Talk:Doom (1993 video game)/Archive 1

http://uxu.textfiles.com/humor/COMPUTER/spispopd.txt

This should get added in as a link on the main....go for it Imran.

The link is ded, but I've found http://textfiles.fisher.hu/humor/COMPUTER/spispopd.txt and http://www.gamers.org/pub/games/uwp-uml/misc/spispopd.txt as well as http://www.trilobite.org/spispopd/ // Liftarn

JFYI, the separate extlink for the archived version of the Nokia cell phone Doom port will go away once this bug in the wikipedia software is fixed. Stay tuned. ^_~ -- Schnee 03:22, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Worked around. -- Schnee 09:54, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I've noticed id developers spell it with all capitals on many occasions as it is in the game, should this entry and others be edited to include the DOOM spelling instead of Doom?
 * Quoth


 * Good question. My personal experience is that the spelling "Doom" is more common than "DOOM", but I'd have to check to see what the official spelling from id is. If it's DOOM, then I'm all for adapting that variant in the article. :)
 * Schnee 16:27, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Historically, the folks at id Software have been referring to Doom III as DOOM. Some fans of the original say it's DooM, others DOOM, and others just Doom. I prefer the last myself, because it just feels right.
 * Bloodshedder 00:18, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well the official website has it written as DOOM (Final DOOM, Ultimate DOOM) on the submenu's and overviews of the game but not in the main menu title Doom. Then again, in a number of places such as the Business section of the website Quake can be found in capitals frequently also, but never Wolfenstein 3D or Commander Keen. After going through the site, regardless of how the capitalisation of the other titles vary from occasion to occasion, DOOM is constantly DOOM or DOOM II, and as mentioned the only lowercase Doom is in the main menu and then it's refering to the series and not any one of the games.
 * This holds up with seeing the developers refer to DOOM and not Doom. The DooM variation I've only ever seen once, possibly from a reviewer or just a post in a forum and comes from writing it as it appears on some covers, in which the O's are made smaller to fit in a subtitle or the 'II'. Doom is the most commonly used because it is grammatically correct and people are used to the titles of publications (such as albums or games) being completely in capitals but not strictly so. Perhaps there was a conscious decision during the making of DOOM that it should be spelt like that, which would explain why the developers, years later, seem to be the only one's spelling it like that as can be seen on Tom Halls website today . So, personally, while the majority of people spell it Doom (the majority not being the developers :)) I'd feel more comfortable sticking to canon and having it as DOOM when referring to the particular games.
 * Quoth


 * Sounds fine. As far as the "DooM" spelling variation is concerned, that was actually in at least reasonably widespread use back when Doom was still all new, although its use seems to have waned these days. -- Schnee 14:16, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't like this DOOM³ thing. Sure, the latest logo you can see on stuff from E3 looks like that, but that naming convention is by no means official. Bloodshedder 02:06, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Neither do I. Personally, I'd be all for changing it back to DOOM III, DOOM 3 or something similar. -- Schnee 17:19, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, the E3 trailer is official. And it makes a bit of sense, seeing as it's not so much the third in a series as it is just the first ones, yet much better, to the power of 3 in fact. In which case it doubles as a sequal number and a connotation. Fairly clever title if you ask me.
 * Quoth 13:02, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why is this article at DOOM (computer game) instead of just DOOM? Is there some other kind of DOOM? -- Minesweeper 01:46, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * It used to be Doom (computer game), which I guess was supposed to not be confused with Doom; but that article is just a redirect, too, so ultimately, I'm not sure. In any case, it's probably safe to move it to just DOOM. -- Schnee 15:36, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nicer to let the paragraph about ports to GamePark 32, Nokia phones and so on stay at the top? They may be done with the help of the (released) source, but they're ports to new architectures rather than ports that "just" add new features, so I think it'd be more appropriate to let them stay with the paragraph about the architectures that Doom was ported to. -- Schnee 01:13, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, those three ports I moved were created using the source code released by id Software. The systems/OSes mentioned up above those were, as far as I know, all official ports by id Software to those consoles or operating systems. I think the user-made ones should remain in the Source Ports section, simply because they aren't official. This distinguishes them from the official hardware/OS ports by id and "partner" companies. - Bloodshedder 02:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What's up with the Microsoft ad (3rd paragraph)? It doesn't show up on the "Edit this Page" box, but it is listed in source code as it appears, with a leading paragraph tag. Then, it disappears on reloading the page. I know I didn't imagine it. Can anyone do something about this? It has less than nothing to do with DOOM. Or is this a problem in all wiki entries?


 * Someoned probably inserted it in an attempt to vandalize (or maybe just to test the editing function). Wikipedians are usually quick to revert such changes. Thanks for commenting! Fredrik 18:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article says "Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC), whose biggest supplier, the military". It's confusing - why would the military be a supplier to UAC? It would make sense that UAC was one of the largest military suppliers/subcontractors... It seems that the eixsting version comes from some official Doom intro (box cover, manual, etc.), but I think there was originally a mistake. Do you think there is a mistake and if yes, shall it be fixed here despite what the source says? Paranoid 18:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's supposed to demonstrate just how big and bad the UAC conglomerate is. The article should stick to what the source says, anyway. Fredrik 13:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixed (broke?) many things, including
 * 1) What's 3D gameplay? And it was 2.5D anyway.
 * 2) Who would argue that it's an anachronism?
 * 3) BFG correction (it's still a simplification though).
 * 4) I fixed some minor factual errors (Cyberdemon, speed, etc.). I think the article should be factually correct even if it makes the text slightly drier.
 * 5) What allegory?
 * 6) Duke 3D was competing with Quake

If the reasons for some changes I made are unclear (and not clarified above), ask me to comment on them. Paranoid 19:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * 4) I re-added "cyborgs" because there are two of them in Doom (and of course even more Doom 2). This should be expanded, I'd like to spin off a DOOM gameplay or similar article for details. Also, the player actually does move faster than all monsters, including attacking lost souls (provided that you straferun). Last, I removed "fourth generation" from the DOOM 3 engine description because no explanation or link was provided for the term. Thanks for contributing, and feel free to improve the article further :) Fredrik 13:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we need a lot more in the controversy department. Some more quotes, and ideally counter-quotes from id Software for NPOV. There should also be some more info on in which places DOOM was banned or censored, and how DOOM affected the use of rating systems. I'm personally not familiar with these aspects of its history, unfortunately. Fredrik (talk) 10:39, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh, I think the article is pretty complete as it is. With all the effort spent on it (even more after it was featured on the main page) there is very little to be added. If people start insisting on adding "technical" info, this will start looking more and more like a FAQ, instead of an encyclopedia article. I do understand more information works only to make an article more attractive, but sometimes, things should be more dynamic. I've warned people about this before. If articles start building up with way too much info, they will cease to perform their function, which is to help people. They may start confusing them instead. Think about that.


 * If there is useful technical info that can be added, the right solution isn't to avoid it because it's technical, but put it in a separate article and keep a non-technical overview in the main one. That's why I put up a separate "game details" page (which by the way hardly has any work done to it yet). I wouldn't mind having one main article for each section here (for the related products section, ideally one for each item). Fredrik | talk 09:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe something must be done about the links section, though. The way it is it looks pretty bad. Just a bunch of links packed up one up another. I think it should be divided into sections like it used to be before. "Official sites", for example. That helps a lot on the overall visibility of the links. Official sites and fan sites should be sorted into different categories. I would like to do that myself, but since this article is heavily patrolled, someone might get upset. That's why I'm commenting this here first. – Mackeriv 07:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Dealt with. And don't worry about the site being patrolled... be bold, and just be prepared to defend controversial changes on this talk page. Fredrik | talk 09:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright, Fredrik. Thanks for understanding my point. Dividing big articles into smaller ones sounds like a good idea, I don't know why I haven't thought of it this time. You are right. By the way, you've done a good work with those links. It's much better now. Keep up. – Mackeriv 20:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding german law and swastikas
Regarding german law and the display of swastikas or other Nazi symbols, it is worth nothing that the relevant paragraph (§ 86 Absatz 1 StGB) does *not* apply if displaying the symbol is (among other things) for educational, scientific or artistic purposes, so it could probably be argued that the display of a level map containing an image of a swastika is not illegal under german law - after all, Wikipedia's purpose *is* entirely educational. As such, there is probably no need for paranoia with regard to the "development of E1M4" image. -- Schnee 19:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I heard that such uses still requires an application of a waiver from the government. Can someone confirm this? SYSS Mouse 01:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard about that myself, and I doubt it, too. The law is quite clear, after all: it states (in § 86 Absatz 3 StGB) that the relevant paragraph (§ 86 Absatz 1 StGB; I don't know why I wrote 90 earlier, sorry about that) does not apply under the conditions given above. A waiver of any form is not required. Of course, that doesn't mean there never will be attempts to prosecute the usage anyway; for example, Gerhard Seyfried, a radical left-wing artist, was prosecuted for two images containing swastikas about 1,5 years or so ago, but as far as I know, this case didn't even go to court (probably because the prosecutors knew they wouldn't have a chance). You can read the relevant paragraph at http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86.html, BTW; it's in german only, unfortunately, though. More about the Seyfried case can be read at http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/te/14606/1.html , for example.


 * I should note, of course, that IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). -- Schnee

Homages
What is "Labyrinth of Death" and how is it related to DOOM? The paragraph as it stands provides no context whatsoever and there are no references for it. Fredrik | talk 17:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a fictional follow-up that appears in the works of the author mentioned. Probably doesn't need to be a Wikilink really, though, so I'll remove that. -- Schnee 03:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)