Talk:Doom cheat codes

I believe that the Doom 95 section should remain. For all but a tiny minority of gamers, AFAICT, Doom 95 *is* Doom and Doom II. Besides, it is not technically a source port, since id helped develop it; should we remove it from Source port cheat codes? Ryan W 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK most Doomers who know of source ports tend to categorize Doom95 as one, so IMO it is justified to have the Doom95 cheats on the source port cheats article as well. Janizdreg 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For all but a tiny minority of gamers -- I've not followed the rest of this discussion but this sound-bite struck me as odd. Do you really believe that? Although I'm not a modern-day gamer, at the time when doom95 was prevalent, I didn't use it in preference to the original EXEs, and I'd be suprised if anyone did. Was it the only EXE in the post-doom3 re-release? -- Jon Dowland 09:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't mean to sound argumentative. My point was that it has legitimate reason to be in both places, based on the intent of each article; and if we're going to delete one, why not remove it from Source port cheat codes, since other officially licensed versions (Mac Classic, PlayStation, etc.) are already absent?


 * "Do you really believe that?"  I, also, claim no special insight into the bleeding edge of PC gaming, but I have to ask what the alternatives are.  DOSBox?  Maintaining a non-XP system just for gaming?  A source port which isn't even bundled with a GUI?  Sounds like a lot of work and, in the second case, maybe a lot of pocket money as well.  (And "when Doom95 was prevalent" was a very, very long time ago in this context.)    Ryan W 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Omfgwtfbbq.png
Huh? Which cheat code makes rockets and cells fly through the air? Also, the particles and scorch marks suggest that a port is being used here; shouldn't it go in Source port cheat codes instead? Ryan W 22:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)