Talk:Sony PlayStation

Is it just me or doesn't the sentence "Sound-effects don't use different sound effects, which were reused in Doom 64" make any sense? Janizdreg 03:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. -- TheDarkArchon 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rocket launcher bug
I won't remove these images now, but please note that in most cases a sequence of still frames does not establish that a bug exists (example). Someone with a Playstation and a DVR would have to create a "demo". Ryan W 17:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

PSX Doom demo disc?
I remember that I saw someone selling a disc which supposedly was a one-level demo of PSX Doom on Ebay or Amazon (don't remember which) a while ago, but I can't find it there now, and I can't find any reference to it anywhere on the web. Is it true that such a version does exist? Does anyone know anything about it?


 * I certainly have never heard of one, and Gave Rave doesn't have it listed. Doesn't mean one doesn't exist though. If it does, it would definitely be a rare find. - Nuxius 21:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Found this interview where the demo is clearly mentioned, so I guess it does exist. It even has the track which supposedly played in that demo. Would be interesting to find out more about it... Asdfsfs 19:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. I owned the demo, I played it. It was on one of the UK Playstation magazines around 1996 and a single Doom 2 level "The Gauntlet" (Gantlet) it may have been collective on official Playstation with other demos later in the magazines run and I know at that time they did start the cover disc trend BUT I wanna say it was exclusive to another magazine possibly Play, I recall being an avid buyer of that after reading the official's issue 2 Doom review. Can't say which mag, the single level disc does exist however.

EDIT: Note the demo was not jewel cased. Rather, housed in a clear PVC slip-sleeve. OPM issue 2 review ref: http://officialukplaystationmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/welcome-to-issue-2-of-official-uk.html

Final Doom
Final Doom was released as a separate game on the PS1. I think the Final Doom information should be moved to new article. Also, it's worth noting that the Spider Mastermind's sprites are actually in the PS1 Final Doom but since none of the levels have it, they go unused. Glisp 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Organization of level lists
I am loathe to just revert the prior change as the reader states he had readability issues with the article but in its present form it is too long and disrupts the article flow. Anybody got another idea, maybe something using a table or some other template-powered gadgetry? Raw lists that go on for 80 rows are rarely the best solution. --Quasar (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to solutions that involve as part of it making PSX Final Doom its own article, btw. I've been feeling the two shouldn't be enjambed into one article for several months now but didn't feel like doing the large amount of work necessary to separate them, and then track down all the references on the rest of the wiki pointing here when referring to PSX Final Doom as a subject. My candidate title would be Final Doom (PlayStation) --Quasar (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to create a structure that would give an alternative between the currently published version and the new one that was created by the reader. I agree that the structure on the draft is too long, and the amount of white empty space bothers me. If three horizontal text bars make the layout too crowded, let's use only two of them. In addition, while my level list is not as short vertically as the current three-column version, it is shorter than the one on the draft. --Jartapran (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Now see if we were to get rid of Final Doom by making it its own article, we could have two columns, possibly even within the same table, for Doom on the left and Doom II on the right and I think it would look really good that way. It's the presence of two entire games in this article that's creating the problem if you ask me. Unless you or somebody else objects, I may start working on it this weekend. If you want to put your idea in place in the meantime as an interim that's not a problem as I'd then copy the Final Doom table to its own article at that point and get rid of it from this one. --Quasar (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * OK it's done; I think I caught all the links to here that should go to the new article. This article is improved a lot by being on topic about a single game, in my opinion. --Quasar (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Properties of NTSC television
Please review the following before making any further claims about NTSC resolution or pixel aspect ratios, as all of these articles directly contradict the claims being made: --Quasar (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2015 (CDT)


 * Turns out things are more complicated than those articles suggest; there are "pixel clocks" and overscan and side bars and a lot of highly technical bullcrap involved. Anyway I tracked down some posts from NES, SNES, and PSX emulator developers who state without any doubt that all of those consoles' 256x240 video signals behave in the same manner, and scale to roughly 293x240 (some sources state 292, apparently the truth is fuzzy due to the analog nature of the signal), and are then scanned onto the 4:3 screen, resulting in apparent pixels with the 8:7 ratio that Sodaholic likes to mention. The *image* is 4:3, it's important to understand that - but the pixels are 8:7, ie, slightly wider than they are tall. When the signal actually goes *out*, it has enough information to cover a 720x480 area, but there's overscan allowance on all sides. What you see will vary by CRT, unfortunately, and cannot be exactly quantified. --Quasar (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2015 (CDT)

Demon infighting
I know this port allows demons and spectres infight each other, for sure. However, I am not sure about theses nightmare spectres. Unfortunately, my real and unmodded PS1 console has the pickup worn and I cannot test if demons, spectres and nightmare spectres can infight each other.
 * They have the exact same AI, in fact demons, spectres, and nightmare spectres are the same mobj type. They just have some map flag that changes their render style and, for nightmare spectres, double their health. If something applies to the demon's behavior, it'll be true for the two spectres as well. --Gez (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2016 (CDT)
 * Yes, all demons and spectre variants can infight due to their tracer-based bite attack in this version, which carried over from Doom v1.2 with the Jaguar codebase. The blur sphere is the easiest way to get this to happen but blur spheres are also rare in PSX since they were removed from all the Jag levels and not restored even though PSX adds the item back to the game. --Quasar (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2016 (CDT)

Status Bar Face Differences
Is it worth describing the differences in the status bar face animations/their cues? The PS1 port has some noticeable differences to the PC version. Some examples like:

-The marine grits his teeth from continuous fire only with Chaingun and Plasma Rifle, none of the other weapons; whereas that occurs with all weapons in the PC original.

-He rarely, if ever at all, grits his face straight when hit by enemy attacks. He always looks left or right no matter how straight the direction of attack was.

-Grits his teeth the instant the player steps on a damaging floor, even if he hasn't yet lost any health; in the PC version, only once he starts taking damage from the floor does he make that face.

-Does the OUCH face when attacked from behind.

Some of these are also in the Jaguar port that this port is based off.Betabox (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2017 (CDT)


 * Status bar face has some of these already. There's no policy against redundancy, heaven knows, but that page has the advantage of taxonomizing all vanilla variations in a single discussion.    Ryan W (usually gone)
 * Oh ok. Yeah I wasn't aware of that page before. Now I added a couple of port-specific differences there.Betabox (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2017 (CDT)

Title change?
Since Quasar created a separate page for the PlayStation console, it occurs to me that the title of this page is a bit misleading since it refers to the console rather than to the game. I propose moving this page to Doom (PlayStation) or similar for consistency with other games that have been ported to PSX (see Final Doom (PlayStation) and Hexen (Sony PlayStation)). Gauss (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2022 (CDT)
 * Yes, there is a certain lack of consistency here. Note that we also have titles such as Doom for Game Boy Advance. In fact just look at Category:Commercial ports to see how generally we have just  as the article title, and only referring to "Doom ()" or "Doom for " when there are several games with important differences. It's certainly confusing and could use a rework that would go beyond just the Sony PlayStation page. --Gez (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2022 (CDT)


 * I am somewhat concerned that changing these long-term pages' locations might injure their SEO further, but then I'm not sure it's that great to begin with either so it's worth considering. --Quasar (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2022 (CDT)


 * If we do go through with this my "vote" is to use the "for" nomenclature and convert everything to that to be consistent. So for example:


 * Doom for Super NES
 * Doom for OS/2
 * This prevents many issues that arise with parenthesized names such as relative difficulty of typing and, in my opinion, just looks better. I'd dislike "Doom for Game Boy Advance" changing to "Doom (Game Boy Advance)" for example. When I created those it was with a deliberate eye toward breaking the previous treatment of only using platform names for the articles so that systems with multiple games on them could be treated properly (reminder the two articles were split from what *was* Game Boy Advance, which needed to instead become a Category:Platforms article about the system). --Quasar (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2022 (CDT)
 * Works for me. The naming inconsistency was a bit of a thorn in my eye too. --Xymph (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2022 (CDT)
 * I support that idea as well. Gauss (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2022 (CDT)
 * I'm likewise. --Taufan99 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2022 (CDT)