Jump to content

Talk:Doom 3/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

General problems with lack of references

This article is exceptionally poorly referenced. There are plenty of contributors interested in this game, but little effort has been made to find sources. Let's give it a month to find sources for the unreferenced material; at the end of that month, I'll delete all of the unsourced statements. Sound fair? Captainktainer * Talk 08:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As part of my general cleanup of the article (understanding that the deadline is rapidly approaching), I've reformatted the references. I have left a few external links unformatted, because there is no great purpose in formatting them in the footnoted style, and they serve solely as links to other content and not to support facts or state that someone had an opinion. Captainktainer * Talk 09:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Update. It has now been over a month with no serious effort made to source the statements in the sections removed. I have now removed the "offending" material with this edit and this edit. As I mentioned in the edit summaries, please do not revert the edits or reinsert the unsourced material without first providing excellent sourcing. Captainktainer * Talk 05:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty inappropriate to just get rid of it without any debate or anything. I remember that it has been in the article for a long time, starting with the release of Doom 3. It does have enough credibility to remain in the article since all of the contributors up to a month ago did not challenge it. I will keep the reference tags nonetheless. GoldDragon 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are utterly wrong. In the event that a contributor spots unverified information and original research, it is to be deleted. After a month of nobody bothering to source the information, it was just and correct that the unsourced material be removed. By reverting, you caused the loss of weeks of good-faith editing. Don't do it again. Captainktainer * Talk 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody perhaps took your "threat" seriously or knew about it. I have restored the rest of the good faith editing. Regarding the "offending statements", I just found sources to back them up. GoldDragon 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Remake or Reboot

The article says that it is a reimagining and provides a link to the article Reboot but I always thought that it was a Remake above all. rohith 07:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


return? =

"The iconic chainsaw and BFG 9000 return" ... return? where exactly did they went? :)

they were there in doom, doom2, and now in doom3.

Exactly. id brought the weapons back for Doom 3, so they returned. They don't have to be missing from an installment to come back. -Brad 69.130.236.88 04:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists and other issues

I've noticed this page is very list heavy, some of which don't really add much to the article. A good example of this is the "List of Levels" section which I have tagged for removal or merging. Changing lists such as these into more encyclopedic paragraphs would go a long way toward improving this article.

Also, I think this article seriously needs a "Technical" section (perhaps as an aspect of the "Development" section) in which info about the game's engine and specifics such as lighting can be placed. Right now it's kind of scattered throughout the article. A good example is this paragraph from the "Gameplay" section, which seems to have very little to do with that aspect of Doom 3:

"According to John Carmack, the lead graphics engine developer at id, the "tripod of features" in Doom 3 technology is:
  • Unified lighting and shadowing
  • Complex animations and scripting that show off real-time, fully dynamic per-pixel lighting and stencil shadowing.
  • GUI surfaces that add extra interactivity to the game
The key advance of the Doom 3 graphics engine is the unified lighting and shadowing. Rather than computing or rendering lightmaps during map creation and saving that information in the map data, most light sources are computed on the fly. This allows lights to cast shadows even on non-static objects such as monsters or machinery, which was impossible with static lightmaps. A shortcoming of this approach is the engine's inability to render soft shadows and global illumination."

See what I mean? ;) -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm just going to remove the list and put a copy here in case anyone wants anything from it for future use. -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

List of levels

There are 27 levels in Doom 3. Most of them are quite large and, depending on the difficulty level selected, may require nearly an hour each on a player's first run through the game.

{{spoiler}}

  1. Introduction (Mars City 1): A short tutorial on the basic features of the game. The player also picks up the first assignment from Sergeant Kelly ("Sarge").
  2. Mars City Underground: A shorter tutorial covering a few more features in the game. In the communications building, the atmosphere becomes awry; the shooting begins here. The imp is introduced at a cutscene.
  3. Mars City (Mars City 2): The same level as the Introduction, but after the demon invasion.
  4. UAC Administration: The pinky (demon) is introduced at a cutscene. The chaingun is also makes its first appearance in a Martian Buddy cabinet. Monsters start to teleport in the base, beginning where the growth taking over the base is first seen.
  5. Alpha Labs – Sector 1: Built in 2095 and located on Site 2, Alpha is the UAC's center research lab. Sector 1 houses the EPD (Elemental Phase Deconstructor) and the Hydrocon. Maggots are introduced. It is possible to obtain the BFG9000 if the player has God-mode activated. The player as to shoot the hydrocon wich inflames a big part of the level also killing Swann and Campbell who drops his BFG.
  6. Alpha Labs – Sector 2: Trites give their first appearance soon after the first web sighting. There is a glimpse of the Bravo Team through a window.
  7. Alpha Labs – Sector 3: Contains a secret plasma rifle on ceiling pipes as well as an optional hallway with the chaingun.
  8. Alpha Labs – Sector 4: The player must navigate either the EFR or the bridge. The BFG can be seen in use from a window. There is the infamous "they took my baby" sequence, the plasma gun is available from a hidden location, and the Vagary (first boss) appears at the end.
  9. Energy Processing (EnPro): Bravo Team cutscene. The lost soul is introduced in a cutscene, and wraiths begin to appear later on. Some rooms are less claustrophobic but more acrophobic. As the EnPro plant produces plasma cells as a byproduct, an abundance thereof is scattered throughout. Swann and Campbell give up their attempt to intercept the marines sent to transmit a distress call, and therefore travel by vehicle to the communications complex.
  10. Communications Transfer: There are several outdoor areas. The first Cacodemon appears at the start, and the chainsaw zombie makes its first appearances here. The berserk powerup appears for the first out of two times in the game.
  11. Communications: The player is confronted with the decision to transmit or cancel the distress call.
  12. Monorail Skybridge (Recycling – Sector 1): Where trash is processed in the UAC. The Revenant is introduced in a cutscene, and this is the only level with toxic waste pools.
  13. Recycling – Sector 2: A trap is sprung on the player by Betruger, slowly filling the building with toxic gases. The Mancubus is introduced in a cutscene, and Cherubs make their first appearances.
  14. Monorail: Commando zombies are introduced in the opening cutscene. The player must reach the Delta Labs by monorail.
  15. Delta Labs – Level 1: This level contains no demon altercations of any kind for quite some time upon entering it. The player must initiate power by turning on main reactor.
  16. Delta Labs – Level 2A: Player goes through the teleporter for the first time. The BFG9000 is first received.
  17. Delta Labs – Level 2B: Arch-Viles begin to appear, shortly after their haunting cackles are heard.
  18. Delta Labs – Level 3: The player is hot on the heels of Betruger and travels through several second-generation teleporter units.
  19. Delta Labs – Level 4: Hell Knights are introduced in the cutscene. Betruger sends the player to Hell through the main teleporter after the battle.
  20. Hell: The player has lost all weapons and ammo through the teleporter. The player must trek through Hell in order to defeat the Guardian (second boss) and retrieve the Soul Cube.
  21. Delta Complex (Revisited): The player has once again lost all weapons and ammo. From hereon, there will be no more zombies other than commandos. The ticks make their first and only appearance.
  22. Central Processing: The effects of the growth in the base are evident.
  23. Central Processing (Server Banks): The player fights the third boss, Sabaoth, the demon transformation of Sergeant Kelly. Sabaoth has integrated Campbell's BFG into his cybernetic tank-body, and uses it against the player. After defeating Sabaoth, the player acquires Campbell's BFG.
  24. Site 3: Where archaeological entities are brought to and where the research is done. This is the last level where the surface of Mars is visible.
  25. Caverns – Level 1: The player advances towards the primary excavation site, where the Hell portal is located. Level 1 contains the oldest, original Mars base.
  26. Caverns – Level 2: Features an ancient Martian temple. The Vagary makes another appearance at the end, and may come in a pair.
  27. Primary Excavation (Hellhole): The player must defeat the fourth and final boss, the Cyberdemon, in order to seal the Hell portal. An exploratory player may find the hidden "id Software" PDA, containing messages from several id Software employees.
  28. PDA Room: This level is only accessible via the debug console, and it consists of every PDA and video disc in the game.

Another list we don't need...

You Can't be to sure. People might need this infomation. I agree it dose clog up the page a little though. -- Skullbird11

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Xihr (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Development team

Some work was done by outside specialists:

Lateralus

Is it me, or does the main menu music in Doom 3 sound EXACTLY like the song Lateralus by Tool?Communist47 09:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, try to find a source for that, and if you can, put it in the article. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
One the subject of music in Doom 3, who wrote the main theme? I got it listed as "Tweaker", and it says here that a couple guys called Chris Vrenna and Clint Walsh done it, which is it? 88.107.104.155 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

>>I watched the special features that came with the limited edition DOOM 3 on X-box, and the devel. crew said that The drummer for Nine Inch Nails composed the theme-song (The Nu-metal theme at the main menu+credits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.213.19 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it was Tool who did the theme, whatever happened to that? B10Reaper (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The credits for the game say that it was produced by Chris Vrenna, and composed by Clint Walsh, but it never actually specifies who actually performed it, so people just assume it was "tweaker" because the song was released on the website. I have found no actual citation that it was actually them who performed it, but it's a good assumption anyway. B10Reaper (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why don't you whiny bitches cry more about how Doom3 "doesn't stay true to the original DOOM."

This ain't the place for that. By the way, the original DOOM is getting old. -guest

Well, first of all it was rude of you to call some of our fellow members at Wikipedia "whiny bitches" and you have no right to call them that they are just. Expressing their own seperate opinion you can't just hate them for that cause that is being immature and childish,Second The origanal Doom will never get old its a classic.

~Efrit

Oh my, that looks like a blatant violation of all kinds of rules of wikipedia. B10Reaper (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Doom 4

I've heard that Doom 4 will appear on XBox 360. When will this happen? Morris Munroe 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Doom 4 is entirely unsubstantiated. The only possible reference was a fake enemy model some people made. Plus, I believe that ID decided not to continue the Doom franchise after RoE basically tripped up. - Gold Lead 00:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200708/N07.0803.1731.12214.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.129.73 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

I'm bored, so I guess I could nab a few. But it depends, I mean what size to they have to be? 800x600 is the smallest size that could show detail, but again is there a limit I have to go by?

And of course on a little side note, why wasn't the Co-op Mod mentioned in the multiplayer section? It might not be official, but it's by far the most popular mod because it does what everyone wanted ID to do and didn't.- Gold Lead 00:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a terribly big deal, but I think 800x600 seems to be pretty much standard here when it comes to FPSs. I just think they don't want really high resolution pics because of bandwidth issues. Any image showing combat, lighting, or a key part of the game would be much appreciated (I havn't had a copy of the game in ages).
If you want to put in a mention of the Co-op mode feel free. There actually wasn't a multiplayer or even gameplay section at all in this article until a month or so ago ;) I was actually thinking of putting a "mods" section in as Doom 3 has had a couple of notable ones. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm on it with the pictures. But on another side note I noticed there isn't a lot to say about it content wise. Other game pages have weapons and enemy lists, sometimes with accompanying pictures. Meanwhile this page has one section on weapons and that's it. Would that content be worth putting in here? - Gold Lead 19:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Got some pics. Unfortunately it's hard to run, gun, and take a screenshot at the same time, so I've been using god mode, lol. Still, taking it with the gun firing is tough. Tell me if any of these are worth putting in there.- Gold Lead 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, god mode is usually a pretty good idea when trying to take screens.
The flashlight and keypad ones might be useful for showing the various gameplay and tech elements. If you can though, try to take images which showcase a particularly interesting section of the game or monster. Check out the Half-Life 2 page for some good examples of screens that are useful in that regard.
Level lists aren't usually found on better video game articles because they are hard to make encyclopedic and aren't very aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes having it on a separate page works, but some people on here get pretty uppity about that as well. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Linearity

"however instances are frequent in which the player, in order to travel from point A to point B, must sidetrack to a point C" -doesn't fit because it still is linear, in order for a game to be non-linear the player must be presented with various paths to take to accomplish a task. --129.97.23.46 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is at least one moment in the game where you have to choose a path, both possible to follow all the way through. I beleive you get an intercom message from Sgt. Kelly telling you one path is more dangerous, another longer. -PedroFromHell --81.1.67.77 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt make it non-linear! thats the equivalent of saying "how would you like to pay for that? cash or credit card, credit card takes longer" Both paths end up in the same place and just because the game gives you one choice, doesnt make this a non linear game! --82.36.244.186 19:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See Linearity (computer and video games). The current revision states that “Non-linearity means that the player has a selection of options,” and the player indeed has a selection of options for some tasks in Doom 3. (In case you have a good reference for information on linearity in video games that conflicts with Wikipedia’s article, it’d be helpful to show it. Thanks.) —LOL 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Non linearity means the player has a selection of options that effect the outcome does it not, if picking route A or B to get to the same spot = non linearity then having any control at all does because you could either walk 5.3 seconds forwards then 3.2 to the left or 3.2 to the left then 5.3 forwards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.111.194 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

id Tech 4 engine

I'm going to change the engine from Doom3 to id Tech 4. id Software reworked all there engine names now. Reference Lane5slacker 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ed and Larry Cacodemon

This article should certainly cover the tragic murders of Larry and Ed Cacodemon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.11.63 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2007

Sure we can start, as long as evidence of notability, verifiability and relevance are provided. —LOL 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism wrt Performance

I remember that at least one magazine did a "side-by-side" comparison of Doom 3 vs. other contemporary games (most notably, perhaps, Half-Life 2) with regard to performance (hardware demands). It was shown that the Doom 3 engine makes rather ineffective use of the (then-available) hardware, compared to the other game engines.

Or, in other words, Doom 3 required an investment in a significant amount of hardware power because of inefficient programming.

Unfortunately, this (perhaps controversial) criticism is not (yet) mentioned in the article, and I do not remember the source (or sources). Perhaps the German c't magazine (which at least provided some insight about the inner workings of the Doom 3 engine), or the Gamestar. Anyone here with a clue, who might want to dig up the references and include it into the article? --80.134.9.169 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Graphically, Doom 3 will be more taxing because it performs all lighting calculations dynamically - for each object, compute the effects of N light sources, while Half-Life 2 uses precomputed radiosity Directional Lightmaps. Doom 3's system is technically more elegant, but in order to take 2 steps forward, they had to take 1 step back by not doing global illumination (light reflects only once, hence shadows are entirely black when no light has a direct line of sight). Real time global illumination via ray tracing or radiosity wasn't something you could do back then. In my opinion, this is why the game is so dark instead of it being a feature - the results simply don't look realistic as you can see on page 4 of the presentation, especially when you have highly reflective metallic walls in UAC facilities. --UncleJoe1985 (talk)

Criticism and rebuttal sections

The criticism and rebuttal sections, delivering point by point complaints and responses regarding the game, are overlong and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article about this game. This isn't a metareview page, it's an article describing the game. The highlights, at most, should be culled out and put in the "Reception" section, and the rest of the content should be deleted. Xihr 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The review scores can stay because featured video game articles like Halo: Combat Evolved#Reception and Final Fantasy VIII#Reception and criticism have scores in table format, and the point-form list should at least be organized into paragraphs. I’ll try to help out.—LOL 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree; I didn't mean to suggest that they shouldn't. The content under Reception is reasonable; it's the two subsections, Criticism and Rebuttals, which are highly problematic. They're clearly trivia, and the choice of points and counterpoints arguably even delves into original research. Xihr 23:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I got started by removing what I believe to be original research and attempting to tie up the resulting loose ends. I also added {{Who?}} and {{Fact}} tags to the weasel and unsourced statements, which should eventually be removed if their tags cannot be justifiably discharged. I wouldn’t say it’s clearly trivia though, which is defined as “lists of miscellaneous information”. Featured articles like the two I mentioned contain somewhat similar criticism in the form of paragraphs. —LOL 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice the sections are still in large part still there, and are distracting from the article. These should be reduced to a single "Criticism" section with only the few most serious objections (e.g., the flashlight problem) listed in a prose format, with counterarguments listed inline. Right now the article is completely weasely, as LOL has already tagged it with, and borders on original research. Xihr (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While the current section for the reception is more conventional by wiki standards, its 2 short and only highlights cons and the pros are just in the sales. An average critic score of 88% doesn't show a game of just cons now does it? Stabby Joe (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The second and third paragraphs contain a breakdown of the main points made in the former "Criticism" and "Rebuttals" sections, with the second referring to the "Criticisms" and the third corresponding to the "Rebuttals" section. Many of the rebuttals were either original research or highly point-of-view. The only coherent ones were 1. that it was popular and 2. it was a specific remake, so complaints about it not being fancy enough missed the point. Xihr (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well while the cpns mentioned are valid, the graphics for one were praised and other cons mentioned like story or horror cliches wer emore mixed, many reviewers found the game to be scarey still. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

original research

"while the original Doom gives the two moonlets breathable atmospheres, which is impossible due to their small size and low surface gravity, Doom 3 takes place in Mars, with its atmosphere depicted accurately as unbreathable."

Who says? The original doom had the space marine at all times in a green, masked, spacesuit. Even in Doom II when he was on earth he wore it. How so does it depict the two moons of Mars with breathable atmospheres? This is original research. 67.5.156.233 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve taken down that exact quote because I think you’re right. Thanks for taking it up to the talk page. —LOL (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The moons in the original game are depicted at least with atmospheres because daytime is depicted on them and their skies are either gray or red, and not black as it is on Earth's moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.129.144 (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely why it is original research. Xihr (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I would like to point out I don't agree with Doom 3's genre. I think its genre should be the same for Doom and Doom 2. First person shooter, survival horror, and science fiction.

Pictures? How is someone suppose to get pictures of monsters and stuff. They will die the whole entire. What are you going to ask the monster? Could you stop killing me so that I can take a picture? (Joking...random jokes in the morning make 50% of the population happier.) 71.142.214.138 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

References

The references in this article are not references. They are hearsay. It is not a reference if you simply quote what someone has said without giving any information for the reader to verify your quotation. --Doradus (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about the quotes taken directly from the game, you'll see generally the same format from featured articles like Halo: Combat Evolved#References and Final Fantasy VIII#References. —LOL (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorporate sales numbers

According to a press release: "id's most recent internally developed title, DOOM 3, extends a proven track record with over 3.5 million units sold and is id's most successful game to date." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.138.173 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but id's Todd Hollenshead is saying (sortta) the same thing, claiming that Doom 3 sold around 3 million copies, making it one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) sellers for id.

http://kotaku.com/5023185/dont-hate-on-doom-iii-it-made-money

189.156.149.223 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup and rewrite

If you're reading this, you've probably noticed the large cleanup and rewrite I've undertaken on this article. I've been working on this for the last few weeks, with the aim of bringing the article that little bit closer to good article status. With just a few extra references where I've shoved the {{fact}} tags, the article should be reasonably well placed for a shot at WP:GAN. I did this essentially because I came across the article, read it and thought "might as well have a go at making this better", which you'll note is the very essense of WP:BOLD. I thought I'd take a moment to explain what I've done here.

  • The intro's been entirely rewritten, following WP:LEAD and WP:VG guidelines for writing intros to summarise everything else in the article quickly.
  • I redid the gameplay sections, some of its new, other bits are rehashed from the old version. The unnecessary subheadings have been merged under either the single player and multiplayer, and covered in no more detail than is necessary for a reader who has not played the game and may never play the game - ie, trying to keep whatever information that is only of interest to the fan out. The "presentation" section also ended up in the single player section. I've also thrown in some third party references from the CNET websites.
  • The synopsis section has been restructured to ensure a comprehensive approach - a quick section for the background and setting, a quick section to explain the characters and their roles, and the plot section. As opposed to the previous plot section, this one's been written from a full real-world view - ie, events are shown in the order they are revealed to the player in the course of the game, rather than as they sequencially go in the game's universe, as stated in WP:WAF.
  • The development section is essentially still the same. I copyeditted it, removed some OR and other unverifiable points. The technology section is now correctly a subsection of this. There's a few points that need references here that I wasn't able to find but am confident that they exist. Any help getting those sentences referenced would be great.
  • The reception section is now part of a cultural impact section, looking at the game's reception - now fully fleshed out with commentary on multiple reviews and the general consensus from the critics - and its legacy, covering the return of the Doom series to the front of the VG industry.
  • External links have been cleaned out per WP:EL, which leaves only the official sites. None of the rest are needed, as they either are for fans or don't enhance the coverage of the subject in any way.

The article has been referenced as best I can, and I've replaced some of the images with more representative ones. I've been writing in British English, which probably means that someone will want to (quite legitimately) change it to American English, all I can ask there is that you get all the British English out in one go, to prevent both forms being used in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Review by User: Ashnard

Okay, here it goes:

Okay, I must say, despite the points I'm quite impressed. I think some things need to be ironed out, specifcally informal language, prose, relevance of some info in "Gameplay", and the size and style of the plot. Besides that, I don't see why this couldn't make FAC since everything's there in regards to information. If you want, I could assist with the FAC push. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've broken the review off to a subpage, just for convenience. I hope you don't mind. I'll be working on these over the next few days. As far as the plot section goes, there's not much more I myself can do. That's as good as I can get over the previous in-universe plot section: I personally am rather useless when it comes to cutting back the details plot sections. I was hoping to get it to three paragraphs, I was rather disappointed when I found I couldn't do it in anything less than five. If someone else had a go at trying to cut it down further, bringing it more to the summary style, that would be great. -- Sabre (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I find that it helps when speaking generally about the events rather than adopting a point-by-point style, which limits what you can do with it from the onset. Are you planning on FAC, Sabre? Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to, I was just aiming for GA. But pushing for FA sounds like a better plan. -- Sabre (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jonathan" Ishii?

Where can Ishii's first name be found? I only found the first letter to be J when I put the NPC in my crosshair at close range. —LOL T/C 18:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Its in one of the emails you can pick up from computer terminals early in the game, if I remember correctly. -- Sabre (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that is correct (info_emails.pda, line 70). —LOL T/C 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flashlight issue

I think something should be added to the "Reception" section about how reviewers reacted to the decision by id to only allow the use of either the flashlight or a weapon at any one time. I remember back at the time of its release, that was one of the biggest complaints about Doom 3, and even led to people creating mods to "fix" the issue within days of the game's release. In addition to this, I think the complaints about the overall darkness of the game (I remember reviewers often complaining that the game was too dark to see the pretty graphics), and the "moster closet" phenomena should be accentuated a bit more. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be synthesis to me, the reviews I read to write the section didn't criticise the fact that players cannot hold a weapon and the flashlight, they merely mentioned it. The criticism seems to be fan-driven, and thus is harder to reference to reliable, secondary sources. -- Sabre (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there are some reviewers out there who mentioned it. I think it's definitely worth mentioning if at all possible. It was one of the main complaints about the game when it came out, and hasn't been forgotten, as is evident from the second paragraph in this article Here. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the reviews in the article, it doesn't seem to be that way.

The PC Gamer references are both in print rather than web based, so I can only check up on the UK version. If memory serves, they hold a similar view to GameSpy. If other reliable, third-party sources for reviews follow this trend, then the criticism is certainly fan-based. -- Sabre (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I came to the discussion page because I was surprised this issue wasn't mentioned. Google "duct tape mod" if you want confirmation that this was hotly debated at the time. 85.177.88.32 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven Blum?

I read somewhere on a gaming site (not in the forums but on the DOOM 3 page) that Steven Blum did one of the voices.I never really thought about it until I saw the intro of doom 3 (before the chaos) and realized one of the men sounds like him. Is he really a voice over or was that someone else?

According to the Steven Blum article, it is.  Xihr  18:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doom 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • Worthy. It would be a shame for this game to not be listed as a GA. Here are my comments.
    • No need of expansion. I skimmmed over this article and now know a lot more about a game which I have never played.
    • Sufficient references. Formatted nicely too, with dates of access and everything.
    • Good, neutral explanation of game, without getting fanboy and without getting paranoid soccer-mom.
    • Looks like a GA video game article should. Tragic Kingdom, a music article I substantially worked on, is on the GA nomination list, and it's still "worse" than this article. (Someone review it!)
  • Well, I guess that's it. Keep up the good work, everyone, even though I think this is also ready for an FA. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil

The expansion pack doesn't seem very significant as an expansion pack. Does anyone oppose a merge? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose that in strongest possible terms. The expansion pack has more than sufficient information for reception and development information out there, reviews and previews are abundant in both print and online publications. A merge is entirely unnecessary.
    • GameSpot and IGN have plenty of information on development, more than enough to create an adequate development section.
    • Game Rankings (53 reviews) and Metacritic (46 reviews) provide plenty of sources for reception information.
A merge would be counterproductive, Resurrection of Evil is a perfectly valid and notable topic, its simply not well covered at present. The same was true of other expansion packs in the past, such as Brood War and or Blue Shift, but current state is no reason for a merge or otherwise removal of the topic. I'll rewrite it when I have a free moment in my plans. -- Sabre (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Current state may not be an argument to merge, but that notable sources exist does not mean that the merge proposal was not valid. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You're within your rights to suggest it of course, the initial look of the page suggests at a glance that it could be covered in this article, but the sheer amount of sources produced after just a little digging shows that doing so would undermine coverage on a perfectly valid topic. There's simply no real reason to merge considering the very large potential for improvement. -- Sabre (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any point to a merge.  Xihr  09:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant editing atmosphere

User:S@bre, while has done a great job in the past writing this article, now seems to think he owns this article. I for example added to aggregrate sites to the article which were important information and gave more perspective to the review section, he outrighly reverted the edit. Now, I removed unnecessary spaces in the template to make it more clear and take less space: it's good to see most of the template without having to scroll back. This was reverted as soon as possible. The edit history is quite interesting in this manner, although there is vandalism as well that has been reverted.

It is a very discouraging editing atmosphere, one can not dictate the whole article and claim ownership. Wikipedia is edited by all, by compromises of many, not by dictatorship of one. --Pudeo⺮ 11:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith. The two reverts made reflect nothing more than editor disagreement—a common part of Wikipedia—not ownership. Aggregator sites overlap significantly; there is very rarely a need for more than two (as a quick glance at GA and FA video game articles shows), Metacritic and Game Rankings being the strongest aggregator sources going. The second is a simple disagreement over the best presentation. See the Bold, revert, discuss cycle: the appropriate course of action is to discuss why you think the changes make things better when another editor disagrees, not to throw out baseless accusations of ownership. I do not own this article in anyway, my only interest is making sure that the article maintains a GA-standard quality with thought towards pushing for FA. The reversion of two edits, with explanations provided in the edit summaries for why, does not automatically mean I "own" the article. -- Sabre (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doom_3/Archive_2&oldid=1136675418"