Talk:Sonic Adventure

Panzer Dragoon Saga

Can we get more specific about how the Tornado level references Panzer Dragoon Saga? It sounds like a mistake - the Tornado level is a rail shooting minigame, but Saga is the only Panzer Dragoon game that isn't a shooting game (it's an RPG). What does the source say? Popcornduff (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the source says: "Just like in Panzer Dragoon, the player was able to aim at and lock on to several enemies at once before firing," I'll edit the page to go to the series. TarkusAB^talk 11:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no clue why I'd added "Saga" after that. Maybe because I had just read that article. JOEBRO64 11:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarify

"Without it, the Saturn had no original Sonic platform game, whereas the series was attributed to the success of the Genesis."

I can't make any sense of this. What have these clauses got to do with each other? What is this sentence trying to say? Popcornduff (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I've cut off the second part of the sentence. Is that better? JOEBRO64 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense now, thanks. (Are you sure we weren't trying to say the series helped popularise the Genesis? Because that's true, and it's mentioned on the Saturn Wiki page.) Popcornduff (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, looking at your edit summary: "It's credited with boosting the sales of the Genesis by about 35%". But that's not what the sentence I quoted says. The sentence I quoted says it's the other way round: that Genesis boosted the sales of the series. Popcornduff (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I got a bit confused by what you said in the clarify tag. I thought it was asking if the sentence meant the Genesis WAS popular because of Sonic. Sorry! 😅 JOEBRO64 12:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Live and learn 🎸 Popcornduff (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues with Plot

This is a good Featured Article, but I have noticed some issues regarding the plot which may leave anyone reading it with interest about the game's story, somewhat confused and possibly misled:

• Station Square is the part of the game's setting, yet it is only mentioned in the plot towards the end. There is no indication of what this location is within the Plot that is written.
• There is no clear indication of when Sonic learns of Robotnik's plot. Yes, he does combat it, but the moment he does is not clear.
• Big's involvement is not properly explained, nor is Robotnik's reasons for pursuing his frog, Froggy.
• There is no indication in the game's story that the incidents in the past occurred on Angel Island, or that it existed at that time.
• Robotnik uses a flying fortress in the game - a minute sentence on this, including name, should be included.
• Gamma is not present in the final part of the story - there is no clear indication of what happens to him towards the end of his story in the game.
• Tikal is not known to be present to the other character's until the end; as far as the story goes, she appears only as a spirit, shaped like a floating orb of light, that is identified as Tikal towards the end.
• There is an inaccuracy towards the end - Robotnik does not send Chaos to attack Station Square. Instead, he loses control of Chaos, who attacks the city of its own free will.

While the plot is fine in other aspects, I believe these issues need to be dealt with to ensure the article remains Featured, otherwise I must question this remaining as such, or being reduced to being a Good Article. GUtt01 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you want to tweak actual inaccuracies, I don't mind, but you addition greatly expanded the plot's size, and that's the part I took issue with. We're an encyclopedia - they just offer brief overviews, not full on novelizations of the game stories. Per WP:PLOTSUM - we try to keep plot summaries around 400 to 700 words. I didn't count, but I'm pretty certain your changes sent it over, and even if it didn't, for a game with such a simple premise, comparable to your average children's saturday morning cartoon, there's no reason we should even be getting close to the maximum really.

Anyways, as I mentioned in the edit summary, the article received an extremely detailed review from multiple parties as recent last month. If there's literally inaccuracies, then sure, we should tweak it, but for all the omitted stuff, they were probably left out for a reason - they're not really core ideas necessary to understand the general premise of the story. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Big

Joe, if I ever hear you make the "this was fine during GA/FAC therefore it's fine for ever" argument again, I'm gonna come round your house and slap ya. If I'd taken part in either review I would have brought this point up, and you wouldn't have dimissed it then - and who says FAC articles are unimproveable anyway?

... Sorry. The "it was fine for FAC review" argument is a personal bugbear of mine.

Anyway. I don't object to mentioning that Sonic Team decided not to include Big in future games because of the negative reception - that's fair enough. It's the muddy, vague phrasing I don't like. Sonic Team decided in 2012 not to include him in future games? It only raises questions: why 14 years later - what changed in 2012? Does this mean he was included in lots of games before 2012? (He wasn't, to my knowledge.) Until this is made sense of I think it is better to exclude it. I would consult the source on this, but it's buried in a 2-hour YouTube video with no timestamp. (Is this YouTube video really considered a high-quality reliable source, by the way?) Popcornduff (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm mistaken - there is indeed a timestamp in that YouTube source. But it doesn't seem to clarify matters or suggest anything about the year 2012. Popcornduff (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and struck it. The main reason I added it in the first place was because I thought it was relevant and didn't think it was mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. I took it from the old Big page (which got merged a few years ago), but I looked and it is mentioned at the characters list so it doesn't need to be mentioned here. Also, I probably do deserve a slap for all the edit warring and OWNy problems I've had. Maybe with a wet trout. JOEBRO64 15:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No OWN-y problem here as far as I can see. I really ought to take part in more reviews... Popcornduff (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrospective reception not clear

The lead states

Journalists have retrospectively ranked Sonic Adventure among the best Sonic games, and it is recognized as an important release in both the series and the platform genre. Many characters and concepts introduced in Adventure recur in later Sonic games. [...] Reviews for these releases were less positive; critics felt the game had not aged well and ran at an inconsistent frame rate.

So is the retrospective assessment (very) positve or more muted? I understand the second part is about the HD versions, but still the consensus about the game can't be both 'it's one of the best' and 'hasn't aged well' at the same time. I think this needs to be clarified.

--Uncle Alf (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Sonic Adventure Vocal mini-Album (Songs with Attitude)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic Adventure Vocal mini-Album (Songs with Attitude) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Sonic Adventure Vocal mini-Album (Songs with Attitude) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Tornado 2 (Sonic the Hedgehog)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Tornado 2 (Sonic the Hedgehog) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#The Tornado 2 (Sonic the Hedgehog) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

GameCube, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 reviews

Can we please just include the rest of the reviews for the game? Because I’m getting really fed up trying to explain my, but no one isn't listening to me and yet they continually keep deleting them for no reason. Can you guys please just stop and leave my edits alone please? Because I put so much hard work into them ton include them in the reception section. 2600:1000:B010:4BFF:6500:B537:3715:264E (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and arguing in edit summaries and just discuss your stance here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t even arguing with you at all. Can you guys please just go away and leave me alone, you guys are really stressing me out right that it’s not even funny. I put so much work into those and I really hate to see them get taken down for nothing. 174.242.69.214 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.242.73.66 (talk)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You need to engage in discussion when people object in changes, especially if you're going to be editing popular articles like this. You need to stop repeatedly undoing edits and discuss on the talk page here. If you can't get a WP:CONSENSUS that supports including your edits, they will be removed. If you don't discuss on the talk page at all, you'll never garner support for your changes. If you don't stop making changes that are opposed, you're going to get locked out of editing the article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If you "put so much hard work into them", you should also be willing to listen to feedback: some of which states that Wikipedia practice is not to include reviews of derivative versions of the game, only the original release. That was clearly noted in one of the edit summaries. If you think the material belongs in the article, the way forward is to make a case for it on the talk page. If engaging in discussion is too stressful for you, your best option may, alas, be to stop editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Article semi-protected. Because the user in question is constantly changing IP addresses, there is no easy way to block the user without significant collateral damage. Therefore, all unregistered users and new accounts are barred from editing the article for three days. They may, however, request edits via the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've explained before, the Reception section is for the initial release only. The later versions and how they were received are discussed below. Because they didn't receive as much coverage or reviews as the original Dreamcast version, review boxes for them are unnecessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok you know what, I’m done. I’m not gonna put up with this anymore. I’ve tried my best calmly explain myself about this, but no one what’s to hear me out. Again as I mentioned before, I’ve done nothing wrong. I was only trying to improve it and add some additional info, that’s all. Taking this to the talk page is a waste of time. Who cares if they weren’t received, that doesn’t mean they don’t need to be deleted. That’s why I was trying to include both the Dreamcast and the other console versions in the reception box by making those changes in there, to not only include the Dreamcast version, but the GameCube, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions too. But since you both don’t wanna hear me out, I’m done. I’ve tried to be polite to you and all I get is warning over something I didn’t do. Just forget it. 2600:1000:B03F:CA0A:3D00:4740:BD33:43F9 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia works. You're supposed to hash out disputes on talk pages, not edit summaries like you were doing. It's a collaborative group project. Edits get revised or undone, even if you have good intentions. If you're going to throw a tantrum every time someone does something as simple as removing some review scores you added, Wikipedia was probably not the place for you anyways. Come back when you're ready to engage in calm, civil discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Second, can you please stop posting disrespect messages towards me calling me this and that, I swear to god I wasn’t arguing against you at all. But again, I apologize for my responses in my edit summaries, I’m just trying my hardest not to lose my temper. The reason why I’m like this is because I’m on the autism spectrum. I always try my very hardest to accept users for reverting my edits over a Wikipedia policy rule that I try so hard to accept, but right now you keep harassing me and saying I was throwing a fit which I wasn’t at all. Again as I explained myself, I’m trying so hard not to lose my temper over these edit removals and everything, I just get so sensitive and annoyed when users refuse to listen when I try to politely explain myself without losing my temper. But yet again as you explain, that’s how Wikipedia works, again, I’m sorry for all this. 2600:1000:B035:F202:7422:A2E5:F012:B52A (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything disrespectful to you, all anyone wants from you is to engage in civil discussion on the talk page. It's actually good to argue if you're trying to prove a point. You need to argue in order to get a WP:CONSENSUS on what to do if you want to move forward with your changes. The more troublesome point is that you kept on making your changes, and then said "I don't feel like discussing." Not okay. Either you discuss it, or you drop it. If you're not willing to discuss your changes, you don't get the priveledge of keeping your edits in the article. That's what happens when others contest your changes. Otherwise, you'll find yourself either blocked from editing or locked out of specific articles, as you've witnessed today.

Perhaps reading WP:BRD will help you understand other people's frustrations. Its good to Boldly make a change. But if you get Reverted, then you need to stop, and Discuss on the talk page, and not revert again until there is agreement on how to move forward. You skipped the D step and just went right back to reverting repeatedly. That's not the right approach. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I know I agree, I now know starting an argument is not the right thing to do. Like I mentioned before, I am trying my very hardest not to lose my temper over this discussion. I know I already send you an apology message on your talk page, but I will say it again here. Again, I am deeply sorry for my behavior and I apologize for losing my temper too. As I mentioned before, I was only trying to improve the article a little better by adding some of those missing reviews for those other consoles it was released on. I also apologize for mistaking your talk page messages for harassment, I unfortunately do that a lot due to my autism spectrum. Whenever someone responds to me, I always mistake it for harassment when it’s not at all. Once the article gets unprotected, I promise not to restore them ever again. If its ok, I’ll add a tag in the reception section to let users know not to add in the GameCube, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 reviews in the reception box of that’s ok with you. Again, I am very sorry for all this, I didn’t mean to make this into a big deal. I hope you can forgive me because I’m begging for forgiveness. 2600:1000:B03E:6FFF:2CAF:E03B:4F03:E59F (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. You are forgiven and all is well. I don't object to your proposed note, so unless someone else does, you're in the clear there too. Sergecross73 msg me 21:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sales info

I’d like to propose a simple reorganization. Many games of then and now, such as Horizon: Zero Dawn, Spider-Man (2018 video game), Sonic Frontiers, and even Sonic Adventure 2 all have a “Sales” sub-section under the “Reception” section.

So, I would like to move sales info for this article from the release section to a new sales sub-section under the reception section. No new (potentially unreliable) sources would be added, as I would be merely moving info.

This will certainly make the article even better.

Thanks. Alaios (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's only four short sentences which would make it a really small two-line section. I think it's better to group it with related information under Release. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Great point.

However, if someone is able to produce enough content for such section, do you think it would be justified in that case? Alaios (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a featured article of a game released 2 decades ago - how many more noteworthy sales bits can one realistically hope to find? Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Dreamcastify a valid source?

https://dreamcastify.unreliable.network/

I understand this is a blog, but the rules on using blogs can be slightly vague. I would suggest a readthough of some pages, and the edit I made to this page before it got removed because I didn’t add a citation (this is my first edit) Radicalkongsyom57 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually fansites like this aren't considered usable on Wikipedia. Doubly so for these vague allusions to fanbases liking/not liking stuff too. Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I’m glad I didn’t try to use it as a source. Radicalkongsyom57 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)