worth, I would call ~50% "mostly negative", personally. But I can't support an article at FAC in good conscience that concludes that without a source beyond individual reviews. —TKD [talk][c] 11:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CERO[edit]

Just to clear it up, "Free" was a rating in the CERO system prior to them adopting the A, B, C, D, Z system (I remember it being Free, 12, 15, 18). Shadow the Hedgehog came before this change (released 2005, change in early 2006) in the system took place, so it was rated "Free". http://image4.play-asia.com/350/PA.48807.002.jpg <-- is the Japanese Xbox cover art, and you can see it marked Free as well. Just saying so since there's been confusion over that. 174.59.10.77 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog should be a spinoff title.[edit]

Why is it listed under handheld main? The argument that "Well, it furthered the storyline" is irrelevant - if that were the case, Sonic Battle would be under handheld main rather than spinoff since its storyline was the precursor to Sonic Advance 3 (which is main). Besides, unlike Sonic Battle, Shadow the Hedgehog seems to be one-shot anyway. I'm just saying that Sonic Battle has an edge over it in terms of relevancy, yet they're in separate categories for what seems to be the same reason. 208.101.147.253 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to say the distinguishing feature between main series and spinoff titles in the Sonic series is genre; Shadow the Hedgehog is a platformer whereas Sonic Battle is a fighting game. I half agree with you in terms of storylines: Sonic Battle does tie in to the main series storyline, but so does this game, especially to Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic Heroes, which are definitely main series games. Tezero (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the article...[edit]

And I am new. Is this okay? It is about "Trivia." I work at Wikia which also uses MediaWiki, so I am familiar with this type of stuff. -- Gar-Art Studios (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

While your good-faith edit is appreciated, I've removed it because Wikipedia does not allow trivia sections. Please see WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIV for more information. DKqwerty (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lost and Found: Shadow the Hedgehog Vocal Trax Error[edit]

I think someone has vandalised the section about the Lost and Found: Shadow the Hedgehog Vocal Trax album... They've listed titles such as "Gee by Girls Generation, Fire Burning, and Erasure's Always", none of which are featured in the game or the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.219.252.146 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Level-Map[edit]

The map of the Levels is incorrect:

1. There are only 3 Levels in the 3rd Stage.

2. Levels with only 2 Missions do not have a Normal-Mission, except in the 5th Stage.

3. 5. full-hero has a Hero- and a Normal-Mission, 5. full-dark has a Dark- and a Normal-Mission.

I edited the Map, can anyone upload it on Wikipedia? It ist here: http://image-upload.de/image/eZ1lFf/1346923ee2.jpg --178.191.232.173 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States[edit]

Can someone explain how this falls within WikiProject United States? If no one can, the project tag should probably be removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL... yeah, that should probably never have been there. Removed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is way late, but I added it because I figured back in 2009 that it was relevant back as the game stands out somewhat in its grouping (Sonic games) as being American. I got the idea from the talk page for Megatokyo, which... is still in that project. Tezero (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Titular[edit]

In the second sentence it says "Featuring the titular character...". But "titular" means "in name only". I think the word that is wanted is "eponymous". Granted, titular in the sense used appears to be the process of migrating from "simple error" to "a sufficient number of semi-literate people use it this way, so it is now acceptable". However, we are not there yet (I hope) and at any rate it is grating. Herostratus (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked two different dictionaries, and both listed your preferred meaning as the second meaning, with "related to or having the nature of a title" as the first, which strongly suggests (despite your snark) that this is the older and/or better established usage. (If anything, I would suspect the "in name only" sense to have been an ironic derivative of the older meaning; one which in its time migrated from simple—if deliberate—error.) My sources also suggest that "titular role" in reference to, e.g. a play, is well attested and established use. Your "not there yet" turns out to not only be "already there", but may well be a case of "where we actually started" (more or less). Xtifr tälk 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article[edit]

Can anyone tell me how this got to be a featured article? It's a really short article about something which to be totally honest, isn't important or notable, either historically or even within the Sonic franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.120.139 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Admins.~74.163.16.27~-Tailsman67 of Sonic News Network and others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shadow_the_Hedgehog_(video_game)/archive2 - This describes the process. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles are determined based on their quality, not merely their notability. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleep[edit]

Is there some sort of option to censor the swears? Because that's something you'd never expect a Sonic character to do, swear. Because Shadow does swear in this game. Pgj1997 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't, but in the future, please only use this talk page to discuss changes to the article; Wikipedia talk pages aren't for general discussions. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This game is garbage[edit]

There is a glitched enemy in Prison Island, which is supposed to be impossible to kill, but will cause your game to freeze up if you do kill it. One of the GUN Mechs you are required to kill to complete the Dark Mission in The Doom is glitched and will frequently fail to load unless you exit and reenter the area in which it is located (if you rush through the Neutral Mission, it will basically never load). In addition, simply running through The Doom at full speed will cause you to clip through a wall and fall outside of the game's level geometry. Sonic Team took some bizarre programming shortcuts with this title, in which enemies and levels do not load properly until a set amount of time considered reasonable for the optional missions has elapsed. GUN Fortress will also fail to load on occasion (this is very obvious, as parts of the level are totally black, thus many players know to wait a few seconds for the game to catch up with them when this occurs), and (if you go quickly enough) you can actually see enemies loading in stages such as Sky Troops. Those aren't the only signs that this game was rushed out the door in shockingly unfinished state. In contrast to previous Sonic games, you may notice that pausing the game while a character is talking will (100% of the time) prevent them from finishing their sentences! The infamous Chaos Control glitch is no big deal, considering it took speedrunners years to discover, but the fact that using Chaos Control before you meet up with a mission character will prevent you from hearing that character's usual dialogue is another indication of a general lack of polish. Likewise, why on earth does dying right after you meet Vector in Cosmic Fall prevent him from ever loading again? Then again, why are the elevators in Lost Impact and The Doom (two alternate versions of the same area) moving at wildly different speeds, as though the slow one is from an earlier stage of development? An incredibly embarrassing, cringe-worthy plot is one thing; but make no mistake about it, the rest of this game is every bit as insufficient in execution. From the absence of bottomless pit hit detection until you adjust the camera in Cosmic Fall to the glitched item box that perpetually respawns in Space Gadget, this game is a disgrace to the Sonic franchise. Moreover, the level design is atrocious and by far the worst in Sonic's history, to the point where some of these stages seem to have been designed by randomly copying and pasting corridors together with a primitive level editor. There are so many bizarre contradictions in the design that it is difficult to discern any guiding intelligence behind it. Why does filling your Hero Gauge to use Chaos Control in Space Gadget send you down the Dark path? Why does Vector tell you to save GUN from the Artificial Chaos (who are later seen guarding red alien fluid) in Cosmic Fall? (Evidently, not everyone on the team knew Artificial Chaos were GUN's creation!) Why is Egg Fleet carefully designed so that the Hero and Dark paths do not intersect and it should theoretically be possible to help GUN destroy the Egg Balloon without ever harming any GUN soldiers, but in practice it's impossible to inflict enough damage to destroy the Egg Balloon without hijacking a GUN turret (which is guarded by several soldiers who will destroy it the instant you get inside unless you kill them first)? Why do a substantial minority of missions require you to kill your own teammates to advance? Why does the Neutral Path contain both Glyphic Canyon and Sky Troops, two alternate versions of the same area? Why does a scripted scene in Space Gadget propel you directly into an unavoidable pit of acid? (Maybe because they expect you to have a full Dark Gauge, which would make you invincible? But what if you died and lost your gauge beforehand? On a related note, "gameplay" like having to jump into alien larvae in Death Ruins to avoid your homing attack locking onto the nearby GUN mechs--which is impossible given the number of larvae and the poor hit detection unless your Hero Gauge is full, as it should be--is just plain weird.) From its ridiculously loose controls and frustrating stop-and-start gameplay to its maddeningly repetitive level design (almost entirely devoid of the usual varied Sonic setpieces) and spectacularly lackluster missions, Shadow the Hedgehog is an absolute trainwreck. This article glosses over the searing criticisms of the game's numerous glaring design flaws in favor of distractions such as an Official Jetix Magazine readers poll and meaningless "just plain fun" praise from Nintendo Power. You could easily include a paragraph on the level design from the cited sources, instead of spinning about GameSpot's "praise" for "the game's variety of levels and music" in a 4.8/10 review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ECA:C150:E156:38E9:5531:7E39 (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the level design from the GameSpot review. I don't remember the level design being that widely panned in the sources, but if you feel it's worth mentioning, tell me which sources bring it up and give me a few words to hit Ctrl+F for.
In general, though, keep in mind that some criticisms are so widely echoed that it's pointless to include more mentions of them. I do empathize with your concern about the possibility for undue weight, as we call it, being given to praise of the game amidst its more momentous criticism - but I don't think that's a pressing concern since the review scores are all given in the table, especially because reviewers tended to criticize the same things in the same way while being more varied in their praise.
My guess is that you probably understand this, but I do want to reiterate: It doesn't matter what either of us thinks; it matters what the sources actually say. In fact, your opinions seem to be more in line with what the critics think than mine are - Shadow is my favorite fully 3D Sonic game and one of my favorites in the whole series; the ones I really detest are Spinball, a few of the Game Gear ones, Sonic 1 (yes, the first game), and the original Riders. But none of that has any bearing on what Wikipedia is authorized to cover. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't really expecting a reply, so perhaps I should give you some credit for your response, even if your opinions are frankly bizarre. Nobody really liked the levels--for example, Game Informer called them "poorly designed" and "disastrous" as well as "video game design at its absolute worst", while IGN noted that "observing the unique goals per different allegiances is a messy undertaking marred by poor design" as the game's mechanics "perpetually dart Shadow forward with both limited visibility and control", further describing the first level as "a shining example of spectacularly lackluster game design and probably one of the worst single stages that we've played in any title for many months"--but I suppose my criticism is broader than that. The visuals were panned as well, see IGN for example: "Shadow oftentimes looks like it could have been designed for Dreamcast simply because the worlds and characters lack polygon numbers, which leads to a generally square presentation void of curvy shapes. Worse is that many of the game's textures are downright muddy, especially when the camera malfunctions and pans up close, as it consistently does. And overall character animation is primitive and incomplete when compared to the majority of today's games." I'd go further and note that the character models and texture quality are frequently below the standard set by Sonic Adventure 2, and the PS2 version suffers massive framerate drops whereas even SA2's multiplayer runs at a smooth 60 FPS on the less powerful Dreamcast. In fact, there was speculation that Shadow (and, later, Sonic 2006) might kill off the franchise altogether: Game Informer noted that while the 3D half of the Sonic series had always offered "workmanlike, somewhat frustrating, yet solidly mediocre gameplay" in the past, "I'm afraid even Dr. Robotnik couldn't have killed Sonic off so effectively as Sega has managed to do with this game." It doesn't seem accurate to describe this reception as "Mixed", although of course critics did not have time or space to cover all of Shadow's myriad faults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ECA:C150:E156:38E9:5531:7E39 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Tezero, are you aware of Ben Andac's deleted 2007 blog post that first revealed Sonic Unleashed with an allusion to "a transforming Evil ‘Night’ Sonic who looks like a werewolf and can stretch his arms out Dhalsim-style"? Andac says that after Sammy took full control over Sega and reintegrated (or sold off, as with Visual Concepts, or shut down, as with Smilebit) all of their internal studios in 2004; Sonic Team was kept separate to be used as an assembly line mass-producing garbage games to exploit the Sonic cash cow. That sounds about right--a year later, Shadow is rushed out the door with obvious telltale signs that it was unfinished, Yuji Naka resigned, and then Sonic 2006 shocked the gaming community with surreal load times and game-breaking bugs--plus the change in Sega's corporate culture following the merger has been attested to by other developers such as Tetsuya Miziguchi (as well as the absence of any new IP from Sonic Team since the merger, except Rhythm Thief & the Emperor's Treasure which was made by ex-Sonic Team). Admittedly, external developers such as Dimps, Bioware, and Sumo Digital have been able to make good Sonic games--and Sonic Team's recent restructuring has resulted in only one horrible game (Free Riders) since 2010--but when the full history of Sonic is written I suspect Andac will be used in the chapter on the 2005-2010 "Dark Age". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ECA:C150:E156:38E9:5531:7E39 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the infamous Nintendo Power review, here is a scan of Steve Thomason's retraction: "I wish I could forget giving an 8.0 to Shadow the Hedgehog in our review. I was young, stupid, and had an inexplicable weakness for any game starring hedgehogs. I apologize profusely to anyone who bought that abomination on account of my misguided praise."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: That's a shame; back in fifth grade, I did get it partially on account of that review and the magazine's ads for it, and I don't regret that. (I'd gotten a subscription to Nintendo Power along with my GameCube, which is why my name is listed for some of the issues in the Reference library.) I talked with my close friend about it, he also picked it up, and he liked it as well. Regardless, since this scan appears to be usable, I'll add it. Tezero (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@2602:30A:2ECA:C150:E156:38E9:5531:7E39: I'll look at those comments and see how I can work them in. Tezero (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)