Talk:Sonic After the Sequel

Holy cow! Is this really a page?

Uh... I've been looking over many of the Sonic pages due to the recent merger talks and I came across this page. Have we really bottomed out to the point where we not only put up pages for every single game in a series but now a non-canon, fan fiction work is considered deserving of stand alone page status? Really. I'm at a loss here. Yes, the page is great and is well put together. I really can appreciate the work put into making it but... really? Why? BcRIPster (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite all the other ongoing merge discussions, I have no qualms about this one passing the GNG based on its current sourcing. Ah, sweet notability... czar ♔ 02:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

But this is not what notability is supposed to be used for :( BcRIPster (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

From the very page you referenced: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." -- my emphasis added. BcRIPster (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's on the weaker end and just scrapes by with a few dedicated articles, but it's as long as it needs to be. Notability is primarily for securing that there will be enough for an article without requiring original research. It's all about the available secondary sources. Re: the second comment, !indiscriminate is more about removing that release version table from Watch Dogs than not including this article. (This article isn't an indiscriminate list.) I think you'll have a hard time finding a deletion argument for this game, honestly. Its meager coverage covers its bases and all paths lead to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. czar ♔ 03:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:N sucks. I agree. But it is in place. Tezero (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not talking about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In fact I went out of may to offer honest praise to the page... and wah! Holy crap, I don't know what to say on the Watch Dogs release table. That's simply crazy no matter how you cut it. I guess I'm just trying to figure out where this whole situation leads us. BcRIPster (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction to seeing this page was to question not only how the article survived, but how it made it to the DYK. After all, there are thousands, tens of thousands in all likelihood, of fan made games, hacks, remakes, etc, and 99.9999% of them are as far from notable as could possibly be. However, after reading the body of this article, looking at the sources, and taking in why this is significant, I agree that this is a notable entry. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up

This page caught the attention of some of the members at Sonic United/SFGHQ (Sonic Fan Games HQ). I myself am a member there and so was the anon editor named GreatLange. Just be aware there will probably be more of us coming to help out with the article in the future. Sonic: Before the Sequel, Sonic: After the Sequel, and Sonic Chrono Adventure, the latest three fan games LakeFeperd has released were all showcased at the past few Sonic Amateur Game Expos (SAGEs), which SFGHQ/Sonic United coordinates/hosts/run. SFGHQ is a site/forum which currently is pioneering the Sonic Worlds engine and the home to verious fan game projects, so a good amount of the users that might edit this page will have some notability behind them.

(although some might not, and that's where the warning come in xD)

-LiBiYKWIM (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@LiBiYKWIM: Notability usually refers to whether an article has enough coverage from reliable sources to sustain it. Before making articles for the other games, I suggest running the available sources past other people first. Otherwise, it's going to end up deleted. WP:42 explains this succinctly. Thanks for the heads up czar ♔ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Czar:It's been a few days since I've said that, so by "notability" I'm going to assume I meant by the people that might come to help edit know a lot about fan games and the process of making them. If I may help out with some suggestions that can be added in some way, shape, or form:

• The Sonic Worlds Engine is being developed/refined in a video game development program called "Multimedia Fusion 2"
• Sonic AtS (as it's shortened), features a three Act system with a Boss Act after Act 3. Before and after each Boss Act is a cutscene. (Only saying this because it's probably worth mentioning)
• Sonic: AtS will work on OSX machines as well as Windows machines. The only differnce being the cutscenes are buggy and chances are will not load and will be skipped over.
• The game features a "Story Mode" and a "Classic Mode". In Classic Mode, the game plays just like the Genesis Games, in order to get the good ending, you must collect the Chaos Emeralds by completing a given act by collecting 30 rings, touch the Giant Ring at the end of the stage, and complete the Special Stage. In Story Mode, you do not need to collect the Chaos Emeralds to get the good ending.
• The game also features a Stage Select menu that only appears after you get the Good Ending in Classic Mode.
• When you unlock Stage Select when you 100% Classic Mode, you also unlock the Boss Rush mode, which has a special, "non-cannon" ending cutscene.
• In addition to the standard levels, there are "Special Acts" for each zone. (Redhot Ride Zone is the only one that has two) In order to unlock these stages, you much find the red ring hidden in the corresponding act in the given zone.
• In Parhelion Peak Act 3, there is a hidden section of the level that contains a puzzle. While this is non-essential to first run-throughs, if you want to completely 100% the game. When you complete said puzzle, there will be a teaser/cameo of a character from LakeFeperd's next fan game, Sonic Chrono Adventure.
• It is ideal do complete the Parhelion Peak Puzzle as quick as you can as you will unlock Debug Mode if you have gotten the Good Ending in Classic Mode, unlocked the Stage Select, unlocked all the Special Acts, and completed Boss Rush.
• Hidden throughout select Acts are the Kirby power-ups that are showcased in Cyan City Act 2.

-LiBiYKWIM (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@LiBiYKWIM, it's worth mentioning that WP is not necessarily concerned with most of these things. Some of the minutiae in that list is outside the WP:VGSCOPE of what we include in encyclopedia articles and is best off in a Wikia or somewhere else (see "what Wikipedia is not"). Also, WP cares more about verifiability than truth. It matters more that we can source something absolutely reliable than something "true" that was posted somewhere on the Internet. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has more on this, but the idea is best described in this article, particularly ¶11.  czar ♔ 14:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• That being said, I did rush through the game (I didn't even notice the Kirby powerups, for instance), so tell me (or correct it yourselves) if something I cited from one of the credits quotes is being taken out of context. Tezero (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wait, those star things that let you blast down walls? Those are the Kirby powerups? Okay. Tezero (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Those are Kirby Power-ups. Tails has a different one for himself. -LiBiYKWIM (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• EDIT: See Citation #10 -LiBiYKWIM (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@LiBiYKWIM, re: your recent edits, just a reminder that the information added needs to be verifiable in the sources cited. For example, the "Multimedia Fusion 2" part is nowhere to be found in the source cited at the end of that sentence. Either an appropriate (reliable) source should be properly cited or that new information removed. czar ♔ 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

How was this game allowed to be sold? Did the creator get permission from Sega? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD00:0:EDBE:BAD9:87FD:13FC (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

2606:6000:FD00:0:EDBE:BAD9:87FD:13FC, technically it hasn't been sold, unless there's an underground Sonic flash drive trading network I don't know about. It's free. Many publishers do indeed take issue with their IPs having fan works developed based on them, but Sega apparently didn't. My guess is that Sega recognizes that the Sonic franchise is seen as majorly uncool, owing to the period from roughly Shadow the Hedgehog through Sonic 4, so they need to build up their indie cred once again and being "the man" to the fans doesn't help in that regard. Besides, no copyright law in the universe is gonna stop an ardent fan! :D Tezero (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain?

Has the quality of content fallen so low on Wikipedia that this makes the front page? I am a long-time lurker and this truly confuses me. Is it because that there's nothing happening around the world? I can assure you that there is indeed interesting things happening everywhere.

Keep in mind, I have nothing against the works of SEGA, nor have I ever heard this fan-created work before today. This however is just absurd and frankly insulting to any editor who created an article out on here that deserves the front page but never got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.124.148 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm afraid you misunderstand the criteria here - a featured article is an article that has been rigorously reviewed and judged to meet the highest standards of writing and article quality - the actual subject of the article is not relevant. Once an article has reached featured status, it can then be nominated to appear on the front page. Again the subject is not relevant. We're saying "This article represents our highest standards of work" not "This article is about a very important subject" (which is a subjective judgement in any event). Hope this clarifies old bean. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to participate in WP:TFAR if there are other featured articles you would prefer to see on the main page. Reach Out to the Truth 23:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

96.250.124.148, as it happens, I actually have a small preference for articles that wouldn't normally become featured or on the main page; my other two TFAs were Shadow the Hedgehog and Pokémon Channel, both games that weren't very well received and tend to be forgotten about even by their own franchises' fanbases. This one, in contrast, wins its points through sheer obscurity. Keep in mind, I'm not out to pollute the front page with useless, non-educational things that only I care about; rather, I just like a little variety. In this case, there's never been a TFA on a fangame before. Gaming TFAs shouldn't all be Zeldas, Final Fantasys, and Halos, as much as I enjoy those, and likewise TFAs as a whole shouldn't all be history, biology, and Indonesian movies. Of course, maybe I'm still being painfully selfish or ignorant and don't know it yet, in which case I encourage you to nominate featured articles you think are more deserving at WP:TFAR, as Reach Out to the Truth suggested. Tezero (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor inaccuracy

There was some bits about Sonic Worlds, the engine this game was made with, that weren't very true, such as saying that Sonic Worlds didn't require any programming expertise to make games with. It requires a little. It also failed to mention that it is an engine manipulated with, made for and created with Multimedia Fusion 2, the game creation tool and that it is made specifically for the creation of Sonic fan games, a key fact that puts into perspective exactly which programming expertise would be needed (not THAT much, but enough to use MMF2). So, I changed that part of the article. Figured I'd mention here exactly why in a bit more detail. Source: I've been co-owner of Sonic Fan Games HQ for 14 years now, the community that created Sonic Worlds and thus, have a rather appreciable level of expertise in this subject. Perfect Chaos Zero (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you are, Perfect Chaos Zero, but Wikipedia's verifiability policy states that all content has to be citable to reliable sources. Despite its name, Red Bull Games, to which the existing statements about Sonic Worlds and the development of the game are sourced, is considered a reliable source by the Video games WikiProject, and its article contains the line "Daneluz is the first to admit he’s not a programmer: instead, he used a freely available open-source engine called Sonic Worlds, which lets you construct Sonic levels without the need to be fluent in computing languages." Of course, I don't think your statements and this one are even incompatible. They're both saying that a small amount of programming knowledge could be needed; it's that the emphasis is in different directions. But there's no source saying that Multimedia Fusion 2 was used for the engine - though a forum post from LakeFeperd would be good enough.

I hope you understand; anyone can hop onto Wikipedia and claim to be an expert, so we can't trust everything anyone says - even if they prove it somehow, our sourcing guidelines prohibit us from including information not from first-party or reliable third-party sources; since you neither helped develop the game nor have become a recognized, published figure in video game journalism, you don't fit either category. I want to emphasize that I very much believe what you're saying, and I've heard it myself from others whom I wouldn't be able to cite. The problem is that not everyone else will necessarily believe you, and if they don't, our sourcing policies won't sufficiently tell them why they should. If you can locate a third-party article or a forum post by LakeFeperd about MF2, it can be included, but until then, it's officially no better than speculation.

By the way, thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss this. So many just don't. Tezero (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Hope I didn't offend by undoing your edit (but taking into account your linking advice). I can definitely cite some sources and if you'd care to advise me on where exactly to stick them, that'd be great.

First of all we got the official Sonic Worlds development forum on SFGHQ/Sonic United, note how I'm an admin on that board. Here's the original project information thread for the game from the year 2007:

http://sonicunited.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1880-project-information/

It clearly states, in the original engine author's own words, on the board for the community the engine is from, everything I just stated, it's an open source collaborative project to create a basic pre-made Sonic engine for anyone to use in MMF2. But you still need the very basic programming expertise to say, add your enemies or your bosses or to adjust the basic variables in the engine, with MMF2 the game creation tool.

Here's the Sonic Retro wiki article:

http://info.sonicretro.org/Sonic_Worlds

This also collaborates every thing I wrote.

http://www.sonicstadium.org/2009/02/make-your-own-fangame-with-a-new-build-of-sonic-worlds/

How about an article from way back in 2009 on Sonic Stadium, that also collaborates what I wrote?

Which one of these should I cite there, in your opinion? Haha

Perfect Chaos Zero (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just include everything.

Perfect Chaos Zero (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

None of these mention After the Sequel, but perhaps the first or third would be good enough anyway. (The second is a wiki and, as such, too unstable to be cited regardless of reliability.) czar and Sergecross73, do you have thoughts on the matter? Tezero (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As you say, none of those sources would meet Wikipedia's standard for being a reliable source - Wikis, forum posts, and fansites generally aren't going to work. I'm not super familiar with the Sonic fan game scene, but is there any middle ground that can correct what PCS says is false, without going into all of the detail that he's going into, so that it still falls within WP:V? Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind; I've found a primary source from LakeFeperd that confirms that Sonic Worlds was made with MF2. God, it's so maddening to find this stuff RIGHT after the article leaves the main page... Tezero (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine this is already resolved, but to weigh in anyway, user-contributed wikis have no editorial standards for reliability (so: no good). This would go for the forum posts, though you could use the engine's creator as a source about himself as long as the parts repeated are innocuous (i.e., not exceptional claims). But I didn't see anything particularly exceptional worth citing in the stickied Sonic Worlds forum posts. czar ♔ 02:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically all the information cited to the thread can be found in LakeFeperd's posts alone, which makes the use acceptable. Is it "worth citing"? Well, I'd say so, insofar as the game is worth writing about. Tezero (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it's an MMF2 engine in of itself means it requires some level of computer expertise. As Damizean's (Worlds' creator) project information official thread and every source referring to how MMF2 functions or how Worlds will back the fact that my statement is much more accurate. Worlds and MMF2 in any form still involve dealing with variables, importing sprites and simple programming of objects. As such, it is a reduction, rather than an elimination. 03:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfect Chaos Zero (talk • contribs)

IME, MF2's needed level of programming knowledge is not high. (I've made a few simple puzzle/action games with very little of it.) As such, while I don't feel strongly about it, I think it's accurate to say that MF2 doesn't require expertise in computer programming - sure, there's a little, but not even as much as, say, Unity does with C#, certainly not as much as a video game programmer is normally expected to know. (Actually, that reminds me, I should be getting to work on a character description sheet for a solo project I'm making in Unity...) Tezero (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Should Sonic: Before the Sequel get it's own page?

The title explains everything. Sonic: Before the Sequel (S:BTS as I'll abbreviate it) is the game that comes before S:ATS in the series of LakeFeperd's unofficial games. Instead of 'Sonic: Before the Sequel' redirecting to this page, should it get it's own? If so, is there enough info on the game? Firework917 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

See the comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic: After the Sequel/archive1. I'd have to see what coverage exists for BTS before having an opinion. czar 01:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

LakeFeperd interview

On June 18, 2019, Sonic fan site TSSZ had a interview (part of their "Final Focus" series) with LakeFeperd to mark the-then launch of his original game Spark the Electric Jester 2. In the interview, among many other questions, the TSSZ asked on whether he’d consider revisiting the Sonic fan games that made his name in the fan game community. Its a interesting interview worth a look. Link.81.236.92.14 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Featured article in need of review

As much as it makes me giddy that such an oddball cult project like this has its article be promoted to FA quality, I'm noticing several problems:

• The original nominator hasn't been active in anything on Wikipedia since October 2019, so the article's 2014 promotion is outdated.
• Bringing up what button does what crosses the line of WP:GAMEGUIDE
• Most of the gameplay section describes the same concepts as the original platformers, making it redundant. More of this section should discuss what's different from the Sonic-developed originals.
• The plot section has two major issues:
  • (1) Statements like "After this zone" or "once they get to this zone" are unnecessary. Even non-gamers know there are levels in video game, and it should be presented in the same way you would summarize a film or TV episode's plot..
  • (2) The sentence lengths in each paragraph are too non-varied.
• It is unacceptable the discussion that promoted this never questioned the reliability of the sources. While cites from Red Bull and Kotaku are reliable and make up a fair amount of the non-primary info, just as much of that is cited from questionable soruces:
  • IndieGamesPlus looks like a blog
  • TSSZ looks like a low-quality fan site
  • the Sonic Retro source is a forum
• The article is a bit incomplete. For example, sources like The Guardian discuss this game in the context of how only fan-made projects have kept true to what made the original Sonic games so great and not the actual Sonic games.
• For reception, I know opinion consolidation isn't an option since they weren't enough opinions for that to be possible, and I don't doubt the many efforts to make this article's prose high-quality; however, short sentences like "Nintendo Life writer Damien McFerran also called the game "impressive".[25]" feel unimportant and disrupt the flow.
• Many citations inaccurately format works like publishers. Aka, they don't italicize work names.
• Why does ref 20 present the publisher name as "Game Rankings" when other cites put the words together without a space? Which is it?

It could look a lot worse, but overall this article needs improvement. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro, I can take a look at this article later this week, but the TSSZ article is an interview, so I think it should be fine. JOEBRO64 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, best of luck! HumanxAnthro (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro, I've looked over the article and I don't see much reason to demote this. It needs some copyediting, but I personally think it's fine. IndieGames has been discussed in the past and is reliable, while the Sonic Retro source comes from the developer himself so it'd classify as a primary source. Most of the other issues are simple fixes that won't take much time at all. JOEBRO64 02:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Sonic After the Sequel DX and Omega - More information needed

Hello, I was wondering if there could be more information added to the Wikipedia page for Sonic After the Sequel regarding the new final boss that was included in DX. From what I have read, it sounds like an exciting addition to the game and I think it would be great to have more details and possibly even some images of the boss on the page. It would also be helpful to have information on any other new features or improvements that were added to the DX and Omega versions of the game.

I understand that these versions may not be as popular as the original, but they are still significant updates and deserve to be recognized on the Wikipedia page. I suggest adding a new section on the page dedicated to these versions, including information on new features and gameplay changes.

Thank you 50.70.252.156 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• BeamSonicATS.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• BeamSonicATS.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)