Talk:Sonic Gems Collection

Rumored Xbox version

Just so everyone knows, please don't add anything related to the allegedly cancelled Xbox version of the game. This has never been officially confirmed. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Gems Collection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TarkusAB (talk · contribs) 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The compilation was conceived by developer Sonic Team to introduce younger players to the Sonic franchise. - Wasn't it to introduce younger players to OLD GAMES in the Sonic franchise, not just the franchise as a whole?
  • Good point. Done.
• I don't think any staff should be listed in the infobox since the game is a compilation. If anyone, list the director and producer, not the designer. I don't know why Hirata is even credited for designing in the game credits, there is no game to design!
  • Removed. I based this on the Rare Replay article, which lists only the designer.

Gameplay

• Players can also unlock the two Vectorman games (1995 and 1996), which are run and gun platformers. The Japanese version also features the three Genesis Streets of Rage games (1991, 1992, and 1994) and Bonanza Bros. (1990). It should be mentioned that none of these games were developed by Sonic Team
  • Done.

Development

• to introduce young players to the Sonic franchise - See above
  • Done.
• they had limited involvement with the games included on the compilation -Be a little more clear and say that had limited involvement in the original development of the games included.
  • Done.
• Most of the games included are emulated, but some titles, such as Sonic the Fighters, are proper ports. Where in the interview does it say which are proper ports? I think Fighters is the ONLY port, and you can cite the in-game Sonic the Fighters credits in Gems Collection because there is a "console conversion" staff.
  • Done. I've heard before that the version of Sonic CD in the game is a port, but I can't be too sure. As for where in the interview, I got it from Ogawa said that they weren't able to port it to the Saturn because it was difficult, but was able to on the GC/PS2.
• The Sega Saturn games Nights into Dreams (1996) and Burning Rangers (1998) were also considered - Mention these are Sonic Team games
  • Done.
• AM2 assisted with porting Sonic the Fighters, and its appearance in the compilation marked its first proper release outside Japan. - It was not the first release outside Japan, I know a couple sources say it. It was, however, the first home console release, period. That should be mentioned.
  • Done.
• due to fears of a "T" rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) - Those from Europe or other regions may not know what a "T" rating is. Maybe say "Teen" rating instead.
  • I've changed it to due to fears of a "Teen" rating from

Reception

• The GameCube version was later branded as a Player's Choice title in 2006. - Doesn't being branded a Player's Choice title mean you sold 1 million copies or something? Worth mentioning what this means.
  • It just indicates the game sold well for the system. I've added this.
• the other six were left out. - the other six Game Gear Sonic games were left out
  • I've just added "games". It's already mentioned that they're Sonic games, so the first part is unnecessary.
• get a T rating - see above
  • Done.

Other

• Verify the author of the Hardcore Gaming 101 blog entry, I think it's John Szczepaniak judging by the username SKETCZ.
  • Looks like him. Searching his name on the site shows all of "sketcz"'s posts.
• Archive links
  • Done.

Nice article. TarkusAB^talk 20:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Thanks for reviewing! Responded above. JOEBRO64 23:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks good my man. Pass. TarkusAB^talk 17:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Confirming Versions

Hello, I just wanted to clarify something that has been confusing me about the Sonic R and Sonic CD ports of the game. It says the Microsoft Windows version, but looking into a Tips & Tricks 2006 Video-Game Codebook, where there is an entire section devoted to Sonic's 15th anniversary, it shows some cheats and tips for many Sonic games, and in the sections where it shows Sonic R and Sonic CD, it seems to imply that the ports used Sonic Gems Collection used are the Sega Saturn ports. What do you think? I likely could be wrong, but I just would like this clarified.SoulSnow (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sonic R Saturn Port?.jpg

File:Sonic CD Sega CD port?.jpg

Just disregard this (particular) section.SoulSnow (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

List of games

Thanks for your input. I apologize as I am new here so I am learning what is expecting and how all this works. I saw your comments on an edit I made and wanted to discuss with you about it.

In regards to my edits on Sonic Gems Collection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Gems_Collection: I see what you are saying that the content should read like an encyclopedia, as opposed to a list but I strongly disagree since this is a LIST highlighting the component games of the compilation. Every other game compilation that I have seen on Wikipedia is displayed exactly this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mega_Collection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast_Collection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namco_Museum (each game there has its own list), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby%27s_Dream_Collection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_HD_Collection, etc. I have seen examples of pages for game compilations that include four or fewer games without lists, as the content is not difficult to parse through. A compilation that has more than four games with text as the sole means of transferring information uses an explanation that takes effort from the reader to decipher the correct info and should thus have the game contents in a listed format. I hope you consider reverting my edits back or incorporating them into something we can mutually agree upon, as I see the current page to be very ugly when minor changes could be made to drastically improve its potential usefulness.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchill53 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Ping... Popcornduff (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Those articles really... aren't in good shape—they're lacking citations and are poorly written, whereas this passed a GA review not too long ago. Lists are almost always pointless if you can easily explain it in prose. Furthermore, as Popcornduff pointed out in his edit summary, outside of list articles Wikipedia discourages the use of lists in articles. JOEBRO64 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also going to point out that other stuff existing isn't particularly a strong argument. JOEBRO64 20:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(Sorry, I hope I'm commenting correctly. My first time in a talk page. Never noticed the Talk tab at all before now haha..) I agree that just because something else does it that way, doesn't mean that this page has to. But from my expertise (expert reader of video game Wikipedia pages here, beginner editor..), game compilations have lists to convey the information effectively. That's my ultimate goal here. I read this page and had to stop everything. "Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down. What games are in this thing?" You're correct that all of the information is there, but it's not readable. If you feel strongly about not having a list, I am fine with that decision. If you don't want to do it in list format, I please ask that you rewrite the text differently as to upfront include all games that are in the compilation, then dissect into the information about them (console, year, genre, etc.). The information about each game in between each listing is distracting (helpful, but distracting) and difficult to absorb the information. I am a firm believe in top-level down, so introduce the compilation (correctly done), then introduce the games, then get into the details. Right now the details and the games are currently mixed in and fluster the reader from getting the main topic. (I am not a great writer, so I may not be providing a good example in my own writing.. I'm not judging, just commenting how it could be better.) Thanks for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchill53 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: How about something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_(series)#Main_series. I loved the list format and enjoyed the prose associated with each item. This may be something closer to what we can both hopefully agree on. Let me know what you think. Bchill53 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Any thoughts? Bchill53 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Am I just being ignored? You told me to wait for a consensus and it sounds like you're not doing anything but waiting for me to forget about it. I'm just trying to make this page better and you're filibustering any action against. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Bchill53 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Didn't get the ping until now. First, the Persona article is about a series, not a compilation. Second, there's only six games. This is has like 15. Making a list here looks ugly and we're not supposed to merely catalogue and document things arbitrarily. I'll reach out to members of WP:VG to see what they think. JOEBRO64 20:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Okay, thank you. I don't mean to be a dick, but I am passionate about helping out. I do appreciate it. Bchill53 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I initially opposed this, but now I'm in two minds about it. After doing a bit of copyediting on the section as it stands, there are some downsides of explaining it in prose. For example, it would be nice to have a parallel structure, so we can introduce each game with its genre first, like "the racing game Sonic R" and "the fighting game Virtua Fighter", but this becomes awkward once you hit "the two platform Vectorman games". This may seem like a small thing, but actually a lot of fiddly prose issues like that mount up to the point where I wonder if a list is just the cleanest way to present the information. It also allows us to definitely state stuff like the developer of each game.

It may be that a combination of a table and a prose (to explain stuff like the museum) could be the most efficient solution. I've whipped up a quick, unpolished mockup in my sandbox. I should stress that it's not finished - I started adding all the developers but got bored. You get the picture. Popcornduff (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would support a list only in a table form, a la the always fantastic work of Popcornduff above. It does not serve any purpose to simply state a bulleted list of every game on the collection; that could be best handled in prose aside from the above-mentioned awkwardness. A table that includes extra information about each release, such as its original console and developer, as well as original release date (or year, since they tend to be missing a lot on older titles), would be helpful information best added as a list table, and I would also agree with supporting it with prose. It's important to stress this should not be a list article, but an article about the game, which can include a list formatted as a table to provide useful information in a short, easy-to-read form. I've done so before with Sega Technical Institute and Sega Meganet, both of which became GAs with this incorporation. Side note to Popcornduff: a heads up on your sandbox so far, Sonic Team is NOT the developer of Sonic CD. Naoto Ohshima worked on the game in Japan with developers from Sega while most of the actual "Sonic Team" was working with Sega Technical Institute at the time.. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Red Phoenix: Thanks - but if that's true, then you've got some work to do on the Sonic CD page ... Popcornduff (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)