# Talk:Sonic and the Secret Rings

The section talks too much about criticism, and should give more information about what reviewers liked about the game, such as "sticks to the 2D roots" or something. It really doesn't make me want to buy the game anymore. But that's aside the point, it would help if someone would add more information that I suggested. Legedevin 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there isn't enough of the article dedicated to criticism.  This was the worst excuse for a game I've ever had the misfortune to play.  This was rushed out so that Sega would have a launch title for the Wii, and it shows. fraggle 10:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats one persons opinion. Fortunately, it doesnt amount to anything. MindWraith 03:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly the only one. fraggle 12:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That link says the 'pros' give it average, and the public gave it 7.4. So yeah, not may people disliked it. MindWraith (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting is that the public rating of 7.4 is from 87 votes reserved to Metacritic users rather than a broad consensus of opinion, so that fact is mostly irrelevant in deciding its popularity among the public. This aside, I don't think Legedevin's suggestion is necessary - the page already notes "Several critics praised the game's visuals", that it was generally considered "a step in the right direction for the series" and was the 13th best selling game of February 2007. This is countered with about four negative points, a balance that is mostly consistent with its "mixed" ratings. Rusty (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it at all possible that the voice of Shahra, in the US release, is actually B.J. Ward?
Normally I wouldn't bother trying to argue with the provided list of voice talent, but she
sounds EXACTLY like the same actress that voices Princess Allura from Voltron.  I mean, right
down to certain vocal mannerisms. I'm probably wrong, but damn if it's not close. -- 70.90.242.184 13:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you check the Bella Hudson entry on Sonic News Network, it says that she is Shahra's voice actor. Nintendoman01 talk, 1:16, 01 December 2008

How could this not be in the main series huh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.176.33 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 

The reason this game is not listed as part of the main series is because this game is designed as an experiment of Sega to see what kind of controls they could use for Sonic games released for Wii. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I never heard that before. Could you give a source? MindWraith (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't find that out. It's just a guess realy. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
So this isn't worth putting on the main page. 58.174.98.29 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The game is just a small enclosed story line, it doesn't do anything to forward the sonic the hedgehog series.   Doktor  Wilhelm  12:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Its been 14 years since the last update on this. Considering the recent sonic games articles also not contributing to the story, and being called mainline sonic games, would it not be wise to consider this a mainliine? PerryPerryD (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it's been discussed far more elsewhere beyond this meager discussion from 14 years ago. The consensus is generally that it's a spin-off because of the way Sega literally labels Sonic and the Black Knight part of the "Sonic Storybook Series" on its cover. Sergecross73 msg me 04:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

An intresting thing to note is that on the back of the game box it has a short summary of the game and what sonic is up against, but the last line clearly mentions "but sonic has never fought a genie before".  This is incorrect becasue in the game sonic riders the final boss the babalon guardian was a genie.  This ither makes the content on the back of the game incorrect or places it croniogicaly before sonic riders which dosent seem very likely becasue sonic games are often placed in the cronilogical order that they are made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.57.4 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) 

On the same topic, according to the oficcial sega website, this is Sonic's first solo game since 1992 (Sonic the Hedgehog). However, I disagree. Sonic's last solo game was in 1995 (Sonic 3D Blast). And I don't even think this is a solo game, because Sonic is acompained Shara.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.98.29 (talk) 10:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here from WP:SEGA/A.  I'm here on behalf of the project to assess the article and tell you what I think.  As with all of my assessments, we'll go over what needs improvement and then we'll discuss a rating.
So here's some things that need some work:

Large sections of the article are unsourced.
I don't know about the character section, it appears to be an embedded list.
Basically, the sourcing is your issue.  Anyway, the article does meet the Sega Project's B class standards, so I will change the tag.  If you've got questions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page.   Thanks.  Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, you get two assessments for the price of one) A request was made at wikiproject videogames for assessment. As a result I've rated the article B-class for the videogame project, importance rating remained the same. This article has many of the components needed for passing Good Article status, though not all, and needs further work. Here's some suggestions for future improvement:

The lead will need expansion, but that's something that can wait until the article is complete.
The game's soundtrack needs to be covered here or in a separate article with a pointer to it (I've had a quick look and can't see an article for it on WP). The music details could do with their own section (with details of the soundtrack either way), what's being described are typical details surrounding soundtrack rather than a look at the development of the music.
'Control' doesn't need to be a sub-section of gameplay, it's a fundamental aspect of play but doesn't need paragraphs of detail. Instead I'd suggest merging 'modes' into gameplay, with a subsection for the multiplayer game. Everything concerning 'adventure mode' (the core game), including controls, can go in the main section. The controls and other details of the multiplayer could then go into the subsection of gameplay. 'Special Book' is a minor aspect of the whole and doesn't need a section of its own.
'Plot' - seems complete but is devoid of citations, that's going to trip up the article's chances of advancement. Could possibly do with splitting into two paragraphs?
Staying with plot, there's a couple of redundancies: "(probably as a blindfold)" doesn't need to be said. "(reads 2:55 a.m.)" Why is this relevant?
'Reception': "Overall, critics generally found that the game, while its controls and mission structure were frustrating at times, was a step in the right direction for the series and a return to its simple and fast gameplay mechanics.[31][32][33][34][35]" this is a broad statement which belongs in the first (overview) paragraph, with no more than two cites after the statement.
Reception could do with a little expanding, the controls are covered well but the graphics and sound aspects could do with more attention.
Sales figures - excellent, try and find more.
Review scores - consider using the standard VG review box.
Writing is weak in places. For example: "Many of these characters are new to the franchise; Arabian Nights mysteriously appearing to look like established characters in the franchise without explanation." The Arabian Nights are stories, not characters. The 'appearing...' part needs some rewording, 'without explanation' doesn't need to be said. There's several other examples throughout the article, spend some time just reading it over and they'll pop up.
References - please expand the web citations into a fuller 'cite web' format giving publisher and author details etc. They need accessdates.
The scanned Knuckles picture - whilst images have to be low resolution, the image quality is poor, are there no screenshots of the series regulars in Arabian garb floating around the web?
All that said, the article has developed well and must have taken considerable time and effort, thank you for what you've done. Someoneanother 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? 129.120.86.160 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

so...why is it a spin off title and not within the main series? It has a full story, its a console game (a pretty decent one at that) and it doesnt qualify under the same genre most spinoffs take. Shadow the Hedgehog is part of the main series, but this game isnt? Thats not right, not saying Shadow the Hedgehog shouldnt be in the Main, but Secret Rings does.--SxeFluff (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Essentially, the story takes place outside of Sonic's world and continuity, with main characters reduced to cameos as entirely seperate characters. It doesn't really fit anywhere in the series. Shadow, on the other hand, features characters in their regular world, following on from events in the other games, and leading into events in other games. 82.1.21.69 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Technically, since Shadow the Hedgehog is about Shadow, not Sonic, that would be considered a spin-off (since he is a support character with his own video game).  Now, you say that because the main characters are reduced to cameos as entirely seperate characters, Sonic and the Secret Rings is a spin-off as well.  That statement is 100% false.  A cameo is a brief appearance (for example, Big the Cat making cameos in Adventure 2, Secret Rings, and Olympic Games).  However, in this game, the main characters, except Sonic, assume different personas, and although it isn't really them, they are still part of the plot, since Sonic mistakens Ali Baba for Tails, Sinbad for Knuckles, etc.  In conclusion, Sonic and the Secret Rings, as well as the upcoming Sonic and the Black Knight since it is the sequel, should be categorized under Main console series, and Shadow the Hedgehog will go under Console spin-offs. ~ Bronnco (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
At the beginning of the game, the story is in Sonic's World. It starting out with Sonic napping before Shahra comes out of a book into Sonic's world. After she tells him about Erazor Djin and he gets a Ring, he then wishes to go to the world most of the game takes place in. So it's not that the entire game takes place outside of Sonic's world. It's that he travels there after the intro cutscene. I don't see how that isn't enough to consider this title and Black Knight to be Main Series Games. Especially when Shadow the Hedgehog is listed as main series despite Starring a a different character, one of the first points brought up in the article here for spin-offs in media SBSP1012 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Look at the box art for Sonic and the Black Knight - Sega literally labels is as part of the "Storybook series". That's about as clear as it gets as far as showing that it's part of a sub-series (spin-off) and not the main series. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Black Knight is only listed under the Storybook Label on North American Copies. The Original Japanese Version and European Versions do not have that label. It was created by SEGA of America for American marketing of Japanese Games. By this logic, The Sonic Adventure Games are spinoffs because only 2 games say SONIC ADVENTURE and there's a gamecube bundle of SADX & SA2B calling it Sonic Adventure. SBSP1012 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, no one calls it the "Sonic Adventure series". And Sega's marketing team...is still Sega. The Storybook games are different gameplay wise too. Motion controlled, on-rails, using a sword, etc. Additionally, reliable sources call the Storybook series a spin-off series too, like this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The Storybook Series is specifically a name in the AMERICAN Marketing Department. As I mentioned before, The Japanese and European Branches never mention that name. A sword is a gimmick, like Wisps. Being Motion Controlled dosen't make it any more radically different from other Sonic Platformers than Adventure vs. Boost. Finally, just because a news site looks at a logo on cover art and thinks it's a spinoff series, dosen't make it a spinoff. It's not like they got inside info from SEGA, it's just an assessment made by looking at cover art. No more reliable than a random social media post. Overall, I personally disagree with all of the reasoning you have given for the Storybook Duology being spinoffs despite not applying to any of the rules of spinoff on this website, how other franchises organize games, or the fact that Shadow actively follows the rules of being a spinoff and yet is still considered a main game. SBSP1012 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, Many call it The Adventure Series. Multiple articles, even Google when you search it up, lists all the games it considers to be the Sonic Adventure "Series" SBSP1012 (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would be easier to get through to you if you explained what "rules" you're perceiving to be in effect, both here and at other franchises. It sounds like you have some misconceptions on how things work. But I can't address them if you keep on vaguely alluding to them without defining them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to put in the fact that this game has profanity? I could be wrong, but Sonic does mention that the World Rings could open the gates of Hell near the end of the game, and he actually does use the world "hell". Of course, it may not count, since he uses it in Biblical terms and doesn't actually use it as though he was swearing, but it's just a thought. Nintendoman01 talk, 1:19, 01 December 2008
No, Sonic uses it in proper context. If he had said, "What the hell?" that would be swearing. But he was saying that the world rings might open the gates of Hell, so then it's not swearing. It's like the contrast between "God bless us, everyone" and "Oh my god!". Shadoman (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Peter Cormican? I know that he's the guy that voices the Erazor Djinn, but who is he? I've never heard of him before. Is he some new actor or just someone else using a psuedonym? It might just be my opinion, but he sounds a bit like Christopher Sabat from Dragon Ball Z. Could it be that Peter Cormican is just Chris Sabat using a psuedonym, like Jason Griffith is credited under "Adam Caroleson" in this game? Nintendoman01 talk, 7:18, 03 December 2008

Do we have a citation that RenderWare is used as the game engine for this game or is that just original research or speculation? I've searched all over the Internet and couldn't find any reference to RenderWare being used in this game, aside from Wikipedia mirrors. But Wikipedia can't cite itself! Note that when I played this game, I didn't really look at the credits. Thanks for the help! -Ethd (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why almost the whole article is deleted: it's because of the work of some vandal called 24.99.71.161!  Anyway, can someone restore the whole article that has been deleted by that vandal, please? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic and the Secret Rings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. Going to read through now and add queries here as I go. If required I'll massage the prose myself, but feel free to revert those changes should I accidentally change the intention of the sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Passes all quick fail criteria, will being review proper now. Miyagawa (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth adding a line to the lead regarding the addition of role playing elements and skills to the Sonic series.
 Done Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
In development, the quote needs a reference directly after it.
 Done Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Date format in the references needs to be the same for all references. The magazine references use a different format to the other references.
Template "cite journal" is used for magazines, and "cite web" for websites. But if you mean the information given in each citation, I just use whatever is available/needed. For example, magazine references, because they are static, do not need accessdates. Also, the three Nintendo Power references in a row do not have authors because the pages cited contain simple lists of the best-selling games at the time. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right, just checked and I was misreading the page number as the date. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
These are the only points I can see that stop this article from passing all the relevant GA criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Overall, a good article and an interesting read. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

An IP or two keep on re-adding this phrase in regards to the game's reception, usually without an edit summary or explanation. I oppose it on multiple levels:

The game wasn't really wasn't very well received by critics. It has a Metacritic in the 60's (which the website itself even indicates "mixed or average reviews" and it was one of the games that was delisted/put out of print by Sega in order to "increase the brand name quality". Neither are good indicators of being "positively received".
The actual content in the reception section does not especially skew more positively either. It sounds like fans are trying to insert their own viewpoints, which is a neutrality problem.
The phrase "mixed to positive" is awkward to begin with. Its redundant. Mixed does not mean "medium", it means "across the spectrum of bad to good". The phrase essentially equates to "scores ranged from negative to positive to positive".
Any input? Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this argument is still going on. I suggest we set it to "medium to positive" and call it a day. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That's...not really a phrase people use though. And yes, its an ongoing battle across the project. Fan's cannot separate their personal feelings from how something was actually received by critics. In my experience, the Sonic fanbase is particularly bad about this. Its thrashed by critics, so the fans feel the need to come in and POV-push to make it look better. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to give an option that'll stop the constant reverting, not what's the most natural-sounding. "Moderate to positive", maybe? Tezero (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
...I'm glad you're trying to help with solutions...but they don't address any of the three problems listed above... Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair objection. How about just something like "a score of 60-something, which is classified as 'mixed or average' by review aggregator Metacritic"? That way it's not like we're calling it that; we're simply noting that Metacritic does. If we have to editorialize somehow, I'd rather err on the positive side because its reviews were so much better than those of Shadow, '06, or Genesis just recently, so we probably shouldn't at all. Tezero (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with that resolution - direct quoting the value given by MC. Since the IP/new accounts have again failed to discuss in any real capacity, let's go with that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Sonic and the Secret Rings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220103034/http://palgn.com.au/nintendo-wii/6634/sonic-and-the-secret-rings-interview/ to http://palgn.com.au/nintendo-wii/6634/sonic-and-the-secret-rings-interview/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3157332
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=49769
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=2364
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3944
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101032549/http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/music/music24_list.html to http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/music/music24_list.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The redirect Sonic Wiild Fire has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 4 § Sonic Wiild Fire until a consensus is reached.  cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)