Talk:Descent

From DoomWiki.org

Descent does not have to have with the "Engine Doom" and blablabla. Hexen II and heretic II that it has not to have cannot be, but Descent that does not have the SENSIBLE MINOR to be, is. Aff, this is ridicule! Delete this article! 201.26.177.109 15:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reason not to just link to the Wikipedia article. Delete Fraggle 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty worthless. I think maybe if it focused on its relationship with Doom (it was an important rival) it might be worth keeping, but not how it is at present. Sarge Baldy 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, not relevant. Delete. -- Jdowland 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The Duke3D article is relevent for that infamous easter egg at a bare minimum and the Quake article is relevent because it is what id did next but Descent is unrelated. -- TheDarkArchon 22:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Why is this here? Completely irrelevant to the subject of this wiki; Heretic and Hexen II were more closely related to Doom than this. DomRem | Yeah? 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Doom clones are relevant topics for this wiki. There's room for more detailed comparison of gameplay and coverage of how the games were compared back in the day. There are also lots of WADs that use Descent resources; that kind of information wouldn't fit in Wikipedia. Fredrik 11:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Fredrik in that comparisons between Doom and its clones should be allowed. Janizdreg 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This article isnt a comparison with Doom in the same way that Duke Nukem 3D is. The only comparisons this article makes is "Descent was shareware just like Doom" and "The Descent source was released, just like Doom". I'd be happy to see an article properly comparing Descent and Doom, but in its present form, I vote to delete this article. Also, reuse of Descent textures in PWADs seems like a rather tenuous reason to keep it. Fraggle 20:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The results here seem inconclusive. I'm going to remove the delete tag and suggest we keep it, since at least some people here seem to think having this is a good idea. Fraggle 23:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There are four delete votes (assuming you've changed yours to a keep) vs 3 keeps (assuming the same). -- Jdowland 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete part 2

remove this fast!!! 201.27.16.60 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Though the last vote was inconclusive, it was agreed that the article needed to be a comparision to Doom. However, this article hasn't been touched since. If there isn't going to be a change, then I keep my delete vote -- TheDarkArchon 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

FIVE delete votes vs 2 keeps! Delete this fast!!! 201.27.16.60 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. The admins will delete it if it is voted for deletion for the second time. And this time I vote delete. Janizdreg 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete.  With the benefit of 13 years of hindsight, IMHO, the comparisons/contrasts with Doom-engine games are pretty forced, and that is reflected in the way the article is written.  Unlike the non-Doom-engine titles Quake 1 and Duke Nukem 3D, which we have articles on, it is not a seminal work in FPS history (frankly, I remember it being just another Doom clone even at the time).  If it's important that Descent resources are used in some Doom mod, fine — mention that in the technical section of that mod's article and get on with your life.    Ryan W 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Descent wasn't seminal, some people did think it would become a "next generation" Doom. As I said, there's much more room for comparison. Lots of direct quotes mentioning both games can be found. If more content hasn't been added yet... so what? Only two weeks have passed. There's no hurry to get this project finished (and deleting the article isn't going to help, as far as I can tell). I'd feel silly to undelete the article to expand it if I got around to it some day.
The thing with having an article to link to instead of just mentioning the title is that links can be followed backwards, i.e. to find out what other projects use Descent resources. This is a useful feature. Trivia such as the reference to John Carmack also makes the article worthwhile, IMHO. Fredrik 05:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
there's much more room for comparison . . . I'd feel silly to undelete the article to expand it if I got around to it some day.  If this is true, and a good article can be written in principle, that's great.  Maybe I just don't remember Descent as well as I should.  (I just downloaded the demo again to see.)  For now, though, I must agree with Fraggle's original comments above.    Ryan W 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is irrelevant. "Heretic II and Hexen II were more closely related to Doom than this". Cacodemon 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the guidelines, I declare this vote invalid. Reason: Deletion call was left by an anonymous member. -- TheDarkArchon 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete part 3

Ok, since anonymous people cannot call votes for deletion nor vote, I will open this one. -- Jdowland 14:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy does not say that anon users can't vote.    Ryan W 18:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Jdowland 14:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It can always recreate the article at a later date and this one doesn't compare Descent to Doom in any sort of detail. -- TheDarkArchon 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.  I sympathize with Fredrik's position, because I know what it's like to have something sit on your to-do list for three months when the existing article is embarrassing.  Currently, however, this is simply a bunch of self-contained factoids which could go under "Technical" or "Trivia" in other articles, and I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep it.  (Maybe I will be proved wrong — I hope I am, because the history of this time period is an interesting topic and I would like to read such an article myself.)    Ryan W 18:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as per general consensus -- TheDarkArchon 12:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)