Talk:Doom (franchise)/Archive 1

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

Comic

I was suprised to find no reference to the Doomguy in the Doom comic. I would add it myself, but doing so would necessitate reading the thing. There are some sacrifices I am not willing to make. 24.246.15.37 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler

  • The movie section needs a spoiler warning, but I- er- uh… don'tknowhowtodothat. >_> <_< I'm lazy and ignorant; what can I say? -Dan 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind; I'm awesome. -Dan 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Spoilers not needed for Wikipedia. Lots42 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I can understand not having a spoiler warning for the main Doom (film) page as that is the standard set elsewhere on Wikipedia, but it seems a bit silly to have random movie plot spoilers in this article when the content of said spoilers is irrelevant to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.214.24 (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs another picture

This article really needs a screenshot of the marine from the Resurrection of Evil expansion pack. I'll see if I can get one. CyberRaptor 02:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


i think the doomguy is meant to be leaved anonymous so that it turns really into the player, i mean, if "frank" is playing the game, the doomguy is then named "frank". i like that idea, and i think that the doomguy Must be leaved anonymous

He is given a name in the novels. Lots42 (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

verification needed

Trying to comfirm whether id software sued 3d realms for their doomguy reference in E1L3 of Duke3D. See this forum post. xlynx 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


This seems absolutely ludicrous as the reference was obviously fond homage to the doom games which duke 3d owed a large debt to.

Isnt the Doom guy the same guy from Wolf3D? If he is then his name would be BJ Blaswick am I the only one that thinks that?

Yeah, because Doom is set in the far future, whereas Wolf is set in the 1940s. In addition, they're completely different franchises. Makron1n 18:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought they looked incredibly similar... Takua108 07:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I never heard of id bringing a lawsuit for this, and it seems out of character for them to do so. I am pretty sure this is just a false rumor so go ahead and remove it unless you find actual documentation of a lawsuit. 24.6.99.30 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Quake 2 Mod

I have looked for the mod listed under the references to doomguy section, and I have found no evidence that it even exists. Would anyone happen to have a link to it, as to not only prove its existance, but also as I would love to play that. :P -anonymous

It was a version of the "Generations" mod (that is now available for Quake 3). IIRC.. back in the Quake 2 days.. Id Software asked them to stop the mod because they directly lifted some of the graphics and sounds.. I think? At any rate it's not available any more as far as I know. I found a few references to it. [[1]] mentions its reasons for stopping. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] --AshyRaccoon Talk | Contribs 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doomguy's personality and the RoE marine

Right, I added in a bit about Doomguy's personality for classic Doom. Also, it says how the combat engineer marine has a shaved head, which is exactly what I thought when I first saw him. However, in later cutscenes, he appears to have the haircut as the original Doom3 marine. Ey? Seriphyn 12:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something about the messages that appear on screen when a user tries to quit the game? They sound like they're from the Doomguy, since the messages sometimes refer to themselves as "I" and they're phrased in a tough manner. 24.255.168.225 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the taunts are from the marine, I always assumed the "I" was just an unseen heckler (i.e. the programmer who put them in) and the idea that they come from the marine himself never struck me as a possibility. The game has that kind of humor. For example the easiest difficulty level is called "I'm too young to die" but again I don't think that the statement is actually being attributed to the marine. 24.6.99.30 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the difference is is that the difficulty settings aren't directly talking to the player. It's more of a "how would you classify yourself" thing. But you are probably right. And since there's no way to know for sure, it's probably best to leave it out. 24.255.168.225 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Doomguy in the RoE Expansion?!

Right, so, last night I've been reading through some stuff and I think it's pretty clear that RoE's main protagonist is NOT doomguy! Why on earth is he called 'THE DOOMGUY' in the RoE picture, better yet as 'A' Doomguy?! He is no such thing as a doomguy, he's just a marine. Hell he'd probably have nothing to do with that stuff on Mars because seriously it's only ruining the entire original plot! Sheesh! 83.81.125.101 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that there's something in that section about him wearing the original Doomguy's helmet. I've played the game several times, and I don't remember any such thing. At one point, a helmet is picked up when going into an area permeated by poisonous gas, but it is identical to the one the protagonist is wearing in the introduction cinematic. Even so, it hardly looks like the Doomguy helmet. Google image search for "doom engineer marine". I'm removing it unless and until there's an overwhelming opposition to revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.198.141 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Karl Urban and Doomguy

I'm just thinking whether or not this should be entered, Karl Urban plays who is supposedly Doomguy in the Doom Movie, should we note that this may be because Doomguy looks like him? They do show some kind of resemblence, especially the eybrows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.96.194 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Plagiarized manual

Paragraphs 2-4 of the Classic Doom section, describing the backstory of the marine, are lifted practically verbatim from the manual, the only difference being a voice change (third-person, past-tense). This qualifies as plagiarism and may be a violation of copyright as well. I am removing these paragraphs -- if anyone wants to restore the content, please paraphrase and use your own words or obtain permission and cite the works that you are lifting from. 24.6.99.30 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doom3Marine.jpg

Image:Doom3Marine.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DukeNukem3d-DoomedSpaceMarine.png

Image:DukeNukem3d-DoomedSpaceMarine.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Main picture discussion

This article and Doom (video game) have the same main image. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Doom (video game)#Image discussion as to whether the current image, or a similar but slightly different one, should be used. For more details and to weigh in on the decision, please visit that talk page. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Doom 4

Shouldn't there be something about the doomguy in the upcoming Doom 4? Fangusu (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The doom movie

I think we should reconsider the phrasing for the DOOM movie. It makes it sound like the main character is unique for being willing to blast monsters and his commanding officer. It should be phrased to compare the situation to the other DOOM media. Most US marines would blast monsters and their own commanders if both were murderous psychos. Which they were. Lots42 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Doom 64

It should be mentioned somehow that in Doom 64's end credits, the player can blast all the monsters that show up...and Doomguy. Also, the entire article needs a review by an expert. Lots42 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Classic Doom Series

I removed the following statement: "The Doomguy's fellow marine, depicted on the Doom box art in the background, wears the same type of uniform though it is gray instead of green, although there is debate as whether this is shading or lighting."

This isn't debatable. See the original Ultimate Doom poster in high resolution: http://www.doomworld.com/pageofdoom/graphics/UltimateDoomPoster.jpg

That image is in such a high resolution that you can see pencil strokes, and it definitively proves that the background marine is green. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.198.141 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Doomguy

I reverted a change that added the category "Video game characters in film", as I don't recall there was anything about the doomguy being tied to any character in the Doom film. Note aside that instead of reverting me again, the editor should have started a discussion, which I'm doing here. Now, is there anything to back his claim that Reaper in the film is supposed to be the doomguy or shall we remove that cat for good? As far as I'm concerned, the film is only loosely based on the film, and limits itself to being set in the same universe as the game, but it never establishes any link with any of the characters in the game. --uKER (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Doomguy = protagonist of Doom. AKA Doom Marine. AKA whatever name he has in this or that installment. --Niemti (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The story is only set in the same universe as the game. Reaper being the protagonist of the film doesn't make him the same character in the videogame. Furthermore, the novels call him Flynn Taggart and he is called John Grimm in the film, so... Now, being you the very same person that added this in the first place, I probably should go the hard way and simply remove it again and require you to present evidence for them being the same character, but I'll give you the benefit of a third opinion. --uKER (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Doomguy = the main guy in Doom. That's all. Which "the videogame" do you mean, anyway? Doomguy in Doom 2 is unrelated to Doomguy in Doom 3 who is unrelated to Doomguy in Doom 3: Resurrection of Evil who is unrelated... --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Marine (Doom) to Doom (series)

While the Marine (Doom) article is not particularly shabby, there is too much plot description and only one section (Reception) fully devoted to real world information about the character. There is one remark from John Romero about the Marine's lack of an official name and one reference to the Doom Bible, both of which can fit into the Development section of this article. The Reception and Guest Appearances sections can be easily covered by the series article, too. DJ Autagirl (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Weak support; though I think Doomguy as a character may deserve an article, I think the notable content (so mainly the reception) could easily be added to this article's reception section, perhaps with a line like "The player character of the Doom video games, Doomguy, has received x reception." in front of it. Other content, such as guest appearances, may be useful in this article. The incarnations section is literally just a retelling of the Doom story with Doomguy as a focus, and is pretty throw-away. ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fangusu:: Why did you undo the merger? ~Mable (chat) 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anyone voting against this merger - @Steel1943: is there any reason why you are opposing the merger of Marine into the series article, or is sockpuppetry the only reason that you oppose it? ~Mable (chat) 10:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maplestrip: I have no opinion on this. On a related note, I would have blanked this section as a WP:BANREVERT/WP:DENY violation by the WP:SITEBAN-ned editor, but since you had already commented by the time DJ Autagirl was declared a sock, this section could not be reverted as a ban reversion ... since someone else (you) added a vote/comment to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry for complicating this whole thing ^_^; I'm not sure what is better right now: denying the banned editor or merging the two articles. At this point, I'd like to get rid of an article that consists almost entirely of original research and shaky sources, safe for the reception section... ~Mable (chat) 12:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Maplestrip: If you believe that doing so will benefit Wikipedia, go for it. You are an editor independent of the banned editor, so thus if you decide to carry out the merge, even though it was suggested by a banned editor, it's definitely okay. It just wouldn't be okay if the final call to carry out the edit is done by the banned editor, and that won't be the case here. Steel1943 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you. In that case, I'll go right ahead ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 13:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend an AfD to merge, so the outcome be stronger. I will highlight all the source which give this character significant coverage that pass GNG. Valoem talk contrib 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Also can someone delete the redirect and move the page back to Doomguy per WP:COMMONNAME, I believe the now banned editor DJ Autagirl moved the page to Marine (Doom) so sources are harder to find. Valoem talk contrib 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done The page has been moved to Doomguy and history merging of the pages has been performed. North America1000 22:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I did a Google search for "Doomguy". These are the results I received. SteelKalu (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Valoem, we're supposed to add those sources before going to AfD. Do you have sources for us to discuss? czar 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about there are more than enough sources for a stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 18:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Valoem: instead of asking "what are you talking about", could you provide the sources? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
soetermans I assume we are all talking about the article Doomguy, did you read the article? I see 21 sources listed there, did you not understand my argument? You can AfD if you'd like, but the sources already provided in the article clearly establish notability there is no need for me to provide additional sources unless you have issues with the current sources, it really is that simple. Valoem talk contrib 12:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
What I find really annoying, is that that you're asking me if I read the article. As if that would mean it would agree with you straight away. I did read the article. That the Doomguy is notable doesn't mean there should be a separate article about the character, instead of a decent section on the main article on Doom. I just now removed one source, that was referencing the appearance of Dead Space's Isaac Clarke in Duke Nukem Forever. Let's break the sources down.
  1. The first source shows the original sketch and model of Doomguy. While I think that article could be used, it isn't actually referencing anything stated in the lead.
  2. Number two does say "I don't mean in the sense of a playable character, it's sort of a given that you're going to be playing as "Doomguy," given that he's a generic (albeit awesome) marine that's supposed to be you". Generic isn't synonymous with "little defined personality".
  3. While it is by Romero, that it is in a forum post isn't the most trustworthy source.
  4. The fourth source links to The Doom Bible, but just to its table of contents. The section on characters mentions Buddy Dacote, but makes no comparison to the Doomguy.
  5. That the player character wears different colors in a multiplayer game isn't about the Doomguy.
  6. Doomguy's name in the novels is properly sourced.
  7. A screenshot is not a reference.
  8. And in-game character move doesn't need a screenshot either.
  9. What is Earthli? It is not a WP:VG/RS. The Doom entry doesn't say anything worthwhile either.
  10. And an image of what is already linked in the previous reference is just unnecessary.
  11. "Character Flaws: Ten Game Heroes Who Fail at the Simple Stuff" is a trivial fluff piece. And I wouldn't consider limited gameplay a "character flaw".
  12. "Best Silent Protagonists In Video Games" is another fluff piece.
  13. And another: "The 50 Greatest Soldiers In Video Games".
  14. "Top 10 Biggest Gaming Bad Asses": the guys you don't want to meet in a dark alley.
  15. "The Top 10 Male Badasses in Gaming"; not a reliable source, and useless: "When the human race fucks up and opens the gates of hell, this man didn't shut them. He went in there and fucked the demon race up!"
The final five sources are usable, and actually say something worthwhile. For what reasons do you think that having a refbombed article on one character would be a better idea, than just to incorporate into the main article? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doom (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Doom II Launch

Shouldn't the tale of the sequel's launch be included? How it was released through the U. Wisconsin ftp server but at the time of release, all of the connections were taken up so that id themselves couldn't log in to upload the game, and the university had to then enable more connections. I think this would add some useful context about shareware and game distribution during that period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You would need a reliable secondary source that backs up that story. It would also belong at Doom II: Hell on Earth, rather than this series article. -- ferret (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

TR-DOS and PocketStation?

As far as I know, both platforms do not have official "ports" of Doom. All existing Doom related games on both platforms are fan-made games. So I suggest these two should be removed from "platform" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.148.9 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing Doom95 and Doom Companion Edition

Doom95 was a Windows port developed by Microsoft - released Aug 1996.
Doom Companion Edition was developed by Laser Magic, and released in 1994.
24.112.33.16 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a misconception Doomguy fights "in order to survive"

It's the demons who fight him in order to survive. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Doom TV Series

Have deleted the TV series section as the rumor originates from We Got This Covered, a website notorious for posting fake rumours. [5] 203.0.173.97 (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator - WP:SNOW oppose, it is clear this doesn't have a snowball's (or demon's) chance in Hell of passing and my thinking on it was incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

– Clear primary topic for the word "Doom" by pageviews, amongst pages that are not simply partial title matches. The two video games named Doom get similar pageviews, but the series takes precedence as they are both part of it, so it functions as a type of disambiguation regardless. As for Doctor Doom, he is a partial title match as well, and naturally disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • oppose The concept of doom is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here—blindlynx 20:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Blindlynx: I think it's important to note that "doom" is not mentioned a single time in damnation. Also, WP:NOTDICTIONARY if we're talking about some other definition that hasn't yet been expressed. If you truly think that it is still clearly primary though, then do you still support the 2nd proposal (to make a primary redirect?) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. The concept is the primary topic. O.N.R. (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with the above opposes, the concept is the PT. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Definitely not the primary. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose no clear primary topic and MF Doom and Doctor Doom do get more views though are likely PTMs[[6]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Crouch, Swale: Since disambiguation pages aren't search indexes, stuff like Doctor Doom shouldn't matter for the purposes of disambiguating. But I am curious why otherwise it is not a clear primary topic given that for years it got almost 30x more pageviews than the next highest topic unrelated to the game series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    Damnation may also be a contender though "doom" doesn't appear there the term "doom" does seem to be used in that context namely if something bad is going to happen. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Its literal meaning takes precedence, and there are too many interpretations of "doom" (Damnation, Judgement (afterlife), Destiny and its fate redirect) to redirect to any one page. This disambiguation page is the correct page for this term. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose TarkusAB put it perfectly.★Trekker (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: disagree that the video game franchise is the primary topic in this case. OceanHok (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Rapid Response Tactical Squad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rapid Response Tactical Squad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#Rapid Response Tactical Squad until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"John Grimm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect John Grimm and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#John Grimm until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Doom (video game)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Doom (video game) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 8#Doom (video game) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doom_(franchise)/Archive_1&oldid=1222734489"