Talk:Doom II

Article Removal

I reinstiated this article from the redirect to DOOM (computer game) because it contains more information than the main DOOM article. I took what info it had and put it in this article, but it is not just a restating of the main DOOM text. I suppose we could also add the image of DOOM II from that article as well. If you feel the need to redirect it again, please discuss it here first. Thx. —Frecklefoot 19:55, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I didn't remove the article, I merely added the information that was not contained in the main DOOM article to that one (which wasn't much) and then made this a redirect - and I still think that's the best way to go, too, since DOOM and DOOM II are so closely-related. -- Schnee 20:11, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, unless there's a situation where it's critical to link to "DOOM II" and not subject the reader to anything about original DOOM, it's not really helpful to have lots of half-articles, one for each game sequel. Stan 21:40, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, personally, I prefer long subjects to be broken up into smaller articles that deal in-depth with each sub-topic rather than putting the whole wad into one article. Huge articles take longer to download and wade through. If you have wikilinks to the other subjects discussed, intersted readers can follow the links and read about the subjects in question; readers who don't care can skip the links.

For example, if I just wanted to know who wrote DOOM, it will just load the pertinent information for Doom. If I have all the information for Doom and all the sequels, it'll take longer to load the whole article with a whole load information I don't care about. If I did want to know about Doom II, I could follow the link in the pertinent article.

If the only information on a game is a single sentence, then of course it doesn't make sense to create and article for it. But this subject had enough information that I thought it warranted a seperate article. I would then trim the information in the original article and have a link to the new article (I would've trimmed the info in Doom, but I didn't get a chance).

This is commonly done in other similar articles (e.g. The Sims). For example, the article on Harry Harrison has links to articles on his books. Of course it wouldn't be more efficient to list long summaries of all his books in the main article—the seperate articles discuss each book in detail. That way, if I just want to know about The Stainless Steel Rat, I don't have to wait for summaries of all his books to load just to get the info I want. I also don't have to wade through a bunch of information I couldn't care less about (though the TOC's help with this).

The size of the main DOOM article is pretty big. To save people DL times, I think it is in the best interest of the 'pedia to break up some big subjects (and DOOM is a big subject) into smaller articles. I think, ideally, all the sequels would be presented in a list with links to an article on each.

However, this is only my preference, and Wikipedia is a cooperation. If I'm outnumbered, I won't put up a struggle. :-) —Frecklefoot 13:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Books should usually get separate articles because there are frequently reasons to link to them directly - for instance List of fictional rats :-) would prefer to link directly to The Stainless Steel Rat than to an author who's written many kinds of books, most of them not rat-related. But as DOOM II itself indicates, it's more like an expansion pack than a distinct game, so the chance of a DOOM II link somehow needing to avoid general DOOM info seems low. I don't buy the slow download argument either; there are thousands of articles longer than this one, and nobody is trying to break them down into little pieces. Stan 15:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the "save people download time" argument is rather nonsensical - unless you're on a 2400 baud modem or something similar, you won't notice much of a difference because of the DOOM II info being on the main DOOM page. Outside of that - I can only emphasize again that I really think that DOOM II and DOOM are too closely tied to each other to break up the article. More or less all the information surrounding DOOM also applies to DOOM II; the only difference between the games is really that DOOM II adds a bunch more levels and some monsters - it's not like, for example, DOOM and DOOM III, which is entirely different technology-wise and definitely deserves an article of its own (I think noone disagrees with that). -- Schnee 15:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well I don't think the size issue is nonsensical—besides the download time (which is an issue for some people), it's more work for the already overburdened servers for the 'pedia (however, technological issues tend to go away and we want to have to craft our content based on tech limitations). But, like I said, if the majority (2 people it looks like :-) is against my opinion on this, go ahead and redirect it to the DOOM article again. But you may want to make it redirect to the "Sequels" section since it discusses DOOM II. —Frecklefoot 15:45, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Doom II v Doom II: Hell on Earth

The full title of the game is Doom II: Hell on Earth, at least for the computer versions. Should the article be moved there? I am unsure if the subtitle is on other versions of the game such as the GBA version. ?? K1Bond007 June 30, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Release Date

When the game has been released? September 30 or October 10? Both dates are in artice (one in text, one in table). --Piotr Rybałtowski 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mouse control

Mouse was pretty useless in DooM, as it had only 1 axis roation (no looking up/down) and primary mode was MOVING with mouse, not rotating. Afaik it was Quake and it's "+mlook" what brought mouse into FPS gaming. pls someone look into it Agent L (83.29.21.161 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

As I recall it was Quake's +mlook that truly brought mousing in FPSs to the forefront, but many experienced players still prefered using the mouse in games like Doom and Duke3d (even without using look up/down). I would not say it was useless, it allowed better control of the players turning/aim, allowing the player to turn as fast or as slow as they needed instead of the "one turning speed fits all situations" of a keyboard. Qutezuce 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; for me and my friends the mouse in Doom and Doom II - on the PC - was a no-starter. Turning was done with left and right keys, and strafing using the same keys while holding down Alt. The mouse/keyboard combination of current FPShooters really does descend from Quake rather than Doom. Peter 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone that I knew in the heyday of doom used the mouse to look and the keyboard to move. As a matter of fact, people began using the WASD config during the peak of doom2. While some players did use keyboard controls, the majority were using the same mouse to look.

No player who deathmatched frequently and with a reasonably wide group of players used the mouse to move or used strafe + left and right to strafe. Even keyboard players used a WASD or proto-WASD keyboard config. I myself use the same controls today, in any FPS, that I used in doom. The ability to look up and down is the only difference, and it's not much of one. The mouse is superior for aiming.75.153.202.25 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Redundant monster descriptions.

I have taken the liberty of totally removing the short descriptions of the new monsters in Doom II. It seems to me that those descriptions show a large amount of redundancy with the full descriptions, especially in the case of The Icon of Sin. More effort needs to be put into the long descriptions, without taking up extra space where it is not needed. Jehar 19:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Weapon Question

Now, I haven't played Doom 2 in many years (atleast eight, if not ten), but I always wondered something. Were there ever propper, in-game terms to distinguish the "old" shotgun from the new one introduced in Doom 2? I seem to remember that the "new" shotgun was called the "combat shotgun", but of course, this is silly, as anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that a double-barreled shotgun would never be regarded as a 'combat' shotgun, much less if compared to a pump-action repeater. Was then the old shotgun called a 'combat' shotgun, or am I just remembering something that didn't exist?--Stevekl 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---It was called a super shotgun.

Box Art in the Doom 2 Preview

Anyone know which version of Doom 2 the box art in the preview video shown at the bottom of the article is from? Be cool to have a link to that box art, or just have it in the main article. I bet less people have seen it than the standard one.Doom jester 10:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GBA: Wolfenstein and Grosse

This article states that the Nazi symbolism was removed in the Game Boy Advance version of Doom II. Perhaps it should be stated that the Swastika was replaced by the eagle-like letter "W" that was used as the logo for Return to Castle Wolfenstein (the box art on the Return to Castle Wolfenstein article has the logo on it).

The portraits of Adolf Hitler on the walls were replaced by portraits of Wilhelm Strasse, an enemy in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. In fact, the picture used in the portrait seems to look very similar to, if not exactly like, the image used in the Wikipedia article (without the visible Swastika).

The Nazi enemies still say, "Schutzstaffel!" when they see the player, which is a bit of Nazism that wasn't removed. The Nazis were also given green blood, despite being the only human enemies in the game.

Sadly, the only source I can recite is just playing the game myself.

--Cleveland Rock 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (A big fan of Wolfenstein 3D)

Gameplay

The article states that the gameplay was not very different than in Doom. However, I think the following should be noted. When Doom 2 first came out many were disappointed by the single new weapon introduced. People thought there would be more. However, in Doom 2 one thing many came to realize was that gameplay WAS different - in many levels the player cannot kill all the monsters himself and must rely on them to nail each other. This is cool and should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.31.218 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is opinion

"Some areas do resemble places on Earth (like Downtown), but most simply seem strange due to engine limitations." Fadedroots 06:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's some kind of developer commentary, "making of" or whatever available these days it'd be nice to find out what exactly was supposed to be going on in some of the more unfamiliar levels. I certainly found them completely incomprehensible at the time (not that it affects gameplay!). Leushenko (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that'd be cool. This needs sorting out. Ben 2082 (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial spin offs.

'Unofficial Spin Offs' are by their very nature, not noteable enough to be included in a video game's article. Lots42 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section should probably be removed. It's doubtful reliable sources discuss them. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with both of you.  Xihr  05:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, these versions do exist and they are of the game so they should be included. Surely I can't be the only person to have seen them. People who are not interested do not have to read this part. Just let those who do want to read it, do so! Wikipedia is all about information for people who want it. Those who don't, just don't read it. They are unofficial because they are not made by the actual game designers of Doom II, not because they are not notable. --Cexycy (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dozens of versions exist for pretty much ANY fictional concept that ever existed anywhere. Simply because a modification of the game exists is not enough to insert in the article.

If the creators of DOOM said they played certain fandom mods a lot, that'd be worth a note. If the fandom mods were involved in legislation, that'd be worth a note. There are many reasons to note fandom modifications...simply -existing- is not enough of a reason. If you want to make a fandom page for all info on Doom 2 mods, go nuts. I'd go read it because I am a fan of DOOM. Wikipedia is not a place just to toss in info, no matter how cool it may be. Lots42 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Secret Ending?

I saw a youtube video that showed a backmasking on the final level and a secret, easter-egg-style shard of gameplay that has john romero's head floating around, crediting him as the "real" last boss. Any confirmation on this, and is it notable enough? --PenguinCopter (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It used to be mentioned in the article but someone trimmed it out. Yes, the final demon that you shoot at is Romero's head on a pike, out of sight -- you have to use NOCLIP to see it.  Xihr  00:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there's a bit on it in his own page, but it's unsourced, so probs not worth the mention. Fun though. --PenguinCopter (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything of the Sega Saturn and PlayStation 1 ports of Doom 2? As I have been trying to track them down on the internet and I have not found anything of them as yet outside wikipeida. If some one could answer that, that would be helpful. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you allow Wikia, [1][2]. Granted, it's still a Wiki and not reliable (and in this case unsourced), but can be used as a starting point. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll guess the source you've given me will suffice for the time being. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No Rest for the Living

I re-added "No Rest for the Living" under "expansions". Last time someone did that it was reverted for being "hardly noteworthy". How come? The XBLA version is an offical release of the game and the add-on adds for nearly a third of more content. Not what I'd call "hardly noteworthy". Moreover, D!Zone still stands there although it might be considered just one of dozens of unofficial commercial add-ons released in the heyday of the Doom craze.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krischn (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I know this is a low priority article, but you should be careful to watch for vandalism. I just restored the plot section which was removed by a vandal replacing it with profanity, and then a well meaning user simply got rid of the profanity. --Tarage (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

this guy keeps blanking the plot section and putting profanity in it instead. He has been warned a few times and the next time he vandalises the page I will ask for his IP to be blocked fully. Sentient Planet (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Plot rewrite and references given

I have virtually rewritten the entire plot summary. One reference cites Tim Brastow as the author. For the other reference (reference number 5 on the article), it was unclear to me who the author is (the source states "Transcripts from printed manuals by Ledmeister", so used that). The date of publication for that on the web is also unknown, though it is known that this document was available to the public at least since 1997. Please help me clarify that reference as I'm not sure whether it complies with the quality guidelines. I tried to be as clean as possible in the plot summary as well, but it may still require rephrasing of certain parts. The reference problem is still more important to me. Thanks. Sentient Planet (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Box image

Article needs to have current image replaced with a scan of the original box - the current one shows a newer box with the ESRB rating. I think the original box had no rating or an RSAC rating on it. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No mention of release on Steam!

I'm not very good at editing, so could someone add mention of Doom II's release on Steam? Thanks. Kyleundercofler (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom II. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218134644/http://uk.xboxlive.ign.com/articles/101/1013852p1.html to http://uk.xboxlive.ign.com/articles/101/1013852p1.html

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

Y 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) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Boss Brain" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Boss Brain has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15 § Boss Brain until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Master Levels" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Master Levels has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 § Master Levels until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)