Talk:Final boss

Name

The article mention the final boss is called "Baphomet" in Final Doom manual, so I checked it myself:

So I checked Final Doom manual reference that was mentioned in the article:

Though the invasion had been stopped, and the remaining demons were gradually being exterminated by mopping-up squads, it was clear that the powers of Hell remained strong. While the Spider Mastermind and Baphomet seemed to no longer threaten, who knew what else lay Outside? Waiting. Watching. Preparing.

This by no means is trying to conceive a name for it, but instead is just a reference to it. So I think it would be valid to call him that way in the article, it is by far the closest to an official name we could get. But I am aware of this Wiki unbias principle.

Fox666 20:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we switch names to Icon of Sin? Romero calls it the Icon of Sin, I don't see why we wouldn't. 98.180.53.178 03:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Final boss" is a compromise between the half-dozen semi-canonical names this entity has. Ultimately we go by what the game has to say and the game doesn't say anything clear about it. The closest thing the game itself has to call it is "The biggest demon you've ever seen." What Romero thinks is nice but has proven unreliable in the past (see his opinion on whether or not MARBFAC2 is the Arch-vile shifting unreliably over the years). This article needs to stay where it's at. --Quasar 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Icon of Sin" is ambiguous since it is also a map name. Final boss is not ambiguous. --Gez 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Baphomet

Suggest anyone's first reference be Baphomet when suggesting the name in the Final Doom manual wasn't meant to refer to the final boss of Doom II. Remember that the face used for the final boss came from the MARBFACE texture in Doom, where it had a pentagram inscribed over it. The use of the so-called "Sabbatical goat" (itself based on the Horned God of pagan traditions) within a containing pentagram has been a European occult tradition at least since Eliphas Levi, and carried on by other magicians and occultists like Aleister Crowley and the founders of the Church of Satan. In the modern day you have heavy metal bands borrowing such iconography as symbols of rebellion, giving inspiration to folks like Adrian Carmack. --Quasar 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the boss brain with a hitscan weapon in stock levels

I'm sure I wrote about this in this article. Someone seems to have removed this information. Why not talk about it? This trick is cool.

youtu.be/unA4suMiu0g?t=1m17s

--Axdoomer (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (CST)

Data

Why isn't there any data for this enemy? I was curious about how many hit points the romero head has but this page omits that info for some reason. edit: I see the info is on the Romero's head page, but that one isn't listed in the "Monsters from Doom and Doom II" category at the bottom. --Linguica (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2017 (CDT)

irrelevant part about John Milton's Paradise Lost and greek Mythology

I don't understand, what's the point of this part? Do you want to impress people with the books you read from your high school's required reading list?

" A monster spawner in front of the head launches spawn cubes. This is reminiscent of how Satan gives birth to his daughter Sin in John Milton's Paradise Lost in that she is born out of his head (a parthenogenesis originally based on Zeus and his own daughter, Athena).[1]"

This is completely irrelevant to the article and this idea of a head spawning demons is not unique at all. It's not that special. Unless the developers said that they were inspired from these sources, I see no point in mentioning this tripe. It's nonsensical and idiotic. The author of this quoted part should stick to reading cooking recipes. 5.12.80.218 08:44, 14 January 2019 (CST)

I removed this part. 5.12.80.218 08:44, 14 January 2019 (CST)

I'm inclined to agree, I think it's irrelevant.--lil'devil (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2019 (CST)

I absolutely disagree. --Quasar (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2019 (CST)

Rework of the introductory sentence of the article

Right now, the introductory (first) sentence looks like that:

"The final boss (often informally called the Icon of Sin because of the Doom II level of which it is a part) is the final boss of Doom II, in MAP30: Icon of Sin."

It looks readable at the first glance, but overall it looks weird. By grammatical rules, a word or a sub-string in round brackets is used as a quick clarification of some minor question while staying in the same context. That means, it can be removed and the sentence will not lose its original point. I remove this, and all I get is "The final boss is the final boss of Doom II, in MAP30: Icon of Sin.", which is objectively not a good intro of what an article beginning a user would expect to read.

I think it should be reworked, but I cannot pick a better sentence (or paragraph rework) right away, to keep "Icon of Sin" as the second nickname close to the primary one (which is "final boss"), yet not to bring a generic definition of who typically is a final boss in games. Do you have any ideas? - Dimon12321 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

What I would like to know is, is the name "Icon of Sin" really considered informal? Isn't that just what the thing is called and "final boss" is more of a technical term for it? Maybe that wasn't the case at the beginning but at this point it seems to me that it's pretty much exclusively referred to as "Icon of Sin", both formally and informally, whenever it's mentioned anywhere both inside and outside of the community. --Gregor (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

→ "The final boss (often called the Icon of Sin after the level it appears in) is the boss enemy encountered in the final level of Doom II, MAP30: Icon of Sin."
How about that? --Gregor (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2024 (CDT)

Oh, that's more appealing! Dimon12321 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2024 (CDT)