Talk:Doom (1993 video game)/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Doom is not 3D! (True)
Title: Doom is not 3D! (True)
In this game, 3D models were hard to render because old computers do not have graphics drivers for the old computers that run in 1993. Doom uses sprites, textures, source-code for the weapons, monsters and levels, and uses DoomEdit if sure for WADs. Hexen was the first one that was released in 1995, and had Hexen format levels with ACS on them. DoomEdit is a level editor that is compatible for Doom 1 and 2 only. Since people are saying "Doom is 3D!" they are completely false. I've seen so many people saying that Doom is 3D-- it isn't. Try GZDoom with 3D models and look at the difference between the original Doom sprites and the new 3D models. They look good, right? Lumps are consisted as a filename for *.lmp and enables abilities for sprites, textures, and sounds. I am sick and tired of it over and over again. If you don't know what Slade 3.1.1.5 is, you'll have to learn it.
Do not waste your time replying this. (This is not a forum post.) --Roozy1999 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
final secret discovered
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/08/31/after-24-years-doom-iis-final-secret-has-been-found/
Maybe someone who understands the above can update the article if appropriate. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Source
- https://web.archive.org/web/20010123233400/http://www.cnn.com:80/2001/TECH/computing/01/19/doom.feature.idg/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBlackwing (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
"'Doom' Turns 20: We Take A Look at the Game's History" May be a bad reference.
Reading the reference linked to "With the release of Doom, id Software, quickly found itself making $100,000 daily with shareware copies sold at $9.", it seems the source is possibly referencing the "Suggested" price of the free to download version when distributed through 3rd party sellers which as I understand didn't give anything to the doom developers at all.
As such (even though the source seems to link the 2 sets of data) the fact that there was a copy of doom that had a suggested price of $9 (which most people probably got for free) didn't have a direct impact on the $100,000/day number mentioned in the same sentence and is at best confusing (if not out right misleading). $9 value: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/44019-shareware-distribution/?page=2$ $40 purchase price (mentioned in Order.frm file in doom1_0.3 file dated December 10th 1993): https://winworldpc.com/product/doom/10
It might be worth finding another clearer source for the $100,000/day value... Since they didn't seem to make sure they're article was written clearly for a point they seemed to think was important enough to reinforce in there article by mentioning twice, and by more directly tying the 2 numbers together though they seem only slightly related... According to doom fandom wiki: https://doom.fandom.com/wiki/Sales A better source might be (Masters of Doom, page 161).... though not having access to that I'll not try to change the source.
I'm shortening the line I quoted from he wikipedia article.... If someone can confirm the book does contain the same but more reliable data it might be worth replacing the reference wholesale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.208.119 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)