Template talk:Sonic the Hedgehog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sonic CD is part of the main series?

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 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus to change

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. 148.168.40.4 (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)

Oh, come on!

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:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Franchise/SonicTheHedgehog?from=Main.SonicTheHedgehog

http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Sonic_games

http://sonic.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Sonic_games_%28handheld%29

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.wiki.x.io/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

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

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)

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

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)

Sonic 3D Blast

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?76.223.251.148 (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.76.223.251.148 (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. - 201.253.147.164 (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 http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

break

• 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Change Sonic Boom (2014 video game) to Sonic Boom (2014 video games) in light of the recent page move. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Shadow the Hedgehog

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

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)

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

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

Sonic 3D Blast is not main series

24.168.127.151 (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)

Edit

{{editsemiprotected}}

Project Needlemouse

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)

Sonic 3D Blast

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please move it to spin-offs. There's no way it's a mainline game. It was developed as a side game while they were making the main game, Sonic X-treme. Its gameplay is non-standard, being isometric and having the bird collecting mechanism as the main objective. The gameplay of Knuckles' Chaotix is closer to the mainline games, and it's listed as a spin-off. Moreover, unlike every other main console game listed, 3D Blast wasn't developed by Sonic Team, but by Traveller Tales. And lastly, its Genesis and PC versions didn't come out in Japan, and the Saturn version came out three years after its original release. You think they would keep most versions unreleased in Japan and delay the Saturn version three years if it was a main game? Don't be ridiculous, Sega would have given it more importance if that were the case. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a game starring Sonic based around platforming and item collection, with level design input from Sonic Team. It was not developed as a "side game", it was developed as the last Genesis Sonic game, and ported to the Saturn to save face after the failure of X-treme. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Sonic 3D Blast is a spin-off. Sergecross73 is too clever by half: Sometimes you need to use some common sense. In fact, by Sergecross73's own standards it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call Sonic R a "main series" entry. Sonic Team actually was very deeply involved in Sonic R's design, whereas—to fact-check Serge's comment above—Sonic Team's only contribution to the level design of 3D Blast was developing the Special Stages in the Saturn port. That 3D Blast was the final Sonic game for the Genesis (released after Sega's internal developers had moved on to the Saturn) also tells us nothing about how Wikipedia should categorize it. However, few reliable sources seem to affirmatively address this debate, although the IP is certainly correct that Sega's own actions suggest it did not think of 3D Blast as the next AAA installment in the "main series."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Secret Rings and Black Knight have at least as strong a case for being part of the "main series" as 3D Blast does according to Serge's criteria. Of course, by designating those games as part of a separate "Storybook Series," Sega strongly implied that they should be regarded as spin-offs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

3D Blast has been classified as a mainline game for like the last 5 years, so it's not like it's some whim I just though of. Also, both 3D Blast and R had level designs by Sonic Team, but Sonic R is a different genre -- a racing game - so it's not a mainline series, and Secret Rings/Black Knight are literally classified as part of the the Storybook subseries by Sega themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sonic R has heavy platform/adventure elements, making it very unique for a racing game (it is more akin to Diddy Kong Racing in that respect). More importantly, as the IP states, one of these "platform games" is not like the others: 3D Blast's isometric gameplay has never been replicated in any other Sonic game before or since. In that sense 3D Blast is comparable to Sonic Spinball, which is as much a platform game as it is a pinball game and is merely building on the mechanics previously seen in Sonic 2's "Casino Night Zone"—and arguably has more in common with traditional Sonic sidescrollers than 3D Blast does—but which almost everyone intuitively accepts is just too different to be considered a mainline title.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Since when has perspective been a classification factor though? We don't classify according to 2Dor 3D, so why isometric? Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Isometric is something else entirely. It's technically 3d (just not polygon-based 3d), but with a whole different play style. We do classify the games going (among other factors) by gameplay style. Moreover, we have long had both 2d and 3d main games, so no one could make the argument for either dimension not being "mainline". You can't say the same about isometric. We have had literally two isometric Sonic games, Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic Labyrinth. One is currently labeled as a spin-off by the template, and the other was never treated as a main game by Sega. There has been no confirmed mainline game isometric so far. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute any of that, other than what I already said, which is perspective has not every been a factor in classifying games as "main" or "spinoff", here or elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay style is certainly a factor, and isometric is a play style of its own. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. Its still platforming and item collection, like most other Sonic games. It's just shown at a different angle. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Most Sonic games are centered on item collecting? What? I could swear most Sonic games were centered on speed, which is pretty much absent in Sonic 3D Blast. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rings? Emeralds? Emblems in later titles? Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Were they the main focus? Were they mandatory to beat nearly every level? No. Definitely not the same. Would you label every single game that had an optional achievement-like system (which is basically what emblems were) as a game about item collecting? It sounds to me like you're stretching things to keep Sonic 3D Blast in the main series. Moreoever, every single other main Sonic game had speed as a major factor. Sonic 3D Blast didn't. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Collecting rings and emeralds obviously a main focus of Sonic games, and are required to get the games good endings, and Emblem collection is required for level progression in mainline entries like Sonic Unleashed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(IP here, just registered this account) Sorry, rings and emeralds still fall under the "optional collectibles that aren't the main focus and aren't required to beat the story" category. Are the 2d Mario games also about item collecting for having coins? How about Mega Man 1, with bonus balls? Would you also label every single RPG as this for having "collectible" items? Or FPS games for letting the player "collect" guns? Also, not even Sonic Unleashed forced the player to collect medals to beat the levels. SonicManiac (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand most of your "whacky" examples, but I imagine its a result of you missing the point of the argument. My point about item-collection was the fact that the gameplay is conceptually similar to the rest of the mainline games. The player maneuvers Sonic through levels. Rings are collected. Emeralds are collected through special stages. Enemies are jumped on to be defeated, as are bosses that occur at the end of levels. Etc etc. Yes, it requires you to collect flickies to progress through levels, but so what? You're always collecting stuff through the games. And as I said, there are plenty of parts in the mainline series that require item collection to progress through the game. Like collecting emerald shards as Knuckles and Rouge to complete levels in the Adventure games. The minor differences you keep outlining, like Unleashed requiring item collection for progression, but not on a per-level basis, is merely splitting hairs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not a minor difference and it definitely matters, because that alone decides what the general gameplay is like and what the levels play like. If you can't see how having to collect mandatory stuff around in every level is a big leap from the other games' "run to the goal" formula, I can't help you. Even Sonic Unleashed kept the standard "just get to the end" formula. Even if you have to go back to the levels to collect medals because you don't have enough to progress in the story (I never ran into that problem TBH; beat the game and didn't realize they were even required until I read about it online), that's still separate from the objectives in the levels themselves. SonicManiac (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's splitting hairs. You could discount any game from the series with minor quibbles like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. At all. Can you beat the levels in Sonic 1, Unleashed, etc. by just running to the goal? Yes. Can you do the same in Sonic 3D Blast? No you can't. You can cover your ears and refuse to admit that the two play styles are rather different, but it doesn't make it any less true. SonicManiac (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not denying the "truth" of your basic statements, I'm denying the "relevance" to the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're denying that the gameplay is relevant to the categorization of a game as mainline or spin-off? SonicManiac (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop with these silly "aha gotcha!" attempts like that. That's obviously not what I'm saying. I'm saying all over the major overarching similarities are more important than all the minor differences you're grasping at. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's rubbish and you know it. There's a pretty damn big difference between levels being about running to the goal, and being about item collecting. I'm starting to think that you're intentionally playing dense. By your reasoning, Sonic Rivals is mainline despite its racing gameplay, as Sonic 2, 3, Adventure 2, and the Dimps games have had race modes. SonicManiac (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline, as responses like that are in violation of it. Your arguments shouldn't be centered around bad-faith accusations ("playing dense") others. Additionally, while not technically against any guidelines, these bizarre fictional arguments you creating for me aren't helping your case either, they're just confusing. Please just stick to the arguments that I am making, rather than these weird off-shoots related to MegaMan and all these other games. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of hard to assume good faith when you keep dodging or refusing to answer my questions, as shown below. I've been asking repeatedly if you agree that being mainline implies a game has a higher importance or priority than most spin-offs so that we could get to debating the significance of the game's treatment in Japan, and you still haven't answered that simple question. If you aren't trolling or playing dense, why do you keep refusing to answer my question? And why do you go against "Assume Good Faith" yourself by accusing me of trying to pull off a "Gotcha"? SonicManiac (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As stated, there are games that are closer to the mainline games than Sonic 3D and are listed as spin-offs, such as Knuckles Chaotix or Shadow the Hedgehog. They're both Platformers with similar mechanics to the mainline games, and are even direct sequels to previous main games (if you go by Chaotix' Japanese storyline, which heavily references Sonic 3 & Knuckles). By Sergecross73's argument, these two games are part of the main series, being Sonic games based around Platforming that were fully developed by Sonic Team (which is more than what you can say about Sonic 3D). You could even extend that argument to the Storybook series games. - ESE150 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You could make the case for Shadow, but Chaotix wasn't made by Sonic Team and Sega has never spoke of it as a mainline entry. But to be fair, neither have they with 3D Blast. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all. I've been very vocal on the talk page archives about Knuckles Chaotix and Shadow being spinoffs because they don't feature Sonic as a playable character. Everyone sounds like I'm making it up as I go - I've been maintaining this template to this standard for like the last 5-7 years, which was based loosely off a standard consensus created before I even edited Wikipedia. I'm not saying it's infallible or immune to change, there's just never been a consensus to change it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this even an argument? Sega's treatment of the game proves it's not mainline. Once again, they didn't consider it important enough to be released in Japan when it came out. At most, they released the Saturn version there, 3 years later, and AFTER Sonic Adventure had come out in Japan. No confirmed mainline game received that treatment. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Vague allusions to "Sega's Treatment" is subjective and original research. Feel free to disagree with my stance, but to act like those standards are somehow more objective than mine are ridiculous. If you've got a statement that says "Sega says its a spinoff", I'd concede. But arguments like that are merely taking actions by Sega and adding your own interpretation as to what they mean - WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you being serious? How is all Sonic 3D Blast versions being unreleased/heavily delayed in Japan being interpreted as the game being low-priority for Sega in any way subjective? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You take facts (delay in Japan) and use it to jump to an unsupported conclusions (delay equals spinoff status). That's (subjective) WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So let get this straight. According to you, a Sonic game doesn't have to be a higher priority release than spin-offs to count as mainline? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Things like game delays in certain regions do no determine mainline/spinoff series status, no. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop dodging the question. Does being mainline not imply having a higher priority/importance than most spin-off games to you? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't possibly give an all-encompassing answer to such a vague question - it would depend on the context. For example, if it requires round-a-bout logic like "Well the Mega Drive version wasn't released in Japan", without any other sourced context, then no, "implications" like that have no value. There could be any number of reasons for that. It could be because merely because of the Mega Drive's smaller userbase in Japan. Or that Sonic is less popular in Japan. Or intercompany politics. (A recurring issue in 1990s Sega.) Or any number of other scenarios. On the other hand, if there was actual context to the information, like Sega stating "3D Blast MD wasn't released in Japan because Sega saw it as a non-essential minor title", then that would be different. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Still dodging the question I see. It sounds like you realize I'm right and don't want to admit it because it would go against your argument for the game being mainline. SonicManiac (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't dodge anything. You asked a vague question and I said it required more context. If that's not the answer you want, ask better questions. Are you going somewhere with all of this or what? Get to the point. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want you to admit that being mainline implies higher priority/importance than your typical spin-off before we get to debating the significance of the game's treatment in Japan. SonicManiac (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So you don't disagree with that statement, given that you haven't refuted it? SonicManiac (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You may not derive that meaning out of my answer, no. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to point out that an initial assertion, and subsequent "fact check" by TimesAreAChanging, are incorrect - the game was developed by Sonic Team as well. I'm having a hard time finding the magazine scan I first found this on years back, but the game's credits are enough to verify it on a basic level. Yes, Travelers Tales did the actual programming, but the actual game concept and design was done by members of Sonic Team. While fansites aren't usable sources on Wikipedia, their transcription of the credits are correct in this case - see the Genesis Mega/Drive credits here. Game concept and level design were handled by people like Takashi Iizuka and Hirokazu Yasuhara. It's just like how everyone assumed Sonic Team did develop Knuckles Chaotix, which someone found to be false with Knuckles Chaotix some research recently. - 90s Sega wasn't always clear on internal development teams and everything, sometimes some digging is necessary in order to get to the truth. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. Regardless, while there are no sources that explicitly designate 3D Blast a spin-off, you have presented none that affirmatively declare it an entry in the main series, so any final decision on this matter is inherently going to involve a fair amount of original research (euphemistically, "common sense" or "editorial discretion"). In that sense, it's not really worth arguing about, but I do insist that Sega's rushing out a Saturn port of 3D Blast as a stop-gap measure for the 1996 holiday season following the cancellation of Sonic X-treme is not evidence that 3D Blast was conceived as the next AAA Sonic platformer, but rather the opposite. Furthermore, there are relatively few isometric platformers in existence due to the inherent awkwardness of the genre, and this crucial distinction combined with the leading role played by a Western developer justify the general opinion that 3D Blast is a spin-off and an outlier. Indeed, Secret Rings being retroactively labelled part of a "Storybook" series (which one might well compare to the "Sonic Adventure" subseries) by Sega's marketing department in the run-up to Black Knight's release—after it was originally touted as a Wii peer to Sonic 2006—is hardly a more "objective" criteria for disqualifying it than 3D Blast's singularly unique gameplay mechanics/perspective. (To engage in some additional OR, the major reason to question the "Storybook" titles's status may not be their branding, but rather their on-rails and motion controlled gameplay—which still has far more in common with any other 3D Sonic game than 3D Blast does.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel like the 3D Blast Saturn port says much about the game's status, it was merely a last-ditch effort to have a Sonic game out on the Saturn for the holidays. Would we doubt Sonic & Knuckles mainline status had they decided to port that as a last ditch response instead? I think it was just the matter of it being the most recent Sonic game to up-port to the newer system. Also, for the record, I welcome anyone to start up a discussion on Secret Rings/Black Knight if they feel they should be mainline titles. I use them as examples because they're placement has been relatively uncontentious so far, but I'm open to alternate approaches. I don't think anyone's fought particularly hard for or against them outside of them being tangential related examples like they are right now in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Sergecross73, but I think you're being silly here. I have to agree with the people who argued that the game's isometric angle and item hunting centric gameplay are a big departure from the standard Sonic formula. In addition, do you have any evidence of Sega treating it as a mainline console game? Because I don't recall Sega ever promoting it as one or giving it as much advertising they gave to other mainline console Sonics. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion after 4 years of inactivity, and about 20 edits to your name, none of them related to Sonic? Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're implying or what's the relevance of that. Do I have to be a regular editor of Sonic articles to opine? Or do I have to be a regular Wikipedia editor period to opine? But to answer your question, I came upon this template when I was checking information on Sonic Mania. - Wikizzer (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Im asking if you were requested to comment here. This discussion hasn't been publicized anywhere, so it's extremely rare for someone to stumble upon it, especially an editor on a 4 year break with no history in the content area, who says virtually the same thing as another editor. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't asked by anyone. I just read the whole discussion and agreed with the arguments people have been making, and I'm not convinced by your attempts at dismissing them. I also wanted to light that you still haven't been able to provide evidence of Sega treating it as mainline, even though TheTimesAreAChanging brought up that point a week ago. - Wikizzer (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely coincidences aside, If you've read the discussion, you'd see that no one has had definitive proof for it being a spinoff either. Which is odd, because that wasn't the case when we had the same discussions about Shadow the Hedgehog. When someone questioned if it was main or spinoff a few years ago, like 5-10 sources were found from reliable sources directly calling it a spinoff. Not the case with 3D Blast at all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say SonicManiac's evidence for Sega treating it as spinoff is more than what we can say about your nonexistent evidence. But regardless, the burden of proof falls on you in this case, given that you're the one claiming it's mainline. - Wikizzer (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in, but I have to say that despite the hostility shown by these editors, that I can't say I disagree with their reasoning. Should we assume 3D Blast is a mainline title by default just because Sega/sources never said it wasn't a spinoff title? Has any other editor in the past argued in favor of it being mainline? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources commonly say "spinoff" for spinoffs, but they don't always for "main series". Do a search for "Sonic 3 main series" and "Shadow the Hedgehog spinoff". The results are very different, but we don't question Sonic 3's status. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, but there are no real sources that say the same either way for Sonic 3D, which is the debate here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, that was my point. Sources are quick to label a spinoff, a spinoff, but far less likely use phrases like "main line series" for main line entries. They just call it things like "a new entry". We've had the same issues in titles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, where the naming is ambiguous, the gameplay is similar but not the same - sources often don't delineate either way, so arguments break out. That's why many years ago they had set up the inclusion criteria in relation to gameplay type, dev team, who the primary character is, etc - because there's often no official word to go off of either way. It's not a perfect system, but there's never been a consensus on a way to do it better. And outside of a random person who pops in every year or so for discussions like this, for the most part it has been pretty stable too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof would be on people proposing a change from something that has been in place for multiple years. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's wrong, given that it was added there in the first place by you without any evidence that Sega considered it mainline. And when people questioned your addition of it, you never backed it up with official sources. - Wikizzer (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It was placed in its current spot many years ago due to the template's inclusion criteria at the time, and it's been there for years, often going years at a time uncontested , and there's never been consensus to move it. There's never been official sources calling it a spinoff either, so there's no reason to randomly default to "spinoff" status. If there's truly never been any consensus at all, as you suggest, then it really should be default back to where it started. The first form of the template that split into main and spinoff is here, in which 3D is not in the spinoff section. So, if we're going by "official sources", of which there are none, then we'd default to where its been for the last 5 years (mainline) or where it began (mainline). Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who initially provides the information or wishes the information to remain. It doesn't matter if it was categorized as mainline at first, it's still up to the person who did the claim (the claim being in this case that it's mainline) to back it up with sources. Since the original editor didn't provide sources for that, you'll have to do it if you want it to stay there. Unless you're claiming that we should assume every Sonic game is mainline until proven otherwise? - Wikizzer (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, per my link above, it was placed in the main series before it was ever placed in the spinoff series. There's no reason to default it to spinoff. The claim that its a spinoff isn't backed by a source either. You're trying to make a change you're not backed by any sourcing. You're not "practicing what you preach" - according to your rationale, you're doing the same exact thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that every game should be defaulted to main series until proven otherwise? Also, "it has been like that for years" isn't a valid defense. By if we were to go by your logic, I'll point out that the game had been categorized as a spinoff for over four years until you added it to main series. Before that, there had never been any arguments regarding its placement. It was only after you moved it that the arguments began. As for me trying to make a change that isn't backed by any sourcing, sure you aren't talking about yourself? You added it to main series without providing any sources or debating it first. I just reverted it to the way it was. - Wikizzer (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's a platformer, with development by Sonic Team, starring Sonic, then yes, I do believe it should default to the main series. And it should default to its original placement (main) or where it's been recently, stably for the last 5 years (main), not a randomly selected period of time 7 odd years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it's not been stable given the debates that arised from it. But since you consider it so stable, I propose we get a consensus on the matter. If it's as stable as you claim, most people will agree to leave it in main series. - Wikizzer (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Its been stable, as in, it hasn't moved to spinoff outside of people like you moving it there momentarily without a consensus/with discussion ongoing. The page history will show you that much. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the history as you suggested and it's definitely not stable: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] - Wikizzer (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand what I mean when I say stable. I already just said that passerby would come and change it here and there. What I'm saying that, in the 1500 days that occur in a 5ish year span, it's spent about 1490 of them as mainline. (Just an approximation, please don't count out the days and give me more if this "Lies - it was only 1475 days! Gotcha Serge" nonsense you and your "buddy" keep throwing at me.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're going to ignore all the edits that reverted the game back to its previous labeling as a spinoff and decide that they don't count so that you can keep claiming the page has been stable? In that case, you won't mind if we ask for a consensus. If it's as stable as you claim, most people should agree to leave it as it is. And this way we can finally put this discussion to rest. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Inexperienced editors mistakenly make changes without consensus all the time. They were reverted instantly. They mean nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Just like you did? You didn't ask for a consensus or debate before moving it to main series. Anyway, I would like to correct a previous mistake of mine: Sonic 3D Blast had been labeled as a spinoff for 8 years, not 4, which is nearly twice as long as it had been labeled as mainline. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sonic 3D Blast

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please move it to spin-offs. There's no way it's a mainline game. It was developed as a side game while they were making the main game, Sonic X-treme. Its gameplay is non-standard, being isometric and having the bird collecting mechanism as the main objective. The gameplay of Knuckles' Chaotix is closer to the mainline games, and it's listed as a spin-off. Moreover, unlike every other main console game listed, 3D Blast wasn't developed by Sonic Team, but by Traveller Tales. And lastly, its Genesis and PC versions didn't come out in Japan, and the Saturn version came out three years after its original release. You think they would keep most versions unreleased in Japan and delay the Saturn version three years if it was a main game? Don't be ridiculous, Sega would have given it more importance if that were the case. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a game starring Sonic based around platforming and item collection, with level design input from Sonic Team. It was not developed as a "side game", it was developed as the last Genesis Sonic game, and ported to the Saturn to save face after the failure of X-treme. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Sonic 3D Blast is a spin-off. Sergecross73 is too clever by half: Sometimes you need to use some common sense. In fact, by Sergecross73's own standards it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call Sonic R a "main series" entry. Sonic Team actually was very deeply involved in Sonic R's design, whereas—to fact-check Serge's comment above—Sonic Team's only contribution to the level design of 3D Blast was developing the Special Stages in the Saturn port. That 3D Blast was the final Sonic game for the Genesis (released after Sega's internal developers had moved on to the Saturn) also tells us nothing about how Wikipedia should categorize it. However, few reliable sources seem to affirmatively address this debate, although the IP is certainly correct that Sega's own actions suggest it did not think of 3D Blast as the next AAA installment in the "main series."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, Secret Rings and Black Knight have at least as strong a case for being part of the "main series" as 3D Blast does according to Serge's criteria. Of course, by designating those games as part of a separate "Storybook Series," Sega strongly implied that they should be regarded as spin-offs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

3D Blast has been classified as a mainline game for like the last 5 years, so it's not like it's some whim I just though of. Also, both 3D Blast and R had level designs by Sonic Team, but Sonic R is a different genre -- a racing game - so it's not a mainline series, and Secret Rings/Black Knight are literally classified as part of the the Storybook subseries by Sega themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sonic R has heavy platform/adventure elements, making it very unique for a racing game (it is more akin to Diddy Kong Racing in that respect). More importantly, as the IP states, one of these "platform games" is not like the others: 3D Blast's isometric gameplay has never been replicated in any other Sonic game before or since. In that sense 3D Blast is comparable to Sonic Spinball, which is as much a platform game as it is a pinball game and is merely building on the mechanics previously seen in Sonic 2's "Casino Night Zone"—and arguably has more in common with traditional Sonic sidescrollers than 3D Blast does—but which almost everyone intuitively accepts is just too different to be considered a mainline title.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Since when has perspective been a classification factor though? We don't classify according to 2Dor 3D, so why isometric? Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Isometric is something else entirely. It's technically 3d (just not polygon-based 3d), but with a whole different play style. We do classify the games going (among other factors) by gameplay style. Moreover, we have long had both 2d and 3d main games, so no one could make the argument for either dimension not being "mainline". You can't say the same about isometric. We have had literally two isometric Sonic games, Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic Labyrinth. One is currently labeled as a spin-off by the template, and the other was never treated as a main game by Sega. There has been no confirmed mainline game isometric so far. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't dispute any of that, other than what I already said, which is perspective has not every been a factor in classifying games as "main" or "spinoff", here or elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay style is certainly a factor, and isometric is a play style of its own. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. Its still platforming and item collection, like most other Sonic games. It's just shown at a different angle. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Most Sonic games are centered on item collecting? What? I could swear most Sonic games were centered on speed, which is pretty much absent in Sonic 3D Blast. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rings? Emeralds? Emblems in later titles? Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Were they the main focus? Were they mandatory to beat nearly every level? No. Definitely not the same. Would you label every single game that had an optional achievement-like system (which is basically what emblems were) as a game about item collecting? It sounds to me like you're stretching things to keep Sonic 3D Blast in the main series. Moreoever, every single other main Sonic game had speed as a major factor. Sonic 3D Blast didn't. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Collecting rings and emeralds obviously a main focus of Sonic games, and are required to get the games good endings, and Emblem collection is required for level progression in mainline entries like Sonic Unleashed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

(IP here, just registered this account) Sorry, rings and emeralds still fall under the "optional collectibles that aren't the main focus and aren't required to beat the story" category. Are the 2d Mario games also about item collecting for having coins? How about Mega Man 1, with bonus balls? Would you also label every single RPG as this for having "collectible" items? Or FPS games for letting the player "collect" guns? Also, not even Sonic Unleashed forced the player to collect medals to beat the levels. SonicManiac (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand most of your "whacky" examples, but I imagine its a result of you missing the point of the argument. My point about item-collection was the fact that the gameplay is conceptually similar to the rest of the mainline games. The player maneuvers Sonic through levels. Rings are collected. Emeralds are collected through special stages. Enemies are jumped on to be defeated, as are bosses that occur at the end of levels. Etc etc. Yes, it requires you to collect flickies to progress through levels, but so what? You're always collecting stuff through the games. And as I said, there are plenty of parts in the mainline series that require item collection to progress through the game. Like collecting emerald shards as Knuckles and Rouge to complete levels in the Adventure games. The minor differences you keep outlining, like Unleashed requiring item collection for progression, but not on a per-level basis, is merely splitting hairs. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not a minor difference and it definitely matters, because that alone decides what the general gameplay is like and what the levels play like. If you can't see how having to collect mandatory stuff around in every level is a big leap from the other games' "run to the goal" formula, I can't help you. Even Sonic Unleashed kept the standard "just get to the end" formula. Even if you have to go back to the levels to collect medals because you don't have enough to progress in the story (I never ran into that problem TBH; beat the game and didn't realize they were even required until I read about it online), that's still separate from the objectives in the levels themselves. SonicManiac (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's splitting hairs. You could discount any game from the series with minor quibbles like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. At all. Can you beat the levels in Sonic 1, Unleashed, etc. by just running to the goal? Yes. Can you do the same in Sonic 3D Blast? No you can't. You can cover your ears and refuse to admit that the two play styles are rather different, but it doesn't make it any less true. SonicManiac (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not denying the "truth" of your basic statements, I'm denying the "relevance" to the discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're denying that the gameplay is relevant to the categorization of a game as mainline or spin-off? SonicManiac (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop with these silly "aha gotcha!" attempts like that. That's obviously not what I'm saying. I'm saying all over the major overarching similarities are more important than all the minor differences you're grasping at. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's rubbish and you know it. There's a pretty damn big difference between levels being about running to the goal, and being about item collecting. I'm starting to think that you're intentionally playing dense. By your reasoning, Sonic Rivals is mainline despite its racing gameplay, as Sonic 2, 3, Adventure 2, and the Dimps games have had race modes. SonicManiac (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware of Wikipedia's "Assume Good Faith" guideline, as responses like that are in violation of it. Your arguments shouldn't be centered around bad-faith accusations ("playing dense") others. Additionally, while not technically against any guidelines, these bizarre fictional arguments you creating for me aren't helping your case either, they're just confusing. Please just stick to the arguments that I am making, rather than these weird off-shoots related to MegaMan and all these other games. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's kind of hard to assume good faith when you keep dodging or refusing to answer my questions, as shown below. I've been asking repeatedly if you agree that being mainline implies a game has a higher importance or priority than most spin-offs so that we could get to debating the significance of the game's treatment in Japan, and you still haven't answered that simple question. If you aren't trolling or playing dense, why do you keep refusing to answer my question? And why do you go against "Assume Good Faith" yourself by accusing me of trying to pull off a "Gotcha"? SonicManiac (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As stated, there are games that are closer to the mainline games than Sonic 3D and are listed as spin-offs, such as Knuckles Chaotix or Shadow the Hedgehog. They're both Platformers with similar mechanics to the mainline games, and are even direct sequels to previous main games (if you go by Chaotix' Japanese storyline, which heavily references Sonic 3 & Knuckles). By Sergecross73's argument, these two games are part of the main series, being Sonic games based around Platforming that were fully developed by Sonic Team (which is more than what you can say about Sonic 3D). You could even extend that argument to the Storybook series games. - ESE150 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You could make the case for Shadow, but Chaotix wasn't made by Sonic Team and Sega has never spoke of it as a mainline entry. But to be fair, neither have they with 3D Blast. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all. I've been very vocal on the talk page archives about Knuckles Chaotix and Shadow being spinoffs because they don't feature Sonic as a playable character. Everyone sounds like I'm making it up as I go - I've been maintaining this template to this standard for like the last 5-7 years, which was based loosely off a standard consensus created before I even edited Wikipedia. I'm not saying it's infallible or immune to change, there's just never been a consensus to change it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this even an argument? Sega's treatment of the game proves it's not mainline. Once again, they didn't consider it important enough to be released in Japan when it came out. At most, they released the Saturn version there, 3 years later, and AFTER Sonic Adventure had come out in Japan. No confirmed mainline game received that treatment. 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Vague allusions to "Sega's Treatment" is subjective and original research. Feel free to disagree with my stance, but to act like those standards are somehow more objective than mine are ridiculous. If you've got a statement that says "Sega says its a spinoff", I'd concede. But arguments like that are merely taking actions by Sega and adding your own interpretation as to what they mean - WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you being serious? How is all Sonic 3D Blast versions being unreleased/heavily delayed in Japan being interpreted as the game being low-priority for Sega in any way subjective? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You take facts (delay in Japan) and use it to jump to an unsupported conclusions (delay equals spinoff status). That's (subjective) WP:OR. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So let get this straight. According to you, a Sonic game doesn't have to be a higher priority release than spin-offs to count as mainline? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Things like game delays in certain regions do no determine mainline/spinoff series status, no. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop dodging the question. Does being mainline not imply having a higher priority/importance than most spin-off games to you? 186.125.99.147 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't possibly give an all-encompassing answer to such a vague question - it would depend on the context. For example, if it requires round-a-bout logic like "Well the Mega Drive version wasn't released in Japan", without any other sourced context, then no, "implications" like that have no value. There could be any number of reasons for that. It could be because merely because of the Mega Drive's smaller userbase in Japan. Or that Sonic is less popular in Japan. Or intercompany politics. (A recurring issue in 1990s Sega.) Or any number of other scenarios. On the other hand, if there was actual context to the information, like Sega stating "3D Blast MD wasn't released in Japan because Sega saw it as a non-essential minor title", then that would be different. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Still dodging the question I see. It sounds like you realize I'm right and don't want to admit it because it would go against your argument for the game being mainline. SonicManiac (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't dodge anything. You asked a vague question and I said it required more context. If that's not the answer you want, ask better questions. Are you going somewhere with all of this or what? Get to the point. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want you to admit that being mainline implies higher priority/importance than your typical spin-off before we get to debating the significance of the game's treatment in Japan. SonicManiac (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So you don't disagree with that statement, given that you haven't refuted it? SonicManiac (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You may not derive that meaning out of my answer, no. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to point out that an initial assertion, and subsequent "fact check" by TimesAreAChanging, are incorrect - the game was developed by Sonic Team as well. I'm having a hard time finding the magazine scan I first found this on years back, but the game's credits are enough to verify it on a basic level. Yes, Travelers Tales did the actual programming, but the actual game concept and design was done by members of Sonic Team. While fansites aren't usable sources on Wikipedia, their transcription of the credits are correct in this case - see the Genesis Mega/Drive credits here. Game concept and level design were handled by people like Takashi Iizuka and Hirokazu Yasuhara. It's just like how everyone assumed Sonic Team did develop Knuckles Chaotix, which someone found to be false with Knuckles Chaotix some research recently. - 90s Sega wasn't always clear on internal development teams and everything, sometimes some digging is necessary in order to get to the truth. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. Regardless, while there are no sources that explicitly designate 3D Blast a spin-off, you have presented none that affirmatively declare it an entry in the main series, so any final decision on this matter is inherently going to involve a fair amount of original research (euphemistically, "common sense" or "editorial discretion"). In that sense, it's not really worth arguing about, but I do insist that Sega's rushing out a Saturn port of 3D Blast as a stop-gap measure for the 1996 holiday season following the cancellation of Sonic X-treme is not evidence that 3D Blast was conceived as the next AAA Sonic platformer, but rather the opposite. Furthermore, there are relatively few isometric platformers in existence due to the inherent awkwardness of the genre, and this crucial distinction combined with the leading role played by a Western developer justify the general opinion that 3D Blast is a spin-off and an outlier. Indeed, Secret Rings being retroactively labelled part of a "Storybook" series (which one might well compare to the "Sonic Adventure" subseries) by Sega's marketing department in the run-up to Black Knight's release—after it was originally touted as a Wii peer to Sonic 2006—is hardly a more "objective" criteria for disqualifying it than 3D Blast's singularly unique gameplay mechanics/perspective. (To engage in some additional OR, the major reason to question the "Storybook" titles's status may not be their branding, but rather their on-rails and motion controlled gameplay—which still has far more in common with any other 3D Sonic game than 3D Blast does.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel like the 3D Blast Saturn port says much about the game's status, it was merely a last-ditch effort to have a Sonic game out on the Saturn for the holidays. Would we doubt Sonic & Knuckles mainline status had they decided to port that as a last ditch response instead? I think it was just the matter of it being the most recent Sonic game to up-port to the newer system. Also, for the record, I welcome anyone to start up a discussion on Secret Rings/Black Knight if they feel they should be mainline titles. I use them as examples because they're placement has been relatively uncontentious so far, but I'm open to alternate approaches. I don't think anyone's fought particularly hard for or against them outside of them being tangential related examples like they are right now in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Sergecross73, but I think you're being silly here. I have to agree with the people who argued that the game's isometric angle and item hunting centric gameplay are a big departure from the standard Sonic formula. In addition, do you have any evidence of Sega treating it as a mainline console game? Because I don't recall Sega ever promoting it as one or giving it as much advertising they gave to other mainline console Sonics. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask how you stumbled upon this discussion after 4 years of inactivity, and about 20 edits to your name, none of them related to Sonic? Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're implying or what's the relevance of that. Do I have to be a regular editor of Sonic articles to opine? Or do I have to be a regular Wikipedia editor period to opine? But to answer your question, I came upon this template when I was checking information on Sonic Mania. - Wikizzer (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Im asking if you were requested to comment here. This discussion hasn't been publicized anywhere, so it's extremely rare for someone to stumble upon it, especially an editor on a 4 year break with no history in the content area, who says virtually the same thing as another editor. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't asked by anyone. I just read the whole discussion and agreed with the arguments people have been making, and I'm not convinced by your attempts at dismissing them. I also wanted to light that you still haven't been able to provide evidence of Sega treating it as mainline, even though TheTimesAreAChanging brought up that point a week ago. - Wikizzer (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlikely coincidences aside, If you've read the discussion, you'd see that no one has had definitive proof for it being a spinoff either. Which is odd, because that wasn't the case when we had the same discussions about Shadow the Hedgehog. When someone questioned if it was main or spinoff a few years ago, like 5-10 sources were found from reliable sources directly calling it a spinoff. Not the case with 3D Blast at all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say SonicManiac's evidence for Sega treating it as spinoff is more than what we can say about your nonexistent evidence. But regardless, the burden of proof falls on you in this case, given that you're the one claiming it's mainline. - Wikizzer (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in, but I have to say that despite the hostility shown by these editors, that I can't say I disagree with their reasoning. Should we assume 3D Blast is a mainline title by default just because Sega/sources never said it wasn't a spinoff title? Has any other editor in the past argued in favor of it being mainline? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources commonly say "spinoff" for spinoffs, but they don't always for "main series". Do a search for "Sonic 3 main series" and "Shadow the Hedgehog spinoff". The results are very different, but we don't question Sonic 3's status. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, but there are no real sources that say the same either way for Sonic 3D, which is the debate here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know, that was my point. Sources are quick to label a spinoff, a spinoff, but far less likely use phrases like "main line series" for main line entries. They just call it things like "a new entry". We've had the same issues in titles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, where the naming is ambiguous, the gameplay is similar but not the same - sources often don't delineate either way, so arguments break out. That's why many years ago they had set up the inclusion criteria in relation to gameplay type, dev team, who the primary character is, etc - because there's often no official word to go off of either way. It's not a perfect system, but there's never been a consensus on a way to do it better. And outside of a random person who pops in every year or so for discussions like this, for the most part it has been pretty stable too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof would be on people proposing a change from something that has been in place for multiple years. Sergecross73 msg me 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's wrong, given that it was added there in the first place by you without any evidence that Sega considered it mainline. And when people questioned your addition of it, you never backed it up with official sources. - Wikizzer (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It was placed in its current spot many years ago due to the template's inclusion criteria at the time, and it's been there for years, often going years at a time uncontested , and there's never been consensus to move it. There's never been official sources calling it a spinoff either, so there's no reason to randomly default to "spinoff" status. If there's truly never been any consensus at all, as you suggest, then it really should be default back to where it started. The first form of the template that split into main and spinoff is here, in which 3D is not in the spinoff section. So, if we're going by "official sources", of which there are none, then we'd default to where its been for the last 5 years (mainline) or where it began (mainline). Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way it works. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who initially provides the information or wishes the information to remain. It doesn't matter if it was categorized as mainline at first, it's still up to the person who did the claim (the claim being in this case that it's mainline) to back it up with sources. Since the original editor didn't provide sources for that, you'll have to do it if you want it to stay there. Unless you're claiming that we should assume every Sonic game is mainline until proven otherwise? - Wikizzer (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, per my link above, it was placed in the main series before it was ever placed in the spinoff series. There's no reason to default it to spinoff. The claim that its a spinoff isn't backed by a source either. You're trying to make a change you're not backed by any sourcing. You're not "practicing what you preach" - according to your rationale, you're doing the same exact thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying that every game should be defaulted to main series until proven otherwise? Also, "it has been like that for years" isn't a valid defense. By if we were to go by your logic, I'll point out that the game had been categorized as a spinoff for over four years until you added it to main series. Before that, there had never been any arguments regarding its placement. It was only after you moved it that the arguments began. As for me trying to make a change that isn't backed by any sourcing, sure you aren't talking about yourself? You added it to main series without providing any sources or debating it first. I just reverted it to the way it was. - Wikizzer (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's a platformer, with development by Sonic Team, starring Sonic, then yes, I do believe it should default to the main series. And it should default to its original placement (main) or where it's been recently, stably for the last 5 years (main), not a randomly selected period of time 7 odd years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly it's not been stable given the debates that arised from it. But since you consider it so stable, I propose we get a consensus on the matter. If it's as stable as you claim, most people will agree to leave it in main series. - Wikizzer (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Its been stable, as in, it hasn't moved to spinoff outside of people like you moving it there momentarily without a consensus/with discussion ongoing. The page history will show you that much. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the history as you suggested and it's definitely not stable: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - Wikizzer (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand what I mean when I say stable. I already just said that passerby would come and change it here and there. What I'm saying that, in the 1500 days that occur in a 5ish year span, it's spent about 1490 of them as mainline. (Just an approximation, please don't count out the days and give me more if this "Lies - it was only 1475 days! Gotcha Serge" nonsense you and your "buddy" keep throwing at me.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're going to ignore all the edits that reverted the game back to its previous labeling as a spinoff and decide that they don't count so that you can keep claiming the page has been stable? In that case, you won't mind if we ask for a consensus. If it's as stable as you claim, most people should agree to leave it as it is. And this way we can finally put this discussion to rest. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Inexperienced editors mistakenly make changes without consensus all the time. They were reverted instantly. They mean nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Just like you did? You didn't ask for a consensus or debate before moving it to main series. Anyway, I would like to correct a previous mistake of mine: Sonic 3D Blast had been labeled as a spinoff for 8 years, not 4, which is nearly twice as long as it had been labeled as mainline. - Wikizzer (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.