Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 4/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Trivia

Sure, this section was only created with one fact, but what was so wrong that it was deleted? The names are the same, and both are from games by companies who recently added a retro-styled game to one of their main franchises. Seems lame to delete the section outright, if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.125.93 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, read this. nickin/conversation/contribution 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. So, once a proper section has been created for the levels, I assume it wouldn't be totally unreasonable to note the fact there? --81.131.125.93 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any connection beyond the name? Sergecross73 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, unless you count the coincidence that Final Fight publishers Capcom recently brought out a retro-styled reimagining of one of their own main franchises, Mega Man 9. But it may be worth mentioning. --81.131.124.204 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking that it was a sega franchise. I've got my series mixed up. It's seems pretty likely that it's coincidence and not notable then.Sergecross73 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

New Villian

Guys there was a little bit I was kind enough to add about the new villain, Duce Electrico, which was falsely removed. Here's the information paraphrased for you once again: "Sega has introduced a new character in this latest edition to the series, an Italian electric eel named Duce Electrico (Named after Benito Mussolini). No information other than that he is an assassin hired by Dr. Robotnik to put an end to Sonic once and for all. As a sign of good will to Buena Vista Entertainment and the Walt Disney Company which has inspired all of the team over the years, Duce will be littered with advertisements for Disney movies old and new. Also, Sega and Yoplait have come together to release a yogurt flavor based on the character, which will be called Fruitin' Tootin' Vegetaberry. Upon initial release of the concept art for the character parents were concerned that Duce was too phallic in appearance. Sega is rectifying this issue." Here's concept art for the character if you guys would like to add it and repost this vital information. http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1686/duceelectrico.jpg User:xXxSSJ6BloodTheHedgehog420xXx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.42.225 (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

None of your edits on the page look real, but at the same time, it seems few trolls actually make an effort on the talk page. Regardless, just like anyone else, if you provide a reliable source, maybe it'll be kept. As long as it looks like unsourced babbling or personal opinion, it'll be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop passing off rumours as fact

The article said that Metal Sonic was in the game, and that the iPhone was the fourth platform. Neither of these have been confirmed. The "citations" used to back up this statement were the official website, yet this information cannot be found there. Until this comes straight from the mouth of Sega, and can be cited as such, please don't include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.137.73 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, with the 'Episodes' section, there are claims that Metal Sonic and Tails will/may be in Episode 2. This is nothing but rumor from what I've seen and I certainly don't think it's verifiable (unless anyone can find the appropriate reference). For now I've corrected the fact that both sentences were written with the first letter of every word capitalized, but personally I think the comments should be removed. Project84music (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Project Needlemouse

I hardly heard of anything about project needlemouse. All I know about it is that it is comming out in 2010 and that is a HD-2D game. I also heard that it may be a game that you need online access for. Saprissy (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Source for it being a sidescroller? Confirmed 2D yes, but it's not a confirmed sidescroller. Kinda splitting hairs here, I know. 69.253.248.147 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sauce for it being a not-hoax?--72.130.149.170 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Online access really pisses me off. Not everybody has Live. Anywho, is this like... 2D 2D, or sidescroll with 3D graphics? 170.215.136.62 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Request

It would be worth mentioning statistics about the hype on project needlemouse. I've read the original trailer had 100000 views in the first 48 hours, but I don't remember the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.30.42 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request changing the main logo image to this http://i.imgur.com/AmY8S.png as it's much cleaner. --Salutules (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Name

Sonic the Hedgehog 4 vs Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1. Since subsequent episodes would be part of "Sonic the Hedgehog 4" I suggest that we use the name of the former.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it depends on how they handle it. Like, Half-Life 2 split the episodes into distinct parts, right? I don't really know, I think we'll have to wait for more information on the game to make a decision. Not that I actually know anything about Wikipedia naming conventions and stuff like that...because I don't. :\ Takua108 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I say keep it "Sonic the Hedgehog 4". All of the games' information should go into this one article, unless the individual episodes contain so much knowledge that it's only feasible to split the article. --Onore Baka Sama (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
When Sega announces Episode 2, there should be a page with links called Sonic the Hedgehog 4 saying:

Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (disambiguation) Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 (etc.) Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (Sonic Crackers, S&K, fangame) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.91.194.12 (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

4th platform

[1] Not sure if this could be considered a "reliable source", but the unannounced 4th platform this game will be released on is most likely the iPhone. Groudon199 (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the article on the original source SonicStadium and they had a link of the image to the official site. Unfortunately the image has since been deleted so there is no way to really prove it until it is officially announced by Sega.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I've a backup of the sonic4 site structure and files from before they removed it but yeah; still not official enough.--Salutules (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
On SonicRetro it said that the iPhone was the 4th platform. (It also said the game would come out in July) I don't think that is accurate though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.132.40 (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
i don't know if it is reliable or not, but it mentioned that the 4th system is the iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad according to this http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_4 i don't know if that would be considered reliable or not, but i figured it's worth mentioning.67.175.12.167 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither Sonic Retro or the Sonic Wiki site are reliable enough sources. You're not supposed to use fansites as sources, and you can't use a wikipedia entry (even if it's a special one) as a source.. Wait until Sega announces it. Sergecross73 (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Great... i didn't think it would be a good source... figured i would ask before i put it in... thanks67.175.12.167 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Move

Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1Sonic the Hedgehog 4 — because it is it's correct title while Episode 1 will be a subtitle for the first game in the series. Domino2097 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this really ought to be at Sonic the Hedgehog 4 as the episode numbers are subtitles. There's a disambiguation page currently sitting at Sonic the Hedgehog 4 for terms that aren't really relevant by comparison - it'd need an admin to move it over the top of the existing one. 212.225.113.32 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. MASEM (t) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1Sonic the Hedgehog 4 — because it is it's correct title while Episode 1 will be a subtitle for the first game in the series.. Domino2097 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree - My reasons were stated above as the first to suggest this. I believe that "Episode 1" should be removed as further episodes are part of Sonic the Hedgehog 4.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm being bold and moving this. It is clear this is an episodic series, so this current page is the series page. If there is a need for separate episode articles as the series progresses, we can add them, but adding the ep1 moniker now is premature. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Plaform?

Hmm, on the US official website it looks like Sonic 4'll be released on another game system as well. What will it be? Should it be noted in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.0.183 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's most likely the iPhone (which is mentioned in the article) it was located at /assets/promo1.png on the official site but has since been renamed/removed so it cannot be found. but here is a backup of the original file http://i.imgur.com/W7znF.png --Salutules (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge Disambiguation Page

I also support the merging of the Sonic the Hedgehog 4 (disambiguation) page into this main page (Sonic the Hedgehog 4). Most of what is stated on that page is speculation of what Sonic 4 really was, or are chronological descriptions, such as Sonic Triple Trouble being the fourth game on the Game Gear to star Sonic.

Also, I have a request for a citation for Nintendo DS on the front page. The main website for Sonic 4 only says that the game will be featured on the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3. Thanks! Troyoda1990 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Developer

I know Sega has confirmed it as Dimps but I find it strange that the teaser trailer shows a Sonic Team Logo. Also in the "leaked" gameplay footage. The "Sonic Team" logo is seen before the main menu. I find it very unusual, although it is possible that Sonic Team passed development to Dimps.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Team could just be overseeing the project or something like that too. Not that that should be added to the article until it's confirmed, but something like that is possible. Sergecross73 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually Sega of America hasn't yet confirmed that Dimps is developing or co-developing Sonic the Hedgehog 4. Here's the link for proof http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?t=315257&page=2 NeoSkyte (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This game is NOT using Euphoria

Wii doesn't support Euphoria The Rage Conspiracy (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as of right now that part of the article you're refering to is unsourced speculation, so it needs to be removed. (I'll do it.) Sergecross73 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
IGN has been recieving a lot of threads referencing Sonic 4 with Euphoria, we had a persistant vandal writing this on there WITH multiple accounts. While Sega may use Havok or PhysX just for physics, I can't see Euphoria being used, especially for a 2D game. 1313-EvilHomer (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that this game has THREE Episodes? (And where's the source Ep 1 comes out July 2010)

Title says all. --Subscriber0100 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Give a source for that or delete it. MetaRyan25 (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)MetaRyan25

BTW, where is the source that Episode 1 comes out in July?--Subscriber0100 (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess Wiki allows minor -- no, MICRO info that doesn't need a source. But the fact that episode 1; especially do the fact that people look at this wiki-page because they hear about the game -- makes deleting the "July 2010" resource a necessity. --Subscriber0100 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to use this source.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Na. After reading your source, its barely beleivable; but lets wait for a more reliable source.--Subscriber0100 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Box Art

Some people keep changing the Logo image for the game, and I feel it would be better to get our bearings straight on the talk page rather than get involved in an edit war. So what is up with all the changes? People keep saying some are fanmade or faked and that an offical one has been revealed or something like that. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but the one that currently isn't up right now, the one with sonic with a "4" in his hand, doesn't strike me as legit, considering his eyes weren't green in it, despite having the green eyes in the game (and that quote from the project leader that's in the article about how/why they're keeping sonic's new design.) I haven't done the research though, so I could be wrong. Sergecross73 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, that picture was a edit of a Sonic the Screen Saver picture. It's also in Sonic GEMS Collection. Therefore, it was a mockup. MissingNoLLL (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Homing Attack

The page says that this is the 2D debut of the Homing Attack. However, in Sonic Advance 2, Sonic could use it (and also in the 2D portions of Sonic Unleashed). Should I change it or does it mean only main series games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.91.194.12 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. The "fact" is wrong, or at least misleading. Ray and jub (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC).

Homing Attack part 2

" Speed is something that is not given; but rather earned through dedication. Speed is not found by simply pushing a boost button, but by building momentum. It is the reward for skill in the face of difficult challenges – this kind of speed is the most exhilarating, not only because it is fast, but because of the pure perfection such speed exemplifies. This is the truth of the original Sonic games – and this is the truth of Project Needlemouse. "

This belief of Sega's was proven false with the addition of the homing attack, which allows you to find speed simply by pushing a button.

The bolded part, which is repeatedly being added to the article, is not acceptable for a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a place to express opinions or witty comebacks to Sega's official statements. Save the commentary for video game forums or something. Sergecross73 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How is that statement an opinion? It's a technical fact that homing attack, which doubles as an air dash, is a one-button auto speed boost, and a powerful one at that. A misleading statement about the gameplay should not be presented as fact. 66.20.38.130 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact: Sega says no boost button.
Opinions: Homing attack = boost button, what Sega said was "false".
Also, in the Sonic Rush series, there was literally a boost button, which they may have very well been referencing. It's much like the person below me is saying: if its reworded it might be possible, but certainly not in its current form. A key word is "proven", the conclusions the statement makes are still subjective, especially considering the game is still unreleased. Sergecross73 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A one button speed boost by any name is a one button speed boost. Regardless of name, what counts is the effect in actual gameplay. The difference is the homing attack/air dash is performed in mid air and acts as a brake if you hit a target. The way this article is structured, it's mainly a chronicle of SEGA of America's PR campaign. There's not much room to mention what's proven about the game itself, or the public reception. At the very least, the gameplay section could be expanded to better describe the most significant new gameplay elements being introduced. 66.20.38.130 (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
"A one button speed boost by any name is a one button speed boost." I disagree. And because there's room for that disagreement, it's not an objective fact, and doesnt' belong here. As far as chronicling of the Sega PR campaign, I agree, I think we could have less of that going on, but that's not my current interest. I'm trying to keep the article unbiased from these various people crying about their opinions about Sonic in the article. (Such as "It doesn't have the old Sonic sprite, so it's not classic sonic!" or "It has *insert aspect of post 1994 game-design* in it, I dont approve!" That belongs in forums, not wikipedia. Sergecross73 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An article based almost exclusively on Sega PR comments and announcements is your idea of an unbiased article Sergecross73?

I already said I don't entirely agree with all the PR comments being on here. I just don't have the time/motivation to re-write the whole page. Feel free to make the changes yourself.

Funny thing is, have any edits even been made or talked about regarding the Sonic sprite? I have neither seen any such edits nor any such discussion in the discussion page. You're just making stuff up.

Look in the history, it's happened. It's nothing I need to argue, wikipedia keeps track of everything.

Don't try and make this sound like your imaginary posters who think classic Sonic should be in (There are 1 or 2 people trying to get some negative edits in. Nothing to do with the sprite though from what I'v seen. Also bears little resemblance to you're overblowing of the issue that makes it sound like 20 people are attacking). This is about keeping a statement that is little short of being an outright lie in a wikipedia article unchallenged. We could do with less PR in this article anyway, why not consider removing it? (I prefer that people be informed of Sega's dishonesty regarding the game, so they take that into account when considering the title, but this would at least be an improvement.

Many Sonic fans are a picky bunch. I just try to keep their opinions out of the article. Anything else is your own interpretation of what's going on.

All your talk of opinion and stretching to only suggests that you are so biased that you are unable to accept simple fact. It's like having a wikipedia article stating that JFK didn't die and explaining this by saying: LOL, He DIDN'T die he was ASSASSINATED. Him having died is like, subjective or something!!!!11!!. Sorry, assassination involves dying just like homing attack involves boosting. Simple fact: When you homing attack, your character is boosted. Therefore, you can gain momentum by pressing a button, which Sega EXTREMELY HEAVILY IMPLIED:

That's an exaggerated analogy, along with immature typos and CAPS. Nothing that needs to be actually addressed beyond this comment

earned through dedication.

How much dedication does pressing A in the air take? Gosh, one might assume that they meant earning it without a boost button but... no... that's crazy. Anyone can see that some kind of... subjectivity... means that it could still be with a boost button... or something.

Speed is not found by simply pushing a boost button, but by building momentum.

Heavily implies no button that grants speed and that momentum must be gained normally.

It is the reward for skill in the face of difficult challenges

The difficult challenge of pressing A in the air? Same as earned through dedication

This is the truth of the original Sonic games – and this is the truth of Project Needlemouse.

By referencing the original Sonic games, it again heavily implies that momentum is gained normally.

If this can somehow be construed to be subjectively true and is acceptable in a wiki article, then what CAN'T be construed to be subjectively true and what ISN'T acceptable in a wiki article. This stretching is ridiculous and any SANE person can see that.

BTW, if no one can put subjective comments like speed can be gained with a single button press' then why subjective Sega comments as "Needlemouse is that critical first step that brings Sonic back to his 2D roots".

Apparently it being a Sega comment means that you don't have to give any evidence or sources for your claims:

"old-school Sonic fans have long asked to see Sonic return to a more 2D style of gameplay"

Where's the census?

Apparently, Sega comments are also allowed to directly respond to things in a wiki article but no one else is:

With so many other retro elements included, why not bring back Sonic's original pot-bellied character design? That's because Sonic 4 is a brand new title and not a remake. As you may know, all Sonic character designs were changed in 1998, so since then, all new titles have those new designs.

Wow, Sega comments sure have a lot of special powers don't they?

I know that a lot of these are explicitly said to be Sega's comments (as opposed to wiki info)... Does that mean I can just add anything in if I put in quotation marks and it's from a big company? Think I'll get their competitors on the phone then should be fun.

Not to mention, this doesn't even have the excuse of being labeled someone's commentary, it is simply presented as part of the wiki article:

The game is a 2D side-scrolling platformer reminiscent of the original Sonic games.

We can't say that homing attack provides speed because that's subjective but we can say the game is reminiscent of the original Sonic games? How is that any less subjective?

Everything you said between this comment and my last comment are completely irrelevent. I've never once fought to keep any quotes by Sega here. By all means, take out all the commentary by Sega. If you get opposition, it'll be by other people, not me.

This is patently absurd, the most ridiculous wiki article I have ever seen by far.

(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be rewritten so it doesn't appear to be a response or an attack on Sega's statement? Ray and jub (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're speaking my language: reason. A rewording or even re-locating would be FAR more reasonable.

Something like: The homing attack can home on to enemies, and when there are none in sufficiently close proximity, it is instead an air dash. It could be put in a section describing Sonic's different moves and the gameplay in general (you know, something that would actually be useful instead of an article half filled with information on Sega's PR events?). In the case of relocation though, Sega's PR comment should be removed, because someone reading only that would be misled. (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You really should have saved yourself the time it took to compose that rant and just written this last constructive part...

Bold parts by Sergecross73 (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything you said between this comment and my last comment are completely irrelevent. I've never once fought to keep any quotes by Sega here. By all means, take out all the commentary by Sega. If you get opposition, it'll be by other people, not me.

Oh shet. Ok, I have to admit, I did NOT see that you had already agreed on the PR issue. That... kind of changes everything... So, my bad there.

Still, I feel that even the bits regarding the appropriateness of Sega's commentary still hold use for two reasons:

A: This article needed criticism B: Your neutrality needed questioning; Not once on this talk page did you raise the slightest brow at any of the Sega commentary in the article, but you have fiercely guarded against any negative commentary deleting it immediately (on top of this your denial of the objectivity of the homing attack also looked biased, because frankly that was absurd. Especially when you still haven't agreed that the following line [which is not Sega commentary] The game is a 2D side-scrolling platformer reminiscent of the original Sonic games. should be removed based on it's subjectivity. Anyone could just as easily say it's NOT reminiscent of the original Sonic games, and we all know you would have deleted it in a flash)

If you were just too lazy to do anything about it, then fine we have an explanation for it now. You can't deny that it looked bad though.

I still have some things to mention:

Many Sonic fans are a picky bunch. I just try to keep their opinions out of the article. Anything else is your own interpretation of what's going on.

You are (and have been) likening the people who would simply like a blatantly misleading comment removed or accompanied with the appropriate text with Retro fanboys (or at least, this is the impression you are making).

Frankly, that is little short of an ad hominem attack to argue against the people saying that it is a fact that Sega's comment is wrong. (or at least, that's how it comes off)

That's an exaggerated analogy, along with immature typos and CAPS. Nothing that needs to be actually addressed beyond this comment

For the record the inclusion of the typos and caps was accidental. I meant to edit that out of the rough.

I also don't feel any need to continue, because it's pretty obvious you are too biased on this issue for further argument to be useful. Even the most fanatical on the Sega forums would admit that Sega's claims on this are false. (not calling you a fanboy by the way, I'm saying you're biased on this issue specifically)

(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


I think it might be a sensible decision to wait for the game to actually come out before we add any commentary on the gameplay. I don't like the PR fest that this article currently is and I definitely agree that we need some actual substance, but until we have the game itself and not just the hype and development news available, what else can we do?
Sega have actually said that whole "speed must be earned" spiel, that's a fact, so we can include it. Until we see what this cursed 'homing attack' is capable of (and even if it will appear in the final product - this is a game in progress after all and anything can happen), we're not in a position to contradict anything Sega say about the game. If it does turn out to be a load of nonsense, we can only contradict them in the article if we can cite a reliable source pointing out that contradiction.
Personally, I don't think we need the decorative 'speed' quote or any original commentary on game mechanics full stop, but again it's so hard to work out what's relevant or not until the game comes out. Ray and jub (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

but until we have the game itself and not just the hype and development news available, what else can we do?

No offense to anybody, but the article should not have been made (or it should have been left with only the appropriate content. Wikipedia might prefer full articles to stubs, but it's not like it would rather have nothing) until the time when it could be made with appropriate content.

Sega have actually said that whole "speed must be earned" spiel, that's a fact, so we can include it.

It's true that it's a fact that Sega said that. It is also a fact that somebody out there said Sonic 4 sucks. Shall we quote them in the article?

Until we see what this cursed 'homing attack' is capable of (and even if it will appear in the final product - this is a game in progress after all and anything can happen), we're not in a position to contradict anything Sega say about the game. If it does turn out to be a load of nonsense, we can only contradict them in the article if we can cite a reliable source pointing out that contradiction.

Come now. It is pretty obvious that the homing attack will be in the game.

Also, did we have to wait a year after the beginning of Iraq's occupation to contradict the US government's word? No, we took the evidence at hand (or at least, that's what should have been done, instead of arbitrarily believing obviously biased authorities.

Obviously reference to an invasion doesn't quite fit in terms of importance with a game article, but the point remains. We pretty much know beyond reasonable doubt that the homing attack will be in, and that it is possible to gain momentum instanteously.

Personally, I don't think we need the decorative 'speed' quote or any original commentary on game mechanics full stop, but again it's so hard to work out what's relevant or not until the game comes out

I don't mind simply editing out Sega's misleading comment. However, I think we at least have a good enough grasp (given the entirety of the game being leaked) of Sonic's moves. I mean, they're not complicated. He jumps, he runs, he homing attacks. Specific values could change, but I don't see how we could go wrong in saying he has those moves in his arsenal.

Well. I don't mind NOT adding in stuff because the game isn't released yet. As long as the inappropriate content is removed.

To that end, I will make some suggestions on the talk page.

(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A word of advice: You're probably not accomplishing as much as you think you are with these giant 5,000+ character posts. I mean, you're addressing me and I'm not going to bother going through all that, I can't imagine many unrelated people doing it. Take on one idea at a time, and take it easy with the outlandish analogies... Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Right, I think the offending paragraph should be removed (the one about speed at the press of a button)

I'll give some time for people to object.

(talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.211.179 (talk)


Well, seeing as how no one seems to mind, I'll probably be removing the paragraph in a day or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.211.179 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


So is the original going to be reworded or not? In it's current state, it's simply just not true, as there is a button which lets one gain momentum instantaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.0.105 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

2D or 2.5D?

At the begining of the article it says that the game will be 2D like the original games, but use pre-rendered graphics from 3D models. Later on it says the game is 2.5D.. It might be a small point, but these are two different things. 2.5D is rendered on-the-fly. -Hughtcool (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To my understanding, it's 2D in the sense that you can only move on a 2D plane, but called 2.5D because the game is made in 3D, you just can't move "in 3D". I'm not entirely sure if "2.5D" should be used or not though, since, I don't think it's "video game world" meaning is quite the same as the rest of the world's meaning. I guess it can be debated...Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it's completely 2D. Some of the graphics are pre-rendered using 3D models, but that doesn't make it any more 3D than the first Mortal Kombat games, and they cannot be construed as 2.5D at all. I'm changing it. Hughtcool (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Robotnik vs Eggman

The edit warring over the main villain's name is getting irritating. The official Sonic 4 website calls him 'Dr Eggman'. Now, I would go for Robotnik myself, but Eggman is his name. If the site called him 'Dr Phil Henderson', we would have to call him Dr Phil Henderson. Ray and jub (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Metal Sonic?

The page says Metal Sonic will be revealed by collecting the 7 Chaos Emeralds. The source is the main website for the game, and I couldn't find it anywhere. Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaRyan (talkcontribs) 04:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaked Stages

I'm more than sure that the leaked stages are Casino Street Zone, Mad Gear Zone, and Final Zone, and that the new level order is Splash Hill Zone, Casino Street Zone, Lost Labyrinth Zone, Mad Gear Zone, and Final Zone. But I can't find a proper source for this other than individual Sonic Retro pages for the levels and I'm not sure how to add a reference. Can anyone give a better source so we can put it in there? MissingNoLLL (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

{{editprotected}} is not the right template to use for this. Try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reception

So, okay, got an 88, critical reception is visible... but what are the uh, sales figures? Any word on those yet? Voretus (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Most versions of the game have only been out for a couple of days! Most of the time sales are given in terms of first week or first month. Only huge releases, like Halo or something, are they type to get first day sales, and even those aren't always known right away. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you edit the reception section so that it sounds more neutral? Because I really don't like how negative it sounds toward the game right now. 66.227.220.139 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? It's all well sourced, and there is 1 paragraph for positive and 1 for negatives. Seems pretty balanced in my opinion...Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, when I first read the reviews, it seemed like most of the reviews were either bad or had a somewhat good review. But I think that it should stay the same, regardless. Sure, I love the game and saw that one user had the same viewpoint of it as me, but it's wouldn't do it any harm to keep the negative reviews; after all, Wikipedia is really neutral on things; that's why those are outside reviews. MissingNoLLL (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Episode 2 Preview

Can someone get a source for this as I haven't seen anything on the net to prove this? DreamsDreams (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)DreamsDreams

There is no source. I have completed the game with all the chaos emeralds and there is only an outline of what appears to be "metal sonic", no preview to speak of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.212.253 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you answered the question right there... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Magazine give some information on Episode 2. It's not much, but should it be included in the article? http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/24161/sonic-the-hedgehog-4-episode-2-is-early-stages-of-development/ 18:54, February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.188.57 (talk)

Zone Themes

I think that we should be using the theme names as mentioned here; http://info.sonicretro.org/Category:Level_themes. It simplifies things better. The themes in my big revision were used from there. MissingNoLLL (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Level Select

Sonic 1,2, & Knuckles had no stage selection. Sonic 3 did, however only once a level was beaten. Sonic 4 deviates from this tradition.

Sonic 1, 2, & Knuckles had stage selections, including an act select and such. And Sonic 3 had NOT a level select after a level is beaten.

In all those first games, it was unlocked by cheating, but still, it is in the game. So, that quote is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.11.45.204 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, I don't think cheating "counts". You can do all sorts of things with cheating/hacking, but that's not part of the way the game was intended to be played, so that doesn't need to be mentioned. That being said, I'm not sure ANY of that really contributes much to the article...Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not actually "cheating", I believe I misused the word. It should be official because the level select is fully funcional, with it's own sprites and all. It's not a "debug select menu", it's part of the game. I believe it's even on the manual (i'm gonna check later)
But still, Sonic 3's Level Select is also a cheat like the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.11.45.204 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.75.96.165 (talk)