Talk:Doom (1993 video game)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Capitalization of "Doom", revisited

We've been stuck with "DOOM" for a while, but I think "Doom" would be much more appropriate. Main reasons:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) suggests:

Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:

* avoid: REALTOR

* instead, use: Realtor

• Using "Doom" uniformly would get rid of the problem that the many derived products which definitely use "Doom" are currently named "DOOM" on Wikipedia to avoid inconsistency.

For reference,

"Doom" is used in/on:

• Masters of Doom (that is, in the text, not the title)
• Every Wikipedia article about the game in other languages
• GameSpot
• Doomworld

"Doom" is used for all products except Doom 3 in/on:

• Activision.com
• IGN.com

"DOOM" is used in/on:

• idsoftware.com
• The Official DOOM FAQ

Use is inconsistent in/on:

• newdoom.com

(Feel free to add to the above lists)

Here are our options:

• Use "DOOM" consistently everywhere (this is what we're doing ATM)
• Use "Doom" consistently everywhere
• Use "DOOM" and "Doom" depending on which is most widely used for (e.g. "DOOM 3", but "Final Doom").

The last option is, IMO, too cumbersome.

Article title: if the title of the main article is changed, the current Doom page could easily be moved to Doom (disambiguation). I don't think there's any other article subject named "Doom" that competes in notability..

-- Fredrik | talk 16:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think the name "Doom" is more accurate, and it makes sense to me for it to be there. And I agree out of the things listed at Doom right now it's easily the most notable and relevant. Sarge Baldy 19:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, is there anyone around who disagrees? If not, I'll go ahead and edit. Fredrik | talk 00:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No objections; I think it is a good idea. Ray Spalding 22:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I find it weird to change all of that just now. I don't see much point on it, and I've pretty much grown used to that name. id seems to prefer the name "DOOM", so I really don't see many reasons to undig an old case and change everything now. It's really not worth it. But well, I see you're already doing it. That's my opinion, still. – Kaonashi 00:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I had also grown used to "DOOM". But I'm sure I'll eventually get used to this too :) As for how id spells it, see the quote from the manual of style above. Fredrik | talk 02:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Unless I made any mistakes, all linked occurrences of "DOOM" in the main article namespace have now been changed to "Doom". Articles moved and double redirects fixed accordingly. Fredrik | talk 02:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that id Software, the creators of DOOM, spell their product name "DOOM" should be the end-all argument against this nonsense. "DOOM" is proper. Adraeus 02:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See quote from the Manual of Style above. Fredrik | talk 02:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Product names are not subject to the manual of style. Adraeus 02:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course they are. Note that this is not changing the product name, merely the typography of it to the standard on Wikipedia (would you also complain about whether it is written in italics?). Besides, even id Software and its staff inconsistently use both "Doom" and "DOOM". Fredrik | talk 02:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll explain why. Letterforms are symbols. A word is a set of symbols which is attributed a meaning. "DOOM" is a set of symbols attributed the meaning id Software initiated. "DOOM" is how the word—the set of symbols—for id Software's game looks. Now, idSoftware.com uses both variations of the product's name which results in confusion among those unfamiliar with trademark registration. For instance, a trademark holder may use DOGS (Damn Oglop-God System) in place of DOG® System. "DOG®" is not a noun; it's an adjective and it must be used an adjective in order to maintain trademark registration. I don't know the details of id Software's product identity guidelines but I suspect they are similar to the former example. Usage—context—matters.

"DOOM" is a proprietary word not subject to third-party style standards. If the manual of style claimed all symbols must be written in lowercase, would you also convert "DOOM" to "doom"? "Masters of Doom" and "DOOM" are separate products with different names attributed different meanings. Consistency is a fallacious argument. Adraeus 02:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I should also say that I won't make any effort to revert back to "DOOM" since, well, this is a trivial matter made complex by id Software's multiple presentations of its product's name. If they had only used "DOOM" (notice their games menu reflects "Doom"), I would have been strongly opposed to this reformatting of a well-known word. Their legal babble also uses "QUAKE" instead of "Quake." Perhaps id Software simply lacks product identity guidelines? Adraeus 02:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word is not the same as the logo. The Doom logo, whose text is written in capitals, also uses slanted, colored and textured 3D letters. Those are all part of the trademark (trademarks include logo design) -- are we obliged to reproduce those? I maintain that capitalization is a typographic matter, just like e.g. italicization. Fredrik | talk 02:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If technology permitted, yes. ;p Adraeus 02:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When you end a game of DOOM, you get a piece of ansi text, and the game name is spelled DOOM in all-caps. This is the correct capitalization. Go look inside the wad files for the ENDOOM entry. The reason people use Doom is laziness/consistency with other titles. DOOM should be capitalized properly in an encyclopedia.

Well, I don't know. It's just a name, anyways, though there are many, many other articles presenting "problems" just like this one, and I haven't seen people arguing about that.

Nice job you've done on those articles, by the way. It's not hard to see that. Keep up. – Kaonashi 02:27, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Fredrik | talk 02:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number of copies sold

The current information on number of copies sold for Doom and Doom 2 lacks references. Information on this unfortunately seems very hard to find; I even sent an email to John Carmack and the most specific he could offer was that all the games were million sellers.

The best reference I have managed to find is from The Complete Wargames Handbook, year 2000 revision (from [1]):

The top seller for 1993-99 was Myst. Now this was not an arcade game, but it did use extensive graphics to move things along. Myst also sold 4.2 million copies. Naturally, there was a sequel, Riven, which sold another 1.3 million games. Myst and Riven are considered "Adventure Games." There's a plot line and a lot of puzzles to be solved. Dungeons & Dragons was the first mass market adventure type game, coming out back in 1974 as a manual game. Very popular. When personal computers came along five years later, many of the first games you saw appear were adventure games. They were all text, which worked with adventure games. But once PCs acquired sufficient graphics capability to make graphic adventure games possible, adventure games really took off. In the 1993-99 top 20, there was also number 13, 7th Guest, which sold 927,000 copies. Adventure games are steady sellers, even if few of them become big hits.

The number two best seller was Flight Simulator, a game that first appeared in 1980, was bought by Microsoft shortly there after and continuously upgraded ever since. Sold 2.8 million copies. Flight simulators were the original real time games. They had to be. For years, flight simulators were held back by the lack of computing power. Ironically, just when PCs became powerful enough so that developers could do flight simulators right, along come the real time strategy (Warcraft) and arcade action (Doom) games. It?s been hard times for the flight sims ever since.

The number three seller was Doom II, with 1.5 million copies. But if you include all the Doom clones, you have millions more. For example, in the top twenty best sellers, you had similar games like Doom I (number 8, at 1.1 million sold), Star Wars: Dark Forces (number 11, at 952,000), Duke Nukem 3D (number 12 at 950,000), and Ultimate Doom (number 20 at 788,000)

These are figures from 1999. But Doom probably hasn't sold *that* much in the last five years, so this seems like good enough info to use.

As for the two million units reported for Doom 2, I believe I took it from [2], which reports "an initial release of over 0.5 million, and 2 millions sold to this day". Reliable? Could Doom 2 have sold 0.5 million copies between 1999 and 2004? I say it's likely, but it's mere speculation without solid reference.

However I also found this: [3], same number appearing on [4], apparently from 1999; "According to PC Data, Doom has sold only 2.9 million units since its release in 1994" This figure is probably meant to include both Doom and Doom II. Or is it for Doom Ultimate? 2.9 is unfortunately not equal to the 1.5 1.1 0.788 reported above -- what to make of this?

Unfortunately, the research firm PC Data apparently no longer exists, and its research results were for sale only, so no hope there.

By the way, Doom 2 was the second best selling CD-ROM game of 1994 [5], if that's worth mentioning.

Fredrik | talk 06:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To make matters worse, I also found this: [6] - Fredrik | talk 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reference page

I have created Doom/References, where ideally sources for every fact in the article should be provided. Help would be greatly appreciated.

This is an experiment; please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#References namespace and comment on the idea. Fredrik | talk 20:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doom Wiki

For those who like Doom, the recently started Doom Wiki may be of interest. Wikipedia's coverage is good, but with this we can include the details :) - Fredrik | talk 04:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a source

Please cite a source for the Doom reference in Duke Nukem and this so-called "lawsuit". I could find no reference of either on the web except for pages that use this Wikipedia article as a reference. --69.234.183.71 10:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I correct myself, I found references to the Duke Nukem level and the dead Doom marine, but still no reference to any lawsuit except for speculation. --69.234.183.71 10:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the lawsuit thing should be removed. There are many other issues with this article also, I'm afraid... Fredrik | talk 19:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They were right about the dead marine though, Never heard anything about the lawsuit. I believe it was the first or second level in a secret area, I remember seeing like half a marine sticking out of the ground, it looked like some kind of shrine. Midgitboy 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Doom reference was located in Episode 1, Level 3 - and is basically one frame of the Doom marine in the dying pose. It is found behind the mini-church, and is easily verifable/attributed to any FAQ. However, the only information about a lawsuit appears to be on par with rumours flying about the web. As a result, I put the {{cn}} on the Duke Nukem 3D article. --Sigma 7 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nukage

A long time ago, there was a Wikipedia article for the word nukage; but it was nominated for deletion. That term was primarily used when talking about DOOM. Should we redirect the word nukage to this article? --SuperDude 22:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be useful. Fredrik | talk 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To do

• The game overview is far too detailed for the main article. I suggest moving the bulk of the current text to Doom gameplay and keeping a two or three paragraphs long summary.

• Add more on the historical background, including development details (but move the majority of them to a separate article).

• Expand information on WADs, popularity, controversy and media impact.

• Move lists of spin-offs and homages to a separate page.

• More (and better) images.

• Improve language, get rid of weasel words. Add more references.

• Better structure. In particular, the current layout doesn't handle historical contexts smoothly (both pre and post release history is scattered all over the article). Unfortunately I can't think of a good layout right now.

- Fredrik | talk 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

• Game features
  • Gameplay (you shoot bad stuff with large weapons)
  • Technology (maybe more about what it meant for the gameplay than at what angles linedefs can be)
  • Multiplayer
  • Maybe something about PWADs (most of it should be covered below, but it feels weird not to mention it as a feature here)
• History
  • Background and development
  • Release and impact (industry impact, media coverage...)
  • Popularity, culture (WADs, multiplayer, tournaments, etc...)
  • Controversy (including Columbine)
  • Post-history. How is Doom remembered? Release of Doom 3 and its significance.

Note that I have left out "versions and related products" here. Reasons: 1) as I said previously, spin-offs and homages should be moved to a separate page. 2) the "Sequels" section isn't very informative. It is better to integrate brief mentions of the releases with "History", and leave the details to the main articles. 3) "Versions" and "Games using the Doom engine" can be merged with "release and impact".

Thoughts? - Fredrik | talk 16:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh..I think we need a todo box {{todo}}. I think your bulleted structure looks good, but I have a problem with "Technology" possibly overlapping with information in some subsections of History. I'm thinking you may need three sections. 1. Game features (what the game is and what it features), 2. Development (everything on the technology and development of the game), 3. Release and impact (includes controversy, post-history, reaction type stuff). K1Bond007 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Move

I think this should be moved to Doom (Computer Game) and this article replaced with the Disambiguation page. 68.38.113.242

I absolutely object to this. K1Bond007 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to determine how many people reach Doom when they want something else, and how would that compare to reaching the disambiguation page when they want Doom, if the article was moved? I think that the current arrangement results in the least mistakes. -- Jon Dowland 10:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What links here" gives a good estimate. Fredrik | talk 10:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the *player* badly wounded?

The wording of the screenshot captions seems a bit jarring to me. Surely the player is the person sitting behind the keyboard and hopefully s/he does not get wounded from playing the game, its violent nature notwithstanding. Haukurth 11:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Player in gaming would mostly refer to the human user, but when refering to the health of a player in most cases it would probably be taken as the health of their character ingame.

Some of the screenshot captions seem ridiculously verbose to me.

I concur. Vranak

Neutrality?

"The game also caused hundreds of school shootings in the United States."

What is the source for this? Was Doom simply accused of having "caused" these shootings? Suggest rewording or citing references.

um, the article doesn't say that anywhere. I reverted some vandalism awhile ago that did say that, though. Bloodshedder 23:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it said that a couple days ago. Glad it's been changed. Thank you. --Frakkle 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so limited

"This leads to several limitations: it is, for example, not possible for a Doom level to have one room over another. This two-dimensional representation does, however, have the benefit that rendering can be done very quickly, using a binary space partitioning method."

I think this part is somewhat inaccurate. Though by normal ways this is true, by doing great abuse of the Doom Construction Kit 2.2 editor (DCK), I was able to exploit several glitches on the original motor of the game, which allowed me to create spiral staircases, second floors, pools in which you could submerge (unlike the tricked ones Duke Nukem had), and some other interesting goodies.

I didn't test on other editors, but I think most of them could be used on them. DrJones 23:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can have second floors by raising and lowering sectors, but this breaks when you monsters walk around or the level is used in multiplayer, and you can never have both floors visible to the player at once. There are a few tricks that partially create the effect of one floor being above another, but none that achieves it fully. Fredrik | talk 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

nameless space marine

It says in the actual readme for Doom (not just the novels) that your name is Flynn Taggart or "Fly" along with some other background information that hasn't been included in this article.

No, no it doesn't. See the Original Readme. Furthermore, and I quote John Romero: "The less you know about him [the space marine], the more likely you as the player will feel free to invent your own personality for him." Quote taken from an interview with John Romero and Sandy Petersen by Jonathan Mendoza in The Official Doom Survivor's Strategies & Secrets (Sybex, 1994). --Iosif 7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

-fast and Nightmare!

From the article: "In addition, a few players have also managed to complete Doom II in a single run on the Nightmare! difficulty setting, on which monsters are twice as fast and respawn some time after they have been killed [...]".

Aren't monsters 2,5 times as fast as usual with -fast and on Nightmare! skill? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Caps vs. small

I think we should make the redirect title DOOM inyo the main article title, and also; make Doom a redirect to the disambiguation. --SuperDude 05:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I'm pretty much against having differing articles due to a capital or lowercase letter, I don't think that does any service to Wikipedia, but that's just my opinion on that specific issue. Beyond that, I still disagree since Doom does not always appear as DOOM or even DooM, even officially. K1Bond007 05:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Most relevant points have already been made on Talk:Doom/Capitalization. Basically: 1) id Software uses both, 2) the press usually uses "Doom", and 3) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says "Follow our usual text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment: - avoid: REALTOR, instead, use: Realtor". Fredrik | talk 10:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree about the "Doom" disambig part. Typing "doom" should lead to the disambiguation page, no reason for this to be the first thing to open. It is quite likely the reader could look for any other "doom" instead of this :) --Arny 02:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree! Because the title says DOOM 3. But title doesn't matter, it's the way it is spelled! I say it is Doom 3. And I don't see why it should be called dOOM 3, dOOm 3 or DooM 3. Because I don't see when it was spelled like that between the game and previous games.

>x<ino 09:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Pinky demon" is just "Demon"

For people's info: http://classicdoom.com/doominfo.htm About a third of the way down the page is the official list of Doom enemies straight from the game's original readme file.

Note numbering

Does anyone know why the footnote link numbers are offset by 1? - Fredrik 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do we have a reference section and a "note" section in the first place? These should be merged with the arrow in front of the reference for easier verifiability. This is proper Wikipedia style. See Thunderball as an example. The only real note on this article is about the title. I'm not sure why the number begins at "2". I'll try and look into this. K1Bond007 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate notes and references sections are used in several articles as well. But if you can improve the layout, go ahead. Fredrik | tc 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now. I figured out the problem btw. You have a reference in a thumb of an image and that's the problem for some reason. It's marked as [1] (Bill Gates image). It doesn't line up with the others. You might want to move that reference into the body of the article somewhere. K1Bond007 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There. Should all be working now. References all line up accordingly and are numbered throughout the article properly. K1Bond007 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Fredrik | tc 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

dab notice

in keeping with the "principle of least surprise" (for non-gamers, anyway), it would be better if this article resided at DOOM or Doom (computer game). But since too many links seem to point here directly already, I took the liberty of inserting a link to Dōm (where I intend to discuss the word's primary meaning, seeing that this title was 'taken') at the top, in front of the link to Doom (disambiguation), which is mainly a list of other titles of pop-culture items. dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea that this article should be moved because the title has a different primary meaning is misguided, as this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, but the extended disambiguation notice is an appropriate compromise. Fredrik | tc 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

online

does doom support online!?

Not Doom 3

87.74.56.139 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) What do you mean? You can play DooM 3 online, I also play DooM, and DooM 2. Are you asking if there is official support for them? Fr0 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

==Doom Multiplayer==

I don't think Doom can claim to be the first Ethernet-based multiplayer 3D deathmatch game, I would be of the opinion that this accolade should go to MazeWar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_wars).

Yeah, I remember this and sadly it was before DooM. If by "the first Ethernet-based multiplayer 3D deathmatch game" that didnt sucks balls, then DooM was first. Wolfenstein was terrible imo. Fr0 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DooM

This way of depicting the game has not totally fallen out of use compared to DOOM and Doom. That corrosoponding note should be removed.
You are wrong! The title spells, DOOM 3, even in the past old Doom games, it is spelled "DOOM". Just because the double "O"'s are in the middle, doesn't mean it is small letter. Anyway, to me, the name is spelled Doom. But most website suddenly calls it DOOM.

>x<ino

My point is not the correct spelling. I am stating that the spelling "DooM" has not fallen out of use.

who cares, I think it looks cooler spelled DooM but if u ppl are so picky then just call it DOOM, doom or Doom no matter how u say it, it is still the same. - DooM_768

I've also spelled it DooM since I was thirteen when the game came out, based on how it was displayed on the shareware folder (I still have somewhere, and could scan actually). Fr0 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Door sound

The Doom "door open" sound can often be heard in other medias as well - is it initially from Doom? --Abdull 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many such sounds. No, they're not from Doom originally; they're from stock sound libraries, which Bobby Prince happened to have access to. Fredrik Johansson 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Doom music

I think that at least some reference to the music used in Doom and the author of that music should be added to the article. The music, quite particularly that of e1m1, is quite well known and probably considered a classic in many communities. Currently the article doesn't even say who the composer/artist who made the music is. --Juha Nieminen

This is included in my in-progress rewrite of the article. Fredrik Johansson 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alot of it seems to be based on various metal songs, I know Master of Puppets by Metallica is certainly one of them. Hydroksyde 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe not... Might have been No Remorse (song)... Hydroksyde 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can play both No Remorse and E1M1 on my guitar, and although they sound similar, they are played completely different. IMO, not the same song. Also, there is a song (I forget the level now) that sounds similar to Alice in Chains' Them Bones.

This is the third topic concerning the same subject and it's getting ridiculous. The songs sound nothing alike except for short snippets here and there. Even the DooM wiki makes this mistake. Megapaw 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To me, someone who can't hear the similarities has clearly not heard the music from the artist or the game. They are, note for note.. the same song. I was speaking from a musician's standpoint of course. Fr0 04:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

iDOOM

There should be some mention of iDOOM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.169.165 (talk • contribs) .

See Doom source port - Bloodshedder 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Doom gloom, Thief chief, sorry Id Software, they won me over.

IDDQD

Why do we not have a section on that? Thse are the classic cheats, no one will forget them! If not on this page then on another? At the moment ist just a re-direct. IDKFA! IDDQD! IDCHOPPERS! We must do this! Dfrg.msc 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If it did it might get this warning:

idspispod at least can easily be fit in under "Continued legacy" without requiring a separate "Cheats" section, given other games that have picked up the device. someone just needs to draw up some representative examples. Sighrik 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheats

There are many cheats for Doom that have become almost legendary. Doom was one of the first games to impliment the "God mode" cheat, the "All-weapons" cheat as well as the no-clipping cheat. The cheats in Doom also work in other games, like Doom II and Wolfenstein (also made by ID Software}. These cheats can not be used successfuly in the "Nightmare" difficulty mode. Some cheats include:

• God mode: iddqd

• All weapons, keys, ammo, guns, and armor: idkfa

• Berserker strength: idbeholds

• Temporary invisibility: idbeholdi

• Anti-radiation suit: idbeholdr

• Walk through walls : idspispopd or idclip

• Chainsaw: idchoppers

Yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrg.msc (talk • contribs)

Cheats section

The cheat codes section is mostly bogus (and a fine example of article degradation due to cruft accumulation). To begin with, the claim that the codes were widely imitated in later 3D games may be correct, but so were 50 other aspect of Doom's gameplay. Among them all, this has to be one of the most trivial.

And, as the author admits, Doom wasn't even the first game to use these cheats. How is being one of the first notable? Maybe the author first encountered it in Doom, but that doesn't make it notable for the rest of the world. In fact, Doom doesn't even use the term "god mode". (Not the term "all-weapons" or "berserker strength" either.) Oh, and, these cheats do not work in games like Wolfenstein. They work in Doom II, which isn't so strange considering that Doom II was basically Doom repackaged with some new items and levels.

The article already mentioned IDSPISPOPD, which I think is the most notable one. I would agree that IDDQD might be famous enough to warrant a mention as well, but some more factual justification would be required than an out-of-the-blue assertion of being "almost legendary".

And above all; it shouldn't take a headered section and a 7-item bullet point list to say what could easily be captured in a single sentence. Fredrik Johansson 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The cheat section violates WP:NOT and has been removed (and this is a featured article, too!) Proto///type 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this. As it says in the article, the cheats in Doom are very well known. (Largely because they were copied in future games). They're historically important, not just there for game guide purposes. Ace of Sevens 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The compromise, which I've just made, is to talk about the cheats and how they are relevant, but not to list them. I think that keeps the section encyclopedic. Actually listing the cheats violates WP:NOT. Proto///type 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Even with your improvement, the text still contained the erroneous references to "God mode" and Wolfenstein, devoted a full section header to this trivia, and worst of all, contained the phrase "almost legendary". By the way, Ace of Sevens, the cheats in Doom are not well known because they were copied in future games; they are well known because lots of people encountered them in the original game. Fredrik Johansson 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Doom Music and Song Similarities

The noted similarity and straight ripping off of artists to create Doom's music. This can be noted [here]. --ADarkerBreed 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The music in those comparison mp3s sound nothing alike. Notice how the examples provided for each song are in different places and that these are minor sections of the song are not even similar unless you criticize the most minute portions.

I don't doubt that DooM's music had inspiration. Map23 of DooM 2 has a song riff that's practically identical to the Alice in Chains - Them Bones song. I've always known this and had no problem with it. However, I do have a problem with people comparing other tracks that sound almost nothing alike. Also, If we were to nitpick every song ever made then there would be no such thing as original music. Furthermore, the link you posted is original research and cannot be used to cite a source.

If you want to bark at someone then go to the Homeworld wiki and tell them that the exact same opening track is heard in the movie Platoon, note for note. This is clearly slander and if it appears in this wiki I will treat it as vandalism. Megapaw 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was rude Megapaw. Anyway here is the solution: e-mail Robert Prince and ask him yourself. His address is at his website. --24.57.157.81 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with ADarkerBreed. The similarities are not ignorable. The E3M1 Stage music and the Pantera song mouth for war are identical, and the riff is fairly unique so its easy to identify. Once you know they ripped off the one song, the similarities in the other songs can probably be assumed to be copied, and not just similar. However, there is no reliable source that analyzes this so the problem of adding original research arises and there's nothing we can really do about it. Chipotlehero 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelmed by monsters?

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the player being "Overwhelmed by mosters and seemingly killed" at the end of episode one. If you have cheated to win the game, you do get teleported to a room full of monsters (and all previously active cheats are disabled), but if you haven't you get a screen saying you have teleported to the demois base (and the episode ends). Hydroksyde 09:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You get teleported into the same room regardless of whether you are using cheats. The message screen appears when you die in that room. Degreelessness mode (not all cheats) gets turned off when you ented the room, just to make sure you'll die. Fredrik Johansson 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this is true. In the PC versions, when you complete the first episode, "Knee Deep In The Dead", you end the level by warping into a dark room filled with enemies. Even if you have 200% health and armour (or thereabouts) or cheats active when ending the level it won't help, as it times out after a few seconds!

In contrast, the Gameboy version (which has the same levels as the original Doom, but not the final 9 from 'Ultimate Doom') does not end, but just continues. This is similar to the popular PlayStation version, which *also* allows you to even start Doom II with all the weapons, ammo, health and armour you had at the *end* of Ultimate Doom! (Making it a little easy though!)stuartyler 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

XBOX 360

Just to let you know, Doom is going to be released for the Live Arcade some time very soon if somebody wants to put it on the main article. Thanks. --Shuyin05 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doom clone

"Doom clone"- Where'd the article go? Why was it deleted? -albrozdude 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cult status?

Okay, as one of the people monitoring the Category:Cult computer and video games section, I think that labelling Doom as a "cult" game is debatable. I realize that it may have been a cult game when it came out, but nowadays it's pretty much 100% "mainstream" (or whatever term you think applies here) due to it's immense popularity, so I think it may have lost it's cult status over time. Plus, as you can see, it just really seems out of place among the other games there...So what do you think? Remove it from the category or not? SlyDante 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking at cult computer and video games, I'd have to agree that it never really fit in any of the categories on that page when it was released. But now, nearly 13 years after Doom was released, a sizable portion of people are still playing, editing for, and programming on it. So, if anything, I'd say it has grown to become a cult game due to its outstanding longevity. Lots of people may recognize that it was a great game, but who of them still plays it? Bloodshedder 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that both DooM and Quake have achieved cult status because the mainstream even objects to the facts. Looking at the computer game mod wiki there was hardly any mention at all of DooM or Quake while CS is mentioned in multiple places.

HL2 was mentioned two times in this wiki for useless self-promotion, and the CS wiki does not read anything for having originated from the Quake mod Navy Seals. People even object to the validity of the DooM music, calling Bobby Prince a dirty thief (and this is coming from a supposed fan on doomworld.com). DooM has clearly achieved cult status as it has become a modern day underdog. Megapaw 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

DOOM LOGO?

Who have made the DOOM logo? What is the artists name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.227.105 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, the person who designed the cover for the game is named Don Ivan Punchatz if that gets you anywhere. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the dead end I always encounter when trying to research who made the DOOM logo, I have seen a picture of the original piece he drew for the game, but it does not contain the logo, and nowhere can I find any information that confirm that it was Don Ivan Punchatz that designed the DOOM logo. Anyone knows something I dont? /dnova

Controversy

I'd just like to know one thing about the controversy around the game: How can you blow away demons without "Satanism" and "Violence?" I'd like to see Jack Thompson argue that one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midgitboy (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't make sense of this entry. Fr0 04:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Development

Er, I'm pretty sure that his name is spelled Tom Cruise, why was this changed? Just curious. Fr0 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is copied directly from the source which has the misspelling, and logic dictates that it remains intact. This is what sic means. Bloodshedder 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that after I had posted very early this morning. So, I had my answer before you posted but thanks. Fr0 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode 4

Thy Flesh Consumed, from what I remember reading, takes place on Earth. This seems to conflict with the claim in the Doom II back-story that the Doomguy has just arrived on Earth by the time Doom II started. Should there be some mention about this in one of the articles? Woodrow Buzard 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's something that can be looked into, although the story just staring is generally considered implied in most cases. It's also debatable whether or not it does take place on Earth, as the background looked like a variant of one used in Doom II. --Sigma 7 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Doom - Collector's Edition

Why is there nothing in the article about DOOM - Collector's Edition, released in 2003? It's an official release by Activision. Seems important to me. *shrugs* SmartSped 07:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's just another re-release. See the article on versions and ports of Doom. Fredrik Johansson 07:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even see that article. Thanks. I do, notice, however that it has the wrong release year of 2001. According to IGN, it was released in January 1, 2004, which makes more sense because the back of my box says 2003 on it. Anyway. I'll change it.SmartSped 18:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Collector's Edition was released in 2001 -- see Doomworld. It might have been rereleased in 2004 though. Fredrik Johansson 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Doomworld's "Page of Doom" is not very trustable, nor is it created with fact in mind. It is not exactly a good source as the information tends to be based on experience and is no longer updated.

Oh, I see. I'll just change it so it at least doesn't make it sound like the original release included Doom 3 preview content then because it seems from that link, that it doesn't. SmartSped 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" in Story section

What is the reasoning behind placing this notification here? Bloodshedder 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there - the current description is quite accurate. Shaolin Samurai 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doom gibs.png

Image:Doom gibs.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice site!

Nice site! a pleasant suprise

Look cut it out will you?MightyKombat 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do no bother with it. Six forums that I visit were met with the exact same topic and post.

userbox!

Code	Result
|{{User:Bahamut0013/Doomubx}}	This user is Knee-Deep in the Dead. IDSPISPOPD   IDDQD	Usage

Available for your fragging delight. If someone can find a good free image to use, I'd like to pop it in there. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this only has seventeen references. Large sections are totally unreferenced. I haven't read the article, but I'm totally suprised that an article that is barely sourced is ranked among Wikipedia's best work. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you trolling? I am reminded of why I've largely quit editing Wikipedia. Fredrik Johansson 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm an active contributor who doesn't want to see a misrepresentation of Wikipedia's standards. Look, I tried to address the problems by civil discussion. I'll nominate this for Wikipedia: Featured Article Review later. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seventeen references seems like quite a few to me. Please read the article as a first step before being hasty. After reading it which bit in particular do you think require additional references? Tomgreeny 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything. There are parts like controversy and development which are maybe just sufficient. Everything else is either sparsely referenced or not referenced at all. It's a gaming article where no gameplay is referenced at all. This is supposed to be among Wikipedia's best. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty simple to explain: this was featured back in the time where Wikipedia wasn't as concerned with ensuring most, if not all, claims were referenced in a uniform manner. Thus, at the time, it WAS featured-article-worthy. Now, however, it might have to undergo some cleaning-up, certainly. Featured Article Review (which I see has already been started?) probably would be a good idea, not to remove its status it but to help clean it up.

Just a prime example of how Wikipedia's changed over the years, really - although I'll leave whether it's for the better or for the worse up to personal interpretation. --Shadow Hog 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism???

"finally the incredbly awesome kitten cannon, the kittens do a massive amount of damage"
I remember the BFG9500 - I don't remember kittens - Am I missing something here or is someone pulling our legs?
Rufty 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is Doom really the first Ethernet deathmatch game?

I think the PC (MS-DOS and Windows 3.x) versions of Spectre and/or Spectre VR had a network multiplayer mode similar to deathmatch, even if not called "deathmatch", before Doom was released. Brolin Empey (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

featured article de-nomination

Someone who cares should populate the relevant links section of the template above and dig out when and why the article was de-nominated. -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is contained here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Doom (game)/archive1. Essentially, multiple problems were referenced, including referencing and use of images. As it stands, the article needs heavy amounts of cleanup before it can stand a chance of passing renomination. Luckily I have a lot of the original manuals and expansions for the game and am happy to take this on if people feel it's desired. Gazimoff (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

split off Doom 1 or Doom series

This article is two in one, there should exist a Doom 1 article and a Doom series/universe article, instead this conflates the two. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, though we should probably try to make sure there aren't too many Doom related articles. One article for the franchise in general, and then any articles for particularly prominent stuff (mostly product lines). I'd say Doom II and Final Doom should appear in the Doom (video game) article instead of separately. More links should be provided to the pretty solid Doom Wikia site instead of making sub-articles (like the one about the making of Doom... which seems too arcane for the Wikipedia to me). Add-ons don't really need their separate article either; a good mention/explanation in the game article should be enough. This should work out well by using the External Links section which already deals with various Doom subjects in this Doom (video game) article. Who is like God? (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at the content of this article, there appears to be very little which would be suitable for a split-off "doom (universe)" article or similar: perhaps sections of the introductory paragraphs; coverage of the novels at the end of "Clones and related products" (but not that there are already several sub-articles for this heading). -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so little if you start to add info from stub-like articles that describe franchise material to the main (franchise) article, taking the essentials (some might not be too notable). Naturally one would have to rework the content, though, since it's not just a matter of moving things around. The story related section is too wordy. In the end an article dealing with Doom and Doom II would work out fine, as they share the same engine, roughly the same resources, and the same storyline. Another article dealing with Doom stuff in general (as opposed to the core games in-depth) would also make sense. Who is like God? (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Links Section

Hello.

I tried adding some very useful links to the Quake 3 article, but someone keeps removing them saying wikipedia is not a repository of links. In this article there are loads of similar links and have been for ages. So how do I stop that person removing the similar links from the Quake 3 article? Ben 2082 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate informations as well as spam, hoaxes, inappropriate formatting, etc. may have not been detected for years mainly due to Wikipedia encyclopedic nature, wiki-based editing system and continuous changes in its guidelines & manual of styles. For external links to avoid read WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. And please move Quake 3-related discussion to the proper talk page. Thanks. Visor (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note #1 (name casing)

I edited the first note and added links to reference the information, but looking back now the note still does not seem entirely convincing to me, as it contains many external links just to substantiate something that might not be relevant to many. As it was before my edit, the "reference" was an explanatory note (annotation) without sources attributing a loose statement to John Romero and making risky assumptions (at least that the official position of id on the matter is not known). I also added that the all-caps use is primarily brand-related (referring to the trademark or game as a product) to the article, because rather than wondering what is "official" it's best to simply note why and how variants are used.

From what I see, the original note came up after a long discussion editors had on whether DOOM or Doom should be used for the Wikipedia, and to me it reads more as a note to editors rather than one to readers in general; "leave/use the Doom variant because you can't prove the DOOM one is official". But in the end, the reason the Doom variant was chosen is because it suits the naming conventions of the site, unless I have the order of events wrong and it was one of the articles that helped establish the corresponding part of the adopted conventions. Regardless, this is pretty established by now, so using Doom doesn't need justifications.

Thus, one option would be to simply eliminate the note altogether. Another, to add the "name controversy" subject to the article adding in any necessary references in the usual way, but to me that may be a touch arcane. Any thoughts... suggestions? Who is like God? (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Boxart

That Image:48-front.jpg image which I uploaded, I added it here. Why did you revert my edit? Fangusu (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Because an image for it exists already which is of a suitable low-resolution for fair use. Also, 48-front.jpg is not obviously named, and looks like it has been resized from an original smaller image, as it has pixelization artifacts. Bloodshedder (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Source Ports

I had a look at the "Versions and ports of Doom" wiki page. It doesn't cover the Windows source ports, such as Doom Legacy, DoomGL, ZDoomGL, GLDoom, and the history of each source port, and lost of source port code, etc.

Should that go there, or can we add some stuff in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwan1980 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like Doom source port? Bloodshedder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The problem was, Doom source port is not even linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game) it should at least be in the bottom table called "The Doom series and related topics", in a line category called "Doom Source Ports" or something. Also, Bloodshedder, I registered on doomworld forums, and clicked on the activate email, but I still can't post to any forums. Is there anything else I need to do, or is this a bug?Andrewwan1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Doom source port is linked under the Continued Legacy section. It is also linked to twice in Versions and ports of Doom, in the introduction and later in the article. As for your forum problem, your account is shown as active and you have made one post. Bloodshedder (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Shareware and its distribution

I've change the text that used to read "Distributed as shareware, Doom was downloaded by an estimated 10 million people within two years". Onlythe initial few levels were distibuted as shareware - I think it might have been the first 4. Also - this was long before broadband - most shareware at that time was distributed on floppy disks or as Cd cover mounts on magazines. Meowy 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction - there were 9 levels in the shareware release. Meowy 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

December 1993, DoomDOS avalibity

What was the avalibilty of Doom in December 1993 after it's launch on 10th December 1993, if anyone can give me some info, give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No joy at the moment? When anyone's got any joy on the sucsess of the DOS version of Doom during 1993 then please give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PC Zone magazine of March 1994, p133, says that a "Jay" from ID software uploaded it to the action/arcade forum of compuserve on 10th december 1993. There was a delay in uploading all of it because so many users were asking for the game that compuserve's disk (yes, they wrote "disk", singular!) had become filled up with their requests. The game was divided into 3 parts (3 separate zip files presumably). Meowy 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing Sun Workstation Reference

I am removing the Sun Workstation bit at the beginning of the article. I have found no information supporting the claim that id Software released a Sun version of Doom. The only Sun executable I've found is a third-party program not released by id Software.

- Razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.36.217 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Razor, can you provide more information on what 3rd party it was and at what date it released the software you found? Because I clearly remember playing Doom on SparcStation on 23 December 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed as C; lacks references for a lot of content, including Gameplay and almost all of the WADs section; Controversies section also lacks references in some parts; conventional Reception, such as reviews and "top games" lists, are sorely missed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what happened?

Why does this article have (video game) in the title now?

As usual, I'd like to ask to leave a copy of the reply to my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess because thre is a movie with the same name... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.72.198 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Cus theres a movie based off of the doom 3 game thats titled just DOOM. Not that im putting any changes, but heres a site to show you about the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419706/ --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Crawler vs. First Person Shooter

There were several references to Doom as a [Dungeon Crawler]. This seems inaccurate as far as I can tell. That term, as well as wikipedia's article on it, refers to a type of role-playing game. The term first-person shooter seems to be a more accurate description, so I've updated the text to reference this.Caidh (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dungeon Crawler is completely wrong and should be considered vandalism. 74.72.93.158 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I had just happened upon the page today - I didn't notice the change to 'dungeon crawler' was only recent. Should have just reverted instead of editing. Thanks for those who fixed it (since I missed one spot).Caidh (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Um. i dont thats vandalism. or at least not intentional vandalism. I think it was what somone put on here based on opinon. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we mention that only 2 people out of 10 million players killed anyone?

• In the section about the Columbine shooting section, can we mention that only 2 people out of the 10 million Doom players are known to have shot anyone? Or that the two kids doing the shooting are notable as being the only known people, out of 10 million Doom players, to have ever actually killed anyone? Or that the controversy was just an excuse, something people could blame it on? I removed mentions of it in another article not related to this already. [7] Perhaps mentioning this in the Columbine massacre article only. Does it need to be here? Dream Focus 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should. There's no POV being pushed by the coverage in the article right now, and the event was a major story at the time. I don't see what it adds to say that "only 2 people out of the 10 million Doom players are known to have shot anyone." That feels like a POV, to me (a subtle one, surely). I also don't know why you removed the similar mention in the FPS article, and I am going to revert it (just FYI), although I'll avoid an edit war should you decide to undo my revert and will take it to the article's talk page. Why are you removing this obviously noteworthy event from these articles' controversies sections? Both articles discuss controversies, and Doom's supposed involvement with Columbine is both very, very notable and warrants inclusion as a controversy. I completely agree with you that the controversy is and was absurdly ridiculous, and if the articles were actually saying that Doom was somehow at fault for Columbine, I'd be right there with you in deleting it. But I don't see how the articles are saying that, and I don't think adding the disclaimer you mention above is anything but putting a POV on this. Wikipedia shouldn't be siding with either side of this debate and simply pointing out that the debate existed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Could it be expanded? I don't know of any reviews from when Doom was released and I'm pretty sure that more than 1 person reviewed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burned Toast (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify the role of NeXTStep in Doom development?

To the best of my recollection I played this game before Dec. 10, 1993 on my NeXT cube. Why is the following link not referenced? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_of_Doom

User:Datarimlens134 06:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

The link is referenced, at the top of the Development section.

Doom was developed on NeXT workstations, and then ported to DOS for the main release. It's pretty unlikely that you played it before December 10th unless you somehow got ahold of a pre-release version. Bloodshedder (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that article does not mention the alpha/beta releases. I had a copy of an early one, it had jump, crouch, and a menu option for hi-color (which crashed the system). None of the monsters moved, walking backwards downstairs while crouching crashed the game (too lazy to fix?) 203.32.16.176 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly notable or encyclopedic.  Xihr  02:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Many games have things that don't work perfectly in their pre-release stage. Dream Focus 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of "wad" extension.

I was watching the DOOM post mortem on GDC (http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014627/Classic-Game-Postmortem) by Tom Hall and John Romero and Tom Hall specifically states (about 5 minutes into the presentation) that the "where's all the data" definition was after the fact and that really the name came about when the team was defining file structures and John Carmack asked for an extension for "a bunch of lumps". Hall said he thought for a moment and said, "A wad?" and the name was used.

So what I'm wondering is if the current text in the beginning of the article which says "WAD" is "an acronym for Where is All the Data" should be changed. Not that that isn't true, but it seems to mean that the extension came from that phrase when in reality the phrase came from the extension.

-madpanic24.17.18.23 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Character name & story

Among other touch-ups I removed the nameless/anonymous adjective from space marine in the story section as it's better dealt as part of the game design. I added the corresponding information (with a designer reference) to the gameplay section, as the lack of a name is a feature aimed to affect game immersion. The story section also said the marine was working for the UAC, but there is no indication. The story merely says the UAC is a supplier (of technology) for the military and that the marine is stationed in Mars, where the UAC has its operations. Who is like God? (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've further changed the description from "nameless" to "unnamed". "Nameless" means that the person (or thing) in question doesn't have a name; "unnamed" means that it has a name which we haven't been told. ("Anonymous" could probably have either meaning.) -- 93.97.40.177 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Violent video games reduce violent crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616 number nine, original work, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 . Is it worth including in the controversies section? 750ml (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned last year in one of the sections above, we should just mention that having 2 people out of 10 million that played the game shoot up their school, would mean that obviously it didn't cause it. Mention they were just looking for a scapegoat of course. Anything to correct the idiotic misconception some might have of blaming this or other games for violence, would be great. The article already does a fine job now quoting research that says school shooters don't like violent video games, it not influencing them. Dream Focus 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion

There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth over the image. I've put it to the version that was the "original" (for this particular proposed change) as far as I know. Let's try to get a consensus here instead of continuing to switch it back and forth repeatedly.

1. Image:Doom-boxart.jpg – "Original"
2. Image:Doom.jpg – Possible replacement (Image was deleted because it's a fair-use image not used in any articles: can someone find the website source from which it was uploaded?)

When the second image was first uploaded it had a watermark that made it unsuitable, but now either one would be appropriate for use. Here are a couple of arguments I have seen presented (please correct me if I misstate your position): Fangusu has pointed out that the original image specifically references "The Ultimate Doom," rather than just Doom, and as such believes that the second image is preferable. Bloodshedder thinks that the overall quality of the second image is inferior due to some pixelization artifacts, and as such, prefers the first image. To my eye, the first one shows the details better (for example, I can see a bit of the guy's face in the first one, whereas the visor appears opaque in the second), but I also like that the second one doesn't have that black border. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what have you decided? Fangusu (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my decision to make. It's up to the community to discuss it and come to a consensus. It's only been a few days, so the discussion is still in progress. Monitor this page if you want to find out what the final conclusion is, and to contribute any thoughts you have on the subject. Be patient, it may take a little while for people to discuss the matter and figure out what to do. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The reversions have been primarily regarding the image's caption, which was overlong and contained undue deference to the artist rather than just simply identifying it as the cover art for The Ultimate Doom, as it is part of the lede.  Xihr  21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How the hell does spelling out the name of the artist violate NPOV? Fredrik Johansson 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I have uploaded that deleted image again, and I have added a proper image source for it. Fangusu (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's create a seperate article for The Ultimate Doom. Then we can have both the images on this website. Fangusu (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Making a separate article for the sole purpose of including an image you want makes no sense at all according to any guideline or policy I'm aware of.  Xihr  07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any decisons on the images yet? Fangusu (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While the "The Ultimate" caption is a disadvantage, the overall higher quality as remarked by Icarus and Bloodshedder makes me prefer the first one. Huon (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm for the DOOM image; I think it's better to show the original DOOM game art and not that of the later retail release. The quality of the DOOM pic may be lesser but it certainly serves its purpose. I don't think an article for The Ultimate DOOM is needed (it would just be a stub anyway). Who is like God? (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Who is like God?. I think we should use the original DOOM image. Fangusu (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do need to remove one, as two very similar pics look pretty redundant. We could leave the "ultimate" pic for now and continue to discuss the matter. If it's common practice to include only the box pic and no caption for game articles on the infobox, we could shorten the info and make it a mouseover instead of a caption. I think it's fine that it mentions the author, but the descriptive part is pretty unnecessary (unlike in the screen shots where the captions associate some game details). Who is like God? (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the caption is indeed playing a role in the article as it is. Without the caption, you have to read the whole plot section just to know something pretty central and simple about the game; that it's about a marine battling hellish invaders. So either the caption needs to stay in the infobox or this has to be addressed somehow (such as by adding this to the root section of the main body of the article). Who is like God? (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that there is an image discussion, and that one file got deleted. I have uploaded it again, and I have found the source for this image. Queen of smart alecks 02:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Current image File:Doom-boxart.jpg

Current image problems:

• image is not from Doom, it's Ultimate Doom, title "The Ultimate" removed in editor;
• image modified;
• image has wrong description, it is not box art or cover art, it's a poster (see external links section);

Check original covers here and here.--Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, The Doom 3 Screenshot Isn't From The Actual Game

Look at the GUI for the character's stats. It's from some lame ass mod. And then pistol is textured slightly different. Can someone please replace it with an actual screenshot from the game? 76.101.72.59 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see that the “lame ass mod” is the Doom 3 alpha if you look at the image’s file name, but I suppose an alpha screenshot isn’t the best image for this article. If nobody objects to replacing this image or finds a good screenshot to use in a few days, I’ll find one myself. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. —LOL (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? i ddint see a doom 3 scrn sht. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are two years late to the conversation stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yangshuo

In case of Yangshuo, as in case of any geological features, the same image can be recaptured in range of centuries, because terrain changes are noticeable at least in range of millennia. YoonioR (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And the purpose of that comment would be...? --uKER (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:YangShuo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:YangShuo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:YangShuo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Music?

Not once in the article did I see any talk of the music for the game. I am confused by this. The composer was mentioned in the mandatory info bar, however not one further reference, mention, or link to the music was in the entirety of the article. I would appreciate an explanation for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.127.245 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External Download Links

I see that there is no external link to a shareware download of this game. I posted a link to the DOSome Games page for it, but it was deleted because I posted several similar links on the same day and it looked like link spamming. I believe it is a legitimate link because it is the most accessible version of the game that I know of. If anyone disagrees, please tell me on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll put the link back up so that everyone can enjoy.

Lmaxsmith (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this section by searching the word download. The article mentions the game's source code was released, does that mean that download links could be legally shared? Where can I download this game? If there is a Linux version I'm sure it's freeware now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.173.92.24 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Doom players using up internet bandwith?

• That part of the article makes no sense. Doom didn't run on tcp/ip (internet) without extra software. It was played on IPX, Modem, or Null Modem.

IPX back then was a Novell network, and I believe antidoom worked on novell netware only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.230.62 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Yes - I concur on this. At the very least, the terminology is off. I wonder if anyone can find out who added that text and figure out if the author can add some more info/clarification and references. (I wonder, is there a diff-search?) . --Overand (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Doom: Scarydarkfast - A free published book on the game, and an useful source

Doom: Scarydarkfast (not sure about proper capitalization of the title... sometimes it's capitalized "ScaryDarkFast") is a book by Dan Pinchbeck, a quite notable game researcher (he has quite a few academic articles under his belt) and designer (member of the development group The Chinese Room, authors of Dear Esther).

The book is devoted to the game's development process, gameplay, reception, impact on game industry, and the fan community. The book has been published by the University of Michigan, and is available online for free here (on a Creative Commons license.) I think it might be an excellent reference source for this and other articles about Doom (and quite a few other games.) I wanted to bring this book to your attention, as it seems to have been mostly overlooked by the Doom community at large. JudgeDeadd (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. I'll try to work this in. czar ♔ 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move

Why was this moved from "Doom (video game)" to "Doom (1993 video game)" when there's nothing at the former title but a redirect? It would seem to be unnecessary disambiguation. czar ♔ 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Doom 4 is now Doom. http://uk.ign.com/videos/2014/02/21/what-does-doom-4-renaming-to-doom-mean-podcast-unlocked --Niemti (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• That link has guys saying the screenshot of the box for this other game said you got the Doom beta, so therefor it must be called Doom and not Doom 4. The official blog for the company making the game [8] call it "the DOOM beta access pre-order bonus" but don't say its going to be called Doom when the full game is released. There is no official announcement of what the game will be called. Until there is, no need to be renaming articles. Dream Focus 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's now Doom. THAT'S THE POINT. And it's goincg to be called Doom (DOOM, to be exact, but every Doom is DOOM). Doom 4 was scrapped completely and abandoned in 2011. --Niemti (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on name change due to possible conflict with classic Doom, new Doom names.

Currently the page itself is just stated as Doom but it's later called Ultimate Doom when the expansion is added while the new Doom is seemingly just called Doom (It doesn't mention being called Doom 4 but just Doom). This is the image that can be found for the official Doom beta: http://www.push-start.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Doom_beta.jpg Anyway I was suggested the Doom 4 page be just called "Doom" while the original Doom page be called "Ultimate Doom (Doom 1)" to avoid any confusion between the titles --Ronnie42 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The original was called Doom, that's what its famously known as. Releasing it again after it got insanely famous, with a new episode and calling it "Ultimate", doesn't change that. It was still called Doom with all the ports for various consoles. The image says "Doom Beta", but that doesn't mean it will be released named Doom. The original Doom had an early demo released where it was called Doom: Evil Unleashed. So you don't know for certain what the final name will be. The company's official website should reveal information soon. If they do confirm this, then Doom (1993 video game) is the most reasonable rename, this what they do with films of the same name. Dream Focus 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I second this czar ♔ 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the original was called Doom, I simply meaning that it may need some sort of change like mentioning 'classic','modern' Doom to avoid any confusion, so people know what to look for when typing in Doom to find information on the new/old version of Doom games since they both titled under the same name. Also agree it should be called Doom (1993 video game) to avoid any further confusion, the new Doom page should have something similar like Doom (TBA video game) but at moment it hasn't even been confirmed as Doom 4, the official title may eventually be mentioned at Quake-con 2014 or E3 2014 --Ronnie42 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right that this discussion is premature. When a RS decides the new game is called "Doom" (just "Doom") then we'll go the "(201X video game)" route, per the disambiguation naming conventions. We would not add "classic" or "modern" (and have not to others), as the RS call it just "Doom". Again, if you want to discuss this when the new title is named, let's bring it up then. Otherwise, I think the current disambiguation is enough. czar ♔ 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

why is there a succession box for a minor achievement?

The succession box list it was the UK number-one PlayStation game in April 1996. A game that over ten million people played, on various platforms, does not need to list that it was number one for a single month in a nation that isn't even its major market. I'm removing that. We could probably go around adding in a dozen of these things, what month it was number one in any nation at all, and anyone bothered to waste time with that. Dream Focus 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

highly biased content

The section said "gov researchers" found that doom players are more violent because the game is. This is a highly biased viewpoint, very facist centric, which I tried to correct by adding not by removing.

I added: "Players argued the violence in early Doom is non-realistic if not amusing, and researchers were just taking money. Yet gaming addiction had been a problem with some."

Note during the time and after many realistic or sadistic violent games were out and picking doom as one of them is simply incorrect (though it was the most well known, so easy to name for a lazy researcher).

The view that government workers were not simply getting grant money for doing false research, that early doom games had caused problem, is simply highly biased.

It is not me who presented biased information. And someone is trying to keep biased information.

I am tired of being blamed for such biased revisionisms.

DO NOT TOUCH my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

memorabilia

File:Doomguy.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar55 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Excess web usage

What does "Excess web usage" mean? The web wasn't involved at all with the problems Doom caused (hey, it was 1993!). Excessive broadcast packets clogged local area networks, which slowed down everything within these networks. Including internet access. I think the last paragraph of the http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_networking_component of the "External drivers" section sums it up quite good. SvenPaulus (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Doom's Controversial Swastica (Due or Undue?)

In IGN's interview with John Romero, according to him, the game once had a level in which there was a platform which appeared to be of the shape of the Swastica (as a reference to Wolfenstein 3D), which generated id Software's receiving an influx of complaints (most likely from Germans) and then prompted for id to change the shape of that platform in version 1.666. It was controversial (even though Romero said that they were not trying to promote [[Nazism][), but about what I am concerned is whether or not this is due. Would that be okay were it added, or would that be undue? I appreciate your honest opinions. Proof: http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/12/10/we-play-doom-with-john-romero (at 43:00) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

New level by original designer

Is it notable that John Romero released a new Doom level he created for the game yesterday? What does everyone think? 2A02:120B:C3F9:4E40:85FE:590C:B4F8:95DA (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

True Third Dimension Spatiality - A Milestone That Must Be Expanded Upon

Doom was the first game to feature a digital representation of true third dimension spaciality. One could argue that Wolfenstein 3D was the first third dimensional video game but I would disagree. While it was the first graphics engine that represented the third dimension, the player could only move on a flat surface, going left right, forward and backward. This is the definition of 2D space, no "depth," no change of altitude. Many video games that are 2D platformers featured in a 3D graphical representation (Super Mario Bros. Wii) are referred to as 2.5D. Wolfenstein could be described in the same way, although from a first person, three dimensional vantage point (although the player can still only move in 2D space).

Doom was the first truly 3D game and must be recognized as such. I've edited the main article to include the line "[...]pioneering immersive 3D graphics as well as true third dimension spatiality, networked multiplayer gaming, [...]", but I think this groundbreaking, easily overlooked aspect of Doom is what truly makes it a milestone in video game history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloy14 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

actually Doom was 2D as well - although you could appear to change altitude it was still a 2D engine, so there are no tunnels going underneath sections of the map for instance, and no bridges. this makes it possible to show entire levels on a 2D map, also its much faster to render (i first ran doom on my trusty 386, with the screen shrunk down to postage-stamp size). I thought Quake was the first true 3D game. Doom is really still in the Wolfenstein league. alexander110 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's questionable which was the first truly-3D game, but Driller (1987), Elite (1984) and Knot in 3D (1983) have all been nominated for this honour. — 93.97.40.177 (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm five years late to this, but I think Spasim (1974) might be a contender as well. It ran at very low framerates and displayed only wireframes, but had full 3-axis movement in space. 2A02:120B:C3F9:4E40:85FE:590C:B4F8:95DA (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm even later, but none of these games can be considered as 3D, as it was literally impossible for the hardware to render 3D. The first true 3D games didn't appear until the mid 90's when computers and consoles were made that could support 3D. I will agree that ID pioneered how a 3D shooter SHOULD work, regardless of that fact though it was simple a projection on a 2D plane, giving it pseudo-3D.Jobbo256 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Doom not 3D

Doom was not a 3D game it just used tricks to make it look 3D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.187.22 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Doom is clearly 3D and one of the earliest 3D games. I do not think any revision is necessary and believe it would be very controversial to recategorize this game. Peachfuze (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the original shareware release had a native Mac binary

This page currently implies that it was released on December 10, 1993 for both PC and Mac. I'm fairly certain it was only PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axfelix (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Depression edits

The recent edits to include correlation between depression and (conviction for) violence are not relevant to an article on DooM. The paragraph doesn't mention the game and the source doesn't mention the game. The previous paragraph is clear in relation to a government survey that attempted to find a possible link between violence and video games - this appended paragraph just attempts to bring attention to a generic comment about depression. It also makes use of WP:NOTED which is to be avoided. It may have use over in an article about depression, but not in an article about a video game.

Please don't edit war, and while we discuss your additions, follow WP:BRD. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Title

It seems to me the title of this article is needlessly specific. There have been (to the best of my knowledge) only two video games with this name. As such I believe that this page should be moved to Doom (video game). Americanfreedom (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean "only" two? Disambiguation is needed whenever there is more than one subject with the same name. You don't even need to read WP policy to discover that; it's common sense. If someone says to you, "Hand me the book on the table," and there's more than one book on the table, you'll ask them to be more specific.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Voice in Controversies Section is not Neutral

I am concerned that the voice in the controversies section is not at all neutral, particularly at the end.

For example;

"While many of the killers—like the vast majority of young teenage boys—did play video games, this study did not find a relationship between game play and school shootings."

This is clearly defensive and the aside totally exposes this bias.

I would strongly suggest a review of this section. Peachfuze (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

How is it being defensive? All it states is that in the study they saw nothing relating to these school shootings and video games they played. It's not being defensive if it's stating a fact from a study that has/had been conducted. Jamie64326 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It does indeed read like a part of a persuasive essay. The study does not inherently concern Doom. I would suggest that, if you feel it is so important to include mention of this study in the article, you should instead include a link (within the Doom article) to the page for Video game controversies. Kevinjaems (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)