Talk:Descent

Descent does not have to have with the "Engine Doom" and blablabla. Hexen II and heretic II that it has not to have cannot be, but Descent that does not have the SENSIBLE MINOR to be, is. Aff, this is ridicule! Delete this article! 201.26.177.109 15:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's no reason not to just link to the Wikipedia article. Delete Fraggle 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is pretty worthless. I think maybe if it focused on its relationship with Doom (it was an important rival) it might be worth keeping, but not how it is at present. Sarge Baldy 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not relevant. Delete. -- Jdowland 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Duke3D article is relevent for that infamous easter egg at a bare minimum and the Quake article is relevent because it is what id did next but Descent is unrelated. -- TheDarkArchon 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why is this here? Completely irrelevant to the subject of this wiki; Heretic and Hexen II were more closely related to Doom than this. Dom  Rem  | Yeah? 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doom clones are relevant topics for this wiki. There's room for more detailed comparison of gameplay and coverage of how the games were compared back in the day. There are also lots of WADs that use Descent resources; that kind of information wouldn't fit in Wikipedia. Fredrik 11:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where? I haven't seen many WAD's that use Descent resources. -- TheDarkArchon 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dystopia 3 for one. (And Vrack :) - Fredrik 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Fredrik in that comparisons between Doom and its clones should be allowed. Janizdreg 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article isnt a comparison with Doom in the same way that Duke Nukem 3D is. The only comparisons this article makes is "Descent was shareware just like Doom" and "The Descent source was released, just like Doom".  I'd be happy to see an article properly comparing Descent and Doom, but in its present form, I vote to delete this article.  Also, reuse of Descent textures in PWADs seems like a rather tenuous reason to keep it. Fraggle 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The results here seem inconclusive. I'm going to remove the delete tag and suggest we keep it, since at least some people here seem to think having this is a good idea. Fraggle 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are four delete votes (assuming you've changed yours to a keep) vs 3 keeps (assuming the same). -- Jdowland 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)