Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

"Sonic2006" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sonic2006. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

On it being a "reboot"...

The idea that Sonic 06 was intended as something of a reboot has been accepted as common knowledge over the years. Even the article itself states this, with two citations. The problem is that both of those sources merely put forth the idea that it MIGHT have been intended as a reboot, based on the name of the game, from the article writers' perspective. Independent reviews calling it a reboot should not be evidence for what the developers intended. No statement from any developer, Yuji Naka or otherwise, says that the game was intended to be a reboot of the franchise. The most anyone has said is Shun Nakamura stating the title was intended to give the audience the illusion, the expectation, of "a new Sonic reborn", but not a reboot as most people define the term (IE a new universe, reintroduced characters, no past events being referenced, etc). Even if you interpret it as a "soft reboot" or a "reboot in spirit", that would still imply a new starting point for the series for people to get into it. But several points within the game's story rely on knowledge from past games, which destroys this idea. There is a very clear divide between what the Japanese developers intended, and what the English audience interprets their statement as meaning. The title was merely to remove the baggage of previous games and to give the impression that the games will focus on quality from now on, nothing more. This should all be grounds for removing that point from the article. 68.170.231.229 (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources call it a reboot. If sources call it a reboot, then so do we. Also, just because it shares continuity with previous games doesn't mean it's not a reboot. JOEBRO64 20:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We’re on Wikipedia, so this, basically. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Except your source calling it a reboot is an opinion. They are not calling it reboots, they are saying it seems like a reboot. The exact quotes, from Eurogamer, say the following: "Using the name Sonic the Hedgehog, the title of the glorious 16-bit debut of the character which came to define two generations of console battles, might initially imply that the team intends for this to be a much-needed reboot of the series..." "Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 might have started off life, in some well-intentioned concept meeting deep within the bowels of Sega's headquarters, as a reboot for the franchise..." It's clearly conjecture on their part based on the title alone, which the devs have clarified is not meant to imply it's a reboot. Furthermore, the Wiki article begins with the statement that it was "intended to be a reboot". The only way you could claim that was if your cited source was someone who was directly involved with the game saying the word "reboot". And you don't have that. Instead, your cited source is a third-party review claiming an idea that has no basis in fact or reality. If you said it was "thought to be a reboot", it'd be different, but instead you use a western editorial's opinion piece as evidence that it's a definite choice on the developers' part. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that. I expect better from Wikipedia. 68.170.231.229 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s widely cited as a reboot though. I can dig them up if you’re struggling with basic Google searches, but the gist of it is as the source also suggests - modern/new takes on a franchise that share the same name, but aren’t a remaster/remake of the original, are often considered a reboot. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? Verifiable sources can also make mistakes, and the mistake here is calling something a reboot when it clearly isn't. Unless you can "Google search" official word from the developers that this game was supposed to be a reboot, and not from a media piece putting their own spin, your point is invalid. Even the Sonic News Network got this right.Thecleanerand (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares. That's literally how the website works. See WP:V and WP:VNT. If you don't care, then you are on the wrong website. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sonic 06 Relisted

Sonic 06 has been relisted on the Xbox Marketplace for the Xbox 360. It is not currently backwards compatable with the Xbox One or Series S or X.

References

"Sonic the Hedgehog (next-gen)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic the Hedgehog (next-gen) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Sonic the Hedgehog (next-gen) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Sonic 2K6" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sonic 2K6 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Sonic 2K6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Replace "strongly negative reviews" with "generally unfavorable reviews"

Reasons:

1. There is a preestablished standard for the wikipedia pages of games with similar metacritic scores and enduring generally negative reputation (in particular Shadow the Hedgehog, a game that is part of the same franchise as this game) to have the reception be described as "generally unfavorable," metacritic's description of games with metascores of below 50. Sonic 06 has a similar reputation and metascore to those games, so this page contradicts that standard by having its reception be described as "strongly negative"
2. The quote from the article: "[t]he game recieved strongly negative reviews" only references the reception of the game by critics when the game first released, not the general consensus on the game. Therefore, the information in the "legacy" section would be irrelevant to whether or not "strongly negative reviews" or "generally unfavorable reception" should be there.

@Sergecross73 LesnaNav (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Opposed - it's fine to use the MC summary to summarize their aggregate, but there is a lot more negative sentiment in the article's Legacy section that goes far beyond the MC summation. We are not beholden to follow whatever the Shadow article has done, and should make different fixes to address concern #2 if that's truly an issue. (No one has had this concern before and the article has been relative stable for many years now, for the record.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  "It is widely considered the worst Sonic game and severely damaged the franchise's reputation" should be enough to establish how the game is generally recieved. LesnaNav (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. Your edit also inexplicably removes the valid links to its inclusion at List of video games notable for negative reception, where it's been for like the last decade. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  We can add the hyperlink to “It is widely considered the worst Sonic game” LesnaNav (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Its an option I guess, but you haven't provided a reason why we should do that, or why your versions completely omitted it entirely in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  1. We need to put it somewhere, and it makes sense to put it there
  2. It was a accident I made when I removed it

  LesnaNav (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, well lets see if anyone else chimes in, but I do not believe this is an improvement. It feels like unnecessary/unwarranted softening of the wording, where theres plenty of reliable source coverage documenting the sentiment, and the wording has more or less already passed the WP:FA process as well. I'm not convinced. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)