Talk:Sonic Team

Let me just say, before I start, that I put in days of work into this. And I mean days, and lots of hours in those days. Reading old Sonic Team and Sonic the Hedgehog articles back to 1990 up through the modern day, going through old magazines on Retro CDN, you name it, I did it. I even bought a book seeking the answer to this question. Where the hell did we get "Sega-AM8" from? Follow me on this investigation here, so I can show you my train of thought:

Based on all the research I did, I have every reason to believe that Indrian was right all along, that AM8 was a mis-amalgamation of R&D #8, which we knew was a designation Sonic Team did actually have from 1999-2000. As evidence of this, I found two different magazines, both from October 2000 when the studios were split into subsidiary companies, with Electronic Gaming Monthly calling them R&D #8, and Next Generation (magazine) calling them AM8. In the same publishing month. If that's not confirmation of this theory, I don't know what is.

Ken Horowitz's book The Sega Arcade Revolution, published not even a month ago, sheds some light on this: he places all of this shuffling much earlier in Sega's history, I think in an effort to explain the story we've all been told about Sega-AM8 starting in 1988, but refers to Sega's R&D structure as being called the "Sega Amusement Machine Research and Development teams" and lists them as "Sega R&D #1 (AM1)", for instance. He does get AM2 right where magazines got it wrong in the same book, noting that AM2 was originally Sega DD #2 and became AM2 sometime after Power Drift. Horowitz does admit before going into detail about the origin of each studio, however, that Sega didn't keep good records in that time frame and there are holes that canvassing both English and Japanese sources can't fill in, and that he is only attempting to fill in the blanks with information from his sources and interviews.

AM8 is actually the first, date-wise in Horowitz's research, to be started, before AM1, AM2, or AM3. That makes it dubious right off the bat that that's the case. As further proof, I couldn't make heads or tails on the story about Shinobu Toyoda running AM8 from its supposed founding in 1988 and that Naka and co. were in his division. In no place other than retrospectives with this same narrative claiming the 1988 date can I find anything at all that indicates Toyoda was anything other than an executive at Sega of America. In other words, there's no evidence to really support this story's accuracy. For that, it needs to be left out because that has the telltale signs of being an accuracy error.

Does Toyoda missing from this account really matter? Probably not, actually. There's an argument to be made that Sonic Team really started in 1991 with Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game), and that year is listed as well in a January 2001 article from Next Generation (which I still have to add in - it mentions the Phantasy Star games before that but still calls 1991 the year of Sonic Team's origin). And at this point, I think that's where this story begins. Whatever division of Sega that Naka and co. were part of fell apart after Naka went to Sega Technical Institute anyway, so it's really a moot point in my opinion.

That being said, I think I've accumulated enough evidence to at least make mention of the AM8 name based on the use in more period-based sources from 2000 and evidence the research and development program name caused this confusion, plus that Sonic Team did not develop any arcade games stated clearly in a source. And that's as far as I want to go with it. That will be the explanation given to our readers as to why, when they see "AM8" everywhere, that that is a designation associated with Sonic Team. We can let them fill in that it's a mis-amalgamation and show them what we have.

Let me know if anyone has evidence to the contrary of my research, but after all that work I'm pretty strongly of my opinion of how much of "AM8" needs to be mentioned, and that's no more and also no less of what I inserted into the article. If anyone has any questions, let me know. I'm pretty sure all of that made me a bit of a guru on sources for this article :)

Red Phoenix ^talk 02:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a heroic level of work. It's so dense I can't pretend to follow much of it, but I trust you to have got the facts as straight as anyone could with the sources we have.

My only suggestion would be to remember that, where sources disagree, it's fine to spell that out in the prose - eg with "Sources disagree about <blah blah blah>; according to X, <blah blah blah>, but according to Y, <blah blah blah>." But you probably know that already and have a good idea of whether that will be necessary. Popcornduff (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It was a lot of work, probably too much but it was just something that's really been bugging me. It still bugs me that we don't know where that whole story comes from about Toyoda running the "AM8" division that included Naka and Ohshima and it starting in 1988. It's so prolific a story, and I'm sure it's been copied a lot, but how it got to be is something I just can't make sense of. Every story starts somewhere and the earliest place I found it was some college freshman at Stanford's paper for a class, dated to 2002 (two years before Wikipedia called it AM8 and four years before Retro Gamer published their profile on Sonic Team), but I can't get it any further back than that, and I doubt he made it up himself. The "AM R&D" name is actually confirmed if you look at a logo of Sega AM2; while the current one on its article is from when they were a subsidiary company, I did find one in the January 2001 of Next Generation where under the palm tree in the logo, it says "AM R&D Dept. #2". Red Phoenix ^talk 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looking though some of the sources, it appears that the idea of a contest to create a mascot character for Sega is not quite accurate. As traditionally told in sources like Kent, Sega was looking for a mascot character and held an internal design competition. Then, once a mascot was chosen, Naka and Oshima started working on a game featuring this mascot. If one delves into the sources, however, it appears the situation is more complicated. In The History of Sonic the Hedgehog Oshima describes two separate processes going on at the same time: an attempt to create a game that would sell really well in the United States, and an attempt to find a new mascot character. Oshima, it appears, was involved in both: he was working with Naka to create a new fast-scrolling action game, and he was working with the toy and stationary department on design ideas for a mascot. Oshima believes that his mascot proposal was accepted precisely because he was already working with Naka on a game featuring the character. This explains why Yashuhara states that it was entirely up to him, Naka, and Oshima to develop said character, because the game was already in development when Sega decided to go with Oshima as the designer of their mascot. The recent GDC postmortem talk given by Oshima and Yasuhara also make it clear that the game was already in development when the final character was chosen. Its not that Oshima's character won a competition, its that when everyone was submitting ideas on how to do a mascot for Sega, the progress Naka and Oshima had already made on a character-driven game won them the assignment. Indrian (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was highly suspicious of that when I stumbled across the interview with Yasuhara; that seemed a little odd because he was very explicit in the interview that it was not directed at all of Sega but just himself, Naka, and Ohshima. I can't help but feel like retrospective sources on the beginnings of Sonic Team really got this wrong in every way possible, and I'd love to know how and why. Indrian, do you think you could supply some good quotes to reinforce this in the article? All I have access to is the Yasuhara interview. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

p. 97 Where did you get the inspiration to create SEGA's mascot?

At the time, SEGA was looking for a new game that would sell in the U.S., and at the same time, it was looking for a new company mascot. At that time, Naka-san and I were working together, and we had a rough prototype of

the game, and I was also working with the toy and stationary department, coming up with design ideas. Once the internal presentation rolled around, we already had quite a lot to show, so the company decided to support our

proposals, and gave us time to fully realize the project.

You mentioned that you already had rough ideas for a game and toys, so how was it working with the other departments?

There were many other teams that presented their ideas for SEGA's mascot, but I think we were the only one that spent so much time and effort and involved so many different departments, so I was very confident that we would

be selected.

Those are the most relevant quotes about this situation. Indrian (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

What barriers do you guys see remain before a GA nomination? I personally feel we're about ready, but since there have been so many eyes on this article, I want to make sure everyone's in agreement and all remaining issues are fixed before a GA nomination. Thank you, Red Phoenix ^talk 23:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there any discussion regarding their philosophy for game design or corporate culture? I've seen 'philosophy' sections in other game company GAs like Monolith Soft. TarkusAB^talk 12:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

From what I've seen, if there's sources to back it up it's good but not necessarily a barrier to the broadness criterion. The Games section helps to hit that so it's not just a company history. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unless they are doing charity work or have a clear political/philosophical message in their games or community outreach, what would ever go there? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rare (company)'s "Culture" section explains Rare's goals for their games as well as the basic work environment and their practices, like their secrecy. I'm not really sure if Sonic Team's culture has been documented in the same way, as I'm more familiar with Sonic Team games rather than Sonic Team itself. JOEBRO64 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well if that can be found, then sure. But I doubt it, because they are not really known for having a public image outside of making games. Perhaps anything that could be found would be from Sonic Team USA's side? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk)

This is unnecessary for GA or even FA. If the information doesn't exist, it doesn't exist and doesn't need to be added. Sonic Team may not even have a "culture" in the sense that some companies do. Popcornduff (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't really exist in the source material, either. There is plenty about how Sonic was mishandled and why that was, but there's not really anything that indicates a culture at Sonic Team or any information about it. I'm sure a large part of that has to do with the fact it's not a "Sonic Team" culture as much as it is a "Sega" culture, being it was only a separate company for about four years or so and even then was a subsidiary of Sega. It's spent the rest of its time as a division of Sega. If that's really it for concerns, though, I'll probably list this for GA shortly after a bit more trim-up on the references. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Just something I noticed. The article says Naka met Ohshima and Kodama working on Phantasy Star but Alex Kidd in Miracle World predates this. Need a source, at work now though. TarkusAB^talk 21:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Would love to find sources with that; I haven't seen it anywhere yet. Worthy of note as it pertains to Alex Kidd in Miracle World - the article there says Sega AM7 was the developer (likely because Kodama was later affiliated with Overworks?) but there was no AM7 at the time. This isn't tied to the AM8 debate here; even Ken Horowitz's book explicitly states there wasn't an AM7 until much later. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Just coming back to this to let you know my claim was dubious. An IP put some wrong information in the Miracle World article a year ago I just reverted. Neither Naka or Ohshima were involved with Mircale World. Phantasy Star was most definitely Ohshima's first game, this is clearly stated in his interview in The Untold History of Japanese Video Games Vol. 3. Only Kodama was involved with Miracle World. TarkusAB^talk 20:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Well, I’m glad that’s cleared up :) Red Phoenix ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sonic Team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I know Tec Toy has languished (I was out of town last week; I will wrap it up this week). I'll get this one together much faster. Indrian (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might pick this one up, but I will admit I was surprised to see you got it so quickly. I definitely appreciate how quickly you seem to get to my reviews (minus Tectoy, lol). An FYI for you: I got a new job this week, so I'm not 100% sure how it will impact my available time to edit just yet, but I don't foresee it being an obstacle at this time. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done*"With Sega's diversification of its studios into separate companies" - I don't think "diversification" is the word we are looking for here. Divestiture? Spin out? I'm not quite sure what would sound best.

• • Went with "divestiture". I had a lot of trouble trying to pick a good word for this.

  Done*"According to Ohshima, Sega was looking for a game that would sell well in the United States simultaneously, and that he and Naka already had the game and character design idea ready, with Ohshima having worked with Sega's toy and stationery department, and that the progress they had already made encouraged the company to select their proposal." - That's a pretty long and tortured sentence. It should be broken up into slightly smaller chunks.

• • Ouch... how I missed that, I don't know. I broke it up.

  Done*I guess I am a little unclear as to why the "Move to the United States and Sonic sequels" section is in the article at all. The original Sonic the Hedgehog was created by an entity that identified itself as Sonic Team, so going into depth a little bit as to how they came together makes sense because it sets the stage for the formation of the development division later. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD, on the other hand, are not identified as productions of a "Sonic Team" anywhere in the credits and were created separately in two different countries by different members of the original team. I don't think the history of these games really has anything to do with Sonic Team other than as a bridge from the original group on the first Sonic game to the real beginning of the division when Naka returned to Japan around 1995. This can be dealt with in just a couple of sentences rather than having so many development details of the games.

• • It exists because it did exist before I spun out Sega Technical Institute into its own article. To be honest, you have a good point, and I didn't even think twice about Ohshima's work on Sonic CD being out of scope, but on reading your comment I think you're absolutely right. I'll do some reduction.
    • And done. Reduced this to one paragraph in the next section.

  Done*"Following the release of Sonic & Knuckles, Yasuhara quit, citing differences with Naka. Naka returned to Japan, having been offered a role as a producer. He was placed in charge of Sega's Consumer Development Department 3, also known as CS3. In the mid-1990s, Sonic Team started work on new intellectual property, leading to the creation of Nights into Dreams (1996) and Burning Rangers (1998) for the Sega Saturn. Naka was reunited with Ohshima and brought with him Takashi Iizuka, who had also worked with Naka's team at STI. Naka stated that the release of Nights is when Sonic Team was truly formed as a brand." - This paragraph feels a little out of order. The sequence of events is: Yashuhara quits Sega due to disagreements with Naka; Naka returns to Japan in a producer role with his own division; Ohshima and Iizuka join Naka to form a new core for the division; work begins on Nights; the "Sonic Team" name takes hold as a brand; the team follows Nights with Burning Rangers. The paragraph does not convey this sequence of events in a way that flows well.

• • Addressed. I can see how that was confusing.

  Done*"During the development of Nights, STI was working on Sonic X-treme. After Naka threatened to leave Sega if the Nights engine were used for X-treme, the team's access to the engine was revoked; when it became clear the team would not meet its deadline, the game was canceled." - While certainly true, is this really relevant to the history of Sonic Team as opposed to Sega in general or STI?

• • Removed. It made sense to me in connecting Naka's history with STI, but it really is more relevant to STI than it is to Sonic Team.

  Done*"Naka was installed as the CEO, and Sonic Team USA was set as a subsidiary of Sonic Team in Japan." - We have a sequence issue here again. Sonic Team USA is not properly introduced until the next paragraph.

• • Moved this paragraph down one. It's not exactly said when it happened for certain, but all of the coverage that I saw about the "divestiture" happened in October 2000, well after Sonic Adventure was released. Moving the paragraph fixes the issue.

    @Red Phoenix: A search in the US trademark office database reveals a filing date of July 28, 2000. TarkusAB^talk 14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done*"After a series of difficult Sonic releases" - I assume you mean they were poorly received? "Difficult" can mean many things and does not necessarily convey that thought.

• • I did. "Difficult" was the word used by the source, but I think we can safely say poorly received without taking the source out of context.

I assume this section was a merge of another article? It certainly reads like one. There is some duplication with material presented in the earlier history section and some awkward sequence breaks. It makes more sense, for instance, to have the ChuChu Rocket and Sonic Adventure 2 stuff in the appropriate historical chronology. Also, I am assuming that during the period it was called Sega Studios USA it was not connected to Sonic Team until the later merger? If so, then the material from that period is really out of the scope of this article other than a sentence or so just bridging the different eras.   Done*Actually, it's not, but I did write it as one mostly to try and clear up what is Sonic Team/Sega Studios USA, especially since that won't warrant its own article in all likelihood. I'll try to restructure this more properly; it was admittedly a late addition to the article I could have handled more thoroughly. There's nothing, though, that says Sega Studios USA on the rename was not connected to Sonic Team; in fact, I've found interviews Iizuka did with Naka on the Shadow the Hedgehog game, which was under the "Sega Studios USA" banner that suggest Sonic Team still supervised like they did with the Sonic Team USA releases; I'll get you a link if you wish to see.

And there we go. I think this article has a few structural issues that may require a little work to straighten out. I don't think any of these are insurmountable, however, so I will put this nomination   On hold while these concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll get working on this over the next day and get it all together. Thank you for the review and the repair work so far; this was one of the more difficult articles I've ever written and it's nice to have some critical commentary to put it into focus, something I really feel I struggled with doing this article. As a side note, a lot of the focus issues I think come from what all redirected here before I put my hands on it: Sega Technical Institute, United Game Artists, Sonic Team USA were all examples of articles simply redirected here, so it's good to get more opinions on this to straighten out the focus. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Indrian: I'd like to ask for your input on how to best handle a few points in the Sega Studios USA section. I put this in as a separate section mainly to handle the fact that Sonic Team USA and Sega Studios USA redirected here and I felt they were unworthy of a separate article, as well as to ensure there was no confusion with the similarly named Sega Studios San Francisco, since that was not Sega Studios USA. Here's what I'd like to seek your opinion on:

• Is the separate section even worth it, or is it best integrated? I would rather not delete it entirely because I don't see it ever becoming an article in the same way Sega Technical Institute is, due to a lack of coverage.
• If it is worth keeping as a subsection, and I can see you value chronological order as a logical choice in the history, how much of their history is worth mentioning in the main prose?

Other than that, I believe I've got all your concerns addressed. Let me know what you think; I think we're very close to a good article here. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

For now, I have removed some of the duplication to try and frame the article correctly as it is, only really mentioning the separation, change to being a subsidiary, and rename in the History section. I would still personally be in favor of keeping the subsection. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Just a passing comment: do you guys think Sonic Runners, Sonic Team's first (and so far only) game exclusive to mobile phones, would be worth mentioning in the history section? JOEBRO64 13:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It may be worth a brief mention in the appropriate history subsection. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I've added a tidbit about it JOEBRO64 22:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Indrian: I understand you have been busy, and I apologize if I am bothering you, but are we good to go here, or are there more concerns you feel I should address first? Red Phoenix ^talk 16:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Its no bother. I am sorry I have had to drag out the last couple of reviews a little bit, but I hope my input has been helpful. I think we are probably good to go, and I will be sure to wrap this up in the next couple of days. Indrian (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • It has been helpful, as it always is. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Okay, I think everything looks good. Time to put this one to bed. Indrian (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. In my most recent edit, I changed the foundation year to 1990, since I was under the impression that the team was actually founded in that year. However, it was reverted. Per WP:BRD, I'm opening a discussion on this matter. Should we list the foundation date as 1990 or 1991? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If it were up to me, I'd actually list 1994, with Naka's return to helm Sega CS3, since even Naka himself called Sonic Team "just a team name" in 1991 but that it "truly became a brand" in 1994. That being said, this is debatable and has been, because as we discussed before, what are we calling Sonic Team? Naka and Ohshima? That would likely be 1990. Naka, Ohshima, and Yasuhara? Not sure if that's 1990 or 1991 since Yasuhara came on later. Release of Sonic the Hedgehog? That's clearly 1991, though we know they worked on it in 1990. Naka and Yasuhara? I don't think so; I believe it's important to credit Sega Technical Institute as the organization they worked at. I've always felt that Naka's return and reunion with Ohshima is, but the media tends to credit any work by Naka as Sonic Team (hell, there are even some that say 1988 and Phantasy Star, calling it Sega-AM8 then when it's clearly false).

Here's a thought: what's the precedent for this listing for video game studios - to go off of when they started developing, or their first release? Red Phoenix ^talk 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To me, it doesn't make sense to use anything other than the point at which the first team or studio formed. We're talking about the history of a development studio here, not its products, if you see what I mean.

As for whether we consider Sonic Team to have formed for Sonic 1 or later... let's go by the sources. Sega may not have used the name until later, but most sources credit Sonic 1 to Sonic Team, applying the label retroactively. That's good enough for us, I think, and the route least likely to confuse readers. Popcornduff (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A solid point for 1990 there. Dissident93, as the person who reverted, your thoughts? Red Phoenix ^talk 13:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thinking more on it, the development of Sonic 1 began in 1990, so some part of the team had to have been formed around then as well. I'm fine with 1990 if others are, but 1991 still has a stronger case if people wish to debate that too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What's the case for 1991? Popcornduff (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The first recorded case of Sonic Team being an official thing (by way of Sonic 1). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I don't buy that, personally. This article is about the team of people described by sources as Sonic Team. That team formed in 1990. The fact that they weren't necessarily called Sonic Team in 1990 (and possibly not at all until the Saturn era) isn't so important.

Perhaps an odd comparison to draw, but Radiohead weren't named Radiohead until 1991, and didn't release their first single until 1992 - but they still formed in 1985. That's the normal way of thinking about these things, I believe. Popcornduff (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right, but the Sonic Team case is muddy because even until 1996, the name was more of an unofficial branding within Sega than its own legal entity, which is something that obviously was not the case with Radiohead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does that make sense? Radiohead wasn't a legal entity while they were still kids playing in a school band, but we still say they formed in 1985. And besides, by your reasoning we'd have to say Sonic Team formed in 1996, not 1991. Popcornduff (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right, I'm just saying that it's easier to understand for a band like Radiohead than Sonic Team, especially as one could make the case for 3 or 4 different dates. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If we’re really talking about a legal entity, Sonic Team has only been “Sonic Team” legally from 2000 until 2004, when it was a subsidiary company. Otherwise, it has been a numbered research department of Sega except for the original 1990-91 team, which were some developers from Sega’s CD (Consumer Development) division. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about Sonic Team, Phantasy Star, Nights, Sonic games: http://shmuplations.com/sonicteam/ TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

That’s awesome. I’ll have to do some digging in there. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this site considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes? Popcornduff (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yee. JOEBRO64 00:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure about that? I mean I definitely consider it reliable myself, but I recall asking about it a few years ago and the consensus was "maybe not", IIRC. Popcornduff (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've used it a lot with no issue, and I've seen articles go through GAN and FAC using shmulations with no issue as well, so I've always just assumed it was considered reliable. I mean, I don't see any reason to consider it unreliable; the translations are usually pretty high-quality. JOEBRO64 00:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is Shmuplations a reliable source? Well, the original source here is Sega Magazine, not Shmuplations. I generally footnote these translations to the original source and provide a link to Shmuplations as a "translation" (as I did with source 5 in Policenauts). In the past he wasn't quite so good at providing the original source details, it's a long story why but he's gotten better with it over time.

So the follow-up question would be, are the translations valid? Well he's certainly not making up shit. Perhaps this is COI but I've met Alex in Tokyo and he's legit as it gets. He helped me get a library card and showed me how to scan magazines. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've cited it before. Usually what I'll do is cite the original source itself and note Shmuplations as a "via" through which the source was acquired, i.e. like a newspaper article accessed through an online library (such as HighBeam Research before it was closed sadly). Red Phoenix ^talk 03:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

All right, neat. I've done just that and added it to the Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) page. Popcornduff (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, according to this interview, Naka returned to Japan after Sonic 2 and Sonic 3 was developed there. That's not what our pages say... Popcornduff (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If that is the case, right now Naka is the only one that says that, and he may very well be mistaken. From my work on Sega Technical Institute, GamesTM interviewed STI director Roger Hector, and he talked about the development of Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles at STI. This is also consistent with the rest of our sources. If you Google "GamesTM Issue 60" the article for Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles is toward the top of the list (not linked due to potential copyvio). To be sure, though, I have another magazine source I want to check later today. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, as Red says that might just be a mistake on Naka's behalf. All sources I've seen say that Naka was still in America at the time, and the majority of Sonic 3's development took place there. IIRC some of the game was programmed in Japan, but the core development was in America. JOEBRO64 14:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Have to say it's nice working in areas of Wikipedia where people are so on the ball with the subject matter and sources! Popcornduff (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It’s also worth noting that a fair bit of what Naka says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially as it pertains to STI and what was developed there. An STI artist, Craig Stitt, pretty much stated that Naka was the cause of discord between the Japanese and Americans during Sonic 2’s development, and that he wasn’t interested in working with Americans. We also know his tactics when it came to Sonic X-treme. I think it’s reasonable to ask if some of his quotes come from an anti-American, pro-Japanese bias, though for BLP reasons I can’t just put that in an article. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up, in his Twitter goodbye today, Aaron Webber (who's moving from PR to a different position) said thanks "to all the employees of SEGA and Sonic Studio", not Sonic Team. It may not mean anything, but it might be something we want to keep our eyes on. JOEBRO64 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

There’s an office complex in Novosibirsk, Russia which containsan “IT company” named “Sonic Team” on Russian map websites (i.e. regional equivalent to Google Maps). Obviously this doesn’t mean anything, but the listing contains photos of an office interior. Sonic Frontiers suspends developed in Russia, linked to sanctions behind Russian invasion of Ukraine. User:SonicTeamRussia54 64 13:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

• SonicTeam.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply