Template talk:Sonic games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Sega task force.

Release Dates[edit]

I just came an idea. The template has their year dates next to them, so why not just put them in the year they were released, with the year in parenthesis. and not like where each year has a section the template, with having released and cancelled since there wasn't a year for them. And how come Heroes and Advance 2 have 2 years? GENERALZERO (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The years can easily be seen by going to their article. I think it's pointless. I say remove. Also, I think that's because they were re-released? SLJCOAAATR 4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Advance 2 wasn't re-released, nor Heroes. But, what do you think about the order? Because the Rush and Rivals series are considered Spin-Offs, and I don't think the hand-held games have a "Main Series" or "Spin-Offs" because they're all spin-offs. I think the first five sections should be combined, and put in chronological order. Like it's been said before, the way it is now makes it more complicated. GENERALZERO (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
ACTUALLY, Heroes was re-released for the PC. :P I believe Advance 2 was in some re-release combo pak. Not too sure....
Also, Rush, Rush Adventure, Rivals, and Rivals 2 are all main series. They're the results of '06 being erased, and are, to say, as Daniel Faraday would put it, broke the rope, got around the knot, and started a new string. In essence, they're main series, tie into Archie, which is edging into canon, and have currently unknown lasting effects on future games. Or, at least, that's what Ian Flynn says Sega told him. I have no reason to doubt such a man. SLJCOAAATR 4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It is true that the release years can be seen from the articles, but isn't it far more convenient to see them in the template as well? Most other game articles contain these release years and there is no reason at all why this one should be an exception. --Meph (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)



Sonic and Sega All-Star Racing[edit]

Seriously, that shouldn't be there. If Sega Superstars Tennis can't be on here, neither should this game. (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Project Needlemouse[edit]

I added the latest revealed Sonic game, Project Needlemouse, to the template. I have placed it under main series, however I can't confirm whether it matches the criteria mentioned in the documentation. It has not been recognized as a successful main series game (due to lack of information), not a handheld game and most likely a console game since it will be 2D HD gameplay, Sonic features as main character. (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2009 (GMT)

Regarding handhelds[edit]

I noticed a lot of people were uneasy with the main series handhelds being put into a separate group, which is indeed OR, however it makes the table more organized to put them in a separate list, so therefore I suggest we do this:

Opinions? Perhaps that should also be done for the spin-offs as well. - MK (t/c) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that that would be acceptable, but spin-offs I cannot abide by. A spin-off's a spin-off - one may be more little known than the other, but it's not like people will be confused to see Sonic Eraser next to Sonic Spinball. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I figured, that's why I didn't touch the spin-off section. - MK (t/c) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the current tablet, but just an addendum...[edit]

[Since apparently it's protected from non-users.]

Someone put the Rivals games under handhelds. There's no reason it's in the console section. Also we need to add Sonic Jam, Sonic Gems Collection and Sonic Classics Collection under compilations. Lastly (and this is just opinion), wouldn't you consider Shadow and Sonic 06 spinoffs? (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Jam, Gems, etc redirect to the main compilation page, which is what is linked on the side. I'll let someone else handle the rest. - MK (t/c) 15:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a new group for the "original series"[edit]

Should we add a new group for the "original series"? That would be Sonic 1, Sonic 2, Sonic 3, Sonic & Knuckles and Sonic 4? If we were to do that, then we could rename the "main series" to something like the "modern series". This would make things more organised. --Josh (Mephiles602) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, IMO because that would require a source and Sega has tended to group them together. IIRC Sonic 4 was meant to bridge the gap between S&K and SA1, so I assume it will be just act as an interquel to that series. That and there's an army of "modern series" fanboys that like to pounce on any decision that makes the classic games seem separate. - MK (t/c) 00:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should. Sonics 1, 2, 3, &K, and 4 in the 2D console series, and the others (including Sonic Colors) in the 3D console series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Jam[edit]

In response to something I've had to fix more than once, I shall issue a declaration: Do not add Sonic Jam to the compilations group unless you have recreated that article with such content that it will not be speedy deleted and the link in the template will remain relevant. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Rivals is not part of the main series.[edit]

I'm sure the Sonic Rivals games are more like spinoff games. Railer-man (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They weren't even released in Japan. (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, being a Western-only release isn't a good reason. Sonic Riders is a spin-off, and it had a Japanese release. Railer-man (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be getting no reply. Heaven knows why. Railer-man (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do with all the 3D games?[edit]

Where do we put all of the 3D sonic games since Sonic 4 continues from Sonic and Knuckles? iluvthissiteIluvthissite (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Subgroups for "spin-off games"?[edit]

Hello. I think that subgroups could be made for some of the Spin-offs games. Something like this:

Of course, if you have better suggestion or categorization than I, post it here. --Explorer09 (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support this. You could add a "Story Book Series" tab as well. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This seems better than the current version. Sergecross73's idea about the Story Book Series being added is good too. Perhaps "Olympic-themed" should be changed to something else that might include Shuffle; also the classification of Knuckles' Chaotix as a spinoff and Shadow's game as a main game seems arbitary, they should be classified similarly. The classification criteria needs to be rewritten, it's so old it references things that don't exist anymore. CIGraphix (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the "Olympic Themed" one could be something regarding "Mini-game Themed". That would fit both the M+S games and Shuffle. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the Storybook series needs it own tab, since it only contains two games and Sega aren't planning to continue it from what I've heard. A subtab for non-main-series platform games (Knuckles Chaotix, Tails Adventure, etc.) would be fine if you go through with this minitab thing.
Is there some sort of wikipedia policy that says there needs to be more than 2 items for this sort of things? If not, that's not a reason not to do it...Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've done a little merging of tabs to reflect this statement. For example, the Storybook games are now part of a Platformers tab with the other platform games, whilst Puzzle and Pinball are now in the Other section. Wonchop (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank all of you. I like the current way of tabbing (by genres). Good work. Explorer09 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Blast versions classification[edit]

So I've noticed, Sonic Blast is classified differently between platforms. On handhelds, (labeled as "Blast" ) it's considered the "main series", while on consoles, it's considered a "spin-off" (labeled as "3D"). Is this right? I know they're different games, but I still think they should fall in either one or the other. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on whether it is right or wrong to do so, but I assume the reasoning was that Sonic Blast plays in classic 2D right to left while Sonic 3D Blast plays as an isometric platformer with the camera above instead of to the side and prominently features a treasure hunt for Flickies in the core gameplay. CIGraphix (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Autobotprowl, 27 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I do not think that "Shadow the Hedgehog" should be included on this list as part of the main series of Sonic games. It does not follow the other characters or the main stories; it is and was always intended to be a spin-off. Does anyone agree with me?

Autobotprowl (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. →GƒoleyFour← 07:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, it seems silly that a game that doesn't involve playing as Sonic, would be part of a Sonic "main series". It seems like as much of a spin-off as Knuckles Chaotix. (Sonic characters w/o Sonic playable, gameplay mechanics not seen in other Sonic games, etc.) I'll wait to see more responses though before I make any changes...Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Shadow belongs in a classification like Knuckles Chaotix - both have gameplay that takes the classic Sonic model and changes it (Knuckles has team gameplay, Shadow has guns, vehicles), both don't have Sonic as the star (he is only really a cameo), both have stories that branch off the main Sonic stories. Like I said in another section, it seems arbitrary to classify them differently. CIGraphix (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Syberthrouth, 22 January 2011[edit]

Not Protect See Ya!

Syberthrouth (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unofficial games[edit]

This template is already huge. Do we really need to list some of these "related games", especially the ones that are unofficial hacks? I'd like to remove them. It's already crowded with just "real" Sonic games. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Mario and Sonic series games are sports games[edit]

The Mario and Sonic series games are obviously sports games, and yet they have been put in the Party category. I would suggest putting them in a new "Sport" category, and then moving Sonic Shuffle to the "Other" category. Besides, Sonic Shuffle and the Mario and Sonic series aren't even one series. Thanks. Androids101 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but they're still both essentially mini-game collections. We don't need to over-categorize...Sergecross73 msg me 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Tails Game Gear Games[edit]

Pretty sure if Shadow has been demoted to spin-off, so should these. Neither have even vaguely traditional Sonic gameplay, nor does Sonic appear in them at all. Rivals is already in the spin-offs section so I don't think adding a couple more handheld ones would be that big a deal. (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011[edit]

Shadow the hedgehog (the video game) was released in 2005. This is not a spin off game, this game was part of the main console series. Shadow the hedgehog (video game) was relesed after "Sonic Heroes". Shadow the hedgehog explained the the story behind shadow, and even have some refrences to sonic heroes in it. this game was the next game in the main series. Even in Sonic the hedgehog "2006", the shadow story line is a continual story to shadow the hedgehog. the story line in sonic the hedgehog 2006 leads us to beleive that Shadow joined up with G.U.N ( Guardian Unit of Nations) after he leaves the past behind him. in Shadow's story line in Sonic the hedgehog 2006, it even explains of parts of shadow the hedgehog. my request is to remove shadow the hedgehog from a spin off series, and put it back to its rightful place in the main series. the gap between sonic heroes and sonic the hedgehog 2006 is about 3 years. its obvious shadow the hedgehog was made to fill the gap between them. it use to be places in the main series until someone edited it. (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Jnorton7558 (alt) (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those things make it a "main series game". Whether or not it covers superficial story elements, the fact of the matter is, you can't play as Sonic, and it has non-conventional gameplay (for instance, gunplay). This makes it much more of a spinoff. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit please[edit]

Edit request from , 21 November 2011[edit]

In your list of Sonic Games, in the racing spin-off category, you forgot Sonic Drift Racing. (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Click on the link to Sonic Drift on the template. At the moment, it seems that Sonic Drift 1 and Sonic Drift 2 (Also known as "Sonic Drift Racing" share the same article.) As such, it doesn't make sense to have a link going to the same page twice. However, I'm not sure I agree with having them share the same article. Perhaps I'll try to work on them both having one, if I get around to it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Shadow GameSh[edit]

Shadow the Hedgehog(2005) should be in the Main Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's more like a spinoff. You can't play as Sonic, it's got non-conventional elements (Gun gameplay, alternate endings, etc.) It's no more "main series" than Knuckles Chaotix or the Tails Game Gear gamees... Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can play as Sonic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In an extremely limited manner as a multiplayer character? Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


There are an endless list of Sonic compilations in existence. Rather than listing them all out, I think we should just list to the "List of Sonic Compilations" article (technically already linked, in the word "Compilation") to the "related articles", and then remove all of the links that go directly to compilations. So basically, one link to the article that lists them all, instead the 5 or so that are there now. To make it a little less cluttered, there are so many titles on there as it is...Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 19:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sonic CD is part of the main series?[edit]

How so? It's a good game, but it seems arbitrary to put it in the main series. What qualifies it as part of the main series? ScienceApe (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it'd be easier to start off with why you would think it's wouldn't be part of the main series. It's a Sonic platformer made by Sega... Sergecross73 msg me 04:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
But it wasn't on a major console, it was for the Sega CD. It seems like a spinoff title that stars Sonic. Why are we not including Sonic 3D Blast? You can't say it's not a platformer because a platformer is not clearly defined. ScienceApe (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe being on a "major console" has ever been a deciding factor, as that's a rather subjective judgement call to make on a console in some instances. What would define "major"? What about in-between, semi popular consoles, like Dreamcast? I'd avoid that rationale. In the realm of video games in general, it plays extremely familiar to the first 4 Sonic games for Genesis, so I'd consider it a "main" game. I've never seen much of anargument to call it a spin-off really...
As far as Sonic 3D Blast's classification goes, I've questioned that in the past as well. I started a discussion, I believe elsewhere on this talk page, and discussion fell pretty flat, so I never changed it, as I didn't feel too strongly either way. If you want to reopen a discussion on that, I'd be happy to weigh in. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case, you should also include all of the handheld games as the main series. What separates a main console from a portable? You're still making a distinction in your mind. ScienceApe (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at. We designate whether or not it was on a handheld or console, but that doesn't designate whether or not it's a spinoff or main series game. As such, you'll notice that there are already a large group of the handheld titles already classified as "main" series already, and ones that deviate from being a 2d Sonic platformer, like Tails Adventure, or Sonic Labyrinth, are put in "spinoff" section. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the Sega CD isn't a console, it's an addon. Maybe I should have made that clear instead of stating "major console". The point I was trying to make before is that if you don't want to differentiate between an addon, and a console, then what's stopping us from differentiating between a console and a handheld? For that matter, we should also include the arcade Sonic game as well. ScienceApe (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd understand your argument if someone was arguing saying "that's a handheld game, it can't possibly be in the main series" or something like that, but that's not the case at all. What they are played on, console, handheld, arcade, whatever; they don't determine whether or not it's main or spinoff game. The "console" or "handheld" describes what the game is playable on, not if it's main or spinoff. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My contention is that Sonic CD is not on a console, it's on an addon to a console. If you're going to include that as a console, I don't see why you are differentiating between a handheld, arcade machine, and a console. Also Sonic 3D Blast confounds said problems because it fits the criteria you set up. ScienceApe (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A number of things here:

  1. I didn't set up this inclusion criteria, I merely enforce/maintain it because so far it seems to be the best approach. If you want to set up an alternate approach in a sandbox or something, by all means, go for it, and we could hash it out. I think you'd find though, that if it wasn't split up into various subsections like it is now, it would devolve into this massive, hard-to-read-or-navigate wall of text.
  2. As far as the add-on/console argument, I think it's a little nitpicky. The Sega CD connected to a Sega Genesis plays effectively the same as a console. Pretty sure the reasoning was as simple as that.
  3. I already told you, I'm indifferent as to Sonic 3D Blasts placement, so I don't see how that figures into any arguments. The discussion about it a year and a half ago is on this very page. I questioned its placement. Someone gave their viewpoint. There was no resolution or strong feelings on either side, so no action resulted. If you want to get a consensus to change that, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Pretty much the only change I suggest is moving Sonic CD to the spin-offs section. That's all.
  2. Gotta be nitpicky, afterall, if we classify things into categories, it implies that the categories are well defined. I still believe the Sega CD is not a console, it's an add-on, therefore Sonic CD is not part of the main series, but rather a spin-off.
  3. Main issue is the inconsistency. I actually do believe Sonic 3D Blast is a spinoff as well, but including Sonic CD, and not including Sonic 3D Blast is inconsistent under the criteria that has been laid out. ScienceApe (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, well it's good to establish that your main hang up is these two games, as I was reading some of your comments like you were against the whole set up.
Regarding Sonic CD - I disagree about your argument that "Sega CD is an add on so Sonic CD is a spinoff" because, as I said above, Platform does not establish main/spinoff status. Perhaps this needs more explaining. Knuckles Chaotix isn't a spinoff because it's on the 32X, it's a spinoff because it stars a character that's not Sonic, and it has non-conventional gameplay (two characters tied together by a ring, etc). Sonic Chronicles isn't a spinoff because its on the Nintendo DS, it's a spinoff because it's an RPG.
Using similar reasoning as above, Sonic 3D Blast does not fall into the main series because it features non-conventional gameplay (strictly isometric item collecting, not especially speed-based) and was developed by an outside company as well (Travelers Tales, not Sega.)
(Side note: I'm just noticing now that "Arcade" does not fall under Spinoffs, like I thought it did, and think it should, as their all very non-conventional Sonic games as well. If this is a source of your hang-ups, I'd support moving Arcade as part of spinoffs. Perhaps this has been a reason for our disconnect?) Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
"Non-conventional gameplay" is an arbitrary label that has no real definition. What makes gameplay non-conventional? Sonic Adventure's gameplay was non-conventional from the previous games. I could argue that Sonic Unleashed's gameplay is "non-conventional gameplay". The criteria set up is pretty arbitrary to start with, and trying to be consistent with it just results in a bunch of games that have to be included as part of the main series even though they probably shouldn't. Sonic 3D Blast, Sonic and the Secret Rings, and Sonic and the Black Knight are all platforming games that star Sonic and thus meet the criteria set up. So either be consistent, or move Sonic CD to the spinoffs section. ScienceApe (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
When I say "non-conventional", I basically mean a platform game (platformer), that's what "conventionally" is thought of being a main Sonic game. While I agree this does involve a degree of subjectivity, your examples given above don't go against it. Secret Rings and Black Knight are literally referred to as spin-offs by Sega. (Look no farther than Black Knights cover, which calls it part of the "Storybook Series". See here.) Meanwhile, Adventure and Unleashed are still by and large platformer with Sonic as a playable character, and are part of the main line as such. (And I doubt you could ever find consensus to say they were spinoffs.) In regards to Sonic 3D Blast, I'd remind you that, as I said earlier, I'm not opposed to moving it to the main series. I can understand the argument for it to be in either group really.
Taking a different approach, can you find any sort of reference or allusion to Sonic CD being referred to as a spinoff? One of my hangups, beyond what we've been discussing above, is that I've never heard anyone regard it as a spinoff besides you... Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Secret Rings and Black Knight are definitely spinoffs, I agree, they just fit the criteria laid out, that's all. I can't think of any direct evidence from official sources that list it as a spinoff, but there are allusions to it being a spinoff. The fact that it was made during a time when Sonic games were being numbered is one allusion. It came out after Sonic 2, at the time you would think Sonic CD was a spinoff since it wasn't part of the sequential numbering system they were using at the time. The other allusion was in Sonic Generations where it took one level from all of the main games. Sonic 1, Sonic 2, Sonic 3 and Knuckles, Sonic Adventure, SA2, Sonic Heroes, Sonic 06, Sonic Unleashed, and Sonic Colors. While there was a fight with Metal Sonic that paid hommage to the fight from Sonic CD, I don't really think that cements their feelings on Sonic CD being part of the main series. If they thought Sonic CD was part of the main series, it stands to reason that there should have been a full level from Sonic CD in Sonic Generations. I think going by what Sonic Generations laid out is a decent standard. It leaves out all of the obviously spin off games, the 8-bit Master System games, Sonic 3D Blast, the storybook games, and Sonic CD. ScienceApe (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't buy the "sequential numbering" argument because, under that logic, Sonic & Knuckles would be a spinoff too, as it was released just after Sonic 3. As far as your Sonic Generations argument, one, I think that, without any sort of proof of that intent from the creators, violates WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR. There could be any number of reasons why Sonic CD wasn't represented more in Generations. Time constraints, funding constraints, etc. That aside...Sonic CD was still featured in the game far more than spinoffs too. There's no Sonic 3D boss or Sonic and the Secret Rings boss. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, wasn't it a little premature to go a move it already? I know I didn't respond right away, but we are far from consensus here. And it's move to "spinoff" was pretty quickly reverted by another user...kind of goes along with my stance that it's not commonly considered a spinoff... Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I moved it back. You didn't respond for a while, and I gave you a few days. Sonic and Knuckles was going to be part of Sonic 3, but they had to break it off due to time constraints, that is documented and is supported with evidence. I was making an argument, WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR apply to adding content to articles. They do not apply to what we are discussing here nor is it a violation of those rules. I already addressed your concerns "While there was a fight with Metal Sonic that paid hommage to the fight from Sonic CD, I don't really think that cements their feelings on Sonic CD being part of the main series. If they thought Sonic CD was part of the main series, it stands to reason that there should have been a full level from Sonic CD in Sonic Generations." Your assumptions for why Sonic CD was not represented in Sonic Generations has to be backed up by evidence otherwise it's not a valid argument, but I will give you the same fair shake. Do you have evidence or allusions to Sonic CD being part of the main series? ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether the term WP:OR applies to this situation or not, the same general flaw remains the same; you have no proof backing up your Sonic Generations theory. It's nothing more than your personal speculation. As far as proof of it being "main series", let me see if I can dig anything up...
Also, do not change the template until consensus has been reached. Just because I didn't answer for a few days, doesn't mean you can ignore the lack of consensus for your change. (Besides, look back at this conversation, you've taken equally long to respond in the past, and there is no deadline anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I figured you gave up before. I can't read your mind so you should at least say something. I don't think what I'm doing is WP:OR, we're just trying to categorize things based on whatever evidence there is. I'm not adding any content or trying to advance a position. If what I'm doing is WP:OR you can apply that logic to any game in that template. Besides you asked for allusions, so that's what I gave. ScienceApe (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond, it took me a bit to formulate my response, and I got caught up with other things. I don't fault your for giving your reasoning, I just don't agree with it. I only fault you for trying to make the change (twice) when there's no consensus for it yet. (The second time clearly after conversation had resumed, no less.) As far as sources go, I haven't really been able to find any that support either line of thinking really. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem: I agree with Sergecross73. Sonic CD is NOT a spin-off. It may have been kind of one in the past, but after it got rereleased as a prequel to the events of Sonic 4 it's safe to say that it is part of the main series. As with Sonic 3D Blast, I say no as the gameplay strays from the main games, with you trying to find birds and put them in Ring Hoops. \

P.S. Sergecross, what do you think about the new template images I put up for the Sonic 4 articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talkcontribs) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus to change[edit]

Well, it looks like we're pretty much deadlocked here. There's no consensus for changing it, so far it's 2 against 1, which is pretty much no consensus, (In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.) ScienceApe, it's up to you if you'd like to do anything else, I'm content with waiting to see if anyone else has anything to add to the conversation. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm no Sonic expert (don't even have a Sonic game...), but from as much as I can deduce from the information in the article and following the WP:DUCK idea, if a game looks like a mainstream Sonic game, plays like a mainstream Sonic game, and is developed like a mainstream Sonic game...it probably is a mainstream Sonic game. Sonic CD should be classified as mainstream here, regardless of its platform it's in. Heck, SEGA probably created a Sonic game for the CD as one of the reasons to get consumers to buy it, and not leave it to third-party developers (e.g. one of the reasons why the Wii is still thriving is due to the Super Mario franchise...). CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 04:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. That's somewhat similar to my argument, that I've always thought of it to be part of the main series because it was so similar to the Genesis Sonic games, and I had never heard anyone call it anything else (before ScienceApe anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe my Sonic Generations allusion carries more weight than that argument. It's also a strawman, the issue isn't whether it's a "mainstream" Sonic game. A spinoff can be mainstream like Mario Kart for example. The main issue is the inconsistency, you set up a criteria that is arbitrary, but in order to be consistent with it, you have to add a bunch of games that fail even your WP:DUCK test. Like I said, the best thing in my favor, and the closest we have to an official word as to what the main Sonic games are the allusions made in Sonic Generations (Video of the credits [1]), and while it's far from ideal, it's better than nothing, which is all that's in favor for including Sonic CD as part of the main series. ScienceApe (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Your argument regarding Sonic Generations is too flawed to be considered "the official word"; there's no reason to believe that the games they used are the only ones considered "main series", not to mention the fact that Sonic CD is in fact featured in the game, and featured more prominently than virtually any Sonic spinoff I can think of.
It seems you're criticizing the inclusion criteria again. If you've got problems with other games and where they should be placed in the article, set up a new discussion for that. Or, if you want to set up a new template in a sandbox or something, go for it. But as it is, there's no consensus to change where Sonic CD in particular is placed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not flawed, it's quite sound actually. Like I said before, they are allusions, and they hold more weight than your arguments have. You have already conceded that you have no evidence in favor for including Sonic CD as part of the main series, at least my argument has some supporting evidence regardless of how you feel about it. I don't want those other games included, they are just flaws in your inclusion criteria which is utterly arbitrary and inconsistent. ScienceApe (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I conceded that I didn't find sources towards either argument, word for word, saying it was either "main" or "spinoff". You can't hold that against me, that doesn't help either of our arguments out. It's simple. Your argument is too speculative: It's based entirely on unfounded speculation on the motivation for design decisions of an entirely different game. (Generations). Furthermore, consensus is against you 3 to 1, and even no consensus policy designates no action be made, as I have linked to above. Unless any of this changes, I'm done arguing this. As things are now, no changed is merited. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sergecross, you keep saying consensus when you really mean voting. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, no, I mean consensus. I didn't set up a vote. We're not just counting usernames on sides. There's three people who have written and discussed their viewpoint (Me, Cyan, and Zagurzem.) that don't agree with Science Ape. Your response would make sense if people were presenting invalid arguments (For example, "I don't like the game, so it's not a spinoff.") or just signing their names without any rationale, but that's not is happening. People have given reasons. But beyond that, as I cited above, at worst, it would be considered WP:NOCONSENSUS, which says that no action is taken. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012[edit]

Shouldn't the game.com version of Sonic Jam be listed among the handheld Sonic platformers? It'd chronologically go between Sonic Blast and Sonic Pocket Adventure. (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No, that version of Sonic Jam doesn't have it's own article, so it doesn't need to be on the list... Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on![edit]

Nobody considers handheld games like Sonic Triple Trouble and Sonic Rush to be part of the main series. Moreover, including the game Sonic Chaos as part of the main series should mean we have to put it both in the console and the handheld sections, as it was released both for a home console and for a handheld. I think we should add a new rule to the criteria for inclusion in the main series stating that the game must not be a handheld one. Then maybe we could list them along with non-main series Platformers like this:

Or, if you want to keep handheld and console games separate:

Or we could just put them all in Spin-offs like this:

  • Do you have any rationale for your argument other than "nobody considers"? Not only is that sort of generalization unfounded, but likely not true, considering the template has had roughly it's current form for years. I especially dislike many of your suggestions because they create another arbitrary, undefined label in their use of "side games"... Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Come on now. Try telling any Sonic fan that Sonic Chaos is a main series game like Sonic 2 or Sonic Adventure and he'll laugh in your face. But okay, you're asking for sources backing up my claim, so here are two examples:
Note how neither wiki considers the handheld games to be part of the main series; they're listed apart in the "handhelds" section.
About my label of side games being arbitrary, it actually isn't. Any Platformer that isn't part of the main series is a side game in it, it's as simple as that. The reason I put them as "side games" rather than spin-offs in two of my three proposed templates is that Platform Sonic games are the "main branch" of the series, Sonic being primarily a Platforming series. So by labeling them as "side games", we're implying that they're part of the "main branch" while still not being notable enough to be considered part of the main series. - ESE150 (talk)
I don't doubt there are other ways to organize it, I'm just saying it's ludicrous to say that "nobody" thinks it should be the way it is now. There are issues with your proposals:
  • Option 1 is confusing because there's no way for the typical reader to understand the different between "side" and "spinoff" games. It's rather common for those 2 words to be interchangeable, so it's confusing with no explanation.
  • Option 2 is confusing for the same reason, and also adds extra redundant entries. (ie listing Chaos twice now.)
  • Option 3, I don't approve of, because I fail to see how entries like Triple Trouble or Chaos are "spinoffs" when they play almost identically to the first 4 Sonic games for Genesis, except for some scaled back graphics due to hardware.
I'm open to talking about alternate setups, but enough with the theatrics and the generalizations...("Nobody", "Fans" say this or that, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "adds extra redundant entries. (ie listing Chaos twice now.)" < Chaos should be listed twice in the current template, too, as it was released both for a handheld and for a home console. The current template is inconsistent as it lists Colors and Generations in both console and handhelds but Chaos only in the later.
  • "I fail to see how entries like Triple Trouble or Chaos are "spinoffs" when they play almost identically to the first 4 Sonic games for Genesis, except for some scaled back graphics due to hardware" < SATSR plays very similarly to the main series games, too, and it's categorized as a spin-off. Also, isn't the fact that Triple Trouble and Chaos are "scaled down" in graphics and physics in comparison with the Genesis games good enough for you to consider them spin-offs? The Game Boy Mega Man games are even closer to the NES MM titles, yet they aren't listed as main series games in the Mega Man template due to the games being scaled down because of hardware.
- ESE150 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
SATSR and Sonic and the Black Knight are literally called a separate subseries by Sega. For instance, check out it's official cover art, calling them part of the Storybook series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_and_the_Black_Knight_Cover.jpg - So that's where that classification comes from. As far as Mega Man, I haven't worked on those articles, so I couldn't tell you what their rationales were...
Chaos isn't listed twice, I imagine, because the handheld and console versions are identical. The list of Sonic games is huge, so it's best to simplify/trim when possible. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I know about Sega's stance on SATSR, and that only strengths my argument. The fact that Sega considers it to be a spinoff shows that the "if a game plays close enough to the main series games, it can't be a spin-off" rule is nonsense and Sega clearly doesn't agree with our criteria. - ESE150 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. All that proves is that Sega groups those two particular games into a subseries, likely because they're the only 2 games that have anything to do with classic literature. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
...So if the rule I mentioned isn't BS, why does Sega's official labeling of SATSR as a spin-off contradict it? Are you saying that some Wikipedians' criteria for categorizing Sonic games takes precedence over Sega's? Also, Sega called SATSR a spin-off before SATBK came out, and thus before it was part of a subseries. - ESE150 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at, so I'll just recap what I'm saying. Sega labeled Seven Rings/Black Knight as a subseries, so it's put as a spinoff. This has absolutely no bearing on games like Triple Trouble, a game they released over a decade earlier and never made any clear statements on like that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see see how being part of a subseries dictates whether a Sonic game is a spin-off or not. There are plenty of Sonic subseries, some which are considered main series and other that aren't: the Sonic Adventure subseries, the Sonic Advance subseries, Sonic Rivals, Sonic Riders, etc.
My point was that the fact that Sega specifically called SATSR a spin-off shows that just because a Sonic game plays similarly to the major main series games and doesn't have non-conventional gameplay, that doesn't necessarily make it part of the main series. - ESE150 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sega called the Storybook Series it's own series, and so far, no one has opposed to it being considered a spinoff, as far as I've been able to tell. If you'd like to find consensus for the Storybook Series to be part of the main series, by all means, start up a new discussion and try to find consensus for that move. Otherwise, it really has nothing to do with where you're placing these other games.
The current set up of the template was created because people found consensus a ways back. I wasn't even part of that, but I support what they came up with, and I work to uphold that. If you come up with a better way, and gather consensus, then we can change it. But right now, even though the current way isn't perfect, your proposals are more flawed, for reasons I've covered above. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may throw my two cents into this conversation, I would say that I have not interpreted there to be one "main series", but rather two main series: one for the consoles, one for the handhelds. The division between consoles and handhelds isn't the division of one main series into two sub-parts, but rather, it is the division between the "console main series" and the "handheld main series." When looked at through this lens, it makes sense for games like Sonic Rush to be considered "handheld main series" games. And honestly, I don't think Sega intends for the handheld and console games to constitute one "main series"; for example, the Sonic Adventure sub-series is playable only on consoles, and the Sonic Advance sub-series and Sonic Rush sub-series are only playable on handhelds--there are no crossovers in any of these sub-series between handheld and console. Perhaps other viewers interpret it differently, but I appreciate the division between a main series for the consoles and a main series for the handhelds that the current template suggests, and I would keep that division in the template. Otherwise, if only one integrated "main series" is presented in this template, people will argue day and night over which handheld games to include. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. It is similar to a point that I meant to articulate, but got caught up arguing instead. I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sonic 4 as a spinoff[edit]

I absolutely do not believe that a numbered entry in any series, let alone this one, would be considered a spinoff. However, a user has been adding, and reverting edits, without discussion, so I figured I'd start one here.

Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Template simplification[edit]

I think we should find a way to make it easier to navigate between games. It ooks to cluttered between lists. I still think my original look fine. But for some reason it didnt simplify and instead looked like 3 templates (as if the two cant coexist?). So i think some form of compromise to help make the template easier to look at. I personally find it overwhelming.Lucia Black (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I find your proposed version (this) to be more "overwhelming"; the current version looks fine, and is easier to navigate. ~ Satellizer el Bridget ~ (Talk) 05:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The difference is minor but affective. All it did was remove the subgroup. How "overwhelming" does my version look? I feel like its reverse accusation without clarification (a form of debate that provides no answers for the other half). The current version has too many subgroups, making the template the list more vertical, when its meant to be horizontal. The previous revision allowed more room between list sections without getting cluttered (a second row in the list would be fewer than the surrent version. Beside the point, im looking for a better way to organize it. Im looking for a compromise.Lucia Black (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Not too overwhelming, but if I were to choose between the two templates, I'd still select the current. I don't have any problem with the navbox being "vertical", neither do I have any issue with the current template having no "room between list sections". The present version is, however, smaller and less cluttered, and thus easier to navigate (in my opinion). I don't mind your proposal being used though, and I'm more or less fine either way; maybe other WikiProject Video Games editors may wish to comment on this. ~ Satellizer el Bridget ~ (Talk) 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
well i have a problem with it being vertical when its meant to be "horizontal" (as anyone "should" have a problem). My version does that all that you claim this one does. By allowing more room for the horizontal list to go, one can easily manuever between versions. The only one i couldnt do was "Main series". On another note, some computers have a different defaultt color arrangement than others, making the dark grey margin, between lists unnoticable. The vertical appearance is all even more apparent in mobile phones.
i brought this not to vote, but to compromise. I would really like a better organization than this and i know there are better ways.§Lucia Black (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think the proposal "simplifies" things, I think it looks more complicated. As I said in my edit summary, the proposed change looks almost like 3 templates lumped on top of one another... Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
All you said it looked like it had 3 templates. Not that it was difficult to navigate. But did you even read the opening post? Its about finding a better way. Not a vote on which one we want.Lucia Black (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I read it all, I just didn't address it all. I'm fine with the way it is. I feel like its going to be a little complicated regardless of how we have it set up, just due to the sheer number of titles, and the length of many of the titles. (Like all the Mario+Sonic game titles.) Feel free to propose some other ideas or compromises, but I didn't the only proposal you've given thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
you addressed the wrong point of the discussion. On purpose? Im not a machine that can determine every single possible outcome in efforts to please the opposing. No, the other side has to give some help. Its not that its a little complicated, just difficult to navigate as the h-list mixed with too many subgroups makes it look like a v-list (or a box of links rather than a list). But since you want a new proposal, how about not splitting console from handheld? The games have been released for both console and handheld, so its not a good idea IMO. Legend of Zelda doesnt do it and it looks managable. Another idea alongside this one is grouping games directly related to each other. For example Sonic 4: Episode I would also have Episode II next to it and if episode III ever comes along, it can be next to II and of course shortened to just the roman numerals.Lucia Black (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I stick with my stance of "no change". I like it the way it is, and dont find it hard to navigate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Its more about your personal preferences (and mine, which is why i made this). When it comes to phone users, the template is compressed even more.Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
If you'd like to come up with some new ideas, I'd be open to them, but I don't see any particular navigational problems with the current template. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
i just did. Remove handheld and console subjection. Both versions have been released in both handheld and console, and makes more redirects than necessary (the original Sonic game, Sonic generation, Sonic color). Another is grouping games together for example the list would look like "Sonic 4 Episode I (II) or Sonic Advance (2 * 3) . Of course not all of them as it should be used for when theres a bundle of games relating to eachother rather than just 2, i onlike the example of Sonic 4: Episode I and II for the possible future release of episode III.Lucia Black (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I support scenarios where we could change it to something like *Sonic Advance*2*3 but I am still fully against all your major structural change suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Other than Sonic Generation and Sonic Color, there are no redirects in the handheld section of the template (the original handheld Sonic games are sufficiently distinct that they have their own articles). Grouping similar games together is a possibility, especially when they're released in a succession, but I'm not sure about doing that when there were intervening releases of dissimilar games (as is the case with Sonic 4: Ep I and II). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Fully agree. Advance works, Sonic 4 Ep1 and Ep2 don't work, because we've got to keep things chronologically in order, that's pretty standardized on these sorts of templates. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You also forgot the original version. Plus the fact that some handheld were moved to virtual console on main console and some from main console to handheld. Its practically pointless to label the games from handheld to console because the older games were re-released in handheld (and vice versa). For the other bit, it doesnt have to be completely chronological. When it comes to TV series seasons along with films, no one lists the films between seasons on their navbox. Its still chronicle, just not per game but by sub-series of games. You cant deny that it will look more organized if we set it up that way. Chronological order is best to avoid subjective organization such by fiction chronological. But that doesnt mean we cant implement other ways to make easy navigation without being subjective. If chronological order is the only problem than i dont it really is a problem because it doesnt defy chronological order by all that much..Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Determining between handheld and console isn't that uncommon in a big game series like this. See the Super Mario template on the Super Mario (series) page; it's pretty similar to the current set up of the Sonic one. Again, if you want to shorten some names, that's fine, but currently it's 3 to 1 as far people who support the current set up... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Super Mario isnt as cluttered in the main series group, however if decided to merge the two for the same reason i gave, it wouldnt hurt the organization, only benefit. However the rest of the template, is cluttered. The "other games" sub group is unnecessary. If you see Final Fantasy template it has related games and series, but both are not encompassed by a "other games" group. So if super mario template got rid of that, it will halso aid the template for navigation. The new proposal isnt that big of a change. I cant really summarize other than advance series if related games arent allowed to (which would affect at the minimum). Lucia Black (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, considering consensus is currently "No change is really necessary", that seems just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ill bring it back another time.Lucia Black (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed. This looks stable, but I wanted to contribute to consensus. Adding to the template's vertical height adds more "negative space" and is less aesthetically pleasing than the current implementation. If this discussion is brought back another time, I'd like to see the proposed change have consensus before any BOLD changes are made. czar · · 15:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sonic 3D Blast[edit]

Why is 3D Blast listed as part of the main series? The game was not developed by Sonic Team and features isometric gameplay as well as an emphasis on slow-paced Flicky collection, features that make it a rather unique Sonic entry. It was previously listed as a spin-off platformer, comparable to Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic and the Secret Rings. Why was this changed? (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, upon discussing some of the other titles placement in the past, I realized that Sonic 3D Blast wasn't ever really discussed that much, and upon researching and working on other Sonic articles, realized it meets many of the inclusion criteria for being a "Main" entry.
  • Does it star Sonic? Is he the main playable character? Yes. Yes.
  • Is it a platformer? Yes. Sure, an emphasis is placed on collecting flickies, but there's an emphasis on collecting emerald shards, or red rings, in later Sonic games, so object collection is very much so part of the main series too.
  • Who developed it? Now, many say, "Traveler's Tales, so it's a spinoff!". However, theres several things to keep in mind.
  1. Like Sonic R, it was a joint project between TT and Sonic Team.
  2. Additionally, Sonic Team solely developed the special stages for some versions.
  3. The soundtrack for the Sega Genesis version was done by Jun Senoue, who does music for mainline Sonic games like Sonic Adventure.
So basically, with looking at all of that, I thought it looked like a "Main" series. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Sonic and the Secret Rings meets all those criteria, and was actually developed by Sonic Team. Its "on-rails" gameplay is unusual, but scripted scenes have been a part of the series since the Genesis, and the Hedgehog engine titles seem to have been influenced by its emphasis on speed. Colors also has many "on-rails" segments. (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There has generally been a consensus that since Sega has directly referred to Secret Rings and Black Knight as the Storybook subseries, that they are thus classified as a spinoff. (See the game's cover labels it as such.) If you disagree with that, you can start up a new sub-section on it and try to get a new consensus though. If not for that label, I'd think they're main series games as well. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Sonic 3D Blast is no way a main game. It features "odd gameplay", with its isometric view, and like you said, it wasn't developed by Sonic Team, or even Sega. The Storybook series games are closer to the main series formula and they're spinoffs. - (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read the dev sections at Sonic 3D Blast or Sonic R. Both were joint projects TT and Sonic Team. TT may hav done the programming, but many gameplay ideas originated from Sonic Team. Considering they work similarly with Dimps on many mainline games, that's a bogus argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't feature standard Sonic gameplay. Like stated, its gameplay is isometric. And it doesn't feature typical, speed-based Sonic gameplay; it has you collecting birds rather than just crossing the levels while running really fast. Yes, other main games had that kind of formula, but only as a side-gameplay of sorts. The Adventure games had Knuckles looking for emerald shards, but the main gameplay (ie: Sonic's gameplay) was still the typical run-to-the-goal formula; Sonic 3D Blast doesn't offer that, instead centering the whole game around the item hunting mechanism. Also, the game was treated as a side game by Sega, as it wasn't widely marketed like main Sonic games; it was just a side project developed while the main game, Sonic X-treme, was being produced. I really don't see how it can be considered a main game. - ESE150 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that Sonic 3D has "odd gameplay" and fails that criterion (criterion #3). The isometric and Flickie-collection aspects are great deviations from usual Sonic gameplay, even greater than the deviation in Shadow the Hedgehog, which was essentially standard Sonic platforming with guns. Furthermore, concerning both the criterion requiring a game be referenced in other games (criterion #2), and the criterion taking into account Sega's own views on which games are considered main series (an unstated but relied upon criterion, given that we rightly defer to Sega's opinion that Secret Rings and Black Knight are not main series games), note that 3D Blast isn't mentioned in Sonic Generations (unlike even Secret Rings), whereas every other preceding console game that could be considered "main series" is included as a stage (including Sonic CD via the Metal Sonic stage and Sonic 3 via the Sonic and Knuckles stage, given S&K functions primarily as an add-on to S3). I also note that although 3D Blast's music production involved Jun Senoue, having consistency with other games' music production is not a criterion included in the general inclusion criteria, nor is there a consensus that it should be a criterion (and if it were, that factor certainly leans in favor of including Shadow the Hedgehog as a main series game). Thus, I agree with the three above editors that 3D blast should not be considered a main series game. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Is the gameplay really so "odd" though? It places greater emphasis on "item collection", through the collecting of Flickies...but so do many of the later main-line series games as well. Adventure, Adventure 2, 06, and Unleashed all heavily rely on exploration and item collection to advance as well, to varying degrees. (exploring to advance story, token collection to open up new levels, etc.) Is the camera view (isometric) really enough to set it apart? And no, music creation isn't specifically a criteria, it was merely combating the "It was made by different people so its a spinoff" type sentiment. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Like I stated, those games might feature item collecting, but their main gameplay is still centered around speed and has reaching the goal of each stage as the main objective. You cannot say the same about Sonic 3D. Also, it wasn't developed by Sonic Team like other games considered main series. All what they did was supervise its development, just like they did with Sonic R and Shuffle. As for Jun Senoue composing its music, I fail to see the relevance in that considering that a) that was never an inclusion criteria, b) he didn't compose the soundtrack of Sonic CD and previous games, and c) he composed the music of Sonic spin-offs such as Shadow or Free Riders. - ESE150 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
You're delving into extremely subjective territory. Same dev teams are not enough, but rather, you want to get into degrees and ratios of how much dev teams were involved? Gameplay mechanics aren't enough, you want to measure emphasis put on gameplay mechanics? These things aren't concretely measurable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure they are. You can tell whether a gameplay mechanism is the main one or not (that's how people decide what genre and type a game belongs to), the exact "measure" isn't important. As for "measuring" Sonic Team's involvement, we don't need to, as another article already did it: Games_developed_by_Sonic_Team_(AM8)_and_affiliates. It lists the games they were involved in, categorizing them by whether they were developed by ST or merely supervised. Every other Sonic game considered main series is under a "developed" section; Sonic 3D is listed in a "supervised" part. - ESE150 (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Deciding genre is entirely a subjective task. People argue over genre all the time, all over Wikipedia. (Is The Legend of Zelda a role-playing video game? What kind of music does Tool (band) perform? Etc etc) People argue about these things because they're subjective. Considering things like "how much is item collection emphasized?" just compounds these complications. Unless you can objectively collect some hard number values, its entirely a personal judgement call. Also, its a terrible idea to try to base our decisions off of an unsourced Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, come on! Anyone with a grain of common sense will tell you that Sonic 3D Blast is based on item collecting and other "main" games aren't. You're being silly there. Not to mention that Sega pretty much confirmed that every game that came out between Sonic 3 & Knuckles and Sonic Adventure is non-canon. If Sonic 3D Blast was a main game, surely it would be considered too important to be decanonized. People are getting tired of telling you that it doesn't belong on the main section, and getting nitpicky about technicalities isn't helping your argument. And a game's genre isn't subjective as far as Wikipedia is concerned, considering that we list the genre for every game that has its own article. Seriously, stop being so stubborn. Drillez (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Care to explain how Sega has "pretty much confirmed" what you're saying? (Keeping in mind you can't use original research to prove points, which is probably the case if you're only saying "pretty much".) Also, I see this is your first edit. Rather than arguing with you, please read around some, and see how much people argue about genre on Wikipedia. You'll see its very subjective. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
They stated that Sonic 4 takes place right after Sonic & Knuckles, and it features Sonic in his modern design, so Sonic 3D Blast doesn't fit in continuity considering that it cannot be placed before S&K thanks to Knuckles' presence in it.
As for the article ESE150 linked to being being unsourced, that's irrelevant, since his point was that Sonic 3D Blast was developed by Traveller's Tales rather than Sonic Team, which is a well-known fact and has plenty of backing on the web, including statements made by Sega and TT employees. Drillez (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As I thought, all of that is strongly original research and generalities, and can not be used to make decisions like this. That's not a direct statement from Sega, that's you piecing together some random pieces of info, applying your own interpretations of it, and calling it proof. You can't do that on Wikipedia. Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_R#Development - both 3d Blast and R were joint-projects where TT did the hard programming, yes, but Sega/Sonic Team provided instructions, ideas, and rejected/denied ideas in the games development. They were involved in its development. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's technically an isometric platformer. is it safe to say its a different variant from platform that it can be considered a spin off?Lucia Black (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


  • On a related note, I just discovered that the inclusion criteria discussed here were actually removed from the Template doc about 3 years ago (despite all other sections on the doc page referencing the then-invisible criteria). I have restored the criteria to the doc page. It does look like the criteria need some updating to reflect current practice, such as not including in the "Main series" section games that Sega explicitly refers to as not being main series games (e.g., the Storybook series). I'll start a new discussion here soon to achieve consensus on a few points like this one. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • this may be devil's advocacy, but i'm not entirely sure we should limit ourselves to such a subjective criteria of what is a spin off and what is a main game. Further more, SOnic 3D blast may not necessarily be officially a main game. it seems too...vague.Lucia Black (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Its one of those things kind of like the "generations of video games" articles; no one can agree how exactly to define it, and no one's proposals for change ever get any traction with WP:CONSENSUS, so we tend to get stuck with whatever the last consensus was, which is this. I didn't actually come up with much of it, I just enforce the old consensus on it. It doesn't help that half the people who edit it just tinker with things without ever leaving edit summaries or discussing it... Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a more official or something based on primary sources or secondary sources to determine what is part of the main series?Lucia Black (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If there was, we'd use it. I'm not aware of such a thing existing though... Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The Zelda series had a book for their anniversary, and mentioned every game that was considered a main game up until Skyward Sword. So would there be any book that has never been explored before that mentioned any specific range of games? Maybe we should consider the idea of the games being developed by main developers to be part of the series. At least include it as part of the current criteria. would that be something others would disagree with?Lucia Black (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There's Sonic Generations, a game that celebrated Sonic's anniversary a few years back, but nothing with that established any sort of status of games. (Someone once argued "Well, Game X wasn't in Sonic Generations, so it must be a spinoff", but Sega has never stated that there's any sort of correlation like that, so it's just WP:OR.)
  • I don't know how you envisioned doing it by dev team, but it seems like that would get messy pretty fast. For instance, Sonic Lost World was developed by Sonic Team on the Wii U, but Dimps on the Nintendo 3DS. Is one main and one spinoff, even though their extremely similar games? And there's many co-developed games. Sega Technical Institute developed much of Sonic 2, which is about as "main game" as you can get...but with that sort of structure, would it be a spinoff? Sonic Team developed just the special stages of Sonic 3D Blast. Where does that leave that? In Sonic R, Sonic Team presented gameplay documents, and approved and disapproved ideas, but Traveller's Tales actually programmed it. Would that make this off-beat Mario Kart-like racer a main line game? I don't like going down this road, I don't see it eliminating the number of arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm simply saying it should be part of the Criteria, as for Traveller's Tale, they only made Sonic R (a spin off) and Sonic 3D blast (a game thats being in questioned for being part of the main series). I believe that Dimps should be considered a main developer for the Sonic series, such as Sonic Pocket Adventure (although not credited in the article), Sonic Advance series, Sonic Rush, and even the main game Sonic 4. But i was just suggesting it. I rather give up on figuring out which one is part of the main series.Lucia Black (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WEll i'm not saying we should get rid of the current standard, but to "include" as part of it with what we already have. So if there is a platformer game, that does feature sonic, but is not made by the original developers (for example...a fangame out there?) we wouldn't include it.Lucia Black (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible restructure to fix the fact that all the recent games in the "handheld" section are also in the "console" section.[edit]

I believe Sonic CD, Advance 1-3, Rush, Rush Adventures, and of course Sonic 4 should be considered main games. I would still like Knuckles' Chaotix and Shadow the Hedgehog as well, but...I guess it can't be done since Sonic doesn't star in them despite meeting all other criteria.Lucia Black (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Why are games like Sonic Triple Trouble a spinoff? Sergecross73 msg me 12:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Sonic Chaos and Triple Trouble should be included.Lucia Black (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sonic 4 is even a numbered entry. Why would it be relegated to being a spinoff? I don't agree with the Sonic Rush games being there either... Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Sonic Rush meets all the requirements don't they? Not only that but Blaze the Cat is featured within "Sonic Generations" and guest stars as an iconic character of Sonic in several games, including in all Mario & Sonic Olympic Games.Lucia Black (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe Sonic Rush meets all the criteria for the main series, but isn't it placed as a spinoff in your proposal? Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, i misunderstood when you said you didn't agree with it being there. Also i did not create this proposal, someone else did.Lucia Black (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Its fine, I figured as much. But yeah, all of the Advance, Rush, and 4 games meet all the criteria for main series, but are in "Spinoff" in your proposal above, as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
EDIT Nevermind, I see now that this isn't your proposal. Lar didn't sign his edit as far as I can tell, so I got confused. Looks like we have mostly the same objections to his proposal than at least... Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
However, i do agree that there is no need for a "handheld" section. I suggest we merge the two and have a similar organization.Lucia Black (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog[edit]

Does the fact that the game fits into the major storyline affect the communal decision that it's not main-series? Tezero (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the plots are not a main focus of the game (Unlike something such as Final Fantasy or Mass Effect, for example) I wouldn't think so. I also don't understand how a game not featuring the title character of the series (Sonic) as a playable character could be considered anything but a spinoff. Seems comparable to proposing Luigi's Mansion as a main-line Mario game because it references Mario 64 or something. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Who says the plots aren't a main focus of the game? The Mario games barely have plots; it's not a fair comparison, especially when Shadow actually takes place after the previous games rather than just having scant references to them. And by the Luigi argument, every Final Fantasy game after the first one is a spinoff because they all have different characters. I've only tolerated Shadow being in "spin-offs" because every time someone changes it it gets harshly reverted. Tezero (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your tolerance, but Sonic games are definitely not plot-based games. More than Mario, sure, but still far shorter than Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Danganronpa, Tales, Beyond Two Souls, Persona, Hotel Dusk, etc etc. Beyond that, I still don't understand, by definition, how a game not starring the series main title character could be considered a mainline game. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I came off as too brash. I mean, though, Sonic Rush, for example, has Sonic as a playable character, but Blaze has more of a role in the plot. And what about the Donkey Kong series? Is Donkey Kong Country 3 a spinoff because you play as Diddy and Dixie? Is Ms. Pac-Man a spinoff because you play as Ms. Pac-Man? Not in the title, but extremely well associated: is Halo 3: ODST a spinoff because you don't play as Master Chief? I mean, yeah, it's a relevant criterion, but I don't see why it's a dealbreaker, especially when the plot takes place in the main-series timeline, the gameplay isn't really that different from Adventure 1, Adventure 2, Heroes, or ‍ '​06 (basically the same but with guns; ‍ '​06 has vehicles), the soundtrack has the standard main theme and supplementary set of vocal themes like in those games, ... I mean, I understand that the game wasn't well-received and many fans like to disown it (but that's also true of ‍ '​06, Lost World, and, surprisingly, increasingly Adventure 2), but I just don't think there's substantial evidence of it being a spinoff to group it away from the rest of the main series in the navbox. Tezero (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with examples like Donkey King or Halo is that they are numbered entries. If Shadow was Sonic 12: Shadow, then I'd agree, it's mainline. But it's not. It's much more comparable to Luigi's Mansion - a side character with an emphasis on a different type of gameplay. Also, the fanbase is completely irrelevant to this, none of my arguments have any bearing on them, nor should any stance on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Does the title issue make Riven not a main-series Myst game, Galaga not a main-series Galaxian game, or Final Fantasy Adventure not a main-series Mana game? And this contains two of the three words by which the series is known on Wikipedia, not zero, anyway. Besides, Luigi's Mansion is much more different: it's basically survival horror; you lose coins; there's little to no platforming; practically all the enemies are ghosts; it all takes place within a house so there are no bright colors or anything; the music is unequivocally creepy the whole time; I could go on. Shadow the Hedgehog is Sonic's or Shadow's levels in Adventure 1 or 2, but you can use guns and there are Heroes-like collection elements. And I wasn't really sure if you were channeling the fandom; it just seemed like you were being obstinate for a reason beyond the game's proper categorization. Tezero (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Those examples aren't good either, because they're not named after a titled character. "Final Fantasy" isn't the name of a title character. And again, the main entries are numbered, and the non-numbered entries are considered spin-offs. And your differences between Luigis Mansion and Shadow from their main series counterparts are just nit-picking. They're both side characters with their name in the title and a different gameplay style and setting. ( Luigi is more adventure based with vacuuming mechanic in a horror setting, Shadow is more heavily based on shooting and attempts to be a more "edgy/mature" setting. Same type of differences. Your differences listed are trivial. The equivalent of saying "Luigi isn't related because he's using a vacuum cleaner." So what? ) Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Using your example, Luigi using a vacuum cleaner is about the sum of Shadow‍ '​s gameplay differences from the rest of the main series - except Luigi's Mansion has plenty more differences in gameplay, as well as more in atmosphere and structure. (Compared to Heroes, yes, Shadow's game is more edgy/mature, and it was certainly marketed that way. But Adventure 2, ‍ '​06, and Unleashed are similarly serious and dark in large parts of their stories. And I don't see why you're suddenly valuing the numbered entries for main-series stature so much when the Sonic series doesn't do that post-Genesis, besides Sonic 4, the Donkey Kong series doesn't do that, the Myst series is widely acknowledged to have Riven in the main series, etc. You're just twisting the criteria as you like to pick out all the ways Shadow is typical of non-main-series games, despite those same series having other games in the acknowledged main series that don't fit your arguments. In Donkey Kong, the main series seems to be dictated by platforming gameplay as opposed to bongo-drumming and whatnot, not by having Donkey Kong as a playable character. In Zelda it's the typical adventuring style as opposed to crossbow training or whatever you do in Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland. In Sonic it's going fast, collecting rings, platforming, and getting to the end - that's why things like Sonic Battle and Sonic Shuffle are rarely if ever argued to be main-series despite having Sonic playable and his name in the title. Tezero (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Do I really need to say "No, I don't agree." every single time you say something. Apparently so. To reiterate, I still don't understand how a game not starring its title character or being a numbered entry, could possible be considered a main line series when the character's name is the same as the title typically. Not of your nitpicking in my Luigis Mansion example has convinced me otherwise. Now please, follow WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Completely agree with Sergecross73 here. Not only is the main character and gameplay of Shadow the Hedgehog different from other main Sonic games, a reliable source, IGN, has specifically mentioned that Shadow the Hedgehog is a spin-off: [2]. The argument that it belongs in the main series is based mostly on original research, honestly. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 03:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The main character's different, sure (although in Sonic Rush Blaze is arguably more important to the story - Sonic is co-protagonist), but the gameplay really isn't. I mean, can you actually play Lost World and Unleashed and tell me that they're more like Adventure 1, Adventure 2, and Heroes than Shadow is? And what third-party evidence would you accept for a game being main-series? Tezero (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tezero: Apologies in advance if the following comes across as harsh, but frankly, you can argue about how the game's plot and gameplay means it fits into the main series all you want (as well as all the other original research you stated) and it would still be irrelevant. At the end of the day reliable sources are used to determine whether it's a spin-off or not, and the results are clear: Official Nintendo Magazine writes "Shadow The Hedgehog was aimed at US gamers [...] Takashi Iizuka on the much-maligned spin-off", GameFaqs says "I'm a big Sonic fan. And I was happy to try out the new spin-off: Shadow The Hedgehog." GameSpot says "Like its mysterious protagonist, several major details about Shadow the Hedgehog were kept under wraps. Sega has announced that the Sonic spin-off will be released this winter on the Xbox, GameCube, and PlayStation 2." Computer & Video Games states "Shadow the Hedgehog steps into the light [...] Sega officially announces new evil Sonic spin-off." And finally, Nintendo World Report writes "Sega Confirms Shadow The Hedgehog [...] The Sonic spin-off is coming at the end of 2005." That's more than enough evidence as to what Shadow the Hedgehog is. No hard feelings, Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (Also notifying @Sergecross73: of the discussion.)
PALGN considers the game a spinoff: "we're hoping this spells the end for Sonic spin offs from now on." [3] --Mika1h (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree with Satellizer and Mika's findings. I imagine that it's my rationale that leads RS's to say that, in the same way no one calls Yoshi Story a mainline entry of the Super Mario series. Thank you guys for digging up so many sources that support it. I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yoshi's Story is far more different in gameplay. That being said, you have gathered an impressive list of sources I was unaware of and that dwarf what I brought to WT:VG. I'd assumed you were just relying on your own prejudices, and maybe that was true initially, but that's irrelevant now. I no longer object to this being classified officially as a "spinoff". Tezero (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I suppose I should have turned to sources sooner, there was more evidence there than even I expected honestly... Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not "understanding"; I think the sources are wrong - but they are also reputable. WP:V states that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth, so it doesn't matter whether either of us is "understanding". I only hope similar coverage exists for other games currently classified as "spinoffs" in case they're challenged as such. Tezero (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I really meant "thank you for stopping all this" but that sounded a little less gracious. Thanks for adhering to WP:V I guess? Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well, you're welcome; there really is no arguing against it. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Source list for Spinoff status[edit]

  1. http://www.gamesradar.com/shadow-the-hedgehog-
  2. http://m.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/22230/shadow-the-hedgehog-was-aimed-at-us-gamers-sega/
  3. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/shadow-the-hedgehog-dated-detailed/1100-6121084/
  4. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/116623/shadow-the-hedgehog-steps-into-the-light/
  5. http://www.cracked.com/article_20158_the-6-most-baffling-video-game-spinoffs_p2.html
  6. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/10414/sega-confirms-shadow-the-hedgehog
  7. https://web.archive.org/web/20080213060810/http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=3520
  8. http://www.gamershell.com/news_26322.html
  9. http://www.gamezone.com/originals/2005/03/24/shadow-the-hedgehog-shines
  10. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-12-17-shadow-the-hedgehog-designed-for-us

Compiling a master list of sources that use the term. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, here we've got some commentary by the game's producer as well:

"...Sonic developer Takashi Iizuka has told ONM that it was created to appeal to the US market. "After Sonic Adventure, we had two studios, in the US and Japan," explained the producer of Sonic Colours. "The Japanese Studio was to develop a Sonic game in the standard style, and the US studio was to develop something different which could contribute to the Sonic franchise." - Developing 2 games, one being standard, the other's purpose being to move into something different, to cater to a different market, sounds like the definition of a spinoff. Source. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hiya Serge,

I thought we should be on the same team for a change. It sucks that you have to work so hard against something that is an accredited fact. This is the official Sega page from back in the day. https://web.archive.org/web/20050731080955/http://www.sega.com/games/game_temp.php?game=shadow "Weapons, vehicles, and items! Draw from a huge arsenal of weapons including projectiles, firearms, bazookas, blasters and worm lasers. Speed away on a motorcycle, an alien craft or an SUV. AND, for the f irst time ever in a Sonic property – pick up and use environmental objects like poles, sticks and debris to plow your way through the mission."

It does not use the word spin-off but it clearly written to set shadow apart from the Sonic series. Sonic Team developers are known to get emotional when their games are called spin-off's I remember the developer of Sonic & the Black Knight was offended by Kikizo when they asked how it differs from the "main series" and we all know that it was never part of the main series the very box art calls it "Story Book Series". It is an indisputable fact that this is a spin off.

Ping me if you choose to address me in your response. Also I am extremely well versed with everything Sega, so if I can help in such discussions you are welcomed to ping me on them as well :D--Cube b3 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cube b3, I don't mean to knock your efforts, but this is kinda already done. I didn't realize that the idea of the game being a spinoff was really accredited, and when this was shown to be the case, I retreated. Individual opinions on categorization of games changes with the times and new information, but WP:V... WP:V never changes. Tezero (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Serge and me got into a few conflicts in the past due to my limited knowledge of wiki policies so this was just me trying to build a better relationship with an admin. Like I said I am well versed with Sega and should be able to produce references quickly. So my services are available :) --Cube b3 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh. Well, feel free to do that, then, Cube b3, and good on you for correctly interpreting that spinoff status is well-accredited beyond easy contestability, though I caution against you placing too much stock in having the same personal opinion as an admin. I've definitely been there - a different admin orchestrated the merging of several articles I'd created - a couple of them being GAs - into a list, but I realized quickly that staying on bad terms with him would be mostly unproductive. Plus, who's the Wiki-public gonna side with: an admin, or some commoner who likes one series of video games too much and probably sports a neckbeard and fedora on his acne-ridden, flustered face? No, congeniality is the way to go. Tezero (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Cube b3, despite Tezero's "sour grapes" over there, I do thank you for the input. Tezero may have already conceded, but it is helpful to show an even stronger consensus for people to look upon in the future if people are debating this again down the line. It's appreciated. (Side note: Did not know about your story about the distane for Black Knight being a spinoff, and I'm usually pretty up on the Sega/Sonic stuff myself. Interesting to know.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize I may have come off too harsh and devaluing. The aforementioned admin and I get along well most of the time now, due in no small part to his efforts; I only meant to insinuate that pleasant conduct has practical benefits as well. Regarding Black Knight, my guess is that they feel that a game being a spinoff is a mark of disrespect. (I don't think this is the case - I like the Final Fantasy Tactics games more than anything in the main series, for example - but maybe they do, or the climate's different with Sonic somehow.) Tezero (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

Change Sonic Boom (2014 video game) to Sonic Boom (2014 video games) in light of the recent page move. (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Another "main series" gripe - don't worry; it has nothing to do with Shadow[edit]

Something in the supposed "main series" criteria REALLY doesn't sit right with me: "GameRankings confirms that they sold well and the linked reviews indicate that they are some of the better-received Sonic games out there (1)". What bearing does this possibly have on what constitutes the main series? Furthermore, it's not even consistent with the template - did CD sell well? Was ‍ '​06 well-received? Since when does GameRankings even track sales? This is just a giant mess all around, and it being in the criteria really gnaws at me on a personal level as well since I'm sick of spinoffs in general (Sonic or otherwise) being stigmatized, and including sales and reviews in the criteria for the main series contributes directly to this. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been maintaining this template for 4+ years and I don't recall a single person citing that, so I wouldn't be too upset. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, then I'll remove it. Tezero (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I support that. Not sure why/how sales or GR would have been factors. Nothing in the template's current form has been determined by that factor as far as I'm aware. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015[edit]

Sonic 3D Blast is not main series (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but for better or for worse, the maintainers of this template have determined that main series = has Sonic as the/a main playable character, is a platformer of some kind, and isn't otherwise designated as a spinoff by official materials or reliable sources. I think it'd be most logical to rely on gameplay alone (e.g. Knuckles' Chaotix and Shadow the Hedgehog main series; Sonic 3D Blast not) or Sega's official positions, such as what made it into Generations (e.g. CD, 3D Blast, and Sonic 4 not main series), but we'd need a much more significant vote than just on one game to effect an organization scheme like that. Tezero (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That scheme doesn't make any sense. Blast, while isometric, is still a platformer with an emphasis on item collection, like so much of the rest of the main series. Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that this discussion is relevant, but the isometric makes a huge difference: besides no other isometric games currently being considered main-series, there's much less emphasis on speed and actual platforming in favor of running around on a mostly flat plane with some steps. Heck, actual platforming in isometric wouldn't be fun since you're always falling all over the place - painful memories of Spyro: Season of Flame are seeping back as we speak. And item collection isn't the norm in what currently is classified as the main series anyway - I can only think of the Chaotix's missions in Heroes - yet it's basically the entire game here. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
You're thinking of things in a very limited manner. Every mainline involves ring collection. Many involve emerald collection or emblem collection. The Adventure games involve collecting items for Chao development. Blast does these things too, on the form of rings, emeralds, and little birds. The differences are splitting hairs. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As limited as "to beat the game" is. You can beat any of the games without collecting a single Emerald, Chao item, or technically even ring (but rings are ridiculously common anyway, like coins in Mario and maybe moreso than rupees in Zelda), not counting Generations where the Emeralds are automatically granted after boss fights. I actually haven't played Blast, but if collecting birds is actually as integral to the gameplay as it is in 3D Blast, then in my understanding, that's a strike against Blast being main-series. Tezero (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to Sonic 3D Blast the whole time, I just didn't want to write that out when I was writing from my phone yesterday. Anyways, this is exactly what I'm talking about though - it's splitting hairs. Are you really proposing "If its mandatory item collection, its spinoff, if its not mandatory, main line?". (Not to mention that doesn't work, you need to collect emblems to advance in games like Adventure or Unleashed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, that is what I'm proposing, because it's not just a meaningless detail, but the core of the gameplay - collecting Flickies isn't a nice trinket, but the very identity of what you're doing, with all else being means to that end. To be honest, describing 3D Blast as main-series and Knuckles' Chaotix and Shadow as spinoffs, barring reliable sources (which you haven't brought up here, so I assume it's okay to skirt for the sake of argument), because they star Sonic while completely ignoring their gameplay is like calling arctic foxes marshmallows because they're white. But it's not just item collecting; as I stated before, the isometric perspective makes a huge difference - aesthetics, controls, game mechanics, and level design all have to undergo major changes to make that work. Oh, and the examples don't hold up, either; emblems aren't required in Adventure (they have more of a presence in the second one, but even there are optional unless you're trying for Green Hill Zone); with Unleashed I can see where you're coming from, but it's not collecting items so much as just completing goals, with emblems being baubles of your efforts. Tezero (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't you receive an emblem for finishing a level in the Adventure games? Aren't finishing levels essential to beat the game? Thus, I felt emblems were required. Not that it matters, I don't believe that's good or consistent criteria anyways. This is why no new criteria ever gain any support though - they're either arbitrary with tons of exceptions, or extremely subjective and opinion-based. As far as sources go, I've done searches in the past, and no reliable sources called it a spinoff, it was always just random blogs or random fans on messageboards calling in "spinoff". And with your other examples, I still stand by the stance that a game that has neither the title character, nor title character's naming convention, can't be considered a main entry to a series. That's like calling Captain Toad a mainline Super Mario title. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I would consider Captain Toad a mainline Mario game, as well as New Super Luigi Bros. U (and no one contests Donkey Kong), but to each his own. I do have to admit that gameplay style is less objective than whether someone is the/a main playable character. And I'm well aware that reliable sources are not backing me up here, but you argued beyond them, so I obliged. I suggest we drop this. Tezero (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
See past discussions. There is no consensus to change it to spinoff status. Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)