Talk:Sonic Lost World

Source

• http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/sonic-video-games-coming-nintendo-180538643.html Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edited info about 3rd Sonic game

Previously, it was stated that Sonic Lost World was one of the three Sonic games in partnership with Nintendo, with the other two being Mario & Sonic, and Super Smash Bros.

This info is false, as there is proof right on Sonic's Facebook page that says Sonic's appearance does not represent the third and final game.

Source:

Sonic The Hedgehog Facebook Super Smash Bros. post

(Check the reply to the post asking about the third game.

Rock200X (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, even the wording of the deal should be enough evidence to prove this false; in no way would Smash Bros be considered a Sonic game. SB isn't exclusive because Sega gave them the rights to it; its exclusive because its a Nintendo property. There's no way the game on a whole would be perceived as something Sega gave exclusivity to. The game is not there to "give". Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception

So, now that reviews are coming in, how do you think the reception intro should be worded? It keeps getting changed, so I'm not sure if it should be "mixed to positive" or just "mixed" because although it got some high reviews (most notably Famitsu) a lot of the scores have unfortunately been in the 4s and 5s, so just "mixed" might be the best wording. DarkToonLink 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say "mixed" is probably most accurate. I think those phrases like "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative" are seen as kind of redundant by some people anyways; "mixed" is typically believed to cover the whole spectrum of either of those... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the wording in the article. Some people/IPs may change it again though, so they'll need to be directed here, as I noted in my edit summary. I didn't leave one of those hidden notes though, since I don't know how this will continue to develop. DarkToonLink 15:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, with the game just coming out, it'll probably be a little unstable for a little bit. Sometimes it easier to just keep the "absolute garbage" and vandalism out for now, and concentrate on creating a great reception section once all this blows over. That's probably more what I'll do, though you can do it however you want. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, since it will probably be quite unstable now and particularly around its launch in the US soon, so it's best to build up a full evaluation and summary after all the reviews are out and the dust has settled. DarkToonLink 15:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly negative with a few positive... So it's definitely a mixed bag, but I think it's leaning towards the negative side sadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.169.51 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of 4s and 5s, which are on the low end of mixed. However, it's not like it was getting 1/10 everywhere, but far from 9/10 everywhere either. I just think mixed is the best balance, since some reviewers liked it a lot more than others, with scores like 7/10 and 9/10 occasionally. 'Mixed' covers this whole spectrum at this point, I believe. DarkToonLink 04:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

Now that the game is out, I feel like the plot section should be expanded to cover the full game's story, much like the other Sonic game articles. I've written up a story draft below; the plot's a little more involved in this one than Colors or Generations, but I tried to keep it concise and only cover the important parts.

While in pursuit of Doctor Eggman and his henchmen, who have kidnapped and imprisoned several of his animal friends, Sonic the Hedgehog and his companion Tails crash land on the Lost Hex, a small floating world hidden away in the clouds. There, they encounter the Deadly Six, a group of the world's indigenous Zeti race who are now under Eggman's command. However, when Sonic rushes in and kicks away a conch Eggman was using to keep the Six under control, they rebel and take over Eggman's badnik army, forcing Sonic and Eggman to retreat. Eggman explains to Sonic and Tails that he built a machine on Lost Hex that extracts life energy from their world and uses it to power up the user, but it is unstable in its current state and, at full power, cannot be shut off and will drain the planet entirely. The Deadly Six, however, activate the machine and begin draining the energy from the world below, intending to destroy Sonic and Eggman's world in order to massively increase their own strength. In order to prevent the destruction of their world, Sonic and Tails are are reluctantly forced to ally with Eggman so they can reach the machine and shut it down.

Sonic ventures across the Lost Hex and defeats several members of the Deadly Six, including the hyperactive Zazz, gluttonous Zomom, elderly Master Zik, and self-absorbed Zeena. However, when he sees Sonic about to step into a trap, Tails pushes Sonic out of the way and gets captured instead. After defeating the depressed Zor and leader Zavok, Sonic discovers that the extraction process has been completed and the planet below has been drained. Rushing to the volcano where the machine is located, the group is attacked by the newly powered-up Deadly Six, and Eggman appears to sacrifice himself to save Sonic. The Six reveal that Tails has now been partially converted into a robot programmed to obey them, but Tails turns on them, revealing he altered the program so that he would maintain his free will. Sonic defeats the Six once more, but reaching the machine, he discovers Eggman faked his demise and built a new mech, imbuing it with the planet's life energy in a bid to conquer it. Sonic destroys the mech and Eggman attempts to escape, but ends up falling to the surface below due to a final act of sabotage by Sonic. Tails shuts down the machine and releases the life energy back into the planet, restoring it to normal, and the two return to the surface. A post-credits scene shows Orbot and Cubot retrieving Eggman, who was badly hurt in the fall and is now missing half his mustache.

How's this look? Any additions/subtractions that need to be made? -- 98.250.7.156 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

100 rings=1UP patch; general comments

The article currently mentions the latest Wii U patch, but only that it adds button controls for some of the Wisps. Is the fact that it restores the traditional extra life reward for getting 100 rings also salient enough to note? If so--and I think it is, because several reviews criticized the omission--where should that go in the article? Other Sonic-related articles include such information in the "Gameplay" section, but the material could be added to "Reception," as Sega was clearly responding to hostile press. Another consideration: Mentioning only the Wii U patch may lead some readers to wonder about the 3DS version, which never had the feature removed in the first place. Beyond that, I'd like to point out that "Reception" might benefit from some reorganization; it could be worth noting that many critics, even those who gave similar scores, liked and disliked completely different things about the game. For example, GameSpot felt the 2D stages were the highlight, while Polygon basically said they ruined the game. VideoGamer hailed the level where you control a giant snowball as a solitary stroke of brilliance, but Game Informer singled it out as one of the lowpoints of the game.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the soundtrack is only mentioned once in reception; but it was widely praised, not just praised by a single review.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think its worth mentioning the patch/life stuff. I probably would have added it to the development section honestly, but I'm ultimately, I'm okay with wherever consensus dictates. As far as rearranging the Reception section goes, I say go for it. As you may see in the discussions below, some of he users like myself and DTL who maintain the article where waiting until all of the traffic from its initial release to die down befor working in it. We haven't done that yet... So it's not like any of us are committed to how it is now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

All right, I did my best.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Since I mostly edit historical articles and have relatively little experience editing articles on video games, I would appreciate any input regarding my reorganization of "reception". I believe my approach was encyclopedic and neutral, and that there is no need to mention the scores in both the table and the text, but after unilaterally changing several thousand bytes worth of content you tend to wonder if what you've written is clear to anyone besides yourself. Of course, if there are no objections, that may well be a good thing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a little different, but I think it looks really well done. You're right, you don't need to have the review score in the prose if its already present in the review chart. (That's something it seems only more advanced editors know though, so that's why you may see that redundancy so frequently.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about organizing the Reception section by aspect and with little attention to scores, this is how I've always done it, and I've gotten two FAs and a number of GAs with the formula. Tezero (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ScrewAttack

Creating a balanced "reception" section isn't an exact science, and ScrewAttack is a situational source that can be reliable for opinions if not for facts, but I'm not sure that they nominated Lost World for worst Wii U game of 2013 is particularly notable or helpful to know. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not only that, but when you're dealing with something as mainstream as Sonic or Mario, which gets so much coverage, I try to stay away from these marginally acceptable sources, just because there's plenty of better info out here from solidly reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 11:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pure GA material. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but as a major contributor and almost the sole author of the "Reception" section, I would like to state my disagreement with Tezero's large trim of the material. Comparing both versions, I feel that Tezero's revision is less informative than the original. Here is an example:

• Original: "Turi "never got a good feel for the rhythm of wall running and jumping, and felt lucky to pass sections where it was forced." Hargreaves, Walton, and Official Nintendo Magazine '​s Matthew Castle agreed. Ingenito pointed out that Sonic "has a tendency to wall run on any vertical surface he's airborne near, whether I want him to or not". However, IGN's Jose Otero said the parkour "felt great" and "turned most obstructions into minor hurdles" in the 3DS version, while Nintendo Insider's Alex Seedhouse called the parkour "far more responsive" on 3DS."
• Trimmed: "Turi "never got a good feel for the rhythm of wall running and jumping, and felt lucky to pass sections where it was forced." Ingenito pointed out that Sonic "has a tendency to wall run on any vertical surface he's airborne near, whether I want him to or not". However, IGN's Jose Otero said the parkour "felt great" and "turned most obstructions into minor hurdles" in the 3DS version, while Nintendo Insider's Alex Seedhouse called the parkour "far more responsive" on 3DS."

It's a subtle difference, but the "agrees" Tezero calls "pointless" better convey the widespread nature of the criticism. Simply deleting the material, with no corresponding additions or reorganization, actually changes the tone by providing equal space to positive and negative feedback. In addition, we no longer have any idea who "Castle" is or what publication he is writing for in the current revision.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, TheTimesAreAChanging; I've re-added the Castle stuff. I do, however, stand by my stance that the original version was too long, and the current one may still be. If you'd like to help by trimming quotes and paraphrasing, be my guest, but I feel that, given the fact that the review scores exist and quotes weren't being used for those "agrees" voices, the shorter length is worth it. Tezero (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy if something was agreed on the reception section! To clear up my confusing comment earlier ("this is pure GA material"), I tend to focus on more or less the beauty of the prose and I didn't read through the whole article then. Anyway I have to go to college for an hour now, so I'll complete the actual review today. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "in Europe and Australia" - just curious, why isn't 'Australasia' used?

• Well, I haven't seen release information for anywhere in Asia outside Japan, and Japan had a different release date from Australia. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "It is part of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, the first title in the series on an eighth-generation home console" - think you're missing a vital conjunction here It is part of the Sonic the Hedgehog series and is the first title in the series on an eighth-generation home console.

• Technically the first version is also correct as the second clause modifies the first (as a simpler example, consider the sentence "That kid's a great ball player, a real hotshot"), but I suppose it's clearer the second way. Done. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The lead section is missing large parts of the development and how it was received by critics. The plot takes up most of the second paragraph whereas only the development and reception makes up of three sentences combined. The lead could be better summarised/re-structured if this were to meet the GA criteria, otherwise the prose is great.

• Yeah, there was more there originally, but a couple users pruned development information because they didn't agree with it, regardless of what the sources said. I've added some back, but in what should be a less controversial style. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "as he travels across the Lost Hex" - is this the setting of the game? The Lost Hex was not mentioned in the lead

• Done. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "This also translates to the 3DS version, the first handheld game in the series to feature 3D gameplay" - doesn't make sense, wasn't Sonic Rush + Adventure for the DS also in 3D?

• Yeah, didn't catch that. I think Generations for 3DS also had some 3D parts. Reworded - Lost World was the first fully 3D Sonic game for the DS. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Also returning from Colors are the Wisp abilities" - aren't the Wisps characters?

• "Wisp" is being used as a genitive noun here (think "dog house" or "Sonic characters"), but you're right, it's a little confusing, so reworded. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Development

Prose is good in this section and is well referenced. However, wouldn't it be worth mentioning downloadable content and patches in the lead?

Done. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reception

• The closure of OMN is the only concern in this section. I'm not sure if the references should be replaced with anything else though? I'll try and find a physical copy of the October 2013 issue if that makes it better?

• Yeah, see if you can. For now, I'll try archiving. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the disagreement with the reception section, it does appear longer the usual but this wouldn't affect the GAN (it's not as if it takes up half of the article!)

• Yeah, I think there's a recent trend of longer reception sections being the norm for VG articles. I'm ultimately fine with whatever TheTimesAreAChanging wants to do, as long as he doesn't knock it up too much. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I raised the issue here because I hoped Jaguar might offer a second opinion. I would prefer to simply revert your trim, but hardly consider the matter important enough to risk starting an edit war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it's of appropriate length, albeit somewhat long but it shouldn't affect the GAN. Trimming or expanding is fine, just as so long as it doesn't interfere with the content. The only way the reception section would interfere with the GAN would be if it were disproportionally long - for example I brought a town to GA in June and the 'transport' section almost took up half of the article! The reception section here doesn't include jargon or trivia, so content isn't a problem. I hope that clears things up? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

• Ref 32 is dead - is redirects to the main Nintendo page

• I... don't see any ref like that. Tezero (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• As with ref 70, 65 and 66 - they previously belonged to OMN (RIP) which explains why they do not exist any more. These references are used frequently in the article, so these should be replaced if possible otherwise it would leave a blackout in some parts of the article. A pain I know...

• Fixed the ONM links. I decided to double-bag it and archive the Wayback Machine links using WebCite just in case the ONM website goes the way of 1UP. Tezero (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

On hold

The prose in this article is good and is definitely GA standard alone. The biggest concern are the dead OMN links due to the both the magazine's and site's closure (irrelevant, but I am genuinely sad about hearing this, I have all issues between 2006-2011 and collected them when I was a kid :-(). The dead links need to be filled as it did take up a lot of citations. There are also a few prose issues which need to be clarified, otherwise most parts of the article are looking good. I'll put this on hold for seven days, once they have been addressed it should have no problem passing the GAN. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

After seeing vast improvements made to the article, the conclusion has come to meet the GA criteria. As I mentioned regarding the reception section, it shouldn't really interfere with the GAN as it isn't either too long or too disproportionate. The prose in this article is excellent (as per most Sonic articles) and is looking like thin FA material already. Anyway well done on all the work guys! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SLW

There's discussion about the former (invalid) incoming redirect SLW that formerly needed a hatnote (but not now that it has been dabified) at Talk:SLW. Widefox; talk 10:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)