Talk:Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds

Importance of characters

Looking at the list of characters, I’m not entirely convinced that an entire section for all characters is necessary. For the Sonic characters I don’t think listing each individual character like Zazz or Omega being in the game is really important. Aside from maybe the Babylon Rogues there isn’t anything especially notable about each character’s inclusion. As for the crossover characters, while they are more notable I feel like them being additions to the base game and getting free updates means they would be better suited for a table such as this, emphasizing their home franchise instead of each individual character. I feel their franchise being listed would be more efficient and overall signify their significance better than the current format. ElevenHour (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hard disagree. In a game like this, the character roster is often a significant part of the game's marketing and presentation. Besides, sources imply notability, so the fact that there are multiple sources which chose to write about which characters are included in the base roster makes them a notable element of the game (and by extension, its article). As long as they all have reliable sourcing to back them up, which they do, there's no harm in the list's inclusion. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

"Tracks" section

My addition of that section was reverted by Cyberlink420 in this edit. (Wait, is "in" the right word for the previous sentence? If not, what word would work better?) Anyway, Cyberlink420 explained,

The Generations games required prior discussion before that decision was made, and this will likely be a similar situation. Please discuss on the talk page first.

Alright. Let's discuss. Ss0jse (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as Cyberlink mentios, in most situations, charts like that are considered WP:GAMECRUFT and even that one has been challenged with people attempting to remove it over the years. So that should be seen as a rare exception, not the standard. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Here is a previous discussion regarding Sonic Mania#Levels and MOS:VG#Exceptions. That discussion may be relevant to the discussion in this section. Ss0jse (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

As Sergecross said, Generations was very much the exception and not the norm, and the only reason Shadow Generations inherited that without any discussion was because it was literally part of Generations, which had already established a consensus. Furthermore, as the policy page states, Generations was granted the exception because "its reliance on aspects from prior Sonic games is the basis of the game". That argument doesn't hold water for CrossWorlds when half of its main tracks are completely original. (For the record, I'm not sold on Mania's inclusion of a levels table either.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"Half"? Only 16 out of 39 (or 45 if we include the Season Pass tracks) is not half, nor approximately half. Ss0jse (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, Sonic Mania has 26 acts (12 two-act zones, plus 2 one-act zones), only 9 (4 two-act zones, plus 1 one-act zone) of which are original, and 9 out of 26 is close to 16 out of 45. Ss0jse (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I said main tracks. And even if you include every CrossWorld, that's still not enough compared to the Generations games, where everything is recycled except the final boss. (Also, there's never been a meaningful discussion about whether Mania qualifies, so you can't use that as a comparable example.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Are you saying that it's not a matter of ratios of original to new stuff? If it's not a matter of ratios of original to new stuff, then I guess that I have had a different idea than you about what "basis of the game" of the game means. Ss0jse (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no concrete "ratio" required; everything is decided on a case-by-case basis. Smash Bros., for example, has an even higher ratio of recycled vs original locations than CrossWorlds, but we don't list all of those games' stages because it strays too far into WP:GAMECRUFT. As has been said, Generation is the exception, and that exception was only granted after extensive discussion until a consensus was reached (and even then, as Serge said, people have still tried to remove it). Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean doing the same on other pages is automatically permissible. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I guess that I have been relying on WP:BOLD. In the Sonic Mania discussion, TarkusAB suggested prose instead of a table.

Also, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how to apply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to this discussion, since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is more about WP:AFD. Ss0jse (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Like, more about articles, not sections. Ss0jse (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I did see

Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts: Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels (including lists of stadia/sport venues), character moves, character weight classes, unlockable characters, vehicles, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.

under WP:GAMECRUFT. I assume the key word is "levels". Ss0jse (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That's the norm for game articles, and Generations is the lone exception that was decided after discussion because of its specific and unique circumstances, which don't apply to CrossWorlds. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I plan to keep the table at User:Ss0jse#Tracks. That should be okay, right? Also, in your opinion, Cyberlink420 and Sergecross73, have I made these edits in WP:GOODFAITH? Ss0jse (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I never assumed they weren't...? At the end of the day, a core tenet of Wikipedia is the WP:BRD cycle, so as long as you're willing to actually follow through with that if your contribution gets reverted and are open to explanations why it might not be a good fit, there's no reason to take any edits as bad faith. And obviously you can leave the content on your userpage if you like, though I might suggest using a sandbox instead, since that's typically the sort of thing they're there for. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Ss0jse (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Separating characters

I made an edit to separate Sonic and non-Sonic characters in the characters section, which was reverted due to being unnecessary. While I understand the sentiment of the revert, I’m not quite sure I agree. The character roster is getting rather beefy at this point, and the amount of guest characters is already pretty significant, as well as more already being confirmed. I feel like while boldening the text works for previous games because of their rosters not being as large, the roster for this game is already larger than Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, and will only continue to get larger. Not to mention the fact that many of the characters, such as Alex (Minecraft) or Ghosts (Pac-Man), have such general names that it’s hard to know what Alex or Ghosts they are without directly clicking the link to see who it leads to. While I’m on the same page in terms of keeping characters on the page, I feel like they can’t keep being sorted the same way they are in pages for the previous entries. ElevenHour (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that I don't think a split is necessary, splitting into "Sonic" and "Guest" isn't the most effective way to go about it. If it were to be split up, it would be better to split into three sections: base roster (24), free additions (13), and paid DLC (19). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I could see that being a way, although the split that was made was mostly based on the fact that the way the page was already written indicated that “Sonic” and “Guest” was the most notable difference to clarify. While I can’t find any resources on how to do it, I know that it is possible to remove some headings from the table of contents, which if we could implement in the split, would make it an easier decision since it wouldn’t disrupt the flow of the article as much. ElevenHour (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, to do that, you would put {{TOC limit|3}} at the end of the article lead. As for balance between character lists, consider this: Splitting between Sonic and Guests would split things 30-26. A good balance now, but assume we get more than the current planned year of content like Iizuka has been suggesting. Assume things continue as they are, with a monthly free character and at least 2 characters in each of 6 paid DLC packs. Assuming onyl a few extra Sonic characters like this year, that's another 20+ guests, and suddenly that guest list is bigger than the one you're currently suggesting splitting up. (The Sonic section would also be pretty messy by virtue of being a mix between base, free, and paid characters.) By comparison, splitting between Base, Free, and Paid creates list sizes of 24, 13, and 19. In the same scenario, 12 more free characters and 12 more paid characters, those lists all become roughly equal in size, making it much more digestible. It's a much more effective means of future-proofing. (But again, my vote remains "splitting is unnecessary", especially considering we already know exactly how many characters there are going to be at the end of Year 1.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this split is something we can do if/when a Year 2 is confirmed. While I still feel a split is necessary, it’s probably a lot more agreeable if another year of characters are added on top of the current list. ElevenHour (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Red links

I'm having trouble trying to remove the red links from Giga, Toriena, Laur, Crazy Raccoon and Rejekun. Love my dreams (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

They don't have to be removed. They use the ill template which is a shortcut for Template:Interlanguage link. Ills are used when an article doesn't exist on the English WP, but does exist on a foreign WP. For more information, see H:FOREIGNLINK. Itdoesntmatteranymore (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Really is Unreal Engine 5.4

https://i.ibb.co/XfM8mvdx/Clipboard01.jpg

it says unreal engine 5.4 on Sonic Racing Crossworlds. Renegadeviking (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

We'll need a better source than that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, being Unreal Engine 5.4 doesn't mean it's not Unreal Engine 5. Most articles don't note the decimal place, so nothing needs to change. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)