Template talk:Sonic games
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sonic games template. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Archives: 1, 2 | |||
 Archives | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents |
Release Dates
I just came an idea. The template has their year dates next to them, so why not just put them in the year they were released, with the year in parenthesis. and not like where each year has a section the template, with having released and cancelled since there wasn't a year for them. And how come Heroes and Advance 2 have 2 years? GENERALZERO (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- The years can easily be seen by going to their article. I think it's pointless. I say remove. Also, I think that's because they were re-released? SLJCOAAATR 4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Advance 2 wasn't re-released, nor Heroes. But, what do you think about the order? Because the Rush and Rivals series are considered Spin-Offs, and I don't think the hand-held games have a "Main Series" or "Spin-Offs" because they're all spin-offs. I think the first five sections should be combined, and put in chronological order. Like it's been said before, the way it is now makes it more complicated. GENERALZERO (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- ACTUALLY, Heroes was re-released for the PC. :P I believe Advance 2 was in some re-release combo pak. Not too sure....
- Also, Rush, Rush Adventure, Rivals, and Rivals 2 are all main series. They're the results of '06 being erased, and are, to say, as Daniel Faraday would put it, broke the rope, got around the knot, and started a new string. In essence, they're main series, tie into Archie, which is edging into canon, and have currently unknown lasting effects on future games. Or, at least, that's what Ian Flynn says Sega told him. I have no reason to doubt such a man. SLJCOAAATR 4 6 8 15 16 23 42 108 305 316 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that the release years can be seen from the articles, but isn't it far more convenient to see them in the template as well? Most other game articles contain these release years and there is no reason at all why this one should be an exception. --Meph (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Advance 2 wasn't re-released, nor Heroes. But, what do you think about the order? Because the Rush and Rivals series are considered Spin-Offs, and I don't think the hand-held games have a "Main Series" or "Spin-Offs" because they're all spin-offs. I think the first five sections should be combined, and put in chronological order. Like it's been said before, the way it is now makes it more complicated. GENERALZERO (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit
Sonic and Sega All-Star Racing
Seriously, that shouldn't be there. If Sega Superstars Tennis can't be on here, neither should this game. 79.77.74.104 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
Regarding handhelds
I noticed a lot of people were uneasy with the main series handhelds being put into a separate group, which is indeed OR, however it makes the table more organized to put them in a separate list, so therefore I suggest we do this:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Opinions? Perhaps that should also be done for the spin-offs as well. - MK (t/c) 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose that that would be acceptable, but spin-offs I cannot abide by. A spin-off's a spin-off - one may be more little known than the other, but it's not like people will be confused to see Sonic Eraser next to Sonic Spinball. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)