Talk:Doom (1993 video game)/Archive 2

message: The current information on number of copies sold for Doom and Doom 2 lacks references. Information on this unfortunately seems very hard to find; I even sent an email to John Carmack and the most specific he could offer was that all the games were million sellers.
The best reference I have managed to find is from The Complete Wargames Handbook, year 2000 revision (from ):
:The top seller for 1993-99 was Myst. Now this was not an arcade game, but it did use extensive graphics to move things along. Myst also sold 4.2 million copies. Naturally, there was a sequel, Riven, which sold another 1.3 million games. Myst and Riven are considered "Adventure Games." There's a plot line and a lot of puzzles to be solved. Dungeons & Dragons was the first mass market adventure type game, coming out back in 1974 as a manual game. Very popular. When personal computers came along five years later, many of the first games you saw appear were adventure games. They were all text, which worked with adventure games. But once PCs acquired sufficient graphics capability to make graphic adventure games possible, adventure games really took off. In the 1993-99 top 20, there was also number 13, 7th Guest, which sold 927,000 copies. Adventure games are steady sellers, even if few of them become big hits.
:The number two best seller was Flight Simulator, a game that first appeared in 1980, was bought by Microsoft shortly there after and continuously upgraded ever since. Sold 2.8 million copies. Flight simulators were the original real time games. They had to be. For years, flight simulators were held back by the lack of computing power. Ironically, just when PCs became powerful enough so that developers could do flight simulators right, along come the real time strategy (Warcraft) and arcade action (Doom) games. It?s been hard times for the flight sims ever since.
:The number three seller was Doom II, with 1.5 million copies. But if you include all the Doom clones, you have millions more. For example, in the top twenty best sellers, you had similar games like Doom I (number 8, at 1.1 million sold), Star Wars: Dark Forces (number 11, at 952,000), Duke Nukem 3D (number 12 at 950,000), and Ultimate Doom (number 20 at 788,000) 
These are figures from 1999. But Doom probably hasn't sold *that* much in the last five years, so this seems like good enough info to use.
As for the two million units reported for Doom 2, I believe I took it from , which reports "an initial release of over 0.5 million, and 2 millions sold to this day". Reliable? Could Doom 2 have sold 0.5 million copies between 1999 and 2004? I say it's likely, but it's mere speculation without solid reference.
However I also found this: , same number appearing on , apparently from 1999; "According to PC Data, Doom has sold only 2.9 million units since its release in 1994" This figure is probably meant to include both Doom and Doom II. Or is it for Doom + Ultimate? 2.9 is unfortunately not equal to the 1.5 + 1.1 + 0.788 reported above -- what to make of this?
Unfortunately, the research firm PC Data apparently no longer exists, and its research results were for sale only, so no hope there.
By the way, Doom 2 was the second best selling CD-ROM game of 1994 , if that's worth mentioning.
Fredrik | talk 06:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To make matters worse, I also found this:  - Fredrik | talk 23:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of copies sold

message: I have created Doom/References, where ideally sources for every fact in the article should be provided. Help would be greatly appreciated.
This is an experiment; please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#References namespace and comment on the idea. Fredrik | talk 20:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference page

message: For those who like Doom, the recently started Doom Wiki may be of interest. Wikipedia's coverage is good, but with this we can include the details :) - Fredrik | talk 04:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doom Wiki

message: Please cite a source for the Doom reference in Duke Nukem and this so-called "lawsuit".  I could find no reference of either on the web except for pages that use this Wikipedia article as a reference. --69.234.183.71 10:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I correct myself, I found references to the Duke Nukem level and the dead Doom marine, but still no reference to any lawsuit except for speculation. --69.234.183.71 10:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The Doom reference was located in Episode 1, Level 3 - and is basically one frame of the Doom marine in the dying pose.  It is found behind the mini-church, and is easily verifable/attributed to any FAQ.  However, the only information about a lawsuit appears to be on par with rumours flying about the web.  As a result, I put the  on the Duke Nukem 3D article.  --Sigma 7 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please cite a source 

message: A long time ago, there was a Wikipedia article for the word nukage; but it was nominated for deletion.  That term was primarily used when talking about DOOM.  Should we redirect the word nukage to this article? --SuperDude 22:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that wouldn't be useful. Fredrik | talk 15:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nukage 

message: I think this should be moved to Doom (Computer Game) and this article replaced with the Disambiguation page. 68.38.113.242
:I absolutely object to this. K1Bond007 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Is there any way to determine how many people reach Doom when they want something else, and how would that compare to reaching the disambiguation page when they want Doom, if the article was moved? I think that the current arrangement results in the least mistakes. -- Jon Dowland 10:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "What links here" gives a good estimate. Fredrik | talk 10:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: "The game also caused hundreds of school shootings in the United States."
What is the source for this?  Was Doom simply accused of having "caused" these shootings?  Suggest rewording or citing references.
:um, the article doesn't say that anywhere. I reverted some vandalism awhile ago that did say that, though. Bloodshedder 23:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it said that a couple days ago.  Glad it's been changed.  Thank you. --Frakkle 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: "This leads to several limitations: it is, for example, not possible for a Doom level to have one room over another. This two-dimensional representation does, however, have the benefit that rendering can be done very quickly, using a binary space partitioning method."
I think this part is somewhat inaccurate. Though by normal ways this is true, by doing great abuse of the Doom Construction Kit 2.2 editor (DCK), I was able to exploit several glitches on the original motor of the game, which allowed me to create spiral staircases, second floors, pools in which you could submerge (unlike the tricked ones Duke Nukem had), and some other interesting goodies.
I didn't test on other editors, but I think most of them could be used on them. DrJones 23:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have second floors by raising and lowering sectors, but this breaks when you monsters walk around or the level is used in multiplayer, and you can never have both floors visible to the player at once. There are a few tricks that partially create the effect of one floor being above another, but none that achieves it fully. Fredrik | talk 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not so limited 

message: From the article: "In addition, a few players have also managed to complete Doom II in a single run on the Nightmare! difficulty setting, on which monsters are twice as fast and respawn some time after they have been killed [...]".
Aren't monsters 2,5 times as fast as usual with -fast and on Nightmare! skill? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 01:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  -fast and Nightmare! 

message: Does anyone know why the footnote link numbers are offset by 1? - Fredrik 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we have a reference section and a "note" section in the first place? These should be merged with the arrow in front of the reference for easier verifiability. This is proper Wikipedia style. See Thunderball as an example. The only real note on this article is about the title. I'm not sure why the number begins at "2". I'll try and look into this. K1Bond007 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate notes and references sections are used in several articles as well. But if you can improve the layout, go ahead. Fredrik | tc 20:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it right now. I figured out the problem btw. You have a reference in a thumb of an image and that's the problem for some reason. It's marked as [1] (Bill Gates image). It doesn't line up with the others. You might want to move that reference into the body of the article somewhere. K1Bond007 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There. Should all be working now. References all line up accordingly and are numbered throughout the article properly. K1Bond007 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Fredrik | tc 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note numbering 

message: in keeping with the "principle of least surprise" (for non-gamers, anyway), it would be better if this article resided at DOOM or Doom (computer game). But since too many links seem to point here directly already, I took the liberty of inserting a link to Dōm (where I intend to discuss the word's primary meaning, seeing that this title was 'taken') at the top, in front of the link to Doom (disambiguation), which is mainly a list of other titles of pop-culture items. dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that this article should be moved because the title has a different primary meaning is misguided, as this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, but the extended disambiguation notice is an appropriate compromise. Fredrik | tc 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: dab notice

message: does doom support online!?
:Not Doom 3
87.74.56.139 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  online 

message: I don't think Doom can claim to be the first Ethernet-based multiplayer 3D deathmatch game, I would be of the opinion that this accolade should go to MazeWar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze_wars).
Yeah, I remember this and sadly it was before DooM. If by "the first Ethernet-based multiplayer 3D deathmatch game" that didnt sucks balls, then DooM was first. Wolfenstein was terrible imo.
Fr0 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Doom Multiplayer== 

message: This way of depicting the game has not totally fallen out of use compared to DOOM and Doom. That corrosoponding note should be removed.
You are wrong! The title spells, DOOM 3, even in the past old Doom games, it is spelled "DOOM". Just because the double "O"'s are in the middle, doesn't mean it is small letter. Anyway, to me, the name is spelled Doom. But most website suddenly calls it DOOM.
:>x<ino
::My point is not the correct spelling. I am stating that the spelling "DooM" has not fallen out of use.
who cares, I think it looks cooler spelled DooM but if u ppl are so picky then just call it DOOM, doom or Doom no matter how u say it, it is still the same. - DooM_768
I've also spelled it DooM since I was thirteen when the game came out, based on how it was displayed on the shareware folder (I still have somewhere, and could scan actually). 
Fr0 04:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DooM 

message: The Doom "door open" sound can often be heard in other medias as well - is it initially from Doom? --Abdull 14:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many such sounds. No, they're not from Doom originally; they're from stock sound libraries, which Bobby Prince happened to have access to. Fredrik Johansson 14:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Door sound 

message: I think that at least some reference to the music used in Doom and the author of that music should be added to the article. The music, quite particularly that of e1m1, is quite well known and probably considered a classic in many communities. Currently the article doesn't even say who the composer/artist who made the music is. --Juha Nieminen
:This is included in my in-progress rewrite of the article. Fredrik Johansson 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of it seems to be based on various metal songs, I know Master of Puppets by Metallica is certainly one of them. Hydroksyde 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe not... Might have been No Remorse (song)... Hydroksyde 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom music 

message: There should be some mention of iDOOM. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.169.165 (talk • contribs) .
:See Doom source port - Bloodshedder 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: iDOOM

message: The cheat codes section is mostly bogus (and a fine example of article degradation due to cruft accumulation). To begin with, the claim that the codes were widely imitated in later 3D games may be correct, but so were 50 other aspect of Doom's gameplay. Among them all, this has to be one of the most trivial.
And, as the author admits, Doom wasn't even the first game to use these cheats. How is being one of the first notable? Maybe the author first encountered it in Doom, but that doesn't make it notable for the rest of the world. In fact, Doom doesn't even use the term "god mode". (Not the term "all-weapons" or "berserker strength" either.) Oh, and, these cheats do not work in games like Wolfenstein. They work in Doom II, which isn't so strange considering that Doom II was basically Doom repackaged with some new items and levels.
The article already mentioned IDSPISPOPD, which I think is the most notable one. I would agree that IDDQD might be famous enough to warrant a mention as well, but some more factual justification would be required than an out-of-the-blue assertion of being "almost legendary".
And above all; it shouldn't take a headered section and a 7-item bullet point list to say what could easily be captured in a single sentence. Fredrik Johansson 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cheat section violates WP:NOT and has been removed (and this is a featured article, too!)  Proto<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>type 12:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted this.  As it says in the article, the cheats in Doom are very well known.  (Largely because they were copied in future games).  They're historically important, not just there for game guide purposes. Ace of Sevens 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The compromise, which I've just made, is to talk about the cheats and how they are relevant, but not to list them. I think that keeps the section encyclopedic. Actually listing the cheats violates WP:NOT. Proto<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I>type 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with your improvement, the text still contained the erroneous references to "God mode" and Wolfenstein, devoted a full section header to this trivia, and worst of all, contained the phrase "almost legendary". By the way, Ace of Sevens, the cheats in Doom are not well known because they were copied in future games; they are well known because lots of people encountered them in the original game. Fredrik Johansson 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheats section 

message: The noted similarity and straight ripping off of artists to create Doom's music. This can be noted [here].
--ADarkerBreed 03:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with ADarkerBreed. The similarities are not ignorable. The E3M1 Stage music and the Pantera song mouth for war are identical, and the riff is fairly unique so its easy to identify. Once you know they ripped off the one song, the similarities in the other songs can probably be assumed to be copied, and not just similar. However, there is no reliable source that analyzes this so the problem of adding original research arises and there's nothing we can really do about it. Chipotlehero 12:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doom Music and Song Similarities

message: I'm not sure about the accuracy of the player being "Overwhelmed by mosters and seemingly killed" at the end of episode one. If you have cheated to win the game, you do get teleported to a room full of monsters (and all previously active cheats are disabled), but if you haven't you get a screen saying you have teleported to the demois base (and the episode ends). Hydroksyde 09:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You get teleported into the same room regardless of whether you are using cheats. The message screen appears when you die in that room. Degreelessness mode (not all cheats) gets turned off when you ented the room, just to make sure you'll die. Fredrik Johansson 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this is true.  In the PC versions, when you complete the first episode, "Knee Deep In The Dead", you end the level by warping into a dark room filled with enemies.  Even if you have 200% health and armour (or thereabouts) or cheats active when ending the level it won't help, as it times out after a few seconds!In contrast, the Gameboy version (which has the same levels as the original Doom, but not the final 9 from 'Ultimate Doom') does not end, but just continues.  This is similar to the popular PlayStation version, which *also* allows you to even start Doom II with all the weapons, ammo, health and armour you had at the *end* of Ultimate Doom!  (Making it a little easy though!)stuartyler 18:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overwhelmed by monsters? 

message: Just to let you know, Doom is going to be released for the Live Arcade some time very soon if somebody wants to put it on the main article. Thanks. --Shuyin05 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XBOX 360 

message: "Doom clone"- Where'd the article go? Why was it deleted? -albrozdude 22:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom clone 

message: Okay, as one of the people monitoring the :Category:Cult computer and video games section, I think that labelling Doom as a "cult" game is debatable. I realize that it may have been a cult game when it came out, but nowadays it's pretty much 100% "mainstream" (or whatever term you think applies here) due to it's immense popularity, so I think it may have lost it's cult status over time. Plus, as you can see, it just really seems out of place among the other games there...So what do you think? Remove it from the category or not? SlyDante 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at cult computer and video games, I'd have to agree that it never really fit in any of the categories on that page when it was released. But now, nearly 13 years after Doom was released, a sizable portion of people are still playing, editing for, and programming on it. So, if anything, I'd say it has grown to become a cult game due to its outstanding longevity. Lots of people may recognize that it was a great game, but who of them still plays it? Bloodshedder 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult status? 

message: Who have made the DOOM logo? What is the artists name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.225.227.105 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the person who designed the cover for the game is named Don Ivan Punchatz if that gets you anywhere. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOOM LOGO? 

message: I'd just like to know one thing about the controversy around the game:
How can you blow away demons without "Satanism" and "Violence?"
I'd like to see Jack Thompson argue that one —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midgitboy (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Er, I'm pretty sure that his name is spelled Tom Cruise, why was this changed? Just curious. 
Fr0 12:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is copied directly from the source which has the misspelling, and logic dictates that it remains intact. This is what sic means. Bloodshedder 22:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: Thy Flesh Consumed, from what I remember reading, takes place on Earth. This seems to conflict with the claim in the Doom II back-story that the Doomguy has just arrived on Earth by the time Doom II started. Should there be some mention about this in one of the articles? Woodrow Buzard 21:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something that can be looked into, although the story just staring is generally considered implied in most cases.  It's also debatable whether or not it does take place on Earth, as the background looked like a variant of one used in Doom II. --Sigma 7 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 4 

message: What is the reasoning behind placing this notification here? Bloodshedder 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be there - the current description is quite accurate. Shaolin Samurai 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original research" in Story section 

message: :Image:Doom gibs.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Doom gibs.png

message: Nice site! 
a pleasant suprise
Look cut it out will you?MightyKombat 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice site! 

message: |-
|
|}
Available for your fragging delight. If someone can find a good free image to use, I'd like to pop it in there. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: userbox!

message: "finally the incredbly awesome kitten cannon, the kittens do a massive amount of damage"
I remember the BFG9000 - I don't remember kittens - Am I missing something here or is someone pulling our legs?Rufty 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism??? 

message: I think the PC (MS-DOS and Windows 3.x) versions of Spectre and/or Spectre VR had a network multiplayer mode similar to deathmatch, even if not called "deathmatch", before Doom was released. Brolin Empey (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Doom really the first Ethernet deathmatch game? 

message: Someone who cares should populate the relevant links section of the template above and dig out when and why the article was de-nominated. -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article de-nomination 

message: This article is two in one, there should exist a Doom 1 article and a Doom series/universe article, instead this conflates the two. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're right, though we should probably try to make sure there aren't too many Doom related articles. One article for the franchise in general, and then any articles for particularly prominent stuff (mostly product lines). I'd say Doom II and Final Doom should appear in the Doom (video game) article instead of separately. More links should be provided to the pretty solid Doom Wikia site instead of making sub-articles (like the one about the making of Doom... which seems too arcane for the Wikipedia to me). Add-ons don't really need their separate article either; a good mention/explanation in the game article should be enough. This should work out well by using the External Links section which already deals with various Doom subjects in this Doom (video game) article. Who is like God? (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Looking at the content of this article, there appears to be very little which would be suitable for a split-off "doom (universe)" article or similar: perhaps sections of the introductory paragraphs; coverage of the novels at the end of "Clones and related products" (but not that there are already several sub-articles for this heading). -- Jon Dowland (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so little if you start to add info from stub-like articles that describe franchise material to the main (franchise) article, taking the essentials (some might not be too notable). Naturally one would have to rework the content, though, since it's not just a matter of moving things around. The story related section is too wordy. In the end an article dealing with Doom and Doom II would work out fine, as they share the same engine, roughly the same resources, and the same storyline. Another article dealing with Doom stuff in general (as opposed to the core games in-depth) would also make sense. Who is like God? (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  split off Doom 1 or Doom series 

message: Hello.
I tried adding some very useful links to the Quake 3 article, but someone keeps removing them saying wikipedia is not a repository of links. In this article there are loads of similar links and have been for ages. So how do I stop that person removing the similar links from the Quake 3 article? Ben 2082 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate informations as well as spam, hoaxes, inappropriate formatting, etc. may have not been detected for years mainly due to Wikipedia encyclopedic nature, wiki-based editing system and continuous changes in its guidelines & manual of styles. For external links to avoid read WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. And please move Quake 3-related discussion to the proper talk page. Thanks. Visor (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Links Section 

message: I edited the first note and added links to reference the information, but looking back now the note still does not seem entirely convincing to me, as it contains many external links just to substantiate something that might not be relevant to many. As it was before my edit, the "reference" was an explanatory note (annotation) without sources attributing a loose statement to John Romero and making risky assumptions (at least that the official position of id on the matter is not known). I also added that the all-caps use is primarily brand-related (referring to the trademark or game as a product) to the article, because rather than wondering what is "official" it's best to simply note why and how variants are used.
From what I see, the original note came up after a long discussion editors had on whether DOOM or Doom should be used for the Wikipedia, and to me it reads more as a note to editors rather than one to readers in general; "leave/use the Doom variant because you can't prove the DOOM one is official". But in the end, the reason the Doom variant was chosen is because it suits the naming conventions of the site, unless I have the order of events wrong and it was one of the articles that helped establish the corresponding part of the adopted conventions. Regardless, this is pretty established by now, so using Doom doesn't need justifications.
Thus, one option would be to simply eliminate the note altogether. Another, to add the "name controversy" subject to the article adding in any necessary references in the usual way, but to me that may be a touch arcane. Any thoughts... suggestions? Who is like God? (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note #1 (name casing) 

message: That Image:48-front.jpg image which I uploaded, I added it here. Why did you revert my edit? Fangusu (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because an image for it exists already which is of a suitable low-resolution for fair use. Also, 48-front.jpg is not obviously named, and looks like it has been resized from an original smaller image, as it has pixelization artifacts. Bloodshedder (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boxart

message: I had a look at the "Versions and ports of Doom" wiki page. It doesn't cover the Windows source ports, such as Doom Legacy, DoomGL, ZDoomGL, GLDoom, and the history of each source port, and lost of source port code, etc.
Should that go there, or can we add some stuff in this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewwan1980 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Doom source port? Bloodshedder (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! The problem was, Doom source port is not even linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game) it should at least be in the bottom table called "The Doom series and related topics", in a line category called "Doom Source Ports" or something. Also, Bloodshedder, I registered on doomworld forums, and clicked on the activate email, but I still can't post to any forums. Is there anything else I need to do, or is this a bug?Andrewwan1980 (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doom source port is linked under the Continued Legacy section. It is also linked to twice in Versions and ports of Doom, in the introduction and later in the article. As for your forum problem, your account is shown as active and you have made one post. Bloodshedder (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Ports 

message: I've change the text that used to read "Distributed as shareware, Doom was downloaded by an estimated 10 million people within two years". Onlythe initial few levels were distibuted as shareware - I think it might have been the first 4. Also - this was long before broadband - most shareware at that time was distributed on floppy disks or as Cd cover mounts on magazines. Meowy 17:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction - there were 9 levels in the shareware release. Meowy 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shareware and its distribution

message: What was the avalibilty of Doom in December 1993 after it's launch on 10th December 1993, if anyone can give me some info, give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No joy at the moment? When anyone's got any joy on the sucsess of the DOS version of Doom during 1993 then please give us a bell. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: PC Zone magazine of March 1994, p133, says that a "Jay" from ID software uploaded it to the action/arcade forum of compuserve on 10th december 1993. There was a delay in uploading all of it because so many users were asking for the game that compuserve's disk (yes, they wrote "disk", singular!) had become filled up with their requests. The game was divided into 3 parts (3 separate zip files presumably). Meowy 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: December 1993, DoomDOS avalibity

message: I am removing the Sun Workstation bit at the beginning of the article. I have found no information supporting the claim that id Software released a Sun version of Doom. The only Sun executable I've found is a third-party program not released by id Software.
- Razor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.36.217 (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Razor, can you provide more information on what 3rd party it was and at what date it released the software you found? Because I clearly remember playing Doom on SparcStation on 23 December 1993.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfpoulet (talk • contribs) 15:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Sun Workstation Reference 

message: Assessed as C; lacks references for a lot of content, including Gameplay and almost all of the WADs section; Controversies section also lacks references in some parts; conventional Reception, such as reviews and "top games" lists, are sorely missed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Why does this article have (video game) in the title now?
As usual, I'd like to ask to leave a copy of the reply to my talk page. TheBlazikenMaster 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone tell me what happened? 

message: There were several references to Doom as a [Dungeon Crawler].  This seems inaccurate as far as I can tell.  That term, as well as wikipedia's article on it, refers to a type of role-playing game.  The term first-person shooter seems to be a more accurate description, so I've updated the text to reference this.Caidh (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dungeon Crawler is completely wrong and should be considered vandalism. 74.72.93.158 (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I had just happened upon the page today - I didn't notice the change to 'dungeon crawler' was only recent.  Should have just reverted instead of editing.  Thanks for those who fixed it (since I missed one spot).Caidh (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dungeon Crawler vs. First Person Shooter 

message: *In the section about the Columbine shooting section, can we mention that only 2 people out of the 10 million Doom players are known to have shot anyone?  Or that the two kids doing the shooting are notable as being the only known people, out of 10 million Doom players, to have ever actually killed anyone?  Or that the controversy was just an excuse, something people could blame it on? I removed mentions of it in another article not related to this already.   Perhaps mentioning this in the Columbine massacre article only.  Does it need to be here?  Dream Focus 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we mention that only 2 people out of 10 million players killed anyone? 

message: Could it be expanded? I don't know of any reviews from when Doom was released and I'm pretty sure that more than 1 person reviewed it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burned Toast (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: I was watching the DOOM post mortem on GDC (http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014627/Classic-Game-Postmortem) by Tom Hall and John Romero and Tom Hall specifically states (about 5 minutes into the presentation) that the "where's all the data" definition was after the fact and that really the name came about when the team was defining file structures and John Carmack asked for an extension for "a bunch of lumps".  Hall said he thought for a moment and said, "A wad?" and the name was used.
So what I'm wondering is if the current text in the beginning of the article which says "WAD" is "an acronym for Where is All the Data" should be changed.  Not that that isn't true, but it seems to mean that the extension came from that phrase when in reality the phrase came from the extension.
-madpanic24.17.18.23 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "wad" extension. 

message: Among other touch-ups I removed the nameless/anonymous adjective from space marine in the story section as it's better dealt as part of the game design. I added the corresponding information (with a designer reference) to the gameplay section, as the lack of a name is a feature aimed to affect game immersion. The story section also said the marine was working for the UAC, but there is no indication. The story merely says the UAC is a supplier (of technology) for the military and that the marine is stationed in Mars, where the UAC has its operations. Who is like God? (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've further changed the description from "nameless" to "unnamed".  "Nameless" means that the person (or thing) in question doesn't have a name; "unnamed" means that it has a name which we haven't been told.  ("Anonymous" could probably have either meaning.) -- 93.97.40.177 (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character name & story 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616 number nine, original work, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 . Is it worth including in the controversies section? 750ml (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned last year in one of the sections above, we should just mention that having 2 people out of 10 million that played the game shoot up their school, would mean that obviously it didn't cause it.  Mention they were just looking for a scapegoat of course.  Anything to correct the idiotic misconception some might have of blaming this or other games for violence, would be great.  The article already does a fine job now quoting research that says school shooters don't like violent video games, it not influencing them.  Dream Focus 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violent video games reduce violent crime. 

message: There's been quite a bit of back-and-forth over the image. I've put it to the version that was the "original" (for this particular proposed change) as far as I know. Let's try to get a consensus here instead of continuing to switch it back and forth repeatedly.
#:Image:Doom-boxart.jpg – "Original"
#:Image:Doom.jpg – Possible replacement (Image was deleted because it's a fair-use image not used in any articles: can someone find the website source from which it was uploaded?)
When the second image was first uploaded it had a watermark that made it unsuitable, but now either one would be appropriate for use. Here are a couple of arguments I have seen presented (please correct me if I misstate your position): Fangusu has pointed out that the original image specifically references "The Ultimate Doom," rather than just Doom, and as such believes that the second image is preferable. Bloodshedder thinks that the overall quality of the second image is inferior due to some pixelization artifacts, and as such, prefers the first image. To my eye, the first one shows the details better (for example, I can see a bit of the guy's face in the first one, whereas the visor appears opaque in the second), but I also like that the second one doesn't have that black border. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my decision to make. It's up to the community to discuss it and come to a consensus. It's only been a few days, so the discussion is still in progress. Monitor this page if you want to find out what the final conclusion is, and to contribute any thoughts you have on the subject. Be patient, it may take a little while for people to discuss the matter and figure out what to do. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The reversions have been primarily regarding the image's caption, which was overlong and contained undue deference to the artist rather than just simply identifying it as the cover art for The Ultimate Doom, as it is part of the lede.  Xihr  21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How the hell does spelling out the name of the artist violate NPOV? Fredrik Johansson 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Making a separate article for the sole purpose of including an image you want makes no sense at all according to any guideline or policy I'm aware of.  Xihr  07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: While the "The Ultimate" caption is a disadvantage, the overall higher quality as remarked by Icarus and Bloodshedder makes me prefer the first one. Huon (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm for the DOOM image; I think it's better to show the original DOOM game art and not that of the later retail release. The quality of the DOOM pic may be lesser but it certainly serves its purpose.  I don't think an article for The Ultimate DOOM is needed (it would just be a stub anyway). Who is like God? (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, we do need to remove one, as two very similar pics look pretty redundant. We could leave the "ultimate" pic for now and continue to discuss the matter. If it's common practice to include only the box pic and no caption for game articles on the infobox, we could shorten the info and make it a mouseover instead of a caption. I think it's fine that it mentions the author, but the descriptive part is pretty unnecessary (unlike in the screen shots where the captions associate some game details). Who is like God? (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  On second thoughts, the caption is indeed playing a role in the article as it is. Without the caption, you have to read the whole plot section just to know something pretty central and simple about the game; that it's about a marine battling hellish invaders. So either the caption needs to stay in the infobox or this has to be addressed somehow (such as by adding this to the root section of the main body of the article). Who is like God? (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image discussion 

message: Current image problems:
* image is not from Doom, it's Ultimate Doom, title "The Ultimate" removed in editor;
* image modified;
* image has wrong description, it is not box art or cover art, it's a poster (see external links section);
Check original covers here and here.--Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current image [[:File:Doom-boxart.jpg]] 

message: Look at the GUI for the character's stats. It's from some lame ass mod. And then pistol is textured slightly different. Can someone
please replace it with an actual screenshot from the game? 76.101.72.59 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see that the “lame ass mod” is the Doom 3 alpha if you look at the image’s file name, but I suppose an alpha screenshot isn’t the best image for this article.  If nobody objects to replacing this image or finds a good screenshot to use in a few days, I’ll find one myself.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention. —LOL (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhm, The Doom 3 Screenshot Isn't From The Actual Game 

message: In case of Yangshuo, as in case of any geological features, the same image can be recaptured in range of centuries, because terrain changes are noticeable at least in range of millennia. YoonioR (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the purpose of that comment would be...? --uKER (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yangshuo 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:YangShuo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Not once in the article did I see any talk of the music for the game. I am confused by this. The composer was mentioned in the mandatory info bar, however not one further reference, mention, or link to the music was in the entirety of the article. I would appreciate an explanation for this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.127.245 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music? 

message: I see that there is no external link to a shareware download of this game.  I posted a link to the DOSome Games page for it, but it was deleted because I posted several similar links on the same day and it looked like link spamming.  I believe it is a legitimate link because it is the most accessible version of the game that I know of.  If anyone disagrees, please tell me on my talk page.  Otherwise, I'll put the link back up so that everyone can enjoy.
Lmaxsmith (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Download Links 

message: *That part of the article makes no sense.  Doom didn't run on tcp/ip (internet) without extra software.  It was played on IPX, Modem, or Null Modem.
IPX back then was a Novell network, and I believe antidoom worked on novell netware only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.230.62 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom players using up internet bandwith? 

message: Doom: Scarydarkfast (not sure about proper capitalization of the title... sometimes it's capitalized "ScaryDarkFast") is a book by Dan Pinchbeck, a quite notable game researcher (he has quite a few academic articles under his belt) and designer (member of the development group The Chinese Room, authors of Dear Esther). 
The book is devoted to the game's development process, gameplay, reception, impact on game industry, and the fan community. The book has been published by the University of Michigan, and is available online for free here (on a Creative Commons license.) I think it might be an excellent reference source for this and other articles about Doom (and quite a few other games.) I wanted to bring this book to your attention, as it seems to have been mostly overlooked by the Doom community at large.
JudgeDeadd (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. I'll try to work this in. czar ♔ 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom: Scarydarkfast - A free published book on the game, and an useful source 

message: Why was this moved from "Doom (video game)" to "Doom (1993 video game)" when there's nothing at the former title but a redirect? It would seem to be unnecessary disambiguation. czar ♔ 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Currently the page itself is just stated as Doom but it's later called Ultimate Doom when the expansion is added while the new Doom is seemingly just called Doom (It doesn't mention being called Doom 4 but just Doom). This is the image that can be found for the official Doom beta: http://www.push-start.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Doom_beta.jpg Anyway I was suggested the Doom 4 page be just called "Doom" while the original Doom page be called "Ultimate Doom (Doom 1)" to avoid any confusion between the titles --Ronnie42 (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The original was called Doom, that's what its famously known as. Releasing it again after it got insanely famous, with a new episode and calling it "Ultimate", doesn't change that. It was still called Doom with all the ports for various consoles. The image says "Doom Beta", but that doesn't mean it will be released named Doom. The original Doom had an early demo released where it was called Doom: Evil Unleashed. So you don't know for certain what the final name will be. The company's official website should reveal information soon. If they do confirm this, then Doom (1993 video game) is the most reasonable rename, this what they do with films of the same name.  Dream Focus 19:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this czar ♔ 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You're right that this discussion is premature. When a RS decides the new game is called "Doom" (just "Doom") then we'll go the "(201X video game)" route, per the disambiguation naming conventions. We would not add "classic" or "modern" (and have not to others), as the RS call it just "Doom". Again, if you want to discuss this when the new title is named, let's bring it up then. Otherwise, I think the current disambiguation is enough. czar ♔ 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion on name change due to possible conflict with classic Doom, new Doom names. 

message: The succession box list it was the UK number-one PlayStation game in April 1996.  A game that over ten million people played, on various platforms, does not need to list that it was number one for a single month in a nation that isn't even its major market.  I'm removing that.  We could probably go around adding in a dozen of these things, what month it was number one in any nation at all, and anyone bothered to waste time with that.  Dream Focus 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there a succession box for a minor achievement? 

message: The section said "gov researchers" found that doom players are more violent because the game is.  This is a highly biased viewpoint, very facist centric, which I tried to correct by adding not by removing.
I added: "Players argued the violence in early Doom is non-realistic if not amusing, and researchers were just taking money. Yet gaming addiction had been a problem with some."
Note during the time and after many realistic or sadistic violent games were out and picking doom as one of them is simply incorrect (though it was the most well known, so easy to name for a lazy researcher).
The view that government workers were not simply getting grant money for doing false research, that early doom games had caused problem, is simply highly biased.
It is not me who presented biased information.  And someone is trying to keep biased information.
I am tired of being blamed for such biased revisionisms.
DO NOT TOUCH my IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar55 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: highly biased content

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navstar55 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: memorabilia

message: What does "Excess web usage" mean? The web wasn't involved at all with the problems Doom caused (hey, it was 1993!). Excessive broadcast packets clogged local area networks, which slowed down everything within these networks. Including internet access.
I think the last paragraph of the http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_networking_component of the "External drivers" section sums it up quite good.   SvenPaulus (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess web usage

message: In IGN's interview with John Romero, according to him, the game once had a level in which there was a platform which appeared to be of the shape of the Swastica (as a reference to Wolfenstein 3D), which generated id Software's receiving an influx of complaints (most likely from Germans) and then prompted for id to change the shape of that platform in version 1.666. It was controversial (even though Romero said that they were not trying to promote [[Nazism][), but about what I am concerned is whether or not this is due. Would that be okay were it added, or would that be undue? I appreciate your honest opinions. Proof: http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/12/10/we-play-doom-with-john-romero (at 43:00) Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Doom''{{'}}s Controversial [[Swastica]] (Due or [[WP:UNDUE|Undue]]?) 

message: Is it notable that John Romero released a new Doom level he created for the game yesterday? What does everyone think? 2A02:120B:C3F9:4E40:85FE:590C:B4F8:95DA (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New level by original designer 

message: Doom was the first game to feature a digital representation of true third dimension spaciality.  One could argue that Wolfenstein 3D was the first third dimensional video game but I would disagree.  While it was the first graphics engine that represented the third dimension, the player could only move on a flat surface, going left right, forward and backward.  This is the definition of 2D space, no "depth," no change of altitude.  
Many video games that are 2D platformers featured in a 3D graphical representation (Super Mario Bros. Wii) are referred to as 2.5D.  Wolfenstein could be described in the same way, although from a first person, three dimensional vantage point (although the player can still only move in 2D space).
Doom was the first truly 3D game and must be recognized as such.  I've edited the main article to include the line "[...]pioneering immersive 3D graphics as well as true third dimension spatiality, networked multiplayer gaming, [...]", but I think this groundbreaking, easily overlooked aspect of Doom is what truly makes it a milestone in video game history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloy14 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually Doom was 2D as well - although you could appear to change altitude it was still a 2D engine, so there are no tunnels going underneath sections of the map for instance, and no bridges.  this makes it possible to show entire levels on a 2D map, also its much faster to render (i first ran doom on my trusty 386, with the screen shrunk down to postage-stamp size). I thought Quake was the first true 3D game.  Doom is really still in the Wolfenstein league. alexander110 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's questionable which was the first truly-3D game, but Driller (1987), Elite (1984) and Knot in 3D (1983) have all been nominated for this honour. — 93.97.40.177 (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm five years late to this, but I think Spasim (1974) might be a contender as well. It ran at very low framerates and displayed only wireframes, but had full 3-axis movement in space. 2A02:120B:C3F9:4E40:85FE:590C:B4F8:95DA (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm even later, but none of these games can be considered as 3D, as it was literally impossible for the hardware to render 3D. The first true 3D games didn't appear until the mid 90's when computers and consoles were made that could support 3D. I will agree that ID pioneered how a 3D shooter SHOULD work, regardless of that fact though it was simple a projection on a 2D plane, giving it pseudo-3D.Jobbo256 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Third Dimension Spatiality - A Milestone That Must Be Expanded Upon 

message: Doom was not a 3D game it just used tricks to make it look 3D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.187.22 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom not 3D 

message: This page currently implies that it was released on December 10, 1993 for both PC and Mac. I'm fairly certain it was only PC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axfelix (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think the original shareware release had a native Mac binary 

message: The recent edits to include correlation between depression and (conviction for) violence are not relevant to an article on DooM.  The paragraph doesn't mention the game and the source doesn't mention the game.  The previous paragraph is clear in relation to a government survey that attempted to find a possible link between violence and video games - this appended paragraph just attempts to bring attention to a generic comment about depression.  It also makes use of WP:NOTED which is to be avoided.  It may have use over in an article about depression, but not in an article about a video game.
Please don't edit war, and while we discuss your additions, follow WP:BRD.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression edits 

message: It seems to me the title of this article is needlessly specific. There have been (to the best of my knowledge) only two video games with this name. As such I believe that this page should be moved to Doom (video game). Americanfreedom (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "only" two? Disambiguation is needed whenever there is more than one subject with the same name. You don't even need to read WP policy to discover that; it's common sense. If someone says to you, "Hand me the book on the table," and there's more than one book on the table, you'll ask them to be more specific.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: I am concerned that the voice in the controversies section is not at all neutral, particularly at the end.
For example; 
This is clearly defensive and the aside totally exposes this bias.
I would strongly suggest a review of this section.
Peachfuze (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice in Controversies Section is not Neutral