Error

3 hours ago, Uter Lokales said:

1 Heavenly Archangels will become part confirmed by Stratton in an interview in the summer of 2019

Yeah, 'maykr angels' in the codex. Of course if you take it literal like I think you are doing a lot of things, then I can't help you. But urdak is their heaven, and their archangels are not necessarily going to look like the ones in a biblical movie or something. He couldn't have said urdak or maykrs back then.

Quote

2 Sorry to write misinformation.  I wanted to write "Seraph in the Cloak", not "Seraph in the Cry"

Yeah no problem.

Quote

3 How do you even suggest that 3 maykrs with artifacts are Seraphim?  It’s just illogical when the game contains a seraph in a cloak and he looks like a man, not maykr

Seraph is not a man. And they are not cloaked ala hexen mages. A seraph is (usually) an angel. Seraphim is the plural, the red cloak dude is alone. It is very logical indeed, when (a) game codex says 'maykr angels' (b) gift of argent power lithograph is confirmed as being khan maykr and those angelic beings with him are easily maykrs by extension (c) the red cloak dude could easily be the wretch who we have no clue about at all yet (d) wretch is singular, seraphim is plural - there are 3 of those guys, seraphim came first and gave him 'power and speed' and maybe even a crucible, and the wretch later with a suit (praetor or earlier version) (e) crucible maykr has wings, khan maykr has too but usually has them tucked so the other 2 maykrs could have tucked wings too - angels have wings, and seraph is another word for angels/gods in different games that take different liberties. The lithograph also shows khan maykr and 3 angels, even though albeit their faces are a bit different from those 3 - still, they could be maykr drones or just a general representation to not give away too much info back then but its lear now from the codex entry maykr angels and the history of sentinel prime those angelic looking beings are khan and other non/specific maykrs (f) there is in fact nothing from hugo or anyone else that urdak maykrs and heavenly archangels are separate (g) your only issue seems to stem from the fact that you can't believe doom eternal can take its liberties and has to stick to preset ideas of heaven/gods/angels and that in its world, gods / angels / seraphim cannot all be part of the same thing without following mine or your hierarchy. All I am doing is following the info i have and connecting the dots. And that angels have to look exactly like angels with halos? Or be beneficial? Who says that? Khan maykr isnt good at all, and has a non typical angelic look, but with those wings and the codex saying maykr angels, its kinda obvious now. And no one at id has ever confirmed anything about the hooded figure, so this insistence on ppl wanting him to be the seraphim (which is plural anyways!) befuddles me.

Quote

4 Doom is still based on the bible.  For example, in the game there are 9 circles of hell or lords of hell  (for example, Avaddon and the Serpent) or even Lucifer himself.  Hugo said that Khan Maykr was one of the gods, but then became a fallen god.  This already means that she is not the creator of everything, because there are other "gods".  Personally, I think that in the game there is a classic God who created everything in the world, but this has not yet been confirmed

So doom just mentioned the 9 circles of hell and has to follow the bible in everthing else? Where is the icon of sin, the wraiths, the betrayer, the night sentinels, etc, in the bible? And I only remember him saying we will meet a god and their version of heaven. Either way, it doesn't disprove anything I said. If anything, the seraphim are all the gods collectively and she is indeed rogue that is great, the other 3 are the ones friendly to the slayer who gave him his powers, crucible etc. 

Quote

This is what Seraph looks like in Doom Eternal:

That is fan art, he doesn't look half angelic to me at all. For someone who seems to follow strict depictions, if i type in seraph or seraphim in google, only he will come up looking like this (because doom fans have already decided he is so, and I have done it already) He could be easily a seraph for doom devs and I could be wrong, of course. But I think he is the wretch and looks more like a mage / hell priest then an angel / seraph to me. Red cloaks are often used for mages, it doesn't mean he is by extension a fiery being with 6 wings (?!?) And seraphim is plural, this dude has been depicted as a kind of lone wolf so far.

From google

A seraph is a type of celestial or heavenly being originating in Ancient Judaism. The term plays a role in subsequent Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The singular "seraph" is a back-formation from the Hebrew plural-form "seraphim", whereas in Hebrew the singular is "saraph".

08.02.2020 в 22:40, Urdak5891 сказал:

Error 

Dr

5 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

I meant that the Seraph in the game looks like a person from the point of view of physiology, and these 3 maykr with artifacts are generally technogenic.  

Even demons in this game look 'technogenic'. No one from id has stated that dude is the seraph, only doom fans have assumed so. "Looks like a person from the point of view of physiology" Yes, indeed he looks more human than angelic/seraph like. But, if anything that only furthers my own hypothesis.

5 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

The figure in the cloak is precisely Seraphim, because he watches Slayer everywhere and has divine outlines.  Even on Doom Eternal art, you can see it (and he’s definitely not that Blacksmith, because he couldn’t get out of hell and watch Slayer in Argent D'nur)

Divine outlines? That is fanart you showed, in the original one from the game's outwork he has no halo or outlier and in haydens office all there is is some sort of outline that does not imply he is automatically an angel or a seraph. It could be to make him stand out in the picture. It's not a halo or wings. It looks more like a portal!!! The maykrs have WINGS and look exactly like angels/seraphs. The codex has an entry 'maykr angels'.

What blacksmith? (?!?!) What says he is from hell or had to make a trek from hell to d'nur? He could easily be an ex hell priest though, he looks more like a priest/mage than an angel/seraph to me. The suit was hell forged, it no where states this dude (if he is the wretch) forged it himself though, only gifted it. He could be very powerful and easily travel through hell and sentinel prime / d'nur and back though, and be a supernatural force without necessarily being a seraphim or angel. Does he look like an angel or seraph to you? Google angel and seraph and one can easily see what looks more angelic/seraph like, this dude or khan maykr with wings and those beings on the gift of argent power lithograph.

This guy looks like a mage from hexen or heretic, not a seraph / angel.

5 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

The game speaks of one Seraph and he bestowed the power of Slayer, and not in the plural "seraphim" (Look at the various localizations and everywhere in the singular)

Wrong

"In his crusade, the seraphim bestowed upon him terrible power and speed, and with his might he crushed the obsidian pillars of the Blood Temples."

I have no problem with you wanting to believe he is a seraph, but there are a lot of false statements being made here and everything *official* so far seems to point towards the maykrs being the angels/seraphim, and that dude is most likely the wretch. Now of course I could be wrong, but I am only insisting on making sure that you understand there is a difference between misquotes and misinformation and what has actually been confirmed so far. I see you are very passionate and smart but at the same time you also spread a little misquotes/misinfo and seem to make a lot of assumptions that are catered only towards your own ideas of heaven, hell and seraphs, while I make my assumptions too of course but based off of experience with other games I know that doom doesn't have to follow our bible to the t and also I draw conclusions from mostly what has been confirmed and is now 100% official as of today.

I mean, what I am trying to say is that the only thing I need now is that dude's name. Other than that the codex has already confirmed that angels and maykrs are the same for me. Now if for id a seraph and an angel are 2 separate things and a seraph is a mage to them, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

On 08.02.2020 at 23:45, Urdak5891 said:

 

 

Error

Dr

11 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

Once again, look at other localizations, and there it is “seraph”, and not “seraphim” (most likely due to incorrect English interpretation, but all the same in all the singular in all)

What do you mean? What other localizations? The game only mentions 'seraphim' once. Seraphim is a plural, not a singular. I don't chalk it down to a mistake on id's behalf. They are very well educated and I am sure they didn't write a codex and issue the game in a week without proofreading and fixing mistakes. 

Where else are seraphs mentioned in the game as of today? Nowhere. If i have missed something, please show me and others what you are talking about.

It's just really strange that on one hand you insist on traditional biblical interpretations and then for this one guy, who looks nothing like an angel or a seraph, you are willing to make an exception. It's almost as if you just want him to be the 'seraphim' (which again makes no sense, as that is a plurality not a singular) with no ifs and buts. Disregarding all the evidence at hand just because.

Either way, I am tired of this. We can only find out on March 20 now, and I will conceded I myself don't know 100% he isn't a seraph. One thing is for sure, angels and maykrs are one thing. The codex entry makes that very clear. And *usually* seraphim are angels. But doom could also take its liberties. 

All we need is a distinction between the seraphim and the wretch now. 

09.02.2020 в 00:08, Urdak5891 сказал:

Loten

Re

15 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

You didn’t understand me again.  In the English interpretation there is no exact definition of "Seraphim", because in Hebrew it is a form of seraphim in the plural, but still in other localizations in the singular, which means it is one Seraph)

No it is not. I didn't misunderstand something so simple. It's plural, end of. Seraphim or sarafim / saraphim in hebrew, is the plural / faction version and seraph / saraph / saraf in whatever language you want is the singular. The affix -im is the plural like -s in english. Or man and men, there is still a distinction.

Just now, Urdak5891 said:

 

On 09.02.2020 at 00:32, Urdak5891 said:

Dr

 

 

Error

I don't understand what you're fighting about. One of you is insisting that seraph is singular, and the other is insisting that seraphim is plural. So you both agree then. I don't get it.

16 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

Do you understand my words normally?  I looked at other localizations of the Doom 2016 codex and everywhere in the singular, and not in the plural (they could not be mistaken in any way, because they definitely ask the developers of the original codex about this).  The English interpretation is just a little confusing and accept this fact that the game was given the power of the Seraph, not the seraphim

Can you please quote these singular mentions of a 'seraph' in a the codex or provide a link? There is only one mention and it is clearly a plural 'seraphim'. 

The codex already refers to the maykrs as angels, gods and celestial porcelain beings. Them being referred to as the seraphim is not far fetched.

Going ahead and saying 'accept seraphim is singular because I say so' doesn't hold much weight and credibility. It's preposterous and also absurd.

There is nothing confusing about the english interpretation, it is suffixed with im like the jewish version to denote plurality.

I would certainly settle for status quo of 'we both cannot be sure that dude is not a seraph', but that's besides the point now because the codex used a PLURAL form and also there's way more evidence pointing towards the maykrs being them rather than that dude being a seraph (no evidence at all, actually) but I can't accept 'it is this because I say so' and I certainly can't see other mentions of a singular seraph in the entire codex, so why not provide evidence or a link?

9 minutes ago, Gez said:

I don't understand what you're fighting about. One of you is insisting that seraph is singular, and the other is insisting that seraphim is plural. So you both agree then. I don't get it.

No he is saying (a) seraphim is somehow singular (b) there are mentions of a singular seraph in the codex (there arent any)

It's also much more than that. The codex has an entry 'maykr angels' and the khan maykr and the crucible angel have wings. Seraphim are angels. Its a plural also. The red robed dude is alone and looks like a mage not an angel or seraph. There must be more of him then also, which of course is not impossible. My only issue is 'that guy is the seraphim (again plural) because' seems to be his only insistent argument here.

09.02.2020 в 00:57, Urdak5891 сказал:

 Error

 Dr

Just now, Uter Lokales said:

Here is one of the evidence.  I know this language pretty well and it is written “Seraph”, not “Seraphim” (you can also see for yourself with the help of a translator).  I looked at other languages, and there in the same way in the singular

Mate, the codex says 'seraphim' one time. That is it. One time. One mention, no more. Seraphim is plural, in both english and hebrew. And saraf and seraph/seraf is the singular. There is no confusion. 

https://www.yourdictionary.com/seraph

What language do you know well? Hebrew? The codex uses the ENGLISH derivative plural seraphim of the hebrew plural serafim.

Singular - english seraph, hebrew seraf/saraf

plural - english seraphim, hebrew serafim / sarafim

THat's it, I don't need to know hebrew or have an iq above 150.

The codex is speaking about a multiple faction of seraphs, or angels. Not a singular mage looking dude.

I've had enough. I know when I am having my leg pulled and when someone wants to go in circles and play games to win an internet argument. But next time, come up with something better than 'accept it because I told you so' You literally told me that.

It says seraphim when translated, that is plural.

8 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

Here is one of the evidence.  I know this language pretty well and it is written “Seraph”, not “Seraphim”

Really? I read it as "serafim".

09.02.2020 в 01:22, Гез сказал:

Gr error

 

 

Dr

Okay, so Russian uses the plural form of the loanword as a singular. Why not, this kind of things happen, I could list other examples in different languages. Things would have been simpler if you had started by explaining that.

32 minutes ago, Uter Lokales said:

in the plural of this noun will be "серафимы", that is, with the ending "Ы"

 

also google translator translated the word "серафим" to "seraph" :

Sorry but at this point how do i know you didn't doctor or photoshop that? My translate says seraphim still on google and also from russian to english its not as hard as from chinese or arabic to english, taking the letters from russian /ukrainian/ bulgarian / few other slavic languages to english is not that hard. 

Even if you didn't and I am wrong, and google translate doesnt distinguish between seraph and seraphim for that russian phrase,  that is the russian version only. Either way its moot. Id are american, they meant seraphim very very clearly. Not seraph. We will see on march 20. The waiting is torture. 

4 minutes ago, Urdak5891 said:

Sorry but at this point how do i know you didn't doctor or photoshop that? My translate says seraphim still on google and also from russian to english its not as hard as from chinese or arabic to english, taking the letters from russian /ukrainian/ bulgarian / few other slavic languages to english is not that hard. 

You can check Russian Wikipedia to see that they do indeed use серафимы for plural and серафим for singular. That's good enough for me. As I said, I know a lot of examples of plural loanwords becoming singular. (For example: have you ever talked about "a media" or "a data"? Yeah, the actual singulars are "medium" and "datum".)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Серафимы

7 minutes ago, Urdak5891 said:

Either way its moot. Id are american

Yep. The Russian translation is a translation, not the source, and it's the source that should be used as a reference.

1 minute ago, Gez said:

You can check Russian Wikipedia to see that they do indeed use серафимы for plural and серафим for singular. That's good enough for me. As I said, I know a lot of examples of plural loanwords becoming singular. (For example: have you ever talked about "a media" or "a data"? Yeah, the actual singulars are "medium" and "datum".)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Серафимы

 

Yep. The Russian translation is a translation, not the source, and it's the source that should be used as a reference.

I double checked and thats why I edited afterwards as like an indirect apology to him. Either way I am tired and my head hurts from this. I personally don't see that guy as a seraph, and there is too much evidence to the contrary. But only march 20 will confirm it for me at this point. I am not all knowing either

16 hours ago, Chezza said:

The OP didn't mention Doom 3. I suppose he doesn't mind the concept of the most realistic Doom marine to be linked to the most inhuman version.

This. To me he looked a lot like a much older doom marine from that angle.

Regardless of how accurate Doom represents Heaven or Hell, in some way it could be more about just including those elements without following the original canon/rules.

Basically a balance between "it looks and works like Heaven" and "its own version of it with additional elements".

This is one reason why the lack of story worked: Doom expanded its Hell rather visually and with some occasional text intermissions screens and level names, which can lead to interpretation of how Hell worked.

There's probably a lot that can be done with a Doom Heaven, whether or not it's taken from some biblical/ancient source, sc-fi/fantasy/supernatural/fiction elements or even some other mythologies.

23 hours ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

I don’t think this is when he was actually captured and then sealed up, since he already had the Preater suit by then and not his original armor. It was sealed up with him. More likely, the flashback is the priests finding him for the first time and obviously took a liking to him (before they sided with hell etc) and then taking him to the Sentinels. The priests have a direct connection to the Sentinels (even in blood), so a military that specializes in demon killing just like him would obviously be the first place they stuck him to root for his cause against Hell (little did they know it would bite them back after they turned). There is a sentinel-like figure retrieving the helmet as well.

 

Furthermore, that's probably where the Marauder comes in. He (and the other Night Sentinels) was handpicked from an early age for his demon killing abilities and fearlessness, and was probably a prominent leader of the force. The aspect that an outsider (human from earth with just a bunch of guns, no less) could just come in and run the demon-killing show and be respected as their leader would obviously upset those who earned their rank  and were born into the culture, hence probably why the Maurader calls him a "Usurper" and "False idol". He doesn't belong there, he's not from Argent D'nur, and probably earned his rank and status because "literally too angry to fucking die".

 

Anything is a theory at this point, but I would be very surprised at this point if it wasn't the same guy and the original games aren't tied into the lore somehow. There has to be a reason in interviews why they just snicker and go "lul just wait" when asked about it like they know something amazing you don't, instead of just saying "nah it's a reboot". 

 

I agree, your theory makes a lot of sense to me.

20 hours ago, oCrapaCreeper said:

?????????

It doesn't really get more "modern realistic doomguy video game face" than this. Even the hair, which looks black due to lighting, is infact brown when you brighten the footage and gameplay of that opening.

That is a fucking great angle of him. Where did you find this?

It's from the Battlemode trailer.

21 hours ago, NoXion said:

That would make him muffled, not mute. Although the idea of an FPS main character that talks like Kenny McCormick sounds like it could be amusing.

I wasn't being serious

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same guy from Doom 1 all the way to Eternal. We know for a fact that he's the same one from Doom 1 to 64. The end of Doom 64 is just too perfect for him to not be the same guy in 2016. Everyone reacts to him as if they know it was this badass who saved humanity and hates Demons. Why would they if it wasn't someone with a prior record of colossal ass kicking?

With all that said, I do not consider the Marine from Doom 3 to be part of this timeline at all. Doom 3 is a reimagined Doom 1, that's how I've always seen it. Nothing more.



Here's my shitty theory I have been sharing for a while:

Original timeline: (First Generation 1993-2004)

Ultimate Doom->Doom2->Final Doom (two split timelines or both canon)->Doom64 = Original Doom Marine, You.

Second timeline: (Second Generation 2004-2016)

Doom3->Doom2->Final Doom (two split timelines or both canon)->Doom64 = Original Doom Marine, You.    

                                                                       -

Other Marines in Doom3-> Resurrection/Lost Missions= Bravo Team Guy >Resurrection of Evil= Marine Combat Engineering Guy. Two years later.

Second alternate timeline: (Second Generation 2004-2016)

Doom RPG->Doom2->Final Doom (two split timelines or both canon)->Doom64 = Original Doom Marine, You.    

Other Protagonists in this timeline: Doom2 RPG = Stan Blazkowicz and friends. One year later.

Third timeline: (Third Generation 2016-Present)

First timeline->Doom2016->Doom Eternal

Second timeline->Doom2016->Doom Eternal

Second Alternate timeline->Doom2016->Doom Eternal

You can find many references to these timelines in Doom 2016.

Doom 2016 References:

To me, Doomguy (Classic), Doom Marine(Doom 3) and Doom Slayer(2016-Eternal) are the one and the same. I hope Id makes an interesting story in Doom Eternal about him as they have been working on that as the game suggests and not make him OG Doomguy just for simply fan-service. I don't need Daisy's pics or her cell or any other silly reference Doom Eternal is hinting to know He is the OG Doom Protagonist will all know and love. Guess, what about if he is not OG Doomguy you want?? I'm sure you will be very disappointed and all your dreams will be broken and those who said: "He is not Doomguy" would have won...

But what I see Doom Eternal won't let that to happen but I think it is not necessary to include hints if he is OG Doomguy or not. He is the Doomguy for me..

When I played Doom 3 and reached the final level, I realize that Doomguy was seeing a coffing with a Doomguy buried there. Even the Martian hero was Doomguy...