Oh come on. Fairly informative and correct for the most part except for the title and main argument. Still, it is about Doom and binary partitions, so thats all OK.

Anything on a flat monitor is "just faking" 3D.

Yes, Doom levels could still be designed in plan view, but the in-game display of the floors, walls and ceilings is a very rudimentary, but definitely 3D, experience. Displayed objects have an obvious X, Y and Z coordinate. The Z coordinate was not used for aim (people had not got used to using a mouse for aim at that point) but it was used for display and movement.

Also forgot to complain about flat sprite monsters.

No Doom was not "computed like any other 2D game", or rather it partly was, but then on top of that it was displayed in 3D, which was a big deal back then. Yes, fake 3D, on a monitor, but definitely 3D.

Quake ran in plain VGA so the argument about 3D accelerators falls rather flat :-)

Interesting video, but games like Wolfenstein and Doom will always be at least 2.5D to me. What the player finally sees is what matters to most people I think, but how we get there is still a cool story.

I guess its a really long winded way of saying "these games don't have a z coordinate".

but yah, its all abstraction and illusion. Maybe in the future somebody will make a holovid about how the games of the early 21st didn't have lightning or shadows because they weren't ray-traced or something.

Jinx: Wolfenstein 3D did not have a Z coordinate, in Doom one could set floor and ceiling height and specify how far down/up the walls should extend. Players and monsters would then correctly follow the floor level (or fly).

The 3D environment (think of it as being inside a box rather than on top of a playing field) was correctly displayed from a first person perspective and you could move in it in all 3 directions. Aiming and shooting (and lighting and determining LOS) was 2D.

Wolfenstein - 3D display, 2D movement and aim.
Doom - 3D display and movement, 2D aim.
Quake - 3D all three counts. And mouselook.

All other FPSs ever - small improvements in graphics and gameplay :-)

It is like this guy bought the game, played it for 1000s of hours, for years and years, then jumped on the internet to tell everyone how he was ripped off.

Monsters in Doom didn't really fly. All characters extended from the floor to the ceiling even if they didn't look like it. If you tried walking under one of the "flying" monsters, you would run into an invisible wall. This was also noticeable in multiplayer. I remember playing deathmatch with a friend and when he went up an elevator to grab a power up, I ran and sat at the bottom of the elevator waiting to surprise him when he jumped down. He couldn't jump down, because my character was blocking him even though he couldn't see me down at the bottom of the elevator.

Doom's levels, as far as the computer was concerned, were still a flat sheet of paper, and the player and monsters were just little 2D sprites moving on top of the paper.

You obviously missed the spiel at the end where he explicitly said that the trickery involved to give the effect was not a downside, it was an example of extreme creativeness. There has been a constant struggle to do more with less in terms of improving games and pushing boundaries.

At no point did he say he felt ripped off... = \

No, I did catch that part. I was just trying to address the tone of the first 8 or so minutes. I have heard these kinds of rants before, where someone is technically correct about what they going on about, but they make it sound like it was such a burden to them as they hate-played a game for more hours than I seemed to put into it. It is just such a weird approach.