Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doom (1993 video game)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2023 [1].

Doom (1993 video game) edit

Nominator(s): Pres N 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doom is many things: the father of first-person shooter video games, one of the most influential games in any genre, the game that made id Software a household name and its developers millionaire stars, and possibly what single-handedly changed the cultural perception at large of a "video game" from bleeps and bloops in an arcade into shooter games. It's nearly 30 years old now, and yet I bet there are people scrolling through FAC today who don't play video games but saw the title and still immediately recognized the name. It's a big deal in video games, is what I'm saying, so like a fool I'm bringing it here for review. This article actually has been an FA before twice: in 2004 (then demoted a year later), then in 2005 (then demoted again in 2007), but languished ever since. I wrote up the development section back in 2018 before backing away, daunted at the undertaking, but this summer I've gone back and rewritten the rest, gotten it through GA with a through copyedit/review by Shooterwalker, and now I'm ready for the traditional gauntlet of FAC reviews. I hope you enjoy reading it! --Pres N 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian edit

Comments from Indrian There is a lot to like in this article, and it is clear a lot of careful effort has been put into it, but it does not appear ready yet. It is only barely hyperbolic to say that all PC gaming can be divided into “Before Doom” and “After Doom.” It brought blazing speed to a platform known for languid pace. It turned level design into an art form and a separate discipline. Its engine, id Tech 1, was licensed to Raven Software, beginning the march towards middleware. Its multiplayer, networking, and modding features changed the very definition of online community and competitive gaming. At every level of the gaming ecosystem from development to player experience it set in motion fundamental alterations that continue to drive the industry 30 years later. This article does not capture this monumental legacy.

So how can it? A few things to start:

There is a whole academic book on Doom and its legacy, Doom: Scarydarkfast by Dan Pinchbeck. While the book is cited in the text, it is inexplicably used only for two relatively minor points about the game’s audio. There is more to be extracted from this work.

I'll re-read this; I read through it but mostly saw details on the game itself rather than its legacy. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I added some bits from the end, but as I recalled, this book is 150 pages of gushing over every minor technical design decision followed by a short legacy section that I neglected to pull from. --Pres N 01:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another book, Dungeons and Dreamers: A Story of How Video Games Created a Global Community by Brad King and John Borland that spends several chapters describing the impact of id and its games on the creation of gaming communities yet is not cited at all.

Will look. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bought it, read the id chapters, added some bits from this on its impact on online/gaming communities. I'll read the rest of the book later, but 90%+ of the chapters on id are just summaries of Masters of Doom again. --Pres N 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replay by Tristan Donovan, arguably the best single-volume history of video games yet written, calls it a “paradigm shift” and says “it was to games what The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band was to pop,” yet it is not cited by the article either.

Will add once I track down the page numbers (I have the kindle edition), though you're overselling the gap- it certainly has some good quotes, but I just re-read that short section about Doom specifically, and what it doesn't have is details that aren't already present, besides the "paradigm shift" opinion itself. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and I stand by this- most of this is a summary of what's in the relevant portions of Masters of Doom. --Pres N 00:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Romero has a memoir out. It is also not cited here. While the book is very new, this is a gap.

Will look, though to be honest I'm not expecting a lot that isn't already in Masters of Doom or his/Hall's GDC talk, as there's a limit to how much I want to go into the game's effect on Romero himself. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got lucky, and google books had the 2 chapters on Doom in the free preview. It's mostly what was in the GDC talk/the article already, but I got some good details that weren't fleshed out there (Romero has an amazing memory, but a very dry/didactic delivery, btw). --Pres N 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doom won several game of the year awards from magazines and was named best action adventure game by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. None of these awards are mentioned.

Looks like I missed that GamesRadar UK gave it GOTY in 1993 (CGW/PCGUK's 1994 GOTY awards are listed already); I hadn't included the AIAS award because the AIAS itself doesn't even count the years before 1998, though I've now added it. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the only gaps in the article, but fixing them would be a good start. Indrian (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this, replied inline. --Pres N 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian: Okay, spent more of today reading these books then I should have, so hopefully I've filled in these gaps. --Pres N 02:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look, and things do look much improved. I will provide more detailed feedback soon. Appreciate the effort! Indrian (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian: Hey Indrian, just reminding you of this. --Pres N 21:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven’t forgotten, but will be another week before I can do more in-depth reviewing with irl stuff. However, I am confident that we will get the article where it needs to be, so the person below waiting for things to get fixed can go ahead as far as I am concerned. Indrian (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: as per your request. --Pres N 03:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indrian. Many thanks for the above, and just a gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your patience. Finally had a chance to take a more in depth look and greatly appreciate the additions from the sources I highlighted. Combined with the fixes from other reviews below, this makes me very comfortable in supporting this nomination. As always PresN, your hard work, attention to detail, and drive to present accurate history derived from high-quality sources is a great asset to Wikipedia’s video game coverage. Well done! Indrian (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

I'd like to review this article once the seemingly serious issue above is solved, so feel free to ping me by then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deathmatch is duplinked.
Footnote A could get a citation.

Duplink removed; Footnote A removed (was added by another editor yesterday). Will ping once Indrian signs off on above. --Pres N 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"which adjust the quantity and damage done by enemies"

Done

Well done, I had forgotten to add my issue with the wording haha... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link demon and hell?

Hell was linked, linked demon

"consisting of either moving toward their opponent if they see or hear the player"

Done

Well done again, this is what happens when you review at work and forget to comment when you paste a quote... FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"are immune to attacks of their kind." Add "own kind" for clarity?

Done

"The campaign contains very few plot elements, with a minimal story" As this is not an objective statement, needs citation?

Added

"setting the stage for Doom II." Likewise?

Added

Is there any in-universe explanation for why demons somehow enter the picture? Maybe around "allows the military to conduct secret teleportation experiments that go wrong"?

Nope, Doom isn't really concerned with the concept of a deep plot. The manual gives a few sentences of flavor to the effect of "teleportation experiments, people going through started to come out mad or explodey, then suddenly demons everywhere."

Any info on the creation of the cover? As far as I remember, the demons and setting on it don't resemble any in the game?

Added

On a related note, you mention and link Gregor Punchatz in the article body, and while an aside, could mention he is the son of Don Ivan Punchatz who made the cover.

Added

"Model of the Spider Mastermind" If this was one of the stop motion models used for the game and made by Gregor Punchatz, state it in the caption? Probably would also make more sense to show it under the design section?

Done

Are the two Carmacks related? If so, could be worth stating in parenthesis or something, I was wondering throughout.

Ah, that slipped away at some point- no, they aren't, and it's a natural thing to wonder. Added.

'"The developers scanned themselves as well, using Cloud's arm for the marine's arm holding a gun" Scanned or photographed? Doesn't sound like you'd 3D scan an arm at the time.

Photographed, fixed

Link "first-person shooter" in the image caption that mentions it?

Done

Link shareware in article body too.

Done

"When id declined, Microsoft made its own port, with a team lead by Gabe Newell." I assumed they allowed them to do it? Reads a bit now like it was done "behind their back".

Fixed

'"Sandy Petersen said that Doom sold" Full name has already been spelled out earlier, so only last name should be needed. Perhaps there are other cases of this.

Done

"award at Cybermania '94 in 1994." Am I missing something, or isn't it redundant to list the year when it's in the name?

Done

I actually didn't know this game used stop motion, I wish there was a category or list for games using stop motion, hint hint...

It's an incredibly uncommon technique in video games, and even here the game camera itself doesn't use stop motion. As soon as 3D games became a big thing around this time, game artists learned how to animate 2.5 and 3D characters in-game. Id only tried it because they were the first, it didn't catch on.

Off the top of my head, I can think of Mortal Kombat, Primal Rage, Clayfighter, Claymates, and probably some others, but it doesn't seem to be covered broadly anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"which considered it in the sense of introducing the game to new players" Considered what?

Fixed

"to create an modern world" A?

Fixed

You give dates for some retrospective views under Legacy, but not for the books mentioned there, perhaps add for context?

Done

"The game was dubbed a "mass murder simulator" by critic and Killology Research Group founder David Grossman" Does this refer to Doom or those Columbine levels? If the former, should be specified, and the sentence probably moved to the end of the paragraph?

The game, and fixed

You now link Internet at third instead of first mention in the article body.

Fixed

DOS is only mentioned in the intro and infobox, should probably be mentioned in the article body somewhere.

...I can't believe I mention all the myriad ports but not the actual release platform. Fixed.

Considering its significance, I think more could be said about the graphics in the intro?

Added a sentence in the lead, though I'm not 100% on the placement.

Not sure if you're finished, but responded inline to everything up to here. --Pres N 03:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that was all from me, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Panini edit

As a family friendly only Nintendo fan I know next to nothing of the source material except how "hardcore" it is. I think that's what the cool kids say. Comments soon. Panini! • 🥪 16:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The player assumes the role of a space marine, popularly known as the Doomguy," - This makes it sound like Doomguy is an unofficial fan-given name. If that isn't the case I'd rearrange to "The player assumes the role of Doomguy, a space marine".

changed to "unofficially" instead of "popularly"
I see the name was given post-Doom, so I suggest "later referred to as Doomguy" as well.
Done

"The game begins on the moons of Mars and finishes in hell" - W-what? This isn't a critique, I'm just fascinated.

Haha

"The designer Tom Hall initially wrote a science fiction plot, but he and his work were removed from the project..." - It's still technically a science fiction plot though, right? You clarify the distinction a bit with "an action-heavy design" afterwards but I recommend mentioning how exactly the original leaned into a different variation of science fiction.

Reworded

"It has been termed the "father" of the first-person shooter..." - This is an honorific title right? Is it referred to as "the father of the first-person shooter" in the sources? If so, I suggest quoting the whole thing so that honorific title comes across.

Done; there's several of similar honorific titles used, so I was leery of having a longer quote in case that implied that only one wording was commonly used, but it's probably ok

"...first-person shooter genre and is regarded as one of the most important games in the genre" - "genre" redundancy

Done

The game's controversy seems to play a role in the article, so I recommend mentioning it in the lead.

Added a sentence

Gameplay

"While the environment is presented in a 3D perspective, the enemies and objects are instead 2D sprites rendered at fixed angles, a technique sometimes referred to as 2.5D graphics or billboarding." - I'd move this up to the part after the "3D sprites" in the first sentence. This being at the end almost feels like a "Sike! You thought it was actually 3D?"

Done

"The monsters have simple behavior, either moving toward their opponent if they see or hear them, or attacking by biting, clawing, or using magic abilities such as fireballs." - I suggest "The monsters have simple behavior: they move toward their opponent if they see or hear them, and attack by biting, clawing, or using magic abilities such as fireballs" Just to make it a less lengthy sentence.

Done

"They will reactively fight each other if one monster inadvertently harms another"

?

Not sure how that happened. I meant to say: This seems to be similar to something like Minecraft, where Skeletons will fight each other is one accidentally shoots another. This seems like a trivial mention to me and is not necessary to understand the gameplay.

Dropped; it's like the one thing they do that's more complicated then "move towards player and attack", but it's not really a major gameplay point.

Development

No pictures of the developers? How am I supposed to read the article without pictures of the developers!?

Added

More of a joke, it really comes down to your preference. I remember your message on Discord about WP:OWN that included a non family-friendly word so I don't mind which way you swing with this one.

Haha, that was like 3 months ago, took me a bit to find what you meant. It's not a big deal- I had the images in the "development of" subarticle, I'd just dropped them here for space reasons and didn't stick them back when the section got long enough for them to fit.

"They also decided to cut ties with Apogee Software," - Any info on why out there?

Added a bit; basically they thought that Apogee couldn't keep up with demand as well as they liked, though mostly they just thought they could make more money taking the publishing in-house.

"Early in development, rifts in the team began to appear." - Although I'm a sucker for narrative storytelling in my articles like this, this feels a little too extreme. It refers to one person and only really comes into play in paragraphs three four; anything prior isn't really problems on the inside as it is basic ideas changing in the early development process.

Dropped the sentence

Speaking of narrative storytelling, did Hall do anything in the same span of time of Doom's development after his departure that's worth mentioning?

Not really for this time period; he went to work for Apogee and worked on Rise of the Triad, which was a Wolfenstein clone. In 1996, he and Romero founded Ion Storm, but at that point we're 3 years past the release of this game and well out of the scope of this article.

Best left out then. Thanks for checking!

Reception

I feel the negatives side of the critical reception is done well, but the positives needs just the same treatment; I'm mainly referring to the second paragraph. Per WP:DUEWEIGHT, this game is among the greats, but too much attention is given to repetition. You have an excellent structure with the layout, but what's pulled reads to "summarize the game in 4 words to put on the cover"-ey. What specifics of the gameplay were praised?

Reorganized the paragraph to contain the negatives together so they don't feel so weighty. I expand out the details of the positives a bit but unfortunately, as far as gameplay specifics go, early 90s game reviews just aren't very good- they're either very short or spend a long time just describing the game and the vibes without really reviewing specifics of the game.

"They viewed it as solely a level pack due to the lack of new features and compared it negatively to the hundreds of free fan-made levels available on the internet." - This specifies "they" but only cites on review

Fixed- "they" can be for a single reviewer of unknown gender, but I didn't mention a name so it's wrong regardless.

That's all from me! You have done an incredible job and I applaud you for taking on this legendary piece of video game history. I got nothing in need of review so there's no need for the QPQ. Panini! • 🥪 19:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Okay, got all the way through the points, responding inline. Thanks! --Pres N 16:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then just like, I lend a Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Red Phoenix edit

(Noting that I will at least make an attempt to come back and do a more detailed review later when I have more time, but this caught my eye tonight.)

A notable fact that appears to be missing from this article's Ports section is that not all the ports have all the levels. For instance, the 32X version is missing nearly a third of the game, and according to the 32X article (also a FA), this was due to time restraints. I understand we have List of Doom ports separately, but if we're going to have a separate section for ports in this article, the fact that significant parts of the game are missing from some ports seems important to note. This seems more significant than differences in graphics or sound, as it's pieces of the game as opposed to simply aesthetics. I wouldn't say a full list of differences is needed here, because we have the list article, but I feel it's worth noting here that some ports are missing levels.

Will add to this section with a deeper review later as long as I can find the time. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done- the "Other versions" section in Reception mentioned that the 32X was shorter, but didn't go into details, so now Ports talks a bit about some having a shorter or longer levelset (without going into exact details about which levels are in which port). --Pres N 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smore

Should "hell" being referred to as the in-game location, (and in general) be capitalized? User:UnexpectedSmoreInquisition

I went with "no" because the hell article doesn't. --Pres N 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then! I support the article being featured! (I've never supported an article before, so please inform me if I need to proofread further or submit my vote anywhere. User:UnexpectedSmoreInquisition

Support from Shooterwalker edit

I reviewed this as a "Good Article". The prose was already excellent, for the most part. I feel good about this after the revisions from other editors. I especially appreciate the work of Indrian to make sure the article is thorough, especially for such a historic game. Happy to support this as a featured article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

A timestamp for source 28, 32 and 41 might be helpful.

Added.

International Business Times is generally considered an unreliable source, as per WP:IBTIMES.

Removed one use, and replaced the other.

Does Wargames Handbook, Third Edition: How to Play and Design Commercial and Professional Wargames have an ISBN?

Yes, added

I couldn't find the claim that the first-week sales of Doom were 140,000 in the zoomed in the clipped article (citation 65).

It's there, 7th visible paragraph, quote: "Doom sold more than 140,000 copies in the first year. Id got so busy that it had to join with another producer, Raven Software, to develop Heretic, a Doomlike fantasy game that id had planned. "We went straight to Doom II," Wilbur said."

My bad, I meant the part with the first-week sales of 200,000 but rechecking source 63, it says that the game sold "a couple of hundred thousand copies".

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-46190-4_12 this seems to have an analysis of the game as an agency simulator and might be worth using in the article. FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually about Doom (2016), the annoyingly named reboot of the series, unfortunately.

While the source analyzes the 2016 game, it does talk a little bit about the original game e.g. how it popularized the first-person shooter genre but that's already discussed in the article so I guess it's not much of use after all.

@FrB.TG: Replied inline. --Pres N 15:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All good from me. Pass. FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by RoySmith: pass edit

I'm not seeing any issues with licensing. All of the non-free images have appropriate rationales.
File:Doom cover art.jpg Needs alt text.
File:Doom ingame 1.png Alt text should start with "Screen shot of..."
File:John Carmack E3 2006.jpg Suggestion for a better alt: "Photograph of model of a brain mounted on a three-legged robotic base with actuating mechanisms and exposed wires. The brain has a face with mouth and red eyes, and a small arm with grasping hands emerging from each side.
File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353) (cropped).jpg Suggestion for better alt: "Color photograph of..."
File:NeXTstation.jpg I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm not convinced this meets MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Fundamentally, it's a picture of what looks like a generic desktop computer. How is this "an important illustrative aid to understanding" the game? Is there something special about the NeXT which made it a critical part of the game design, and if so, how does this photo enhance the reader's understanding of that? If you do end up keeping the image, I'd suggest a better alt: "Desktop computer, with attached CRT monitor, keyboard, and mouse. All components are gloss black. The monitor and computer base have NeXT logos on them".
File:Billdoom.png Alt text should start with "Screen shot of..."
File:Doom clone vs first person shooter.png The image gives a lot of rich information which the alt text glosses over. You want to describe the graph visually so that somebody using a screen reader can get the full impact that a sighted person would: Double-line graph. X-axis is years from 1993 to 2002". Y-axis shows usenet post counts ranging from 0 to 1200 per month. Red line ("doom+clone" or "doom+clones") peaks at about 400 in 1996, and tails off to zero again by 2002. Blue line (...) grows mostly monotonically to about 1120 by 2002, with an intermediate peak of about 850 in 2000. The two lines cross in late 1997. Both lines are close to zero before late 1993, when "Doom released" is noted with a visual marker.
File:Doom gibs.png Alt: "Screen shot of..."

That's it for me. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: All done, thanks for the image review! --Pres N 20:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The review is a lie.~~ Looks good. RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.