Resources section removed
I removed the resources section as the only link was to Doom/Doom2 deathmatch levels on Doom Wad Station. This topic does not cover only Doom and Doom 2, and I have seen DWS being plugged in several places on Wikipedia.--Drat (Talk) 17:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If the original quote is going to be used (as is), can someone get the original pagination (from Masters of Doom)? Korossyl 21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've switched to a citation template and added the ISBN and page number. - Ehheh 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Korossyl 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is also in the book: "What is this? Romero thought. It was like a match, like a boxing match, but the object wasn't just to knock the other guy out or some wimpy shit like that. This was, like, kill the guy! This was a match to the death. He stopped cold. 'This,' he said, 'is deathmatch.'"
- Thank you! Korossyl 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In the fifth paragraph of the Description section, the link to Gibbing refers to the process of preparing salt herring. I do not believe this is what the author intended. Mcklucker (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- After further review of the page, I saw a link to gibs. I will now edit the gibbing link to refer to the gibs page. Mcklucker (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
References, citations, we should do something.
There are no references or citations for the main description in this article.
I believe what is written is at least mostly if not completely correct, but in any regard it should have citations.
Perhaps someone knows where to find material that can be referenced but does not know how to make in-text citations or references in the text? If so please post the links here. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Does an article on a specific game mode really need to start by describing the whole concept of computer games and first person shooters? :)
I agree - The paragraphs about how to control, hardware requirements, what a player is, powerups, how to frag, health, armor, physics in games, picking up lost equipment, chat system, PG rating are all FPS and per game related information and are not necessary to describe what Deathmatch is. If a person wants to know what an FPS or information about specific games mentioned then they can use links we provide to other pages that have better, more organized information. ThoughT2010 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly - this needs to be a much more baseline description of an FPS deathmatch. There is no need to explain networking, what an FPS is, hardware requirements, or many of the other things listed here. The most important thing to convey is that in most cases players are competing to frag each other which usually awards a point. Some description of various deathmatch styles (team deathmatch, etc.) could be useful, but right now this article is nearly unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize but I have a high amount of contention for the narrow scope of this section when it comes to the term "Free-For-All". The term is a much more broad and frankly a better term for the article and description than "Deathmatch", as a Free-for-all has been around as long as games themselves
A Free-For-All is a much more broad and inclusive term relating to the style of multiplayer gameplay in which there are no force-aligned teams and each player is objectively on their own to achieve the goal of the game given the games factors and conditions. This generality is much clearer and includes video, board, or sport/physical games, as well as any type or substyle of game within those venues.
"Deathmatch" is very narrow and refers to, most usually, video games, which involve almost only game types in which one player is out to slay another player as the goal. I find this not only an enclosed idea but a confusing one at that, for anyone looking up the "Free-for-All" outside the realms of Halo. Bullercruz1 (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Mid game joining
In section 5, titled: History, fundamental changes
it claims Quake introduced joining mid game
"Quake released in 1996 by ID Software, was the first FPS deathmatch game to feature in-game joining."
Would Descent's (1995) "anarchy" multiplayer mode be classed as a deathmatch? I ask because Descent (a whole year before Quake) allowed players to join whilst a game was in progress unless the current level was ending (as in, the reactor had been blown, thus the level's self destruct sequence had been initiated), or the game was in the scores screen before the next level had started. The game had to be set up as an "Open Game" though - since a closed game required all players to connect before the game began (in much the same way as Doom)
Descent II (also released before Quake, but only by a few months) extended the idea of mid-game joining even more, allowing a game to be set up as a "Restricted Game". In this mode, whenever a new client connected they had to wait for the host player accept them into the game (by pressing F6). If the host player didn't accept the new client within about 5 seconds, they were disconnected again.
However in these games, team based modes weren't allowed to be "Open". Therefore for Descent they had to be "Closed", whereas Descent II allowed them to be either "Restricted" (default) or "Closed"
Quake did however, allow all game modes to be what Descent would call open games. But it didn't introduce the idea of joining mid-game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
FFA is not Deathmatch
FFA was originally used in server names to show that you can join the game without the need of a password (free for all), because there were numerous clan servers with password set. For example "7even CTF Instagib (FFA)" or "WoT Clanserver (private)". So FFA is by no way a synonym for deathmatch. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)