Talk:Sonic Battle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the The Sega Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sega products. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within The Sega Project

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

[edit] NPOV

In the response section, two lines in particular stuck out as being NPOV, "Sonic Battle is considered by many members of the Sonic fanbase to be one of the best Sonic games since Sonic & Knuckles" and "a Role-Playing-Game should be non-linear and the player may make choices on how the story progresses, while Sonic Battle is clearly linear in its story-line." These statements seem very biased and I petition to have them removed.

Besides, plenty of RPGs are linear. CrossEyed7 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many RPG's are linear Tquinnathome1 14:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and linear RPGs are not looked upon favourably by reviewers. The only RPG-like element to Sonic Battle is that you must 'walk' your character around to each battle. If you don't go to the battles in the exact order that the programmers want you to, you don't get anywhere. Sonic Battle is a beat-em-up with an in-depth story, but it's a story that you can't affect in any way.(Harley, 27th October 2006)

Yeah, this is a fighting game, not an RPG. Is there...really any doubt of that. O_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.54.26 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I removed that section. It seemed that a few editors could somehow speak on some, many, and most critic's website's behalf without even giving sources. Fix that up or don't re-add it. 199.126.137.209 09:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)