# Talk:Sonic Frontiers

Microsoft Windows is the correct version of mentions on Wikipedia. It's mentioned in an overwhelming majority of video game pages including featured articles. We don't say "Series X/S" when referring to that, or "Switch", we use "Xbox Series X/S" and "Nintendo Switch" respectively. Keeping a consistent format avoids these constant edits + sounds natural to anyone who has been on Wikipedia and been on a few video game pages. ElijahPepe (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand what this is referring to…--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Windows is the WP:COMMONNAME, "other video game articles" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the link is WP:NOTBROKEN. JOEBRO64 14:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"Windows" is the common name; sources (including storefronts) overwhelmingly refer to "Windows", not "Microsoft Windows". In my view, there's a good argument for renaming the Microsoft Windows article to Windows on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, but the counter-argument is that "Microsoft Windows" works as a natural disambiguator from window. Whatever merit that argument may have for the Wikipedia article title, it certainly doesn't apply to sentences such as Sonic Frontiers is scheduled for release on the Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S - no one is going to think the game is going to be hurled out of a building. Popcornfud (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Don't tempt me. Panini! • 🥪 16:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Both Microsoft Windows and Windows wiki link to the same page, so there's little room for confusion here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
The argument is not about confusion. Anyone on the Sonic Frontiers page will be well-aware of the fact there's an operating system called Windows. The problem is that a certain style is trying to be enforced when a vast majority of pages do not adhere to such style and such style sounds unnatural to those familiar with the other pages. That familiarity is why we've had two editors try to change the page and both edits were undone without any way to change it back without unfolding an edit war. elijahpepe@wikipedia 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
If "Windows" is the common name per sources and is sufficiently clear, then that's what we should write on all Wikipedia pages. We can't simply stick to an inferior approach because that's what some editors are used to. Popcornfud (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. If confusion isn't the issue here, then it's a non-issue altogether. As someone who maintains a lot of Sonic articles, there's always a lot of editors who are "Sonic fans" who make a lot of misguided edits. It comes with the territory. It's no reason to change what we do. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Using Microsoft Windows over Windows isn't inferior in any way. Adding that extra word doesn't destroy the article. elijahpepe@wikipedia 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
If "Windows" is the common name per sources and is sufficiently clear, and it's more concise, I'm struggling to see what advantage "Microsoft Windows" offers. Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME only covers Windows XP over Windows NT 5.1, because Windows XP is obviously more recognizable. The point of that meta-article was to point out that using elongated words for simple acronyms or phrases that are often times more recognizable shortened should be avoided, which doesn't apply as both make sense to the average person. Neither offer an advantage since they both mean the same thing, but already two editors have tried to make it Microsoft Windows. I might also add here that Microsoft Windows is the article name of Windows, not the other way around. elijahpepe@wikipedia 17:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, this is a non-issue. Please drop this. It appears you've had significant issues with constructively working with others on Wikipedia. You're not off to a great re-start here. This is a waste of time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic Adventure 3 and has thus listed it at redirects for discussion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Sonic Adventure 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "series composer Jun Senoue is contributing to the score.[13]" is not entirely true. It's confirmed that Tomoya Ohtani, the series veteran composer is set to be the game's lead composer.
Source: Tomoya Ohtani on Twitter claimed the article is "not true in some respects" https://twitter.com/Ohtanitter/status/1477619593644769281 The article link & info should be removed.

I think that's a bit vague to take action on. Do you have any better sources? Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SONIC FRONTIERS LOGO 2022.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You can tell somebody like 10yrs old got on here and edited this stuff. Opining isnt even a word 2001:48F8:4059:55F:FCF3:9D92:E938:C100 (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

o·pine
/ōˈpīn/
verb
FORMAL
gerund or present participle: opining
hold and state as one's opinion.  "“The man is a genius,” he opined" CreecregofLife (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You're already on the internet. Why not do a search first before starting a discussion like this? It's pretty easy to find out on your own that it's a real word. Sergecross73 msg me 11:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely not one of the great words, though... you know, compared to good old plain-English verbs like said, wrote and felt... Popcornfud (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
What’s your point? You dislike word usage because it’s not common enough for you? CreecregofLife (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying it's purple prose - better to use simple, common plain-English words that don't distract the reader (see WP:MODLANG). You might find Stephen King's argument on this subject of interest. Popcornfud (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Untitled Sonic the Hedgehog video game until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Neocorelight (Talk) 02:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Southwestmetal has continued to attempt to replace the existing gameplay screenshot without explanation, despite repeated reversion. I believe that there is no reason to change the existing image. The open world gameplay is both the primary focus of the game and a new element to the Sonic franchise; similarly, the use of more elaborate combat sequences is something that has not been in past games. Having a gameplay screenshot that illustrates both of these new elements is far more helpful to readers than a screenshot of Sonic running through Cyberspace, which is both not the primary gameplay component and does not distinguish easily from the gameplay of the last 15 years' worth of 3D Sonic games. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I am going to assume based on the fact that Southwestmetal continues to add the Cyberspace image and has outright refused discussion that their edits can no longer be taken in good faith. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You've assumed wrong. MetalSlave (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You still haven't given any reason for the image to be changed, despite three people disagreeing and believing it should be left as is, and you've refused to participate in any discussion up until this point, even after being warned. Given the circumstances, it's hard not to see it as willful disruptive editing. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, great, but you need to actually advance an argument if you wish to get a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware this has been controversial in the past (for some reason), but when using terms such as a genre or the type media a project is, we should be putting the year as part of prose instead of in parenthesis behind it. It should mirror the same format that short descriptions use. 
Basically, something like "The Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) feature film" seems forced, while 
"Development began after the release of Sonic Forces (2017)" is fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that "The Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) feature film" is forced, but what's wrong with "The Sonic the Hedgehog feature film (2020)"? Popcornfud (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Policy wise, probably nothing. I suppose the question really depends on if we are actually suppose to read it (do screenreaders ignore it?) or are we meant to just process it internally. I've personally always read them, making such formats awkward in some cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone gotten their hands on the new issue of Game Informer? I've seen multiple websites reporting on the Frontiers issue mentioning a fishing minigame with Big on Cyberspace, but since I'm not a subscriber and can't read it myself, I don't want to cite the issue unless it's for sure real. Could anyone with access to the issue please confirm? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's confirmed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the latest Nintendo Direct Mini that came out on June 28, they revealed that Sonic Frontiers comes out Holiday 2022. So that’s why you need edit that release date section. Here’s the link if you want to make a reference: https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/07/01/nintendo-direct-mini-monster-hunter-rise-sunbreak-sonic-frontiers-all-things-nintendo?amp70.41.154.159 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's already in the article (though we use late/Q4 2022 because that's more universally understood.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Tomoya Ohtani has posted frequently on his twitter page that he is conposing for Frontiers and also confirmed in a livestream that he is the sound director. He has been the sound director for every mainline release since Sonic '06 and there has been nothing to suggest that Jun Senoue has taken over. For some reason though, his name is not listed as Composer and Jun Senoue this has instead been miscredited to Senoue. 
This should either be ammended to include Ohtani or the composer section should remain blank until we get more official confirmation of Jun Senoue's involvement and what role he actually is playing in the composition. Senoue is most likely not actually doing any composition work but just providing guitar work similar to what he did for Sonic Forces.
https://www.gonintendo.com/contents/5467-sonic-frontiers-sound-director-talks-about-his-new-fresh-approach-to-the-game Skimbybimby (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We need to go by what reliables sources say. See WP:VG/S for examples of usable and unusable sources. GoNintendo is no good. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Per VG/S, the Game Rant source I just added should be acceptable. However, I see no reason why an official Sega livestream confirming Ohtani's involvement would not be sufficient in this context. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I have no problem with using official Sega livestreams. My objection has been to this users continued used of personal, non-Sega social media accounts and the unreliable GoNintendo website, which are the only things I recall being proposed prior. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Finally a source for this, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Change "give Sonic coemetics themed after Korone" to "give Sonic cosmetics themed after Korone" in the second paragraph of the 'Release' section. RayMairlot (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

KaioGabriel20 (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)'Sonic Frontiers received mixed  to postive reviews; critics praised the open world and story, but found the gameplay repetitive. I saw that Fronteirs was good.

 Not done: Your opinion is completely irrelevant per WP:NPOV and WP:OR.  ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:VG/MIXED. Your suggestion goes against current guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not to include mention of the user reception on Steam. Obviously citing Steam directly would be inappropriate, which is why I tried to find a suitable secondary source for it instead. However I can certainly get behind the opinion that maybe it is a little bit jumping the gun, and we should wait to see if the gulf in critical and player reception receives any more significant coverage (I can imagine it will, given time). Nonetheless, I'm perfectly fine with whichever position is the most accepted by everyone else. silvia  (inquire within) 15:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you are correct, you are outlining the scenario where it is appropriate to mention user content. As long as you don't stray beyond what the reliable source says, it's fair game. In my opinion, it's worth a mention. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to recent spikes in comments from Metacritic, a lot of which containing popularity bias due to an internet influencers comments on the game, I highly suggest that caution is used when using metacritic as a source for this article. Please scan the source for bias before using. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 03:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:USERG. We don't use Metacritic user reviews at all. JOEBRO64 03:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Either way, Caution should be used. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 04:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No, it doesn't need to be. We won't be using the Metacritic user reviews. At all. There's nothing to be cautious about if we're not even using them in the first place. JOEBRO64 04:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I did add a reliable secondary source mentioning dunkey's influence on the reviews, but it got removed on account of it being the only coverage. Given that there is now more coverage of it, and the first source was even updated as the situation escalated, there is a case to be made for adding the information back using those two sources. However it may be better to just wait and see if this develops further to the point of receiving more coverage. A mention could also be added to the Review bomb article, rather than this article, as it may be a notable case of review bombing but not something that is worth including on this page.
In any case, yes, I concur that we obviously cannot include Metacritic user reviews as sources. We can only mention those reviews if we cite significant coverage of them from reliable sources that is deemed in-scope for this article. silvia  (inquire within) 04:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

My question here is simply, Should dunkey be mentioned in this article? Right now theres a source from Kotaku, however im concerned about the additions of Dunkey to the article, At least for now, Im wondering if dunkey should be mentioned, or if we should wait for the steam to calm down, or not include him at all. Im unsure about what should be done in this situation. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I support TheJoebro64's removal of it. I think it veers too far into "internet drama" rather than something noteworthy about the game itself. Especially in such a mainstream game with no shortage of coverage or things to discuss. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Although I was the first person to add it and I'm not particularly invested in it being mentioned here or not, I can get behind it being removed. I've put a mention of it at Review bomb#2022, where I feel it is better situated, especially since, as Serge points out, it isn't really directly related to the game and doesn't add much meaningful to the reception section. But it is, at least, a basically notable example of review bombing. silvia  (inquire within) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I also support the removal of it. This won't be remembered in a month, let alone in a year. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.eurogamer.net/sonic-frontiers-cut-dialogue-suggests-he-may-love-amy-after-all - Not exactly where/how to include, but some interesting cut content here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I would say this is better to consider including somewhere in the Sonic the Hedgehog (character) page. silvia  (inquire within) 02:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually then again, maybe not. It is cut content from a single game, so it's not necessarily indicative of anything intended as canonical about the character (they might have cut it because they decided it goes against his character). But I don't know. silvia  (inquire within) 02:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Haha, you pretty much wrote my counterpoint before I could. Anyways, theres no rush to get it in the article. It can be saved for after all the release buzz dies out, when editors start working on expanding it and inevitably start working on a WP:GA push. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

While we have a short paragraph mentioning the player reception (which eclipses that of the critics'), I'm torn on whether it is necessary to include it in the lead as well. As I see it, this should depend on whether it is considered noteworthy enough and supported with enough reliable sources talking about it. Usually, any fan responses that are reported on and subsequently included in the lead of WP articles concern negative responses or a backlash (notable examples being The Last of Us Part II, Warcraft III: Reforged, and Mass Effect 3), which typically results in more coverage that we're not seeing with Sonic Frontiers; it's rare that there are examples of the reverse happening to a significant degree. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As we currently have a decent paragraph worth of sourced info in the Reception section, assuming that all meets WP:DUE requirements, I see no reason to omit from the lead. The lead is a summary, after all.
The thing to focus on next would be to build up the coverage of the reception from professional critics, then reconsider the lead and see if it still reflects the balance of the article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm planning to do a ton of work on the article once I finish the game and another project, so I'll handle this when I get the chance. JOEBRO64 14:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi,
Due to the recent reviews sorrounding the game, should we change it to polarising or put it as one of the most polarising games despite only releasing a few days? Because there's a lot of chaos between critics, fans, youtubers and the general public. 120.20.136.223 (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think so. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is best to wait and see. silvia  (inquire within) 05:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
If you think this is chaos, you obviously didn't see the fallout to The Last of Us Part II. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, and also there are many reviewers praising the presentation, specifically the visuals, music and voice acting, in the latter there are many liking Sonia's more mature voice despite being odd at first. I can't add it as it's semi protected but can we add it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.205.9 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC) 

Also, please note that the current descriptor for reviews is "mixed', and mixed doesn't necessarily mean "medium". It also means "scattered across the board". It already kind of alludes to what you're referring to here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
We can only add what is in reviews that have been sourced in the article (WP:VERIFY), and even then it should be mentioned in the prose. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are user reviews currently being cited for the reception section when (as far as I'm aware of) this is borderline never done for any other media article on Wikipedia? 102.182.230.106 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User reviews are allowed to be mentioned when reliable sources report on it. So, while just mentioning fan sentiment isn't okay, it is acceptable if it's actually cited back to IGN or Eurogamer staff written articles that happen to point it out. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe that user reviews are necessary, but considering all metrics cited in this very page, it can't be denied that the reception is "generally positive." Many other articles with metrics like these are described as such, so Sonic Frontiers should be given the same treatment. I also don't know why the article makes it a point to single out fans for liking it when its reception is positive from critics and audiences alike. Whoever wrote that must personally dislike the game and was trying to suggest that fans are biased in favour of it, but from how long this article has read "mixed reviews" when that clearly isn't true, there appears to be a bias for the opposite. It should absolute be changed to "generally positive." JohnStartop (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The "mixed reception" comes straight from Metacritic. 3 out of 5 of the MC entries say mixed. On Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say. What sources support your counterpoint of it being mostly "positive"? Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit the “Sonic Frontiers” page RoyBradSnell (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Just asking us to edit the page isn't helpful. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done - The edit request system is for requesting others make edits on your behalf, not to ask for access yourself personally. The article is currently locked from editing with newer accounts because there have been a lot of bad edits being made lately. Sergecross73 msg me 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, the Egg memo i'm talking about is number 11, it explains the Ancients are relatives to chaos, and that their DNA corroded and they became a new species, also their technology exists on Angel island as seen in Divergence. While it is not directly confirmed that they are Chao, it is heavily implied since they are the only inhabitants of Angel island alongside Knuckles, and chaos was the first guardian of the Master Emerald and became angry when the Echidnas invaded and particularly harmed the Chao. So, all of this worth mentioning doesn't it? Haji kiluu (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't played the game yet, so I don't know the full context, but generally speaking:
Wikipedia generally just notes major plot point, not every minor detail.
When using the game itself as a source, we can only say what was explicitly said there. So noting what is "heavily implied" but not outright stated, would violate WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY.
So I'm leaning towards no unless I'm mistaken on the context. Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
That's WP:SYNTH, so no, it isn't appropriate to say that. We can maybe mention that the Ancients are related to Chaos, since that IS textually and explicitly confirmed, but unless Sega or someone working for them confirms that your theory is true, there's no chance it can be included (and even then I can imagine a lot of folks would oppose it on WP:DUE and WP:CRUFT grounds).
One thing you could *try* doing is sending a question to Ian Flynn's Q&A podcast asking him if this theory is true, but even if he answered in the affirmative you'd have a self-published primary source from a single writer who only works for SEGA and hardly has unilateral say in the direction of the Sonic franchise, so it would still not be appropriate to cite that as a justification for its inclusion. But, him saying this would open the possibility for it to be mentioned in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia, at which point we could perhaps have a basis to say in the article that Flynn said this. Even then, I can imagine there'd be challenges to it and questions of if it's editorially warranted.
Anyway, that's all theory. I think as things stand, you can maybe add a brief mention of the Ancients being relatives of Chaos, and that's it. But you might want to hear other folks' opinions here first, if there are any. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
For anyone who's not played the game, here's the context: [1] All Eggman says in this is that "They're relatives of Chaos, the God of Destruction!" from Sonic Adventure, and that their DNA "corroded," and they became a "new species" (which could very well be an allusion to the Chao, but is never explicitly confirmed). silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Frontiers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DecafPotato (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This is my first review, so I encourage others to correct me, but my review should be here somewhat soon. DecafPotato (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


### Gameplay
The player can double jump, sidestep using their gamepad's shoulder buttons, drop dash, and boost with the right trigger if they have enough energy – You could probably remove the details on how these actions are performed and stick to that they can be performed—WP:GAMECRUFT #3 kind of covers this.
Sonic also has the ability to boost even faster upon collecting the maximum amount of rings, gaining a blue aura reminiscent of his counterpart from the Sonic the Hedgehog film series. – This is sourced to the game's Wiki Guide on IGN, which is unreliable per WP:UGC.
On the same note, the sentences immediately preceding and succeeding that one are sourced to Game Rant and TheGamer, respectively. While the removal of situational sources is not required for a GA, it would be appreciated if they could be substituted with a generally reliable source.
The world retains traditional Sonic elements, such as springs, boost pads, and grind rails, akin to past hub worlds in the series like Sonic Adventure and Sonic Unleashed but on a greater scale. – Is the comparison to Adventure and Unleashed needed here? As someone who hasn't played either game, it doesn't assist in my understanding of Frontiers' gameplay.
... and Memory Tokens, which are used to trigger cutscenes conversations with Sonic's friends — that either progress the plot (occasionally via minigames) or expand on their characters and relationships with Sonic in side stories. – This sentence doesn't really make sense until details on the plot are given—perhaps this information can be incorporated in that section.
The main quest takes 20–30 hours to finish, while finding all collectibles, exploring all parts of the islands, and completing all side stories takes as much as 60 hours – I don't think this information needs to be included.
"Cyber Space" — short, linear levels similar to those from previous Sonic games. (in § Gameplay) and Cyber Space, a digital realm connected to the islands (in § Characters) — These explain the same thing with a different definition. Having played the game, I know that one is explaining it from a gameplay perspective and another from a story perspective, but perhaps that could be made more clear, and the explanations themselves could be combined.
A fishing minigame is also included ... – The word "minigame" is included above in "occasionally via minigames", it should instead be linked on its first occurrence there.
Collecting all seven Chaos Emeralds allows the player to transform into Super Sonic, who is required to defeat the game's major bosses, the Titans. – Similar to the explanation of the Memory Tokens, this makes no sense until the plot section is read, which is lower in the article.
Although the game's difficulty can be changed at any time, the final boss, which is fought as Super Sonic and Sage (possessing the Supreme Titan) in a top-down shoot 'em up gameplay style similar to Ikaruga, requires the player to be playing on Hard to fight it and all of its phases – Is the fact that the player must be on hard difficulty to unlock the boss needed to explain the article? It may be WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Additionally, who is Sage? She's once again explained in the lower Characters section.
That's it for Gameplay, I'll continue with the rest of the sections shortly. DecafPotato (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Done!
In regards to the source for the "infinite boost" mechanic, I've added a YouTube video by Sonic Team (released under their official channel) which seems reliable enough.
In regards to Cyber Space and it's descriptions, I've included it within the lead itself, as it is also a prominent game feature, and allows the reader to understand the concept later on when mentioned.
The Chaos Emerald article is linked in the lead to explain what they are, along with Super Sonic's article being linked in the highlighted sentence. I believe the section is explained well enough, and the citation is added for extra comprehension if necessary.
 DS_X1 (talk)   01:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Per MOS:REPEATLINK, the term "Chaos Emeralds" should be linked on its first occurrence both inside and outside the lead. Otherwise, looks good! DecafPotato (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Got it! Done. 👍  DS_X1 (talk)   12:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


### Synopsis
Players control Sonic in exploring the Starfall Islands archipelago to collect the Chaos Emeralds and investigate the islands' relationship to them. – Most of this is duplicate information from the opening sentence of § Gameplay—all of this information could be incorporated there instead.
One of Sonic's objectives is to rescue three of his friends — Miles "Tails" Prower and Amy Rose, who initially accompany Sonic in his investigation; and Knuckles the Echidna, who was transported there earlier from the ruins above Angel Island — from Cyber Space, a digital realm connected to the islands. Sonic's friends project themselves as holograms in the real world while trapped, allowing them to interact with and advise Sonic. – This feels like information that should be given in § Plot or § Gameplay (along with the Memory Tokens), as it is heavily tied to that.
Big the Cat makes an appearance as a host for a fishing minigame. – Put this in § Gameplay where the fishing minigame is introduced.
For the Characters section overall, I feel like pretty much all of this information could be included in just the Gameplay or Plot sections.
Said Plot section seems to have its own problems with being a bit too long—is four paragraphs necessary for a Sonic game?
Additionally, paragraphs one and two could be combined here—they're both about how the characters ended up in Cyber Space.
Upon reaching and interacting with a portal to Cyber Space, several robotic defense units are summoned. Sage, detecting a threat signature from the defense units, ceases hijacking the portal and initiates a protection protocol, dragging Eggman into Cyber Space. – I feel as though this could be shortened a bit. Maybe "Upon reaching and interacting with a portal to Cyber Space, Sage detects a threat signature from summoned defense units, initiating a protection protocall and dragging Eggman into Cyber Space" could work? I didn't put a lot of thought into that, though. I'm sure you can think of something better.
A disembodied voice comments on Sonic's "impossible" escape, and tasks him with finding the Chaos Emeralds and destroying the island's robotic "Titans" to remove the boundary between the real and digital worlds. – Why are "Titans" in quotations here? They're already explained in § Gameplay.
... which resumes its attack on Earth using the last Titan, Supreme, prompting Sonic's friends to purge the corruption from him by sacrificing their physical forms. – The "him" in "purge the corruption from him" sounds like it may be referring to Supreme. Sonic isn't really the subject of the phrase "Sonic's friends"—his friends are, making Supreme the most recent subject of a sentence.
Sonic's friends are restored and leave the islands with him, now wishing to make a difference in their lives after their experiences. – Is the fact that they wish to make a difference in their lives worth including here?
TL;DR: Cut § Characters, shorten § Plot. Otherwise, looks good, and more sections will be reviewed soon. :) DecafPotato (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Done! :) Yeah, the Character section really wasn't needed, especially as it isn't included in WP:VGLAYOUT. Shortened § Plot as well 👍  DS_X1 (talk)   13:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I still think § Plot could be a bit shorter, but otherwise the changes look good. DecafPotato (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


### Development
I feel like this section says "Sonic Team" too much – simply "the team", "the developers" or just "they" work fine.
Iizuka felt the series needed to take an innovative direction that would inform future games, similar to how Sonic the Hedgehog (1991) and Sonic Adventure (1998) set templates used by later games – Should this not be included earlier when it states that Sonic Team aimed to find a consistent format for the next decade of Sonic?
As such, he declined to call it an open-world game, preferring the term "open zone". – Verifiability, not truth, sure, and I also just may be wrong, but isn't it "open-zone" because it's split into five zones rather than one cohesive world?
Additionally, while the provided reference does verify that the team prefers the term "open zone" over "open world" it does not verify that that decision was made because "Iizuka felt Sonic's essence as a 3D action game separated Frontiers from adventure and role-playing games such as the Legend of Zelda series.
Sonic Team sought to address criticism that previous Sonic games were too short – This information is already included in § Conception.
For the GameSpot interview reference, the video isn't loading for me, so I guess I just assume everything is verified correctly? Archive URLs would definitely help here—remember to include them whenever you can! You'll need them for a Featured Article, anyways.
With the Cyber Space levels, Kishimoto wanted Sonic to "once again... stand amongst the other 'stage-clear' action games" that he enjoyed – What's a 'stage-clear' action game? It can be explained in a footnote if you want, but it has to be explained regardless.
Ian Flynn, who wrote Sonic the Hedgehog comics published by Archie Comics – Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie Comics) is an article; is there a reason it links to Sonic comics in general?
Kishimoto did the Japanese localization using Flynn's script as a base, making changes to suit the Japanese market – Similarly, video game localization could be linked here.
... plays during the second phase of the battle against Supreme, the fourth and final Titan of the game – Supreme is introduced in § Plot, so only a name is needed here.
Sleeping with Sirens vocalist Kellin Quinn  appears on three Titan battle themes; "Undefeatable", "Break Through It All" and "Find Your Flame", and vocalist and producer Tyler Smyth of DangerKids features on the latter track. The other two ending themes are "Dear Father" and "One Way Dream", performed by Quinn Barnitt and Nathan Sharp respectively. The latter song plays in place of "Vandalize" if the game is completed on hard difficulty. – All of this is unsourced.
Besides the above comments, the section looks good and was an interesting read, so thank you! DecafPotato (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Done!
The GameSpot video didn't work when I first clicked, but it seems to be loading properly now. Still archived it though.
Added Spotify citations for the official album songs, since the credits show the performers' names
 DS_X1 (talk)   01:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


### Reception
Pre-release reception looks good
For § Post-release, while topic sentences are good, they need better sourcing. If you want to say The controls received mixed responses, you need to cite more than two sources to accurately represent the opinions of critics at large, especially when three other sources are cited within that paragraph (same for other paragraph).
For sentences like Video Games Chronicles noted that the controls had been tightened up, but still occasionally had issues and ... Shacknews also noted the "stunning visuals" of Frontiers, be wary of using the verb "noting" to describe anything but facts. (see the last bullet point of WP:CRS—while CRS isn't a WP:P&G, the relevant bit is rooted in them)
{{Video game reviews}} outlines that reviews defined in the table must be detailed in prose—in this vein, the Famitsu score should either be removed from the table or incorporated into the prose.
Some publications noted that user review scores were comparable to those for acclaimed games such as Breath of the Wild and Elden Ring (2022). – Although this is being sourced to reliable publications, I'm fairly sure that user review scores still should not be included in articles (the WaPo source is okay, though—it outlines the views of the community and doesn't lean on user review scores, instead judging community consensus itself). Besides, is this information worth including? User review scores are always weird, this is nothing special.
The game was nominated in the Players' Voice category at The Game Awards 2022 – Did Frontiers not receive any other awards or nominations? If it did, a "accolades" or "awards and nominations" section (see Accolades|Celeste for an example) should be made.
In § Sales, specific numbers aren't needed, e.g. 26,067 could be replaced with over 26,000, around 26,000, or maybe even just 26,000.
Section looks good overall! If I'm being honest I was kind of ready to say a LOT more about this section, but the expansion to it fixed a lot of those issues before I could even review the full thing! Only the lead (I forgot about § Release, lol) to go, now. DecafPotato (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Done! :) Just confirming:
"the lead (I forgot about § Release, lol)"
means that § Release addressed your concerns? since you said "to go now" later on  DS_X1 (talk)   16:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
No, the bit about § Release was added after, crossing out the bit about the lead (it's hard to see the strike-through, though). I meant that I thought the lead was the only thing left, but I realized that I forgot to review § Release, lol. Two to go. :) DecafPotato (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


### Release
It officially went gold on October 22, 2022, and finally released on November 8, 2022 ... – Does using the term "went gold" add anything? "Finished development" is more clear and more understandable to a general audience. And "finally released" is a bit non-NPoV-y—just "released" is fine.
In Japan, the game features various ... – Use "featured", past tense.
... who also serves as the Japanese brand ambassador of the Sonic series ... – The Japanese brand ambassador? Is she the only one?
The whole part about the VTuber crossovers could probably be shortened—it is not super important to the overall marketing of the game in my opinion, especially when things like the IGN collaboration garnered significant media attention. Worth including, sure, but unless more sources can be found, I think less information is needed.
And besides, isn't this § Marketing info? I usually combine the two sections into "Marketing and release", but if they are separated, make sure that each section does not accidentally contain info about the other.
The game's backstory detailing how Sonic and his friends come to the Islands was elaborated on via pre-release promotional media under the name Sonic Frontiers Prologue – This sentence feels clunky to me. A possible solution would be Additional information that serves as a prelude to Frontiers' plot was detailed in pre-release promotional media titled Sonic Frontiers Prolouge—obviously improve that if you can, but I think it's a good starting point.
... released in October 2022; and an accompanying animated short ... – Is this a proper use of a semi-colon?
Main thing here is that § Marketing and § Release could be combined and detailed (roughly) chronologically instead. Other than that, it looks good. Now it's actually only the lead to go. DecafPotato (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Done! :)
Also, combined Marketing and Release as suggested, looks smoother and fixes a lot of placement issues. 👍
 DS_X1 (talk)   13:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


### Lead
First off, I'd replace the first occurance "Sonic the Hedgehog" (the character) with simply "Sonic", and the first occurance of "Sonic" (the series) with Sonic the Hedgehog.
Frontiers integrates platforming and traditional Sonic elements—such as rings and grind rails—into the series' first open world environment – This makes it sound like platforming isn't a traditional Sonic element.
Players can solve puzzles, complete challenges, collect items and battle robotic enemies and colossal Titans. By accessing "Cyber Space" portals, players complete traditional platforming levels based on those from previous Sonic games. – I think this could be rephrased a bit. A quick idea from me is to say "Within the open world, players complete certain challenges and battle robotic enemies, and in "Cyber Space" levels, they can complete levels adapted from previous Sonic games".
Sega trademarked the title "Sonic Frontiers" in November 2021 ... – I don't know if this information is neccesarily important enough for the lead.
... and announced it at The Game Awards 2021 the next month – In line with the feedback directly above, I'd say this could be changed to just "Frontiers was announced in December 2021"—the venue isn't really needed here.
Sonic Frontiers was released for the Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S on November 8, 2022. Sonic Frontiers received mixed reviews from critics. – Two sentences in a row starting with "Sonic Frontiers" doesn't flow the best. The second sentence could be replaced with "Upon release, it received mixed reviews from critics".
They praised the open world, visuals, plot and soundtrack, but found aspects of the gameplay repetitive. However, it was received more favorably by fans of the series ... – The word "however" here may be a NPoV issue—these statements don't really seem to contrast each other, as what the article says critics disliked are completely separate to what it says fans did like.
... and set a record for the largest number of concurrent players for a Sonic game on Steam – Is this information noteworthy enough for the lead?
Sorry for the delay—as mentioned below, it's been a busy week. The lead looks good, though, and once these are adressed, I'll do one final look through the article, as certain sections have been adjusted/added to since I reviewed them. However, the article looks really good, and I don't foresee any issues with the article being passed. DecafPotato (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Done!
Included "platforming" as one of the traditional elements
Chose a re-phrasal for the third point that's a bit similar to what you gave
The venue was removed, kept "Frontiers was announced in December 2021" instead
 DS_X1 (talk)   01:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


### Final assessment
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
File:SonicFrontiersCoverArt.jpg uses the Nintendo store as the image source, but only the horizontal cover art is found on that website. The source needs to be adjusted to where the vertical art was found.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I just need the file source to be fixed, but the rest of the GA criteria seem to be met! (If an onlooker doesn't think so, now's the time to yell "Objection!") Otherwise, good work on the article, and Happy New Year! DecafPotato (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Found here. Updated the source to reflect it as well. Happy New Years! :)  DS_X1 (talk)   01:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 Done – Passed! Good work! DecafPotato (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


### Comments
Hey DSXG Plays—just updating you: I've been busy with Christmas (traveling, being with family, etc.), so haven't had a lot of time to work online, sorry about that! I'll most continue around the 26th, if that's okay. DecafPotato (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry, but this article isn't ready for GA in the slightest. There is a ton of development/release/marketing information that isn't in the article, it's not well written (e.g. there's a comprised of in the opening paragraph of the lede), and the reception section is awfully small for a game that got as many reviews as it did. The nominator also isn't really a major contributor to the article. I'm disappointed I didn't see this nom quickly enough or I would've pulled it. There are too many issues for it to be a GA now. JOEBRO64 20:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64 Thanks for the feedback! I understand your concerns about the development/release/marketing information and the reception section, but I believe that the article meets the Good Article criteria.
Development/release/marketing information: I believe the article provides a comprehensive overview of the game's development process, including relevant details about the team, challenges faced, and changes made during development.
Reception: I’ve  expanded the reception section to provide a more detailed summary of the critical response to the game while citing reliable sources to support it.
Writing quality: Can you be a bit more specific? I don’t really see issues with the prose, and I believe it complies with WP:MOSVG and MOS:LAYOUT. I’m also the second-largest contributor in authorship, (6th in edits at time of writing) for the article, most of it being for Reception, Gameplay and the Plot.
Thanks again for the feedback! I would be happy to receive more specific feedback on any issues you’ve identified, and I’m willing to work on improving the article further to meet the Good Article criteria.  DS_X1 (talk)   13:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
My main problems are: (1) There are several substantial development interviews in the refideas on talk that aren't implemented. (2) I don't think the reception section is comprehensive enough, although your expansion has been good. It reads a little too skewed towards positive responses when the game's reception was more mixed than the section makes it out to be. As for prose, I think it needs to a copyedit; there are some run-ons or confusingly-worded portions that need some tightening. For example, Frontiers features sections within "Cyber Space", a digital dimension comprised of traditional platforming levels based on previous Sonic games. These levels are accessible through various portals within the open world. → By accessing portals, players complete traditional platforming levels based on those from previous Sonic games.
Part of my issue is that, as the main writer of this article, you didn't notify me that you were nominating this article for GA. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions says "nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." I feel like I should've been notified as I had been planning to do additional work on this in the near future and have a lot of issues with the article at present. JOEBRO64 01:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand, I should've followed the guidelines properly and reached out to you before nominating, sorry for not doing so, especially since you planned to make necessary changes in advance.
I'll withdraw the nomination if you don't want it to be nominated right now, just confirming.@TheJoebro64
Thanks again for the feedback. Sorry for any confusion caused by the nomination process.  DS_X1 (talk)   01:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@DSXG Plays: I don't mind if you continue the nomination—it's ultimately up to DecafPotato if the article meets GA standards, as he's the reviewer. I'll still come back to do my planned expansions regardless of whether it's a GA or not, if the content isn't integrated already. I just tend to have high standards for articles I've created/expanded and as this is one of them I had some opinions I felt I should share. JOEBRO64 21:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, by all means make the changes. While future changes aren't within the scope of the GAN, the GAN certainly shouldn't stop the article from further improvement. DecafPotato (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@DecafPotatoNo problem! 👍  DS_X1 (talk)   11:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Santa costume DLC be mentioned here? Visokor (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess if someone wants to add a basic sourced sentence that says "A free Santa costume DLC was released in December 2022", they're free to. My understanding is that it's just cosmetic stuff that doesn't really do anything, so there's really not much else to say... Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

https://asia.sega.com/SonicFrontiers/en/comic/comic01.htmlIkalzlkr (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

web manual in multiple languages
https://manuals.sega.com/sonicfrontiers/en/ Meiaoal (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I can confirm (based on official sources, such as Sega’s own financial reports at the end of fiscal years) that Sonic Frontiers had better initial sales than Heroes (1.42 million units sold from its release to March 31, 2004), Shadow’s game (1.59 million units sold from its release to March 31, 2006), Sonic 06 (870,000 units sold in the United States and Europe within four months, by March 31, 2007), Sonic Unleashed (2.45 million units combined by March 31, 2009, which means Frontiers defeated it in like 1/4 the time, as it did 2.5 million units in just over a month), Sonic Colors (2.18 million units sold across both the Wii and DS, as of March 31, 2011), and Sonic Generations (1.85 million copies worldwide across all platforms by March 31, 2012). 
Either way, all of the figures came from Sega’s financial reports by the end of their respective fiscal years, ending by March 31 of said years, meaning Frontiers had faster initial units sold than all those games in less time. 
To my knowledge, the only game that still sits undefeated is Sonic 2, having sold 3.2 million cartridges in just 2 weeks! 
But other than that, is Frontiers actually the fastest selling (not lifetime sales) 3D Sonic game, or am I missing something? 

Thanks. :)
Alaios (talk)

In the "Sales" section of Reception, add that it became the best selling 3D Sonic game of all time on May 8th, 2023. 192.154.116.70 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
https://in.ign.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-sonic-team-project/183665/news/sonic-frontiers-exceeds-segas-sales-expectations-with-over-35-million-copies-sold-since-release
This was my source. 192.154.116.70 (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 Not done That article contradicts itself - it also says Sonic Frontiers is one of the franchise's best-selling 3D games.  As I often tell editors who try to make grand claims like this - if it's in fact true, Sega will certainly say it themselves. This is Marketing/PR stuff of dreams. They won't pass on the opportunity to promote that statistic. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This page is going to need to be heavily revisited after Sept. 28th and the Final Horizon update, isn't it.  FerDeLancer (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Remember the controversy during the Game Awards, where Sonic fans and Genshin fans squabbled over the Player's Choice award? I am conflicted on whether that should be here or on a Game Awards related article. FerDeLancer (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any third party reliable sources that reported on this? Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether to include James Stephanie Sterling's review of this game. Their review may be significant. Also, them calling it the worst game of 2022 may be significant. Ss0jse (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm against inclusion. The website is listed at WP:VG/S as situational - basically, technically usable, but of a lower quality and to be used more sparingly. Consider how much of a mainstream game with no shortage of higher level sources available this is, I don't see the point of implementing it here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I guess part of me wanted to include some negative criticisms of the game. Ss0jse (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, I recently added a topic to Talk:The Last of Us Part II that covers basically the same thing: a review source listed as "situational" that called a game the worst of its year. Ss0jse (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like you got a similar response there too. I'd recommend finding some sources that aren't these over-the-top self-published Youtuber types like this - Wikipedia generally treats them with skepticism and/or advises against their use. Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Ss0jse (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, why did you remove "even" when i did that was since there extra info from more generally positive from fans to commercial success. Why did you revert that edit? There was nothing wrong with that term, especially if that was needed for extra info. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What was the point in adding that "even" in that sentence? Sergecross73 msg me 02:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

[1] Citation adds Unique and high quality value to the post  WikiJay85 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

We don't link to external websites like that on Wikipedia. And even if we did, private, obscure blogs aren't the sort of thing we're linking to on Wikipedia. Please stop. Doubly so if you're attempting to promote this website, which goes against WP:PROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)