Difference between revisions of "Talk:Extramap.wad"

From DoomWiki.org

("Finished" map placement)
("Finished" map placement)
 
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
: TBH I am curious why this information is on this article in the first place. Given this is a canonical subject matter (documenting content that was part of the 3DO version's development archive), it should not be laden with user-generated content matter as well. It's perfectly fine for that map to be mentioned and linked here as a see also, and then have its own article. This would match with our usual approach. --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] ([[User talk:Quasar|talk]]) 09:18, 13 October 2019 (CDT)
 
: TBH I am curious why this information is on this article in the first place. Given this is a canonical subject matter (documenting content that was part of the 3DO version's development archive), it should not be laden with user-generated content matter as well. It's perfectly fine for that map to be mentioned and linked here as a see also, and then have its own article. This would match with our usual approach. --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] ([[User talk:Quasar|talk]]) 09:18, 13 October 2019 (CDT)
 +
 +
:: I didn't put a whole lot of thought into that. The map isn't that great to begin with, playability-wise, so a fixed version didn't seem a big enough deal to warrant its own article, either. It was a convenience call, basically. --[[User:Xymph|Xymph]] ([[User talk:Xymph|talk]]) 12:57, 13 October 2019 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 11:57, 13 October 2019

IWAD???[edit]

Looking at the 3DO WADs in a hex editor, it seems like all the map*.wad files (as expected) but also doom.wad are PWADs, whereas extramap.wad is the IWAD. This seems odd. Is this worth mentioning? -- HarJIT (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2017 (CDT)

"Finished" map placement[edit]

This edit comment got truncated after accidentally hitting Enter. I think the map view belongs with the Bugs section because the main topic of the article is the original map, and the "finished" map addresses the bugs described for it. --Xymph (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2019 (CDT)

TBH I am curious why this information is on this article in the first place. Given this is a canonical subject matter (documenting content that was part of the 3DO version's development archive), it should not be laden with user-generated content matter as well. It's perfectly fine for that map to be mentioned and linked here as a see also, and then have its own article. This would match with our usual approach. --Quasar (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2019 (CDT)
I didn't put a whole lot of thought into that. The map isn't that great to begin with, playability-wise, so a fixed version didn't seem a big enough deal to warrant its own article, either. It was a convenience call, basically. --Xymph (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2019 (CDT)