Talk:Doom

Reactions please? :>

It could be argued, obviously, that I have included way too much information for a reader who is (a) a gamer and (b) a regular Doom player. I think, however, that those people are probably going to ignore this column of Entryway entirely &mdash; they'll be looking for walkthroughs, editing help, or an LMP database.

Also, how the heck do I make a Cyrillic reversed "R" happen? Ryan W 04:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Open gucharmap, go to the cyrillic place and copy a Я. Ducon 05:06, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * &lt;chris_eccleston&gt;Fan-tastic.&lt;/chris_eccleston&gt;  :>     Ryan W 16:46, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"It's green and pissed"
Does anyone have a source for this? I've never heard of this before. Fraggle 12:58, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * answer is here. This was a name for Wolf3d, not Doom. Fraggle 13:02, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was at least at one point, the working title for Doom as well. Shotgunefx 10:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruse vs. Cruise
Could anyone point me at the source of the mis-spelling of "Cruise"? -- Jdowland 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I've found it. Now the question is, who introduced the error -- Carmack, or whoever typed up the question and answer session? If the latter, is it really worth dogmatically including the mistake in the quote? Or even the former? -- Jdowland 15:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO changing it would set a bad precedent. Just finding appropriate citations for articles is quite enough work for us without also having to second-guess their content every time.  This maybe isn't a good example, since it's a misspelling, but what about something like this?  We don't have any way of ever knowing "the truth".    Ryan W 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Different logo
Since this article is about the Doom that was released originally in 1993, may I suggest using this logo image instead? --Manc 03:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The current logo will probably be deleted (unknown copyright status). I agree that the one you supply is more appropriate, but what licence is it available under? I'm not sure fair use will cut it, as it isn't directly from the game. To be honest, a titlepic screenshot would be best perhaps? -- Jdowland 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There already is such a screenshot, further down in the article (unless that's a raw image, and therefore also should be replaced).   Ryan W 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of commercial re-releases of the original game?
Seems noteworthy that 13 years later the original DOOM is still being revived. Recently released as a download for the latest gaming platform, the Xbox 360 (PS3? Wii?). Also re-released with DOOM 3 for the Xbox console (or, is this the same code emulated?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.0.20 (talk • contribs).


 * It is indeed noteworthy, so we included it in Games. :>   I don't own any of these consoles myself, but I would think that emulation would be much easier for id than recompiling, since the new architecture is so different from (and faster than) the original Doom platforms.    Ryan W 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

itplaysdoom link is redirecting
The link redirects to clipaday.com


 * Well, that isn't good. I note however that we now have perfectly serviceable stubs about both ports, which IIRC was not the case when I imported this article, and the links there are still fine.  So I believe we can live without that line.    Ryan W 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sound improvements over Wolfenstein
Under improvements over Wolfenstein 3D, the stereo sound is listed. But stereo sound already was there in Wolf3D, so I think it shouldn't be mentioned here. --83.6.17.28 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * US$0.02: I don't remember Wolf3D in minute detail but I think you're right, the meaning of that paragraph got mangled on its way over from wikipedia.    The existence of stereo sound is important for two reasons: because many DOS machines did not have sound cards (hence many game publishers didn't bother to create sampled sounds), and because it enhances gameplay (especially in deathmatch).  The first reason is obviously more important in a wikipedia article, which assumes an audience of non-gamers, but I don't know that that means we should omit the entire paragraph.    Ryan W 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doom Boxart
The boxart shows Doomguy only with the pistol (?), whereas the titlepic shows him with a shotgun as well. Also, he's holding the pistol in his right hand where ingame he uses his left.

There's another Marine in the background, too, and a gun at the bottom of the picture. Take a look: http://resetglitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/doom.jpg

That's odd, because that implies that there are three marines - the main one, the background one, and the unseen one at the bottom with a gun. Thoughts?

Phlum 19:23, April 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * That gun is the same gun that the demon at the bottom of the main marine is carrying, though. --Kyano 20:20, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be argued, however, that the gun at the bottom is the same, or similar, gun to what the main marine is holding. Phlum 19:30, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Goddamned Noobs
Sume fucking idiot decided to use this article to ask how to get DooM to work. I just got finished deleting that noobish asshole's question, for future reference we should make it a requirement that only registered user are allow to edit articles.

Then that would beat the purpose of this website of being a wiki. Noobs will be noobs, that's a fact of life.


 * The above comment was couched in terms (including language) which the previous admins evidently found acceptable, since it stood for about six months (from August 2011) under their reign. I don't know where the other currently active admin stands on this, but I for one will not tolerate this kind of thing; (1) this is a wiki, not a chat forum; and (2) things such as this (if they need to be expressed at all) can be expressed in a far more civil manner while still expressing the anger involved (if, again, this is an essential point of the post).


 * However, whether or not one agrees with the above, it is now a historical part of the discussion, and I will also not tolerate things such as the anonymous editor (a bit ironic given that the post was calling for the blocking of anons) deleting the above merely because he didn't like it or didn't agree with it, and not for any reason substantial enough to give him licence to take such a drastic action unilaterally without seeking consensus, seeking consensus being one thing talk pages are for. I briefly considered banning the anon in question for a week, but decided against it — this time.


 * Also, another irony of this incident is that it shows one reason why it's important to sign posts on talk pages; so that old posts don't get mistaken for new, nor vice-versa. — RobertATfm (talk) 11:22, July 13, 2012 (UTC)