Talk:Id Software

No Duke Nukem 3D?

Nowhere has Duke Nukem 3D been mentioned, or linked on this page. How can such a major oversight continue???

Id didn't make Duke Nukem 3D. FWIR, Duke Nukem 3D used the build engine, some high school kid's attempt to out-do id. Why should it be mentioned here? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Credit

Credit for the link to "The Wizardry of Id" article should go to Liftarn. Just giving credit where credit is due! :-) —Frecklefoot 15:27, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Also

I hate stepping on other's toes (especially a sysop's), but I reverted the edit by Schneelocke for the formatting of the See also: entity. The Manual of Style supports the way I had it originally. It's a big pet peeve of mine, but I hate whole sections for the See also:, but I tolerate it for See alsos with numerous entries. Since I only had one entry, I think a whole section for the See also: was execessive. Sorry, but, like I said, it's a pet peeve of mine (I'll try to work on it). :-) —Frecklefoot 20:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
See also: Talk:DOOM (computer game)

id (not Id) Software

How can we rename this article as "id Software" instead of "Id Software" ? —Bevo 17:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We can't. Wikipedia has the first letter of every article as a capital. Yes, the "id" in "id Software" is lower-case. But when you use the name of the company as the first word in a sentence, for example, it should be capitalized, even though the word itself is not a proper name. This really isn't a big deal, IMHO. You can link to this article as lowercase (e.g. "I work for id Software, because I'm John Carmack."). Also, the 'pedia has articles for dog and cat and they aren't normally captilalized, but their article names are. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:38, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In fact, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), "id software" is not correct Wikipedia style, regardless of the trademark holder's usage. Capitalizing "Id" does seem to run some risk of it being confused with "ID," however. --64.132.59.83 19:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has been corrected according to the Manual of Style. If you disagree with the MoS, please discuss there, rather than making this article nonconforming. Nohat 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of any stylesheet is to add value and consistency to writing. Capitalizing Id software both detracts from the accuracy and sense of this specific article, and adds nothing to wikipedia as a whole. I think most editors familiar with the company or the gaming sector in general would agree. And lest we forget, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sighrik (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

There is a lot more value and consistency in following the standards of written English—capitalizing proper nouns and the first word of a sentence—than there is to acceding to the whimsical marketing preferences of corporations. The article specifically says "The company writes its name with lowercase Id" so the argument that not following the capitalization conventions of standard English somehow detracts from the accuracy of the article is false. Nohat 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for exercising vendettas against whimsical corporate marketing preferences. The simple fact is that the company is known as id Software, and not referring to it as such results in a loss of accuracy, forcing the reader to re-examine the context and make sure that the article is really talking about the company always referred to as id, not some new and different entity. Sighrik 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sighrik, but we should probably ask for input on the Manual of Style (trademarks) talk page to see if this meets the criteria for an exception. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The argument that capitalizing proper nouns is going to confuse people is specious. Most professionally-edited publications capitalize proper nouns, regardless of what marketing departments would prefer, and a perusal of articles mentioning Id in The New York Times, for example, bear out this claim. What's confusing is when readers have to muddle through articles full of proper nouns that are not capitalized. Nohat 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the argument that we should do whatever the Times does to be even weaker than the argument that we should be striking blows against whimsical corporate marketing preferences. In any case, it's a non-starter because for every one you throw out there someone can throw multiple "professionally-edited publications" back, e.g. the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post. Sighrik 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my argument, which was just a rebuttal to the suggestion that capitalized Id is going to confuse readers. My point was that that since The New York Times capitalizes Id, it's not as though the capitalized form is some invention of Wikipedia that is going to confuse readers because it is somehow unique to Wikipedia. The reason we should capitalize Id is because we have a consensus-agreed policy that says "Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized". Nohat 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I don't understand it perfectly well (I work in publishing), but it's a guideline, not a "policy". I'll give it a few more days because revert wars are boring, but it seems that not only is there no consensus that it should be applied to this article, but that you're the only one who wants it to. Sighrik 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It does say at the top of the page "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." All the people who voted "agree" to "Lowercased trademarks with no internal capitals should always be capitalized" meant this page too. Why should this article should be treated any differently from other articles about companies who prefer to lowercase their names, like Adidas and Craigslist? What is so special about Id Software that justifies an exception? We already decided this issue on a project-wide basis, and you can't just have an exception because you feel like it. There must be a valid rationale for the exception. Nohat 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Post and WSJ, which I just cited as lowercasing "id", uppercase "adidas" and "craigslist": in id's case, it's not just a "whimsical corporate marketing preference", it's common usage, and departing from common usage is confusing and detracts from the clarity of a piece of writing. Which is why the stylesheet is a guideline and subject to common sense, and why I ask you to respect the consensus of knowledgeable editors that it's the case with this article. (All of this was in my first response.) Sighrik 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) that the consensus on this issue continues to be in favor of following the established guideline, even on this page. Nohat 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Id Software is no different than "craigslist" or "adidas." They are all company names. They all have a preference for lowercasing their own name. And on Wikipedia, they should all be treated the same, according to the Manual of Style -- as proper nouns, they should all be capitalized. Even though you think that "id software" should be an exception, it doesn't. (People with an interest in Craigslist and Adidas feel that their articles deserve "exception" status too.) For an article to be exempt, it needs to be a compelling case, and there is no compelling case here. This is exactly the situation described by a very specific rule in the Manual of Style. There are good and proper reasons for capitalizing proper nouns, and they were discussed on the Talk page [1] for the Manual of Style. BJ Nemeth 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a final note I'll draw attention to the first paragraph of the "Manual of Style" itself: "However, different Wikipedia articles are written with different audiences in mind, and editors are free to adapt their style accordingly. This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed." The rationale for why the editors of this article have settled on "id" lowercase can be found above and I've also summarized on the trademarks talk page. Reverting. Sighrik 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one, object to your revert. There is a significant debate above, true, but there wasn't a resolution. I was in the "leave it lowercase" camp when the debate started, but now, after all the points being made, I'm leaning towards the "cap it" camp. Either way, when id is used as the first word of a sentence, it should still be capitalized. I suspect this disagreement will continue to rage... — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be built around making the substantial change to the article, not the other way around. If that consensus among the article's editors can be built, I'll certainly yield to it. I actually agree on capping it at the start of a sentence, and in the spirit of compromise will make that change now. Sighrik 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So, who exactly supports making this article an exception to the MoS rule other than you, Sighrik? Nohat 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The MoS is presumed to apply unless there is consensus for there to be an exception. The MoS guidelines were established by consensus, and the people who are interested in individual articles do not have more jurisdiction over the people who decide on project-wide policies. The way it works is that project-wide guidelines which are established by consensus are supposed to be followed unless there is consensus for there to be an exception. It is not that project-wide guidelines are to be ignored unless there is consensus to apply them. That doesn't even make sense. Nohat 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is that documented? It's certainly not in the manual of style itself, which clearly states that it's not prescriptive and defers to the article's editors. (Quoted a bit above.) I also don't see anything that introduces this precedent for the editors of subsections of the Manual to become a standing arbitration committee for every individual article (a supposition that clearly would not scale to the scope of Wikipedia); in fact, I suspect that's why we've gone to the trouble of setting up an actual arbitration process. Sighrik 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The part that says "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines" is where it says that the MoS should apply. There is of course room for common-sense exceptions when there is consensus to do so, but I don't see any consensus for an exception here. The whole point of having project-wide style guides is to follow them, not to not follow them. If they weren't meant to be followed, we wouldn't have them at all. Nohat 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The validity and usefulness of having a MoS has not been questioned here. But the manual of style is a non-prescriptive set of suggestions, not a magic wand that you can wave at an article to override the regular consensus-based process of editing wikipedia. The stable state of this article was arrived at after hundreds of edits made by dozens of editors. I appreciate that you're only trying to improve the Wikipedia, but take a second to reflect back that your major change to the article was made without discussion, you've disregarded a subsequent request to discuss the change before continually reverting, and have failed to address the substantive reasoning behind why the consensus capitalization was arrived at to begin with--it is common usage in the gaming industry and community at large (not to mention the article's own secondary sources and wide adoption by the general press). Sighrik 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have the floor, and that's gone unmentioned yet, is that far from settling the question of consistency, uppercasing "id" in this article introduces inconsistencies with nearly 20 other non-English "id Software" articles and a broad array of id references within other (substantial, separately consensus-derived) articles under the English language wikipedia and the others. Sighrik 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, now that the issue has been brought up and discussed at length, both here and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks), everyone but you seems to agree that it should be Id, not id. Capitalizing Id also is a common usage, and has the benefit of being compliant with the normal rules of English capitalization, the specific guidelines of capitalization established by consensus for Wikipedia, AND the consensus of all but one editor who has weighed in on the issue. Nohat 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take the silence on the issues presented in my last message as agreement. Nohat 16:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The only other editor who has weighed in is Frecklefoot—on both sides. Other than trademarks standards editors, who have unsurprisingly agreed as to what the guideline is (something that's never been contested). In the meantime another editor has come along and reverted even more of the uppercase stuff. There continues to be no consensus behind introducing this change to the article. Sighrik 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, who, other than you, has stated that they currently support having this page not abide by the guideline? And how many people have said that this specific page should abide by the guideline? For the former question, I count 0, and for the latter I count 5. No one other than you supports ignoring the convention. Shall we escalate the issue to an RfC and see what even more people feel about the issue? Nohat 23:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor an abacus(1), although you're certainly welcome to do whatever you want. In any case I plan on continuing to maintain the consensus state of the article until sector-knowledgeable editors weigh in and general agreement arises to change it. I'm just the only one trying to satisfy your strange sense of urgency by talking about it endlessly here.

(1) A proper abacus would have recorded the two editors who've edited the actual article in support of the lower case convention since this conversation began. Sighrik 03:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there is some kind of suffrage criterion for editing pages—that only the opinions of those editors who have edited this page before are relevant. Everyone who comes this page and has an opinion counts. In any case, of those who have explicitly expressed an opinion on the matter of whether the guideline should apply here, only one at this time continues to advocate for violating the guideline, and 5 have expressed support for the guideline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nohat (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I'll quote myself quoting the lead paragraph of the MoS for you again: "However, different Wikipedia articles are written with different audiences in mind, and editors are free to adapt their style accordingly. This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed." Long after you've moved on to your next prescriptive style fight, it's the editors interested in improving and maintaining the id Software article who will still be here. That's why the change should be adapted by general consensus, and why the manual of style explicitly discourages the kind of action you're taking. If I thought that some kind of external plebiscite was relevant I would go gather 'round the gaming project folks, the editors of the 20 foreign language id articles and the id product pages—but I don't. Sighrik 22:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why keep bringing up the issue of whether exceptions are allowed are not. Of course they are allowed--no one is disputing that. The relevant question is whether or not this page should be an exception. The way to find the answer to that question is to pose it to editors and determine a consensus of those who have an opinion. The question has been posed both here on the relevant page's talk page, and elsewhere, including at the relevant guideline's talk page. Several editors have responded, and all of them have stated that the answer to the question of whether this page should be an exception is "no".

Whether we specialize in articles on a particular topic or specialize in improving overall consistency by addressing particular stylistic issues is not relevant--we're all editors, and everyone's opinion counts. You do not get to ignore the opinions of others because you don't think they have enough ownership of an article. When a issue is in dispute, it should be resolved by determining a consensus of every Wikipedia editor who cares, not of every Wikipedia editor who cares and who has a history of editing articles in this topic space. The latter is a completely arbitrary criterion invented just now by you and which has no support or precedent in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and in fact runs contrary to many policies, not least of which WP:OWN.

The representation of the status quo to be as though there were a consensus to violate the guideline is hollow. The only person who has expressed the opinion that this page should be an exception to the guideline is you. Where are all the others who agree with you that constitute this supposed consensus which you claim? Nohat 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not edited this article, but I agree with Sighrik for the reasons I discuss on the bottom of the WP:MOS-TM talk page, and I note that the page is currently lowercased. —pfahlstrom 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Cloud a founder?

Isn't Kevin Cloud a founder too? In one of John Carmacks plan updates speaks of Kevin and Adrian sharing over 50% ownership of the company. Airconditioning 08:14, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, Kevin Cloud was not part of the team that made Keen when id was still working "underground" while still being employed at Softdisk, but by the time they went off to officially form id software Kevin was one of the people who went off with them. Hence, he also has ownership in the company. Since Tom Hall and John Romero have left the company (and consequently given up their shares), the ownership was divided evenly between John, Kevin, and Adrian when the DOOM 3 hit. As of the beginning of 2004, Todd Hollenshead and Tim Willits have also been granted ownership of the company, evening out the power balance immensely. -- Unsigned

Shouldn't Kevin be listed as a key player if he is co-owner? --Kevin L'Huillier 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: The book "Masters of Doom" specifically lists Kevin Cloud as a founder. Isn't it inconsistent to have it shown here differently? The people at ID were interviewed and helped Kushner write that book, I'm sure they wouldn't have given him that information if they did not consider it true. You can point out that he was not with them while they were "underground" at Softdisk, but at that point they weren't id Software (according to the book). I think these pages should be consistent with the published work on this topic, or have an official source stating that Cloud was not a founding member. Otherwise, it just looks like an interpretation of the facts by a contributor to this page. -- Unsigned

I'm not sure where you see Kushner listing Cloud as a founder, but it's very clear on when he joined the company: after they'd been in Madison and "a few weeks" before the move to Texas (pp. 101-102). Incidentally (or maybe not), p. 101 relates the story of the consequences of Romero's first ill-advised pursuit of the Daikatana. Sighrik 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-wikilinking

In addition to helpful changes, SpaceCow went through and added wikilinks to every term that already had wikilinks. This is discouraged in Wikipedia, though I can't find the reference at the minute. Only wikify the first occurance of a term unless it is used again a greater further down in the article and the link is topical. I don't have time to undo all his excessive wikilinking, and I assume he/she was just unfamiliar with the policy. Can someone else help me out here? Thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:00, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed some of the linkage. Actually, I wrote a Python script to remove duplicate links (regexp code borrowed from the scripts on Wikipedia:Scripts):

import re

re_link = re.compile(r'(\[\[[^\[\]]+\]\])')

def rmdupelinks(wikitext):
    chunks = re_link.split(wikitext)
    outchunks = chunks[:]
    already_linked = {}
    line = 1
    for i, chunk in enumerate(chunks):
        if re_link.match(chunk):
            linktext = chunk[2:-2]
            target = descr = linktext
            if "|" in target:
                j = target.index("|")
                descr = target[j+1:]
                target = target[:j]
            if target in already_linked:
                print "Killed duplicate:", target, line
                outchunks[i] = descr
            else:
                already_linked[target] = True
        line += chunk.count("\n")
    return "".join(outchunks)

if __name__ == "__main__":
    indata = open("in.txt").read()
    open("out.txt", "w").write(rmdupelinks(indata))

It wasn't that useful in this case though, as the biggest problem here was inconsistency in the spelling of titles. Maybe the above script could be modified to do something useful. Fredrik | talk 22:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the excessive linking

Sorry about that - yeah, I'm pretty new to Wiki and was under the impression that linking liberally was something to be done. I should probably read the guidelines again :)

DOOM to Doom?

"DOOM" is the product's proper name. What's this "Doom" crap? I'm too lazy to revert. Adraeus 00:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Doom for rationale. Fredrik | talk 02:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or Talk:Doom/Capitalization for specifics. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Jay Wilbur

Jay Wilbur, the "biz guy", was a prominant spokesman during the DOOM years. Something should be included about his contributions. --Cshay 22:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Cancelled Games

Is there any interest in listing id's cancelled/abandoned projects? The ones I know of are Quest and Trinity. But it’s unclear if Trinity was ever a game, or just the codename for the Quake III Arena engine. -- hgb

Trinity was a codename for the technology that eventually became the Quake 3 engine. Carmack named it after the Trinity River, which is in the DFW area. This was a reference to the codenaming conventions for Intel's processors.

http://firingsquad.com/features/carmack/page12.asp Slemmons 21:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous Dave

Either Dangerous Dave In The Haunted Mansion or Dangerous Dave's Risky Rescue had id logo on it (I can't remember which one; maybe both). It's even newer than Commander Keen, so that's not an improbable thing.

Can I go and add Dangerous Dave as an id product? --tyomitch 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Dave" games were all released by Softdisk, but in some cases the developers included references to "id Software" in the credits of games they developed for Softdisk, going back even to ones they did while they still working full-time at Softdisk and starting up id on the side (originally behind the backs of their bosses); they slipped in some such references before anybody else in the company even knew they were doing stuff on the side under that name; people there, as far as I recall, just thought that was a cute name by which this group of developers referred to themselves for crediting purposes, not a "real" company they were starting. Later, after they split, they did a few games for Softdisk to fulfill their contractual obligation, so those too had references to id in the credits but were published by Softdisk. I worked for Softdisk for many years, including the time that the id people were around and the time after they left, and at one point I was assigned to "scrub" all references to id from the credits of the games, since the two companies were feuding and Softdisk management didn't want to give any promotion to id. Later on, when id had gotten really famous, Softdisk proceeded to re-release the games as "the lost collection of id" to capitalize on this success. Therefore, there are various versions around with and without id references. *Dan T.* 01:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean this one; it's from The Haunted Mansion. Is this a game by Softdisk or by id for Softdisk? --tyomitch 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember that title screen, and it was one of the ones I had to modify for them with the "ID SOFTWARE PRODUCTION" line taken out, and also the one about subscribing to Gamer's Edge (a game subscription product that the game was originally released as part of; later it was sold as a standalone item after GE was discontinued). (So the version you're showing here is obviously an early one, not the later modified one.) I was for a while the archivist at Softdisk, maintaining the files of all the programs they had published and their source code, related utilities (game level editors, etc.) and other things needed to change and rebuild the programs / games / diskmagazines / etc.; this could sometimes be a pain for games from the id people, which usually depended on all sorts of proprietary utilities of their own devising, which they were not always diligent about properly archiving with each version of the game or giving instructions on how to rebuild it. I still managed to figure out enough about how the stuff worked to do things like change the version numbers and credit-page info when necessary for new releases, and sometimes fix minor program bugs. The Haunted Mansion might have been one of the "contractual-obligation" ones they did when they were already an independent company... I don't remember for sure. I do know that they slipped in "AN ID SOFTWARE PRODUCTION" sometimes even on games they did while employed at Softdisk. Anyway, it would be original research to put in anything based on what I say now, rather than an actual citeable source. *Dan T.* 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Adrian Carmack

I don't think we should remove the link to Adrian just because he left the company. Romero and Hall left years ago, but they're still there as founding members of id. The same goes for Adrian. -- Hardgoodbye 04:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I support that. Is there anyone to oppose? --tyomitch 20:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. – Quoth 00:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, but, Romero didn't leave, he was removed. He felt that living the rockstar lifestyle was more important than actually developing the games. Thus, was his departure. --Emhilradim 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Distant third"

In the history section, it says John Carmack said the Wii will become a distant third behind the PS3 and Xbox360 and could very well be Nintendo's last system. It was actually Scott Miller of 3D Realms who said this :) --64.110.249.45 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the erroneous statement. Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Founding location

I changed the erroneous listing of Mesquite, Texas in the foundation section of the info box. According to Kushner's book, id was founded immediately after the group left Softdisk (which was based in Shreveport, LA) and they set up shop in the Shreveport lake house in which they lived(and also used to moonlight on Commander Keen with company computers.) They then went to Madison, Wisconsin for a short time before moving to Mesquite in April of 1992, shortly before Wolfenstein's release.

That's great information. Please cite it in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

id Linux games?

I got to the id page from the linuxarticle that said id (and Atari) "have released titles to the Linux desktop." Is this true, and if so, can someone include it in id software's entry?72.75.82.125 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

see Quake#Ports for the story Sighrik 03:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Doom?

While I don't have the time to fix it, I find it quite bizarre that the history section skips straight from Wolfenstein 3D to Quake. Maybe it could be argued that Quake was the bigger milestone for games afficionados, but Doom was a _cultural phenomenon_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.167.227 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, the state of this article has varried wildly, with users making broad edits, removing sections, adding others. It was perhaps unavoidable that some valuable content was left out. I agree that Doom should have some discussion. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While reading this page, I too found this very odd. While Wolfenstein 3D was very interesting in its own right, when I first saw Doom I was blown away (pun intended). I think it should be given at least as much emphasis as Quake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.95.251.10 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I went ahead and added the sorely needed Doom section. I also added dates for Wolf3D and Quake to give some perspective. Definately just a first pass, please peruse and copyedit to your content. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start, thanks. I'd like to add some stuff about the build-up/anticipation and detail the shareware (doom) vs shrink wrap (doom2) but will wait until I have sources in front of me. Sighrik 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember there being any build up or anticipation for Doom. There was Wolf3D and then, all of a sudden, *BAM!* , there was Doom. But I don't think the section should contain those details. All that stuff is in the Doom article already (or should be). Add it there if you please. The section in this article should just be an overview, IMHO. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed in the Doom article already.[2], and is chronicled in Kushner and presumably other sources. It's important to the company's history as that's when the mainstream profile really began to build up. But yes, it should remain a brief overview. The Wolfenstein section needs to be slightly reworked as well as half of it is now just anticipating the next few paragraphs. Sighrik 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA mistake

it is not id, it is Id... with the IPA symbol for i as in it = It... the little capitalized "i" I.

No reference to Michael Abrash ?

No reference to Michael Abrash ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.12.10 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome to add the info yourself. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wii Support

In the article under history, it states that id has decided not to support the Wii. While I believe they may have made this statement at one time, I have found a few links that contradict that statement:

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/07-03-2007-4945.html http://www.cubed3.com/news/6961/1/id_Properties_Coming_to_Wii http://www.s-times.net/03052007/04/id_software_hypes_nintendo_wii_ps3_and_xbox_360

I will wait to see what others think of these articles, or for other articles. -Brad 69.130.238.111 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Transition of ID from good to evil

At their very beginning, ID Software created good, non-satanic games such as Commander Keen series. But since Dangerous Dave series (introduction of satanic zombies), through Wolfenstein/Spear Of Destiny, Doom (innocent Commander Keen hanged on gallows) and up to Quake and beyond, ID software began to insert satanic motives into their games. Which event could trigger this transition of ID software from good to evil? 83.19.52.107 10:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't original research, I don't know what is! Dangerous Dave came before Commander Keen. A lot of their games do have demonic references in them, but it doesn't make the company evil. In all their games, the player is fighting against the evil influences, not in favor of them. And I don't see how Quake has any demonic symbolism in it--it is a science fiction FPS. Many video games have zombies, devils and the like in them--they are standard fiction fare. Using them in games doesn't make one evil. It's not a conspiracy. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Commander Keen Episode 1: Marooned on Mars (1990)
• Dangerous Dave in the Haunted Mansion (1991)

As you see, Commander Keen game originated before Dangerous Dave. That is stated in this article about ID Software. In first Quake player uses satanic Pentagram of Protection to protect against fought evil by setting player's armor to 666. More here: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/games.htm Mirror here:[3] 83.19.52.107 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Also, Pc-man is the very embodiment of the cardinal sin of gluttony. --AceMyth 18:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Dangerous Dave series debuted in 1998. Only one episode in the series came out in '91. I don't think very many people will buy that id is slowly becoming evil.

Looked at the site you linked to. It's little more than a blog entry (with great grammar: While the powerup is in affect, your characters armor rating turns to "666"). It also looks like the author played a lot of Quake to get his screenshots. However, this is not a reputable source for information--it's just one person's opinion. Now if someone wrote an article about the piece or a whole organization decried the evils of id individually, then we'd have something to cite. But just one lone website with "Andrew"'s opinion doesn't cut it. If you want to drum up support for your crusade against id, don't do it here. This is just to discuss the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)