Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of physics in Episode 1[edit]

I think a new section under "Reception" should be added-criticism of physics in Episode 1. Fans of the original Genesis Sonic games have criticized the physics of the "floaty" physics from Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1-one of the biggest criticisms of the game. Despite that the game claims to feature "unrivalled classic feel" (from the website), the game's physics are more of that to the handheld Rush games, which are entirely different than those of the Genesis games. See more about this criticism in Sonic Retro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbwiki (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add more criticism of the physics if you wnt, but I'm not sure it warrants it's own section. A couple sentences, maybe a paragraph...but not a whole section. Also, Sonic Retro is a fansite, and as thus, not a wikipedia reliable source. You'll have to find your criticism elsewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic Retro, however, is one of the biggest Sonic fansites on the web, and I'm pretty sure has members with ties to Sega. Also, I can go bring up more examples of the physics criticism of other fansites, and even on some reviews of the game.
From Joystiq's review
"Sonic's momentum feels completely wrong too, as he can now simply walk up hills and even into his iconic, checkerboard loops with little resistance."
From Wonky's review
"The few spots where careful timing is required are mostly ruined by wonky physics. The most glaring example is that Sonic can stop on a dime — even in mid-air. So if you jump forward and then let go of the joystick, Sonic will lose all forward momentum and drop straight down like a lump of lead. This, for me, was the cause of more than a few deaths."
From the Wii Brasil review
"Like all games that exist on earth, it's all a matter of getting used to the gameplay. But there are two facts that I can highlight and provide the means to circumvent these same facts to illustrate: in the Streets Casino Zone, as in Sonic 2 , there are moments in "U" gigantic. If we consider the physics of games, simply rotate with the character, gain speed and ready, come out of this "half-pipe." In Sonic 4 , turning the character (not the "spin dash" down and jump, but the turn by pressing diagonally lower while running) are slow and even turning the half-pipe does not get the speed necessary to quit . How to pass? Run. Bizarre as this is, Sonic's race has a higher priority than your spin. Another point that it causes the acceleration is a consequence of the character: Sonic takes ages to get a good speed. But there are two techniques to circumvent this: the very spin dash and homing attack the air without aiming at an enemy. There are several other examples that can be discussed here, but for every argument there will be a counter-response. Therefore, physics is simply a "love it or hate it," or rather "get over it or leave it."
Anyway, I'll just add a paragraph to a few sentences about the physics of the game. A small bit of something is better than nothing. Agbwiki 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic Retro is a fansite, and thus probably shouldn't be used. Reliable or not, I'm pretty sure it's just a bunch of members of the fandom running their own website, not a wikipedia reliable source, like Gamestop or IGN. (And having "ties" to Sega probably makes them even worse as far as being able to provide an unbiased opinion on the game.) I'm unfamiliar with "Wonky" or "Wii Brasil", so I'm not sure about them, but they're probably not the best sources to use. Joystiq is perfectly fine though. But yeah, it certainly was a common complaint, so a few sentences are fine. But a whole section would be far too much. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had responded here before I saw your changes to your article. I reverted your changes. You can't talked in unsourced generalizations about what the "fans" thought of the game. You have to use information from professional reviews/reliable sources. And use references. It's not acceptable to just go out and take it upon yourself to speak on behalf of the fans and write down some generic thoughts on the physics. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't intentionally trying to speak on behalf of those fans. Guess I didn't think the edit through. Anyway, if I said that the criticism of the physics were from "some fans" (or even an minority of fans) instead of just "fans" of those games, would that be acceptable? And I tried searching for links to actual articles that were specifically about the criticism, but I couldn't find any. I only found references of that criticism of articles about Iizuka speaking out about the physics.
From Eurogamer article - Sonic 4's physics deliberately different:
Sonic 4: Episode I launched in October and Ellie loved it to bits, but some gamers complained about ropey physics, which saw the hedgehog losing momentum at a moment's notice.
From Destructiod's article: Sonic Team justifies Sonic 4's notorious physics (this tone of the writer probably makes the article debatable if it's a reliable source, however)
I never had a problem with Sonic 4's physics, but "fans" around the world are furious. Just do a Youtube search for "Sonic 4 physics" and you'll see a legion of rage-fueled videos from confirmed virgins. Sonic Team director Takashi Iizuka has finally addressed the anger. Be careful though -- his answer won't please.
Finally, I did find some criticism of the physics in a Wired review:
The few spots where careful timing is required are mostly ruined by wonky physics. The most glaring example is that Sonic can stop on a dime — even in mid-air. So if you jump forward and then let go of the joystick, Sonic will lose all forward momentum and drop straight down like a lump of lead. This, for me, was the cause of more than a few deaths. For somebody who can put on the brakes with ease, Sonic takes way too long to get moving. Getting a running start feels like walking through mud. This is mostly a big problem in boss battles, where the playing area is small and confined: You don’t have enough room to build up speed, making it much harder to dodge the attacks. Sonic 4 has also given Sonic the ability to literally walk, not run, up walls at a 90-degree angle. None of these things are small problems. They all affect the game’s controls, the one thing that can make or break a 2-D platform action game.
Also, if you check in development of this article though, you can find a mention of the criticism of the physics from some of those fans.
Footage from the leaks received harsh criticism regarding the game's physics and certain levels.
The announcement of the delay was also accompanied by an interview with Sega's Ken Balough, in which it was explained that Sega had taken note of fan reaction to the game and were incorporating said feedback into the development of the game. Areas specifically mentioned from fan feedback were a reworking of the "floaty" nature of the gravity and physics, and a redesign of some level design and elements in order to accommodate more of a momentum-driven gameplay that was a staple of earlier entries in the series.
Agbwiki 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your information itself, from sources like "Wired" and "Destructoid" are fine, you just have to word it right. You need not mention "fans", instead use "Reviewers" or "Critics", or just start it as "Criticism of the game included poor physics" or something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EP 2[edit]

I saw images of ep 2 on google.98.71.47.189 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)SEM[reply]

What about it? Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you guys would put the ep2 title screen picture under the ep1 title screen picture.98.71.47.189 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC) sĔm [reply]

Infobox image dispute[edit]

I wanted to gather consensus over with image is best to use for this game.

My argument is that my image, the one that's been in there, is better because it not only show's the Sonic 4 logo, but a picture of Sonic as well. Zagurzem's photo is strictly text, and does nothing to illustrate anything about the game itself. The prior picture contains a view of Sonic's artwork for the time, and is used for the Xbox Live Logo according to it's upload information.

Thoughts on this? Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zagurzem: My logo is the one from the OFFICIAL WEBSITE. It is right at the top of the website take a look--Zagurzem (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)http://www.sonicthehedgehog4.com/us/[reply]

I think the website logo should be used as opposed to the other one, because the other one is just the Ep 1 logo with the EPISODE I subtitle edited out. The logo I want was actually made by SEGA. Besides, Ep 2 has a completely different logo, so I also feel the opponent's logo only represents Ep 1 anyways. My logo seems to represent the Sonic 4 saga as a whole.

How about if we use my logo, I will also post the boxart logos for Ep 1 and 2 somewhere else on the page.

Both images are official, so that's not a valid argument. It doesn't change the fact that one is text and a character, and one is plain text. Why waste a picture to only express text. We can just express that just fine with text! Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zagurzem: Your logo is just the Ep 1 logo with the EP 1 Subtitle edited out. Ive never seen SEGA make an image like that. Please just keep mine!

Yes, someone cropped out the "Episode 1". That's a common practice here on Wikipedia. For example, editors commonly edit out the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 logo for games that are released on both systems, to eliminate arguing over which version of the cover art should be used. See Final Fantasy 13 for example, see how it doesn't say either system? So that's not a valid reason to remove an image. Furthermore, as I said, your image is boring, only text, and gives virtually no information about the game at hand. My image has the same logo, plus more - character art. There's no reason to "downgrade" to your simpler image. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zagurzem: I understand your point, but the problem is that your logo only seems to represent ep 1 and not ep2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.241.187 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see only two rationales here: first, the 'new' logo claims free use, which is totally incorrect, and thus does not pass WP:NFCC at the moment. Additionally non-edited images are always preferred per standards from that same policy. Sometimes we can't get around that or we take license, but if there are stock images that do the job perfectly well that's what we use. Also, the fact that Sonic is in one image and not the other is irrelevant in regards to policy. --Teancum (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If File:Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Official Logo.jpg is really public domain, we need to be using that one. It illustrates the logo of the game without raising any copyright questions. Since a free use alternative to the episodic logos (apparently) exists, we should be using that one. CaseyPenk (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tags for File:Sonic the Hedgehog 4 Official Logo.jpg to ones I found more reasonable. In any case, the current logo for episode I is incorrect - it's missing the "Episode I" subtitle. We need to change that either way. CaseyPenk (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into Episode 1 and 2?[edit]

So, considering that:

  • Most sections are already split into episode 1 and 2 headings or subsections.
  • Episode 2 comes out pretty soon, meaning soon that everyone under the sun is going to be listing off every review under the sun in the reception section, further cluttering the article.
  • The games are very much so separate, it's not like it's just an expansion pack or something, like many wondered when it was first announced.

I wondered if it was time to split the article? Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Traditionally, episodic titles like Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse or Back to the Future: The Game have not had their articles split, so I don't think there's really a need in this case either. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the precedent, then that's fine. I've never really worked on any episodic video game articles, so I wouldn't know. It's still my third point I'm hung up on though. Ep2 isn't just some expansion pack of extra levels. It's got different graphics, gameplay, features, etc. If the same exact game would have been named Sonic 5, it would have no problem having it's own article. Ep1 and Ep2 seem to be about as different as Sonic 1 and Sonic 2... Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned previously, I support splitting the article up. Serge, I find your first point the most compelling, because that indicates to me a natural division between the two episodes.
Even if there were a precedent already established, it's certainly not a Wikipedia policy. But, I disagree that any real precedent has been established in the first place. Take a look at Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony. It is clearly described as an episodic expansion pack. We can argue if "expansion pack" carries more weight than mere episodes, but I think the point's still the same: Gay Tony and Grand Theft Auto: The Lost and Damned were released exclusively as downloadable content and were not sold individually on disc. Even though they retained the essential spirit of Grand Theft Auto IV, they were clearly unique enough to warrant their own pages. In both Sonic 4 and GTA IV, you can play one episode without owning the other. They are functionally independent. In terms of semantics, note that Peter Moore called these expansions "epic episode packs." The compilation of these two episodes in the form of Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City warranted a fourth article, indicating to me that we don't need to be stingy about creating new articles.
One more thing - given the fact that these episodes are reviewed separately and sold as distinct applications on app stores, they are not necessarily the same game. CaseyPenk (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will likely split it into 2 articles when I have more time, unless someone beats me to it... Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it! CaseyPenk (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very bad course of action. Take, for example, most of the Telltale Game series, like Tales of Monkey Island. Because of the large overlap of gameplay, story, and development sections, splitting off episodes made no sense. Yes, each episode received it own set of reviews, but we handle them one by one as shown, as well as any series overall ones. This game (Ep1 and 2) follow exactly the same path, so a split just because of being episode 1 and 2 is a bad idea.
I apologize if I made this move without consensus. I see this situation very differently from most other episodic games. In the case of Monkey Island, "Grossman explained that Telltale prefers to tell stories this way, rather than as continuous narratives that are too long for people to play comfortably." The key there is that the divisions are somewhat artificial, rather than natural cleavages. In the case of Sonic 4, there was a very clear division between the two episodes. Each section was split into Ep I and Ep II. Compare with Monkey Island, where every section is continuous. If you feel strongly that the article should be merged again, please explain how we would merge the content for Episode I and II. It's simply unacceptable to divide every section of a page into two sub-sections on episodic lines. So, if you feel there is enough continuity between the episodes, please explain how you would reflect that on the article. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental differences between the episodes are listed here. To quote, emphasis mine: "After a decidedly lukewarm reception to the first instalment in its planned episodic series, Sega is already wheeling out the changes for Sonic 4: Episode 2. For starters, you've already got a sidekick. Tails will be in the game. As for bad guys, Metal Sonic will also be in the game. Sega also says that, in response to fan feedback (ie complaints), Episode 2 features not only a new graphics engine, but a new physics engine as well. It also looks like there's been some platform changes, as at the conclusion of a short teaser trailer there are platform logos for practically everything, from consoles to handhelds, with the exception of the Wii. Which got Episode 1. Then the Sega rep announces the platforms again, and mentions practically everything but the Wii. So if you got Episode 1 on Nintendo's console...sorry?" CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the DLC like Ballad of Gay Tony is that it is a completely separate story (though in this case, touching on the game's main plot), introduces new gameplay ideas, and has its own dev section. If the main GTAIV was small, there might be reason to keep the DLC in that, but clearly it is not, and the separate article makes sense. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked information[edit]

So yeah...how do we handle the leak? Videos of the cutscenes, music, and zones are all over on YouTube, and Sega's making no effort to take them down or curtail discussion since those players technically obtained the game through legitimate means. However, since the leak's been plugged and the game still isn't officially released, but all the information is still public, how do we go about treating stuff like plot and stage details? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'd treat it like anything else; it's only useable if reliable sources are reporting on it. Youtube isn't useable, it violates WP:SPS and WP:LINKVIO, so it's not useable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

So, I imagine the excessive plot section that keeps popping up is related to the leak as well, as it refers to the games conclusion, which probably wouldn't be covered in previews. I'm going to be drastically cutting it down for a number of reasons.

  1. It's unsourced.
  2. At the moment, it doesn't seem like reliable sources are covering the leaked info, and if they did, they probably aren't going into the games conclusion.
  3. As long as the game is unreleased, sources are required for the plot section.
  4. Even if it was completely sourced, it's not written in an encyclopedic way, and probably needs to be trimmed down considering this is the story for a platformer that has little to no actual plot.

Feel free to add any thoughts on this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Balough[edit]

While it IS true EP3 was said to be cancelled according to Ken Balough, KEN BALOUGH LEFT shortly after Ep 2. So I highly doubt the credibility of this.Not until Sega themselves come out and say Ep 3 was cancelled. (50.53.72.233 (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Well, his stance is more that it was initially planned as a trilogy, and he would have been there for those planning sessions. The fact that it's been 3 years and there hasn't even been an announcement for EP 3 correlates pretty well with his story. That being said, I too have been hoping that some better sources other than these Sonic fansites would pick up the story... Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still highly think that until Sega themselves say it, we keep this sort of info under specualtiono or un-confirmed info (50.53.72.233 (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed it for now, though if someone can find a reliable source, and word it more accurately ("According to past Sega Employee Ken Balaugh..."), I wouldn't oppose putting it in the development section (not the intro). Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II[edit]

Would it be a good idea to merge the two Sonic 4 articles into one article again? I personally thought they looked better as one article, and they're basically the same game (same engine, gameplay, etc. ... just Episode II improved the graphics and physics). We also usually don't have separate articles for episodes of games like Minecraft: Story Mode and Batman: The Telltale Series. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion about splitting it a few sections up. I mean, consensus can change, but i still stick by my stance from years ago. The only thing connecting these games is the name - the gameplay, graphics and most other things are different. I don't think it'd even be a point of discussion if they had named episode 2 something else, like Sonic 5 or Sonic Turbo or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Eva tweet[edit]

I recently came across this tweet from former Sega Europe community manager Kevin Eva, in which he reveals that this game was intended as an experiment to test episodic content before a single person made the decision to retitle it Sonic 4. I can verify that this is Eva's account and he was Sega's community manager ([1][2]), so I think this would be alright to cite as a primary source with attribution. Any thoughts/objections before I add it? JOEBRO64 21:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's used, (not particularly fond of this) I'd recommend keeping it brief and being especially careful to show the context that it's strictly his opinion. The guy sounds halfway between disgruntled and drunk. Factoring in that it's from an unverified Twitter account and it's overall a pretty bad sourcing situation... Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's less him sounding "disgruntled and drunk" and more him being blunt, IMO. I don't think it's a terrible sourcing situation—this guy was a Sega higher-up, he has first-hand information, and it's verifiable both that he was and that this Twitter account is in fact him—but if there are concerns I think the article can go without it. I think it'd just be interesting for context. JOEBRO64 01:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... it's not published, not written as an employee, and written on a personal, unverified twitter account in the form of a rambling rant of sorts. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_4:_Episode_I&oldid=1217632022"