- OK, thanks. Bloodshedder 11:39, 7 Feb 2005 (PST)
do you think the logs are a bit much?
Yup, sorry :) I think a simple summary would do. -- Jdowland 18:09, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- ...oookay. I've been using it since 1999... Bloodshedder 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Changes to How to download and run Doom
Thank you for reorganizing the Unix part (I really should have thought of that myself).
The link to "Doom" at the top strikes me as slightly misleading — most of the console ports are heavily based on Doom II, and I think a significant minority of Windows users may just buy (or steal) one of the boxed sets, so they won't necessarily be starting with Doom/Ultimate Doom.
- Well, I don't know, I just tend to always link the first occurrence of "Doom" in any article. And I'm not sure about "most of the console ports are heavily based on Doom II" - there are more Doom 1 console ports than Doom 2 out there.
- Hmmmm. allgame.com and Wikipedia say (I admit that their screen shots are often inconclusive):
- The SNES and Sega Genesis 32X versions are based on Doom.
- The Sega Saturn, Jaguar, Nintendo 64, 3DO, and Zodiac (!) versions are based on Doom II.
- There are GBA versions of both Doom and Doom II. (I knew that already because we have a fairly complete article about them.)
- There are PlayStation games called "Doom" and "Final Doom". (I remember seeing these in the five-dollar bin when I was thinking of getting a PlayStation.) The "Doom" title is however the same code base as the Jaguar version, and therefore includes Doom II levels/items/monsters.
- So, not counting the Dreamcast thing, and noting that I'm leaving out the iPod and WebTV ports (although the application of the term "console" to either of those can be debated), that makes three ports of Doom and seven of Doom II. (Or eight using Doom II-based EXEs. :D Ryan W 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. allgame.com and Wikipedia say (I admit that their screen shots are often inconclusive):
- Yes, but how many of those Doom II-based ports actually use Doom II's resources (most notably, levels)? How many of them are actually ports of Doom II, the game? This is what I meant, as, if the game is actually Doom (mostly, even if it includes some Doom II resources, or is based on Doom II's engine), the instructions we give are for running Doom, not Doom II.
- In my experience, Doom level vs. Doom II level can be defined in a purely operational way (analogous to id's definition of "shareware PWADs" in 1994): would it crash/generate exceptions if I tried to use it with a Doom 1 executable? By that standard, AFAICT, the majority of the console ports can at least be called "Doom II-like", since they include most or all of the Doom II monsters. The engine doesn't care whether the rooms are shaped more like E1M1 or MAP01.
- I agree with you that there are more holistic ways of categorizing a given port, but obviously there's a lot more room for debate there. Since it doesn't make any difference to the reader of this article (if he wants to use console X, the name of the cartridge/disc he looks for is T, the end), I'm willing to leave this whole question to the brave editor who starts one of these. ;>
- Anyway, this is pretty irrelevant to the original topic of discussion... and IMHO that link should actually stay where it is because we'll usually be encouraging the readers of that article to get the shareware IWAD first. :> Ryan W 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I decided not to expand the console part, since I thought our advice would be pretty much the same for everything except the GBA/Dreamcast: "This software is all discontinued, so look for it at garage sales or on ebay/Gamespot."
- That's what I figured - "stick the cartridge/CD in and play"
I'm not sure how widespread the abbreviation "Windows 9x" is nowadays (compared to, say, five years ago). And all the non-embedded software is organized by OS, not hardware, so "Pocket PC" should really be "Windows Mobile", right?
- I always thought "Windows 9x" was a pretty common term nowadays, but I suppose the column heading can always include all the versions in it for the sake of completeness. And you're right, the mobile operating system is always called Windows CE. I was under the (mistaken) impression that PocketPC was also the name of a newer version of their mobile OS that replaced Windows CE, since I rarely hear the term "Windows CE" thrown around anymore.
- I've never owned a palmtop or PDA, but AFAICT Windows CE and Windows Mobile are two different operating systems, though forked from the same code base. (In fact, some observers question whether Windows Mobile is an OS at all, as opposed to a bunch of embedded applications that happen to share data.) Anyway, the real point is this: I don't know of any ports of Doom to Windows Mobile. If you do, great; it should be on that list as well as the ones in Games and Source port. Ryan W 03:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought Doom could be played on NT 3.51, too. No? Ryan W 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've never heard of anybody trying, and I'm not too sure about the usability of source ports on NT 3.x. I don't even think it supports DirectX at all (and it obviously has no real DOS mode), and there are very few Win32 ports that DON'T use DirectX somehow.
- That's a very sound argument, and I think perhaps I will change the section heading to "NT 4" until we hear different. (Or until someone asks me to try it out myself, and is willing to deposit US$200 for hardware. :D Ryan W 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've got some spare hardware I could use for a testing system... but the problem would be getting a copy of the operating system. It's probably nowhere to be found on the Interweb (OMG WAREZ), and only a few companies might have it locked away in some storage cabinet. Bloodshedder 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I may buy this just for the nostalgic value... Bloodshedder 06:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note that it's 3.5, not 3.51. I'm not sure how extensive the update to the graphics library actually was — maybe 3.5 can run certain DOS programs too. If I had thought of this two weeks ago, I could have shown you this instead. (There's also this, although personally when my nostalgia demands that I part with US$30+ I tend to look for something I can, y'know, play.) Ryan W 06:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As a corollary to the above research topics, who do I talk to about every link on the Doomworld shareware page being broken? Ryan W 01:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- CodeImp usually takes care of links, but I can take a look at it. Bloodshedder 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed them. Bloodshedder 03:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
blank article, no history
Thank you. My error. Ryan W 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I wasn't fishing for assistance, but thanks a lot.
For future reference, where would I have looked that up? Ryan W 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that it was some sort of keyword just tripped in my mind; then I did a Wikipedia search on it and noticed it was on a lot of user pages. Bloodshedder 06:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm adding that to my permanent 'rolodex'. Thank you. Ryan W 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The colon was there because "Doom source code" was originally intended as a namespace, like "Doom Wiki" and "Editing". For instance, each file was going to have its own article describing what functions it performed. Over a year later, though, and the namespace was even less fleshed out than "Editing", so I guess your way is better.
This was all before my time, so I could be wrong. Ryan W 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this might have been the case. However, when I noticed ambiguity in the page's name (there were links to both Doom source code: files and Doom source code:Files), and the fact that there were zero other articles in that namespace, removing the colon seemed like the best idea. My opinion is also that "Doom source code:" is an unwieldy name for a namespace, and if we did need such a namespace, such as for future articles on each source code file, we could call it "Source:" instead or something. Even then, a namespace for those articles may not even be necessary at all. Bloodshedder 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh-oh, we're thinking alike again. I deliberately avoided revising this part of the policy page just now, because I was waiting for the result of this conversation :D
One question, though: are you VfDing these because they're port-specific, or just because of general non-notability? Ryan W 06:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, both. The discussion didn't seem to be going anywhere further, though. Bloodshedder 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- If it's both, then all the Strife articles should be merged also, should they not? id didn't work on it directly, and one could argue that Skulltag is far more notable than Strife in terms of populous and ongoing community activity. Ryan W 07:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- My reasoning here is that since Strife is an official game, released commercially, its things should get their own articles. (You could, of course, make a similar argument for Hacx, which is technically a PWAD, that it should get them, but you could also make the argument that since id merely published Hexen, it shouldn't get its own item articles.)
- Wikipedia:Strife (game) suggests that id was involved with Strife's development at a certain point, albeit briefly and superficially. You're making me wonder, though, whether the involvement of id in non-Doom titles shouldn't simply have historical interest, not bearing directly on "notability". We might well have one policy for commercial games in the Doom series, one for commercial games not in the Doom series (but based on the Doom engine), one for fangames based on the Doom engine, one for ports, and one for TCs/megawads. Then we'd only have to classify each title one at a time, which is easier.
- It's hard to come up with an "algorithm" to cover all cases, but I think we should have something written down so that new editors don't do a ton of work only to see it merged or deleted (and in case none of us are here in five years). Ryan W 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
About the revert to Doomguy
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ban you for that since 188.8.131.52 said so.
Bad taste joking aside, I'm not entirely sure why you reverted that edit: It seemed perfectly valid (granted it could have benefited from having a less threatening edit summary and a note saying he was only called that in the Doom Novels). -- TheDarkArchon 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't got around to sorting this out, but I don't think Flynn Taggart should be mentioned in the summary. The "canonical" name is unnamed, and there's a quotation from Romero supporting that. So I think the Taggart / doom novels / name in movie stuff should be in a section after the summary. -- Jdowland 09:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Jdowland. The name "Flynn Taggart" comes from the expanded universe rather than from the games themselves, and ought conceivably to have its own section further down in the article (since "John Grimm" has one already). Therefore, while it is notable, it is not notable enough for the intro paragraph. Ryan W 20:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with these two. I reverted it mostly because it is from the "expanded universe" and not the games. The smarmy edit summary also made me want to revert it more. Bloodshedder 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. I wanted to revert it, too, but didn't have a justification (I didn't think about the expanded universe part, hence left it). -- TheDarkArchon 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
O emperor of frankenputing, I am really having trouble believing that the original Amiga port was officially licensed. This and this say not, and neither Ledmeister nor Hank Leukart mentions it. Do you know different? Ryan W 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- er...I don't see what officiality has to do with the name of the wiki page. I did not add it to Games, someone else did, and I just wasn't paying attention that it didn't belong there. Bloodshedder 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Perhaps "Games" should be renamed to "Commercial games" or "Licensed games" or "Official games"? (I personally think "official" is quite a vague term although we seem to have used it successfully on Entryway.) Then maybe this kind of problem would recur less often Ryan W 01:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I feel "commercial games" is best, even though it might get confused with Doom 2 which was referred to internally to id as the "commercial release." But historically "commercial games" would be most suitable, encompassing all releases that were sold for commercial profit. Shareware Doom would be lumped in there too - you can think of a shareware release as a commercial advertisement. :) Then we can take everything else and put it in Source Ports. Zack 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh-oh, we've drawn a crowd again. :> Moving this thread to Central Processing. Ryan W 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: original research policy
(Posting here to avoid sidetracking the content discussion at Central Processing.)
Bloodshedder says: "We don't have a "no original research" policy. It is, in fact, specifically allowed." It also says that if you write about a non-technical topic, your findings may well be disputed. :7
Seriously, that part of the policy page (going back to Fredrik's original version) seems strongly focused on the game universe, not the real one. Even my large revision was inspired mostly by specific types of articles that kept popping up (e.g. duplicate bug articles and fanfic). A general decision to allow or not allow forum postings as sources could form one part of a community-oriented original research policy, but in light of recent events, I'm not expecting consensus on things like that anytime soon. Ryan W 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's pretty much was I was getting ready to say. Because the source code and editing utilities for many Doom games are freely available, anyone can look up how many bullets are on the fourth level of Doom II, or how an Imp decides whether to turn left or right when he hits a wall. Therefore, unlike Wikipedia, we do not require a secondary source for such data (which might not exist anyway). When it says for such data, I take that it's stating that policy is for the data it is referring to only, and in this case, the data it's referring to is the technical aspects of Doom. Nuxius 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, Nuxius, shame on you for using Doomworld as an example of a forums site; that's the most polite one! :> You didn't even find any allegations about his sex life. Ryan W 03:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)