Talk:Doom (2016 video game)/Archive 1

Redirect?

Why does this have a redirect to Doom 3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pielord002 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Platfoms information

http://e3.net/games/?game_id=37 enjoy.--71.176.0.187 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that site is that credible because it doesn't appear to be E3's official site and its Alexa ranking isn't in the top 13 million. Also, it's not one of the major gaming sites (e.g. IGN, GameSpot, perhaps GameSpy), which should have this information soon after it is released by a reputable source. —LOL ^T/_C 17:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt DooM 4 will be for the PS3 as DooM 3 was for Xbox and PC only, it is said to be a Xbox 360 exclusive.

that´s only speculation. even if doom3 was pc/xbox only, carmack presented rage running on mac/pc/360/ps3. one of id tech 5's major features is to make sure the engine runs on any machine with the lowest effort on porting. see the id tech 5 article for compatibility between the systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.95.232 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

you all are idiots, seriously, they havent even STARTED making the game yet, so how the hell could they have made decisions on what platforms it will and will not come out on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.145.55 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed any speculation is just stupidity, Doom has been traditionally a PC game. Doom3 came out first on PC, and then went to other consoles. They've only talked about it being on PC. The line on the article has no source so frankly I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.232.118 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

E3

Despite Doom 4's entry at the "E3.net" site (not credible; see above), I doubt the game will be shown at E3 because of the following evidence: [1][2][3]. —LOL ^T/_C 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Release in 2009

Is this really coming out in 2009? I'm a bit sceptical, as Id Software was still hiring a few months ago in order to produce it. An interview last year claimed they did not have a team associated with Doom 4 - and that they haven't started working on it yet. I've decided to reword the phrase, as I could not find anything information on the release date on other sites - such as ID's. Unconscious (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put the release date as December 31, 2009 is a dead give away that the game is going to be delayed a good 6 months to a year because no store is open on New Year's Day. So an actual good release date to hope for is October 2010 at the earliest, because that is right at the beginning of the Holiday shopping season. 68.219.103.89 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At the absolute earliest! As I said, a writer has only just been assigned, and the storyline concept is done way before the level design or, heck, even some of the coding. It'll be in 2010 or 2011, and that's absolute speculation. Unconscious (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! It might come out August 2010, as that is always a good time of the year to releace a video game, as it gives a few months to sell units but it is still a holiday seasonish time of the year to releace a video game, buy the way there was a video game that was releaced on the 31st December, Wu-Tang: Shaolin Style on the ps1 don't belive me? I've got a link right here[4]mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the 2010 games category, as there is no set release date. Weeliljimmy ^talk 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Release in 2011

its say on the page that it will be out next year and was said in may according to the doom 4 page so shouldn't the tba be 2011?--79.66.71.53 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

--88.104.186.115 (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)agreed since it either needs to be 2011 or 2011 tba since even ign has a date even if only states around 2011 http://www.videogamer.com/news/doom_movie_reboot_in_development.html and its also been said countless times before that it wouldn't be out sometime after Rage. my source would be Carmack himself.

Release in 2013

Is there any basis for the claimed release date of 2013? I don't see any reference or find evidence for it on the net. 169.202.5.161 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Movie

Kotaku has released an article on August 1, 2008 that id Software's CEO Todd Hollenshead stated recently that he would like to do another Doom movie, possibly based upon this game. However, he did state that it's currently up to Universal Pictures if one should be made due to the fact that Universal still holds the movie rights and sequel rights to Doom. Hollenshead hopes that once the "buzz meter starts to go up" on this game, Universal will engage in negotiations with id Software. I added this information with a citation in the main article. KSweeley (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

has nothing to do with doom 4 65.191.25.169 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)actually its closely linked since doom 2 aka doom 4 is rumoured to be the same, if a doom movie gets green lighted then it could be based on doom 4/2 plus it has a lot to do with doom 4

Update needed

This article seems a bit out of date based on news in this talk page and in the article below:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom4/news.html?sid=6195274

Obviously, what is said here in Wikipedia about it being released in May of this year is incorrect, since that was about the time they just started hiring for the project, and it isn't released yet. It is a bit disappointing that the frame rate will only be about 30 FPS.--71.76.173.160 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Doom 4 is not a sequel to Doom 3 nor is it a reboot

Found a GameSpot interview with id Software's CEO where he states that Doom 4 is NOT a sequel to Doom 3 and is not a reboot of the series. Added a section and reference to this recently revealed (April 10, 2009) fact.KSweeley (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC) the release date is wrong, there is no confirmation that doom 4's release date is 2010, they've only announced that they will show the first footage of doom 4 at quakecon 2010

Publisher

The publisher is Bethesda Softworks? Is it true? Where are the citations? --BluesD (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Box art

Heres the cover: http://cdon.no/spill/doom_4-6984553 83.108.194.198 (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

fake aka doom movie poster in photoshop --Ronnie42 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Linux

Are there any info that it will support Linux? All other Doom titles did that... Adomas (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. You're free to look for the information yourself and if you found a reliable source, add it to the article. --uKER (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

id Software makes a habit of supporting the Linux Operating System, even if it takes a day or few months for the support to roll out. Why the Linux platform was omitted from the page is surprising to me. 69.130.236.48 (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Doom 4 promotional poster

I could have swore I saw a Doom 4 poster for the game that looked real and it was on this page, If you could find it and put it back up that would be nice, thanks! DoomWrestler1990 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think such a poster ever existed on this article. —LOL ^T/_C 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There was once a poster floating around but it was a Photoshop mashup of the Doom movie trailer and I-don't-recall-what-else. --uKER (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Carmack's Dubious Claim?

Would it be reasonable to put into this article that the last time Carmack made a claim of such a grand nature (see: Daikatana) it was all bravado and the game actually came out rather poorly? It seems important to mention (though in clearer words) because of his earlier arrogance and its catastrophic end. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's John Romero you're thinking of, not John Carmack. Alan Taylor (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopes and wishes

I'm kinda hoping Doom 4 will come back to its arcade shooter roots complete with stats screens after each map. Doom 3 was pretty cool in its own right, but it just didn't have the mind-blowing action Doom and Doom 2 had. A farfetched dream would be that they released the game with two singleplayer campaigns...an arcade, closer to Doom and Doom 2 in gameplay style(no talking to NPCs, no huddling around dark corridors hearing whispers, just plain run and gun at hordes of monsters), and another, more story-driven campaign similar to Doom 3 and Rage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.4.98 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While I share most of your thoughts, this kind of discussion is not appropriate here. Wikipedia is not a forum. --uKER (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombification

The linkified term zombification points to a page about Haitian zombies when it should rather point to fictional zombies. 193.27.50.89 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doom 4 not currently being ported at this moment, doom 4 official steam page, is also being rebuilt from scratch

Check here for the simple answer/conversation from John Carmack showing that Doom 4 is not ready at this moment. Also here is the link to the official 'Doom 4' page, there is an unsure reason around this but Steam was been given some official rights to be allowed to put up the official game group. I will try to get some reply from john carmack again. --Ronnie42 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Ported"? A game needs to be finished, and usually released, before being ported to a different platform. Did you mean "finished"? We know it's not finished, because they haven't said it's finished. We don't need sources for it not being done yet. Some guy (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a games designer myself, I test sometimes by 'porting' basic parts to test functionality, was stating "Ported", didn't say the game was finished. We always need to state 'sources' to back up our claims. Also it was done to a certain level of construction but is now from this moment being rebuilt from scratch here. One more thing porting a game doesn't mean the game is completly finished. An example I port my 'mods' from Doom Builder to the Zdeamon engine but it doesn't mean the mod is finished but is under-going testing. --Ronnie42 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are using the word "port" correctly. Moving from the editor to the engine isn't "porting". We know about the reboot, it's already sourced and in the article. Some guy (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There's more than one way to "import/export" content, was stating the "port" to consoles would have been used mainly for testing before releasing the full version, an example would be a demo or game builds. --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Import/export is not porting. Some guy (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New information on platforms

Has been reverted (it was confirmed Doom 4 will only run next gen consoles). So fsck you, whoever runs this article. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody "runs" Wikipedia articles. If you see a problem, be bold and fix it. --Geniac (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not appropriate. The Kotaku article is not a "confirmation" that the game will be on the next gen consoles; that is a rumor until id/Bethseda confirms it. Furthermore, the next-generation Xbox has not been officially named the "Xbox 720". Some guy (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

!!Finally They Started Developing The Game!!

Finally they did something about doom 4 instead of making there other games. Basically took them 10 years to realize this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew 8965 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Need for a two-sentence section?

Someone created this two-sentence section titled "Production reboot and development hell". I reverted the change letting its content merge back into the "Development" section. I got reverted by the very same person who created that section, so it should be them starting the discussion, but here I am. The cited reason for the revert was that somehow the information helped reduce the Development section, for which I see no reason, despite the fact that the section makes up the entire article. It is logical that this section makes up the whole of the article given it's an unreleased game. That said, creating a section for those two sentences I think is giving it undue weight. --uKER (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Geeze, I have a name. If you said some guy reverted you, at least everyone would know who you were talking about.

I think it's important we make the very significant distinction between "section" and "subsection". The reboot bit is a subsection, not a complete standalone section, and thus still falls under the header of "Development". I agree it is pretty short; I wish we could expand it more but the only other articles on reboot are articles saying that Kotaku wrote that article. The problem as I see it is that right now the development section is overly long and contains little useful information in its numerous short paragraphs. I gave the reboot paragraph a subsection because it is the only major development that is listed in the section; furthermore, the fact that they rebooted it makes most of the information in the first nine paragraphs of the development section irrelevant.

After I restored the section header I spent a while trying to figure out a different way to break up the Development section into subsections, but there aren't any clear boundaries. We could in theory do something like "2005-2007" "2007-2009" as seen at Development of Duke Nukem Forever but id has released so little information each year I don't think we have enough to make meaningful subsections.

Perhaps we could shorten the development section, maybe start by taking out some of the numerous times id didn't announce anything about Doom 4 at a convention. Regardless, I stand by my feeling that the reboot is by far the most significant and informative thing in the article. Some guy (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I reorganized the article and trimmed out some of the meaningless or duplicated information. I would say it is approximately 100 septillion times better than before. Some guy (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Shouldn't the article be moved as the title of the game has changed? I don't know of a good title. Something like Doom (video game) wouldn't work; [as it is already in use]. Perhaps a name that indicates that this game is newer? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How about "Doom (21st Century video game)"? The name in use now is just plain wrong, and is about as bad as calling the 2009 version of Star Trek "Star Trek 11". In almost all previous cases of this where we have had multiple self-titled installments of a video game series (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog, Tomb Raider) then Wikipedia puts the year in the title of the article. The problem here is we don't actually know the year of release yet. So that's why I propose to use a generic year identifier such as a century as above. Kidburla (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Doom (21st Century video game)" is a horrendously long and overly complex name. I propose we leave it here for the time being, or use the title "Doom (reboot)". Some guy (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The title shouldn't be changed until the game's exact name is clarified by its makers. It doesn't seem very likely they are going to release it under the exact same name as the first one. Mezigue (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Medal of Honor, Prince of Persia, Mortal Kombat, Shadow Warrior, SimCity, Shinobi, Thief, Tomb Raider, and Altered Beast all disagree with you. Some guy (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right. Regardless, it is best to wait until things are made clearer by the studio. If they really call it just Doom, the simpler title will be Doom (2014 game). Or possibly Doom (2015 game)... Mezigue (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'Doom (upcoming video game)' is a much better title as there's no release date yet, also if Bethesda started called Doom 4 just Doom then we have assumed that it's highly likely the game is just called Doom as Bethesda is the publisher for the game. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but this is an absurd idea. A title should be permanent, and there is no need to change it until the name is certain. Mezigue (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Another important point of consideration, Bethseda never officially stated the game has been renamed, that was just how some sources chose to interpret the Wolfenstein FAQ to drum up articles on a newsless subject. The Wolfenstein FAQ may have been using a shorthand title; no one is going to get confused by "the Doom beta" so the 4 is unnecessary in that context. Some guy (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article to "Doom (upcoming video game)", in line with other future releases articles, and the move got reverted to "Doom 4", arguing that "you don't move an article to a temporary title". Ironically, "Doom" is supposed to be the actual title, just like the 2011 Mortal Kombat was called just "Mortal Kombat", and if anything, Doom 4 is much more inaccurate and therefore temporary. --uKER (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My advice is just to wait a little bit longer for Quakecon, where they'll hopefully assign at least a year to the game. Then move it to Doom (2015 video game) or whatever year applies. Digitelle (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

DOOM is a style, not an acronym

Using "DOOM" as the title of the game throughout the article is incorrect. It's not an acronym. All other games in the series use "Doom" and other games that use heavily stylized titles use regular capitalization (for example: Infamous (series)) 66.67.44.74 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the capitalization before and I'll do it now again. Feel free to correct it yourself next time. --uKER (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It got reverted again by the same user. I'm reverting them again, according to WP:MOSTM, and pointing them here. --uKER (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't know it. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Name changes

Will people please stop changing the title of this page prematurely? When formal announcements of the exact release date and title are made, then it will be time to change it. In the video game industry, you're never quite sure until the last moment, and recent articles just say that the game is "currently" called just Doom. It is absurd to jump the gun. Mezigue (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay now this is getting stupid. The game is called Doom. We weren't sure before but now we are. Reverting the title to Doom 4 is erroneous and at this point just plain ignorant. Digitelle (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The title issue was fully clarified at the QuakeCon reveal and has been settled. The game's executive producer Marty Stratton was quoted as saying: "As you've probably noticed from the teaser, the game is called Doom, not Doom 4, and not something like Enemy Territory: Doom Wars." Eurogamer's article started with "id Software has revealed its highly anticipated new game in the legendary Doom franchise and it's just called Doom. That's right, it's one of those oh-so-popular reboots that are all the rage these days." GameSpot said "After years of waiting, the fourth iteration of Doom has been officially unveiled, detailed, and named. Called simply Doom, this game brings the story back to the beginning. It's an origin story." One of the updates from RockPaperShotgun's liveblog said "Game is just called Doom, not Doom 4." The current title is demonstrably incorrect. Smurfy (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Doom (upcoming video game). Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Doom 4 → Doom (2015 video game) – The title of the game has been clarified as just 'Doom', with exec. producer Marty Stratton quoted as saying "the game is called Doom, not Doom 4, and not something like Enemy Territory: Doom Wars". For more evidence, see my comment in the 'Name changes' section.

As for the year, a release date is yet to be confirmed but indications are that we will 'see more' of the game next year: IGN said "A public reveal of the game is likely to take place sometime in 2015." Metro said "Exactly when it’ll be out is unknown but apparently there were two separate gameplay demos, suggesting the game may be far enough along for a 2015 release." PCGamesN said "it looks exceptionally doubtful that we’ll get a taste of Doom until 2015."

Given that the article's current title is demonstrably inaccurate, and we need a way to differentiate it from the original Doom's article, I think we should switch to "Doom (2015 video game". The title of the article for the new Battlefront game is one precedent for this approach. In any case, I think "Doom (2015 video game)" is significantly more accurate at this stage than "Doom 4". Smurfy (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: I don't believe the game has a revealed launch window though, so I think Doom (upcoming video game) would be more appropriate than (2015 video game). Either way Doom 4 has got to go. Digitelle (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be happy with that title too, I just thought people might have a problem with a 'temporary' title Smurfy (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Doom (upcoming video game) unless someone can find evidence of a officially announced 2015 release date.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons already stated above. It's been outright stated by id themselves the game is called "Doom", not "Doom 4". ggctuk (2005) (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• oppose as discussed, many things happen in video games. Makers might currently intend to release this game as DOOM in 2015 and it may happen but then again it might be delayed and/or come out under a different name. Once a release date with a title is formally announced, it will be time to change it. Why rush? Mezigue (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on that reasoning we should not use the name that has been currently announced by ID as the title and instead stick with a name that ID has directly said won't be the titke of the game. That should be rejected for obvious reasons. Using (upcomming video game) will remove any issues with dating snd not using Doom because they might change it later is pure speculation and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I aslo don't see how using an officially announced title over one that has been directly discouted is rushing in any way.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

id Software says it's called Doom. Wikipedia user Mezigue says woah, not so fast. But here's the thing: even if the developer decides to call it Doom 4 down the road, which sounds unlikely considering the title being meant to invoke Doom at its roots, Wikipedia isn't written in stone. Plenty of video game article titles change to reflect alterations. Hell, some games flat-out become entirely new games during development, and we chime in to reflect those transformations. The game isn't called Doom 4 at this stage. Its current name is officially Doom. Digitelle (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Article should be relevant to what the game is called now rather to what is used to be called, both Bethesda and id Software says the game is just called Doom so at the present time the game is called Doom. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Wasn't this already moved months ago? Anyway, I saw that Polygon when it was published and it's as straight a source as we'd ever going to get. I'm also for "upcoming" in the disambig over "2015", which isn't confirmed. Alternatively, if there is enough on the development of Doom 4 as notable and sourced apart from the upcoming game, then this article should be kept at Doom 4 and the article for the new game built elsewhere, etc. czar ♔ 02:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The article title should be changed to Doom to keep it relevant to what the game is called at the moment which was confirmed by Bethesda at QuakeCom. I would recommend the article should be called Doom (upcoming game) as there no actual release date yet. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I did move the article to Doom (upcoming video game) a month ago (edit here), which is in line with other articles for upcoming works, but it got reverted arguing that I shouldn't have moved to a temporary title. Ironically, it was moved back to Doom 4, a title that is as inaccurate as it gets. --uKER (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That should never have been moved since I am not aware of any rule on Wikipedia that even remotely suggests that temporary titles can't be used in video game articles especially if that involves moving it to a title that has been specically states won't be the title of the game.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support As per reason given. --IJBall (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. -- Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It there any evidence that this is set be released in 2015? I don't see anything in the article mentioning a release date outside of TBA so 2015 video game may not work.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Release timeframe

I guess the editor who put in the Q2/Q3 thing did it for the sake of precision, but that makes the specified timeframe twice as the given one (6 months vs 3 months in spring). For the sake of simplification I'd say we leave it at Q2, or if necessary, make it March-May. --uKER (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Doom (reboot video game) → Doom (2016 video game) – I'm not sure about the editor, but this article should have remained at the consensus version from 2014 (plus the year change in the article). The fact that it is a reboot is less precise than stating the expected year of release; the fact that it is displaced in time implicitly makes it a reboot and we don't need a disambiguator change to show that. Izno (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support per WP:NCVGDAB. Further disambiguation than (video game) should be made by appending (YEAR video game). --The1337gamer (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure you even need a discussion to revert when someone unilaterally changes it against consensus. This name-hopping is getting ridiculous. Mezigue (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a uncontroversial move request by definition (since someone took it upon themselves to move it unilaterally), so I can't request a speedy rename at RM IMO. Else I would have. --Izno (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support standard practice. The Tomb Raider Beboot is not called Tomb Raider (reboot video game) nor should it be.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It should have been left alone. --uKER (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Come on. —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Doom (reboot video game) is a very unclear title. much worse than the original title. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support the current title (and all the "reboot" redirect titles) should point to the game franchise page, since depending on how you see things, Doom has been rebooted multiple times. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Question. Is there confirmation in reliable sources this game will be released in 2016? That was a problem last move request and the decision in the end was to use "upcoming" instead. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It is reliably sourced in the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't we could simply go back to using upcoming video game over reboot video game.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support As the one who move the article to Doom (2016 video game) in the first place. I don't know why it was move to Doom (reboot video game) as the as the user who made the move didn't discuss the move on the talk page before hand, we should be going with as per WP:NCVGDAB. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• You're right friends. That move was a mistake. Doom 3 is also a reboot of the series and naming rules doesn't allowed to use the "reboot". I'm sorry for wasting your time on the wrong. ویرایشگر-1 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, just keep in mind for the future if have you have any problems with article title, refer to WP:NCVGDAB first. If you still unsure about the article title then have a discussion on the talk page and get a consensus before making the move, OK?. TheDeviantPro (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with the rules slightly, and the move was largely due to a false sense of confidence and I realized my mistake and I apologized. ویرایشگر-1 (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IP user keeps changing people in the infobox fields

User 82.49.187.111 keeps changing the people in the director field to Tim Willits who's id Software's studio director, the studio director usually manages the studio. I keep telling him that the studio director is not the game director, I even refer him to Template:Infobox video game but he keeps reverting my edits. He also keeps placing Marty Stratton in the producer field, I also keep telling him that we don't include executive producers in the field as per Infobox template. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

super shotgun and BFG

There reads: Many classic weapons, including the super shotgun and BFG 9000, will make a return.
According to the Doom Wiki, those weapons were in Doom 3, so exactly how they "make a return"? Was there something else in between, which did not have those? I don't know such games. 2001:999:0:2283:39A9:AA09:5224:ED23 (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Who ever said that a return required a game without them? --uKER (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The BFG is in all Doom games, and the Super Shotgun's in Doom II and Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil. They're classic, so yes, they're making a return. 72.137.137.196 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Giving developer credit to Certain Affinity and Escalation Studios in the sidebar

I don't like the idea of other developers that worked on significant portions of a game being relegated to a footnote (^{[a] and [b]}) to the primary publisher. This is a large deviation from what I've seen in the past and I think the same information could be re-worded into a different format that brings more focus to both Certain Affinity and Escalation Studios. As it stands, they don't even count as citations- those are farther down the page.

Let me provide an example of what I mean. Right now the Developer(s) section looks like this:

id Software

I suggest we change it to look more like this: (I apologize in advance for my poor grasp of the formatting)

id Software

Certain Affinity

Escalation Studios

Is there a Wikipedia rule I don't know about in regards to this? I understand that id Software was the "primary developer" for this game but crediting other developers as footnotes doesn't seem like the way to go about putting information into that section. If there were a lot of developers that needed to be credited then depending on the length of the name of the so-called "primary developer" it could become cluttered with ^{[a][b][c][d][e]} instead of putting down the name of each one and clarifying their works by means of a single citation or footnote. Additionally, referencing them in a footnote implies that their contribution was minor. We have no knowledge of how much or how little, of how vital or how irrelevant, of a part these companies played in the development of their respective Multiplayer portion and SnapMap component. I think that it's fair to credit them as developers on the sidebar because that was their role in the creation of this product.

My focus here is on the sidebar, I'm not suggesting any changes to the bulk of the article.Rothnihalias (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you perhaps mean something like in this article for BioShock 2 (first game that sprung to mind that had different developers between modes)? Notice the info box. Frankly Man (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Added. WikiBitl (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The infobox's current format is in line with project consensus and the infobox's template documentation. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot of SnapMap

Could there be a screenshot (possibly from here) of how SnapMap looks to help readers visualize? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary. I'd say expand the section about Multiplayer and SnapMap first before considering adding another screenshot into the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception

I truly can't believe I'm saying this about the new DOOM, but this is the most underrated game of the century. The campaign is the best FPS campaign in like a decade and it's averaging 7s. Complaining about a lack of depth in the story is like complaining about a lack of car chases in a Downton Abbey episode. The lack of story/character development is, as TotalBiscuit said, a FEATURE. It's by design. And if you're whining about a lack of story in DOOM, you have no business critiquing it, because you display a complete lack of understanding of the medium you're critiquing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What does that have to do with improving the article? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Two sources:

Are these two sources: [5] and [6], any good? As for the former, the source does say that DOOM was nominated for two awards, but the awards took place almost a year ago—far before the game's release date; as for the latter, it is a 5-star review written by The Telegraph, but the problem is that The Telegraph are not primarily a video game website. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

After waiting for almost two days, I have added the latter source to see what would happen. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pre-release awards are suitable if deemed notable, and reviews from The Telegraph are certainly not discouraged. – Rhain ☔ 08:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the former source is a secondary source, which increases the likelihood of the Game Critics Award's being notable. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just added the "Awards" section. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

add age group on main chart

add age group on main table on the right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:3100:7006:1E3A:DCA4:BE2C (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not going to happen, but consensus can change here. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can someone give me an example...

as to why we should not verify credits on Wikipedia other than just rely on end credits in video games? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

My point is that I want to know credits for sure without ever having to run a video game just to read the credits. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You should add a citation if possible. There is no reason not to. Anybody could put false personnel in the infobox and claim it is from the end credits. Any reader could contest the inclusion of such information if there is no citation indicating a way to verify it. A web citation is ideal, otherwise use Template:Cite video game to cite the end credits scene. It is also fine to include citations in the infobox if the information is not cited in the article body (WP:INFOBOXREF). --The1337gamer (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So I was right to add the source—two times—to the article for verification. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Plot section is missing a date

Shouldn't the israeli jew spiders be labeled? It's either the 22nd or 23d century, maybe there's a specific year mentioned? And should the source for it be listed after it'll be added?--Adûnâi (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Colorblind Mode Controversy?

YouTuber Mark Brown recently uploaded a video about accessibility in games to those suffering from colorblindness and poor vision. He, at one point, chastises Doom for having a colorblind mode which does not compensate for colorblindness, but actually simulates it, making it useless for colorblind gamers. (Reference here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrqdU4cZaLw&feature=youtu.be&t=412)

I don't know how relevant it actually is to the game as a whole, but I thought I'd leave it out there. Any thoughts? --Ethanicus (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting topic, but Mark would not be considered a reliable source here. Have any other sources mentioned it? -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)