Jump to content

Talk:Sonic Unleashed

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSonic Unleashed has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Backlash and Petition

[edit]

Should we include the backlash that is on tssznews to the reception area? Also should we add petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sunleash the petition that is on PetitionOnline because it has over 200 signatures. --72.75.61.51 (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources by reliable publications for this "backlash"; petition is tiny. Essentially this is a small minority of vocal die-hard "fans", and hence not notable. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so either. It's just stupid fan banter by whiny fanboys who are pissed because Unleashed didn't get 10's in every review. A few signatures won't change anything, especially the media. IT'S THERE JOBS TO REVIEW GAMES! GENERALZERO (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I know this is pretty much hearsay, but so far, the majority of people I've talked to have enjoyed the game, and find the reviews (especially IGN and Gamestop) to be very nitpicky and overly negative on the game as a whole. Also, the user scores on Metacritic for all versions are notably higher than their professional average. This is saying absolutely nothing of my own opinion on the game, but I think it might be worth pointing out fan reception to the game.
On another note, is there any news of sales for the game yet? Viewtiful Rekk (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wii version only sold 5,800 copies it's opening week, but it was TSSZ who reported that, so we woudln't be able to cite it anyways. GENERALZERO (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night and day

[edit]

In the whole night and day thing where you turn from Sonic to the Werehog. Is it night time and day time in the game that you change or is it the time in real life? -Unsigned. Yo,in the day and night stages,Sonic's transformations are NOT affected by real-life time.in the PS2 and Wii versions,the game makes day and night happen automatically,until you restore a continent;you then can change day and night manually for that continet,except Eggmanland, where there is no continent hub world.I'm not too sure about the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions though.Oh,and it doesn't matter what time it is in the game when you do a level.whether you play day or night is all up too you. Sonic The Wherehog (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

[edit]

What happened to the talk page? THERE USED TO BE so much more questions here. -Unsigned

It's in the archive page, check the archive box up-and-right-a-bit (To December, 2008). SynergyBlades (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. I thought someone vandalized it. -Unsigned

Article renovation, part 2

[edit]

SynergyBlades, you said that it's necessary on Wikipedia for there to be third party sources for even gameplay information, "even in place of the game itself". However, I don't think that's entirely fair. To put it in perspective, we can't let the information become out of date either. Indeed, the Xbox 360 version is out now, but some information is still referred to in the future tense, as though the game still hasn't come out; hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia, wouldn't you say? Also reviews aren't always enough for gameplay information, especially those that may be biased in favor of certain viewpoints. There are actually people that have played the game that are actually trying to imporve this article based on their experience with the game, but still in a neutral point of view (like me). It's called Assuming good faith. With all due respect, the internet, and other published sources aren't always going to give us such information on a silver platter.

For this reason, this article really needs to be updated to relfect the present. Furthermore, just because certain gameplay details haven't been discussed in a magazine or whatever, doesn't mean they aren't factual. The first continent IS called "Apotos". Again, with all due respect, if you played the game yourself, you would see that that is what the 1st continent is called. For that reason, I think that "cite" tag should be removed. It's not like Wikipedia editors are making it up or anything. Otherwise, I really don't know what you want from anybody. Personal experience is just as reliable and NPOV as any published source--not always, to be sure--but in the case of this article, it is relisble, and can be stated in a neutral point of view. Brittany Ka (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is okay with sticking personal experience in, and just saying "trust me". That isn't going to cut it: verifiability, not truth, as strange as it seems to a lot of editors, is how Wikipedia works. I want to get this article to Good Article status and I can guarantee you now, if you go about putting your own information in, it will fail nomination at the drop of a hat. Yes, gameplay does need updating, and I am going to do that based on the reviews that can be found. It is possible to do so from reviews, as I have done this before for articles I have got to Good Article status, and I will do so again if no-one else chooses to do so, or is able to. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, one indicator of why this is important - take your recent edit regarding moon and sun coins. You just edited it to say it doesn't open up levels, and GENERALZERO just re-edited it back to say that that's not correct. Who is right? If I were a general reader of Wikipedia and didn't know either of you from past experience I wouldn't know how reliable either of you are as editors - I'd rather trust reliable third-party sources, and that is why we must use them. (Also found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article_guidelines#Sources states quite clearly that gameplay sections must be sourced.) SynergyBlades (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) SynergyBlades (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list

[edit]

I've added a to-do list to the top of the talk page which, if we can get through each item, would (I think) get it to a stage where we could nominate it for Good Article status. BK is correct in that I don't yet have the game (waiting on the PlayStation 3 version) so I cannot reference the plot, and if someone who has both versions can check the gameplay differences to make sure we've covered the major differences, that would help. In particular, the reviews are somewhat at odds with regards the significance of the coins in the Wii version, so if someone can explain them we can select the correct review to reference. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Synergy-sama, for the plot, would be able to use YouTube for a reference? If I'm not mistaken, we are using said site for Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood, correct?GENERALZERO (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, we're using the game walkthrough clips on YouTube to identify plot/script snippets from the game itself, then referencing the game. You can do exactly that here and I was thinking of doing the same, but didn't want to spoil the gameplay too much for myself before actually getting to play it (having second thoughts on buying it anyway, to be honest). Feel free to give it a shot of course - borrow the citing style and templates from the Chronicles one if it helps. SynergyBlades (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done most of the plot from the most complete walkthrough I could find on YouTube, but it's still missing a bit towards the end. SynergyBlades (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a dual-review for the game I found today. I don't know if this will help or not, since as a review, it's mostly opinion, but it does do a lot of compare-and-contrast between the two versions. It mentions how the running stages and the nighttime stages are completely different among both versions and how collecting Sun and Moon Medals use a different approach, as well as the total amount of them in the 360/PS3 version and how the hubs are very different between them. I've never heard of 2P Start! until now, but it's the only review I know where both versions were critiqued simultaneously. http://www.2pstart.com/reviews2/sonic-unleashed-dual-review/

Around the middle of the review are two videos uploaded by the reviewer as a side-by-side comparison of Shamar's daytime stage (labeled as "Shamar: Arid Sands"). Quoting directly, the reason for this is that "[i]t's difficult to describe these differences successfully." Ron Stoppable (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error found

[edit]

There are actually 8 daytime stages in the Wii version of Unleashed since Apotos (the first world) has two Sonic stages. All other worlds in the game have one daytime stage and this is not counting the required missions that come after beating a daytime stage.

That's unfortunate, because the source gives the seven figure. Have they counted the double Apotos daytime as one, to make seven? If it's going to be contentious regardless of it coming from a reliable source it would probably be better to just remove the daytime figure to leave the 25 night-time level figure in. SynergyBlades (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, does the "Double Stage" Apotos count the tutorial as a stage? Or is it a new stage all together? GENERALZERO (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the question about the tutorial stages, this does not count those stages (or else it'd be a lot more than just two). There's one Apotos stage that's quite short which starts in the grassy, windmill-inhabited area and ends within the town area, and then there's another stage that's more interactive and ends with a battle with the Eggman robot that chases you on a straight path (the stage itself ends on a secluded island with a single building). Hope this helps, and thanks for explaining (I can see why a source would be more reliable). Oh, and one suggestion, maybe an online guide or FAQ for the Wii version would count as a reliable source in regards to proving there are two daytime levels in Apotos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.165.148 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. GENERALZERO (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In that case I'd be more inclined to take it out unless we can find another reviewer commenting on the level ratio. A guide can be used provided it's one of the reliable sources we take our review sources from (e.g, IGN guides, but not GameFAQs). SynergyBlades (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, suggestion, how about you mention the ratio, but then after saying 8 Sonic stages be specific. For instance, you could say something like "...and 8 Sonic stages with two in the first world, Apotos, and one for each of the worlds that follows". Then you can use the video as a reference as well as the reviewer source. I don't know, could be unnecessarily long, but I thought I'd recommend it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.165.148 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really use the YouTube clip because it isn't a reliable source for citing (plus as a user video it could get taken down at any moment). I've tweaked the wording to detail the larger number of night-time levels without giving a precise figure for daytime. SynergyBlades (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

The Reception section is so damage control, 3.5 on Gamespot is definitively a flop. Article suffers seriously from blantant systematic bias. --Affman (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One review does not a reception section make. I have written the reception section based on the reviews cited by Metacritic to produce its average. With such a contentious fanbase and game, we are going to have complaints about this section however it's written, but I believe it's currently written in neutral point-of-view. If you'd like to suggest changes or discuss wording, this is the place to do it, but statements like the above aren't helping. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If "systemic bias" means that the examples of the review scores from 360/PS3 are far lower than those of the Wii/PS2 version, here's something that can help balance things out: Hardcore Gamer magazine gave the 360 version a 4.5 out of 5 and has a very lengthy review of it, plus a "second opinion" that's also 4.5 out of 5. http://www.hardcoregamer.com/index.php?option=com_magazine&id_rubrique=1&type=article&id_article=228
Like 2P Start!, this is a publication I had never heard of before now, but it looks like it's pretty new. Ron Stoppable (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trophies?

[edit]

Does the Sonic Unleashed game for PS3 have trophies?--71.166.129.196 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a forum for chat, but yes, it does; they're the same as the 360 achievements. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Sorry. I was confused because at the bottom of page it wasn't part of the "PlayStation 3 Trophy Compatible games" category.--71.166.129.196 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, and thanks. I'll add it.SynergyBlades (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the new GamesMasters magazine today and the scores were, 80% for 360 & PS3 and 68% for PS2 & Wii. If you want to add it to the articale, and GM didn`t enjoy the Werehog on Wii & PS2 because the controls were un-responsive and there was to meny Nighttime acts. So if you want just add this info to the page. (Lukeosarus (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sonic the Werehog

[edit]
{{Character
|image =[[Image:Werehog.png|200px]]
|caption =
|first = [[Sonic Unleashed]]
|games = [[Sonic Unleashed]]
|media = Sonic Unleashed manga
|realcreator =
|artist =
|voiceactor = Jason Griffith
|japanactor = Tomokazu Seki
|motionactor = 
|liveactor =
|nickname= Mr. Monster Guy (used by [[Chip]] only once)
|species = Werehog
|gender = Male
|fur color = Gray/Blue and White
|skin color = Sky blue
|eye color = Dark green
|height = 3 ft 3 in
|weight = 110 lbs
|birthday = Unknown
|creation = 
|creator = Dr. Eggman
|birthplace = Dr. Eggman's starcruiser
|age = 15
|family =   
|alignment = Good
|likes = Chip, Miles "Tails" Prower, Amy Rose, Justice, Chili Dogs
|dislikes = Dr. Eggman, Robots, Dark Gaia and his monsters, the way he looks
|skills = Super strength, Arm stretch, claw slash combos, balance, pole climbing, bar swinging, dashing on all fours, 
}}

Sonic the Werehog (known by some fans as "Werewolf Sonic" or "WereSonic") is Sonic's beastial form in the game Sonic Unleashed. Sonic the Hedgehog was transformed when Dr. Eggman used a machine to painfully suck out the power of the Chaos Emeralds in its entirety from Super Sonic, with which Eggman would fire a specialized laser weapon at the planet, releasing and awakening the creature known as Dark Gaia from the core of the planet. It is stated in-game that it is Dark Gaia's power that causes Sonic's nightly transformation into this form.

Sonic transforms into the Werehog at night, which makes his quest more complicated. When transforming into the Werehog (or transforming back into normal), a cloud of purple smoke envelopes him. Sonic the Werehog also features a different gameplay than Sonic. He attacks with his arms and fists, which can stretch out and punch his foes. Rather than using a counted number of rings, Sonic uses a health bar, though collecting rings refills the bar. Aside from the usual ability of Sonic being able to race down ramps throughout the levels, in Werehog form you must get across gaps in a tightrope walking fashion.

Sonic appears to retain most of his normal abilities in this form as well as the ability to speak, though with more of a growl than normal. Therefore, it can basically just be considered a darker, feral form of Sonic's rather than as a split-personality monster like other interpretations of werewolves. Sonic the Werehog still has Sonic the Hedgehog's good heart, even though he is in a wolf-like form. This is primarily due to his will; it's too strong for Dark Gaia to affect.

In the mini-movie Sonic: Night of the Werehog, Sonic the Werehog unknowingly gained the affection of a female ghost that two male ghosts were trying to impress.

Before the battle with Dark Gaia, Dark Gaia reabsorbed its remaining power that Sonic had incidentally taken at the start of the game, returning Sonic to his default form. It is unknown if Sonic the Werehog will appear in future games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DEsean91 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....huh. What is this for? What fans know him as isn't relevant at all. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is it? GENERALZERO (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Sonic Adventure 3

[edit]

Please remove the tag 'Sonic Adventure 3' or anything related to Sonic Adventure 3 as far as tags go, off of this page. This was originally intended to be Sonic Adventure, however, when innovations were made to differ the gameplay, the idea was abandoned. This title is not Sonic Adventure 3. ~~ Anonymous ~~ 3:38 am (GMC Central) December 30th, 2008.

The article doesn't say it is. All it says it was originally planned to be Sonic Adventure 3. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I know the article doesn't say it is, but this game has the tag of Sonic Adventure 3. When I type in 'Sonic Adventure 3' in the search panel, it pops to this game. I believe it's falsified information (because someone might confused or assume Sonic Unleashed to be Sonic Adventure 3) and so I requested the tag to be removed. ~~ Anonymous (2nd post) ~~ 4:48 pm (GMC Central) December 30th, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.201.191 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redirect, not a tag. And it's there because, the game was originally 'Sonic Adventure 3'. There are fans whom know it as it, thus, we must try to make finding articles more convinent, and true as we can. So, unless, we actually get a SA3, it stays. Cheers. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Reaction??

[edit]

I was wondering, a while ago, someone mentioned or suggested to put fan reaction in the "Reception" section...it seems like a good idea, but is it too much? Would it help the article much?

Here's some fan reaction, just in case we decide to: [1] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GENERALZERO (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reported on by a reliable, third-party source, though, and the above doesn't count. It all depends on what you mean by fans, of course; the hardcore Sonic fans love anything that has Sonic in it, whereas long-term Sonic fans tend to agree with the critics, and that's why we'd need a reliably-sourced third-party commentary on public reaction to the game, which you aren't likely to get. SynergyBlades (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True and if you do find fan reaction through what Synergy said, it would probably be more appropriate for the series page. If you watch X-Play, that's always a good start for fan reaction. « ₣M₣ » 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sega said"Sonic Adventure 3" But it was also said that Sonic Team was working on another Character now known as Werehog. Also its lack of game play. They kind of used the werewolf story thing. Where everytime its night time you turn into a werewolf. So thay changed it to Sonic UNLEASHED. It was also told that thay removed Chao World. And also alot of Sonic fans said that it also have something to do with Sonic 2. Witch it was a reson why Shadow and Knuckles didnt showen up as part of the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles "Tails" Prower X (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Super Sonic

[edit]

I contend that the image of Super Sonic being added adds little to the explanation of the game itself (with Super Sonic only appearing in brief moments compared to the game as a whole), is too high a resolution for free content, and adds unnecessarily to the image use count of the article, which may fall foul of the fair-use criteria (at a time when this article is up for Good Article nomination, this could cause it to fail a review). Furthermore, if readers wish to know more about Super Sonic, the article on Sonic the Hedgehog (character) has an image of Super Sonic, which is frankly where it should be - in the article on the character, used to illustrate the explanation of what Super Sonic is. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reaction again

[edit]

Should we indicate fan reaction through sales charts? Right now, the reception indicates only the critical reaction. (and yes, I know we need a ref. Just asking.)24.40.152.98 (talk)

Sales charts do not demonstrate positive or negative reaction to the game itself by those playing it, but could perhaps demonstrate (if sales were low) that the initial negative reception impacted sales. But for that inference you'd need a reliable source that discusses the sales; without that you'd only be able to list the sales figures without commenting on them, and even then you'll need a reliable source for the sales figures (not VGChartz). SynergyBlades (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu?

[edit]

How come the famitsu review isn't on the page?

It got a 29/40 (PS3) and a 30/40 (360). 

   PS3: 8,7,7,7
   360: 8,7,7,8

--141.156.221.26 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews in the box are really to get a sense of what the critics thought, and I'm not sure Famitsu is any more important than those listed. Nevertheless, if you've got enough details for the source - issue number, page numbers, authors etc. - it can go in. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Unleashed Awarded biggest disappointment of 2008 and worst new character chip

[edit]

Sonic Stadium showed a news article along with pictures from Playstation UK official magazine the pics were sonic unleashed winning biggest disappointment of 2008 along with chip awarded worst new character from the public vote I would like to know why this isn’t posted in reception? its abit rude to hide the negatives of unleashed. http://sonicstadium.org/community/opm-unleashed-1-of-4-biggest-diaspointments-of-2008 Skidds (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2009

Sentence in Plot section

[edit]

"Some people believe Moises Elias Linares was the creator of Sonic Unleashed"

What is this? Is this true? Mokoniki | talk 20:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling for soup

[edit]

What does the content box for bowling for soup have to do with Sonic? If no one can give a reasonable answer to this question in a few days, I will deleat the box. Shadow Android (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of Bowling for Soup's members, Jaret Reddick, performed the main theme of the game - a better question is "does this alone justify having the content box on this page?" - I'm not that familiar with the rules by which those are governed so I can't say. CIGraphix (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Unleashed Models

[edit]

Where can I get Sonic Unleashed Models,everybody on Youtube talking about that they have Sonic Unleashed Models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.27 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Engine

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to split some of the "development" section into a separate article for the Hedgehog Engine? I'd do that, if needed. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

As you can see, "Hedgehog Engine" redirects to this page. There was a dedicated Hedgehog Engine article, but it didn't have enough content to stand on its own; everything relevant seems to have been merged here. I think that was the right decision.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead refs

[edit]

Could someone run an archive bot over this page? A ton of links (like 1UP and TeamXbox) are dead, even though the "to-do" list says it's been fixed. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sonic Unleashed. 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:

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) 07:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore gamer source

[edit]

Stumbled upon this short interview with Patrick Riley that doesn't look like it's used in the article. [3] TarkusABtalk 02:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my edits

[edit]

Other pages on this site list both the primary and assisting developers. Why should this one be any different? MPedits (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion. However, you need to read the infobox syntax guide. Only the main developer should be listed in the infobox; any assisting developers should be restricted to prose. In this case Dimps only provided assistance on some of the game's levels in a specific version, so they shouldn't be listed. JOEBRO64 16:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was my argument as well. They were just assistance. Yet MPefits has not reverted it in 4-5 times in now. Please stop, or you’re likely to be blocked for edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hedgehog Engine" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hedgehog Engine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Hedgehog Engine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Werehog transformation influence

[edit]

Sonic Adventure 1 explicitly shows that the Chaos Emeralds' negative energies are what turns living beings into monsters, evidenced by the Emeralds turning black and only retaining positive energy. This has yet to be contradicted anywhere else in the series. Even the opening cutscene shows Sonic being turned into a monster directly by the Emeralds, not Gaia.

Despite this, article still says that Dark Gaia is what transforms Sonic into a Werehog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samalik16 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Sonic Adventure, and what happened in Sonic Adventure has no bearing on this game. The game repeatedly says that the Emeralds lost their power, not that they were drained of their negative energy. "If we act now, we may be able to restore the planet by returning power to the Chaos Emeralds;" "You must've gone berserk when the Emeralds lost their power;" and so forth. Furthermore, they say Sonic's transformation is an effect of Dark Gaia. "Even at night, when I'm like this. I'm still myself. Not like all the other people we've seen. [Looks at Chip] You must have been protecting me this whole time." Your fan interpretations based on other games does not supersede what is stated in the game itself. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to go by what is said in this game when writing to plot info for this game. And anything not explicitly mentioned in the game would need a source for verification. (And not just citing what happened Sonic Adventure, but something that explicitly states the info is related to Unleashed.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_Unleashed&oldid=1255060974"