3D Realms started as Apogee Software, a garage publisher of computer games, in 1987, and was buoyed up by the success of first id Software's Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons (1990) and then Wolfenstein 3D (1992) into the lead shareware publisher of the time. Its own Duke Nukem 3D (1996) catapulted it into a major developer/publisher right as it changed its name, and from there it... pretty much collapsed. All of their development work went into two projects; Prey got spun off to another company 5 years later, and Duke Nukem Forever became the canonical definition of vaporware until the whole department ran out of money in 2009. Their publishing wing, on the other hand, wandered into various fruitless ventures, until the company was nothing but a rights-holder selling licenses to make Duke Nukem spinoff games. Last year it got bought for a pittance to be the publishing counterpart to minor developer Interceptor Entertainment... who then shut down. 3D Realms is still alive, and claims to be working as a developer/publisher on a new game... but it's quite likely that this list charts, in tabular form, the entire 20-year rise and fall of 3D Realms. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Could an image be added to the lead so it's not all text and tables?
I wish, but I couldn't find any free-use ones and prior FLCs have indicated that a Fair-use logo isn't justified in this type of list.
as Apogee Software by → Link Apogee Software (I know this says 2008 but it does have a history section dating to 1987). I know it's linked further down, but it seems odd not to link the first instance when it's worded the same.
That would be misleading; although the Apogee Software article mentions the prior company by that name they are legally and in all other respects different companies with the same name. The original Apogee Software renamed itself to 3D Realms in 1996, and a new "Apogee Software" was founded 13 years later under the same name, but the 1987 company isn't the one with the article at that title.
the Apogee Software Productions name, → This isn't mentioned before so was this company before 1987?
Reworked to "under the name Apogee Software Productions" - it wasn't a company at all, it's just a name that Miller put on the games (sometimes) prior to the founding of "Apogee Software" in 1987.
other, monetized portions. → Using a comma disrupts the flow in my opinion.
It's meant to, but I'm not 100% on if its correct so removed.
It read too forced in my opinion, the break wasn't needed. — Calvin999 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
than just Miller, → You've just said that they started to include more people, so I don't think this bit is needed
In the 1990s Apogee → I'd put a comma before Apogee, as this is quite a long sentence to say in one go.
In 1994 Apogee → Comma after 1994 so consistency, as the final paragraph already does for example
The title column is aligned centre, but the other columns aren't.
Yep, that's what wikitable sortable does if you apply rowscopes, has been for years. I don't know why, but presumably there's a reason that's the standard.
Can't you force align? — Calvin999 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Calvin999: I could, of course, but why? It's also the only column that's bold and gray; it's the "lead" column. I'd prefer to leave it as is. --PresN 19:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I would just so all of the tables' columns are aligned to one each other, I think it looks neater and easier to navigate. But it's up to you. — Calvin999 09:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Calvin999: I'd prefer to leave it the way it is now. --PresN 18:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I know that you've linked all of the Systems, Developers etc. because when you sort it means that whichever is at the top will be linked, but in Canceled games for example, the Systems columns near enough all the same and just a lot of linking.
Hmm, I can see the arguments either way. Why not; done.
There's a lot of overlinking in the references, like IGN for example, which shouldn't be in italics either. Neither should Steam or GOG.com as some examples. I'm pretty sure you're not actually required to include Publisher parameters anymore, just the Work parameter.
That's been the standard I follow for references for at least the past 5 years of FAs and FLs- link every instance (not just the "first", which is impossible for readers to find), and use work/publisher whenever possible. It's actually a running debate at WP:VG for whether to put websites that aren't self-published in the "work" field, just like you would the website of a newspaper or magazine (since the line is really blurry sometimes), and that's the side I come down on. You're not actually "required" to do much of anything with references- the only rule is to be consistent and informative.
If that's how you've chosen then that's fine, it's just a lot of linking. — Calvin999 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
...No? Miller released a couple "packs" of games -> Miller released two packs of games; each pack contained several games.
Ah, USEng I think, we say "a couple of packs". Reword has satisfied me anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
" decided to launch" why not just "launched".
Because while that was when (1994) the decision was made, and 3D Realms as a name was announced, they didn't make a third brand name until 1997 with Balls of Steel. So, "launched" would imply that they actually launched both of those brnad names that same year, which they didn't.
"In 2014 3D Realms itself," comma after 2014.
I'm very much not keen at all on the bold italicised titles, are you insistent or would you consider plainrowheaders?
I've been using this style for a few FLs now, and I do like it; I've de-bolded the episode name subtitles, though, since that may have been a bit ovewhelming. If it's really a deal-breaker I'll drop the bolding altogether, though.
No, not a deal breaker, nothing anywhere says it shouldn't be like that, I personally find it overwhelmingly garish, but that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I assume the list is in chronological order to start with, but when ordering by release date, it changes substantially, so that needs addressing.
Planned systems of canceled games aren't linked, they are in the other two tables.
Yeah, that was per Calvin up above. Re-linking, since that's what I had originally.
The 'Developer(s)' column needs more links. Just because Scott Miller is linked in the intro doesn't mean he shouldn't be linked here; Trilobyte needs a link.
Even though it redirects to 3D Realms, Hocus Pocus should be linked.
Is this a list of games developed by 3DR, published by them, or both? It's generally "published by" until we get to Duke Nukem 3D, which was not published by them. Likewise, does Gathering of Developers still count as being published by 3DR? And then we get to the later games like Prey, which weren't published by 3DR in any way whatsoever, so it would seem this article includes games that 3DR developed... I dunno, maybe I'm being pedantic, I just want it to be clear somewhere that this is all games developed or published by 3DR.
Both- I've added a bit at the end of the lead discussing that it's both games developed and published by 3D Realms; it's basically a list of all games they were "involved" in. Gathering of Developers was wierd- despite there being a group, the actual games themselves were published by single companies (3DR in this case), and it's unclear what exactly GoD actually did, other that being a single point of contact for connecting developers and publishers.
Otherwise... I'm a fan. I like the rich selection of footnotes. --Golbez (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Golbez: Yeah, it got a little long, but I liked being abel to go into some depth on specific games without having big blank cells for most of them. Thanks for reviewing! --15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Golbez: Whoops, ping was never sent. --PresN 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Any chance you could add images to the list? Maybe of developer logos, game covers, or anything else? I feel the list could be enhanced with that. Although if most images that could work are fair use then don't worry about it.
Yeah, I got nothing- logos and covers would all be fair use, and there's nothing free of e.g. Scott Miller.
I personally think all the tables would look better if every column was centered or at least the ref column.
Centered ref column
"Ref(s)." → "Ref(s)"
That's all I got. Great job! I'm sorry this FLC has been active for so long. Hopefully it gets promoted soon! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@BeatlesLedTV: Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Support – Absolutely! Hope this support helps bring it closer to featured. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)