The "I GOT WIND WAKER!!!" thread

[A Black Falcon]

It didn't have dozens more, but it seemed to have more... so you, at least, were wrong. :)

Oh, I played more Zelda today. Sailed around, got the fire/ice arrows (you get both at once?) and got more story. The story of this game is quite good, right from the beginning... and the graphic style is good for how they executed the game. The sailing gets a little boring but its not too bad, and often you can just leave it for a few minuites as you sail straight and do something else... and the enemies are a repetive, but that's not a huge flaw.

The only major flaws are difficulty... and length.

[OB1]

No I won because he claimed that there were dozens of more enemies when the real number was just four or five or something.

[A Black Falcon]

You said WW had more so you weren't right either. Stop changing the facts to suit your argument...

Oh, I've been playing WW more. Now I'm heading towards the next dungon, after getting the fire/ice arrows and power bracelets... its a fun game. :)

[Darunia]

So fucking immature. I express that Ocarina had more enemies, and I loosely say dozens, so now he wants to say that all the while that was my argument. No fucking way, OB1, you're not pulling that. The clean, simple debates was:

DARUNIA: OoT has more varieties of enemy than WW.

OB1: No it does not.

That is the barebones fact, and I fucking won, EVERYONE agreed with me!

[A Black Falcon]

Lesson: Never generalize, or OB1 will insist that you meant every exact word and thus "prove" that you lose, even when its very, very clear who was right.

[OB1]

Oh that's right, I forgot about Darunia's precise words! He said that OoT has a greater variety of enemies on top of that "dozens" comment. That was also false! There were more variations of the same types of enemies in OoT than there were in WW. OoT and WW are about even when it comes to enemy variety, unless you count five different "flavors" of the same enemy (fire, ice, poison, etc.) as huge variety.

[A Black Falcon]

That is true, OoT does have more enemies that have multiple types. But those slimes are so, so prevalent that it could almost negates that (in numbers, at least)... :)

But still I'd say OoT has more raw types of enemies.

[OB1]

More raw types of enemies? What the hell does that mean?And the chu's (slimes) are super easy to kill and even easier to avoid.

[A Black Falcon]

I meant enemy types, even when you combine all variations of each enemy into one. In that case its definitely closer... but I think OoT still has the edge. If variations count, of course, OoT has far more.

Oh, beat the Earth Temple. Now I need to find some boots to get to the Wind Temple...

As for the game, its stupid that they have two sages. THERE ARE SIX! What happened to the other four? They are all just fine, but not mentioned?

[OB1]

You got your numbers all messed up. Even with all of the variations OoT only has WW beat by a handful of enemies. And the number of "raw" enemies is about the same. OoT just has more variations of the same enemies.

[A Black Falcon]

I'd ask for proof, but we all know how that turned out last time... :)

Lists don't work when both sides provide lists that say they are right.

[Darunia]

Even with all of the variations OoT only has WW beat by a handful of enemies.

Jesus tap dancing christ, he admitted it! He just admitted that OoT has "a handful of enemies" more...! This is incredible! I'm going to phone USA Today and the New York Times...I called Letterman and Fox News; they're both sending copters to whsik me to their studios. But don't get too excited... once OB1 realizes that he admits defeat in what he just said, he'll retract it.

Yes, two sages was sad. You can see all of the sages in the underground chamber below the Hyrule Castle (one of the most AWESOME parts of the game!), but suddenly they're all gone...? No Goron! Where am I in that game, my cameo is restricted to appearing on a stainglassed window?

[OB1]

Uh, Darunia? I admitted that about a month ago. But you still refuse to admit that you were wrong about this. Your argument was that OoT had dozens of more enemies than WW and that there was a greater variety of enemy types as well. Those two claims were proven false. Now let's see if you're big enough to admit that you're wrong.

[CartoonDevil]

Originally posted by OB1
Uh, Darunia? I admitted that about a month ago. But you still refuse to admit that you were wrong about this. Your argument was that OoT had dozens of more enemies than WW and that there was a greater variety of enemy types as well. Those two claims were proven false. Now let's see if you're big enough to admit that you're wrong.

Just my two cents.

This FAQ for OoT lists 56 enemy characters:

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/zelda_64_i.txt (written by Marshmallow, a very respected FAQ writer)

This FAQ for WW lists 24 enemy characters:

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/gamecube/...aker_l.txt (this FAQ is TWICE the size of any other WW FAQs, so you know the author added as many enemies as he could possibly find)

(You may have to copy and paste those links into a new browser, because I think GameFAQs now has some new link blocking technology on their servers).

Chalk one up for Darunia...while OB1 get's left out in the cold.

[OB1]

*sigh*

Those FAQs are wrong, and we estabished that over a month ago. WW's enemy count is actually around 50, with OoT being a few enemies higher.

[CartoonDevil]

Show me the post that "proves" wind waker has 50 enemy types, because I sure didn't see that many.

[OB1]

Go look it up yourself. We had this discussion a long time ago.

[A Black Falcon]

I sure don't remember any proof of WW having even 50 enemies... it sure feels closer to 25 then 50. But I'd like to see the proof either way.

And I don't know about the enemy list, but in the game WW sure has less variety than OoT did...

[OB1]

Oh for crying out loud, you have a terrible memory.

[OB1]

Here you go, punk. And remember that this isn't even a complete list:

1. Shark
2. Octorock
3. Peahat
4. Kargoroc
5. Green Chu Chu
6. Red Chu Chu
7. Blue Chu Chu
8. Yellow Chu Chu
9. Black Chu Chu
10. Pig Moblins
11. Green-tone Moblins
12. White Moblins
13. Warrior Moblins
14. Normal Keese
15. Fire Keese
16. Red Wizrobe
17. Master Wizrobe
18. Armos
19. Darknut
20. Spike
21. Morth
22. Mothula
23. Deku Baba
24. Peahats
25. Armor Night
26. ReDeads
27. Poes
28. Floormasteres
29. Shadow Ganon
30. Beamos
40. Rats
41. Miniblins
42. Fire bubble
44. Blue Bubble
45. Stalfos
46. Warship
47. Guyoogu
48. Big Octo
49. Golden Darknut
50. Mighty Darknut
51. Magtails
52. Seagat
53. Blue Wizrobe

Bosses:
54. Gohma
55. Kalle Demos
56. Gohdan
57. Phantom
58. Helmaroc King
59. Jalhalla
60. Molgera

Ganon Bosses:
61. Black Boar
62. Arachnid
63. Centipede
64. Ganondorf

[A Black Falcon]

Oh, I'm in the Private Cabana. Sliding block puzzles? Whyyyyy? And 18 of them? No way would I do all that even for something good... doing one was quite a pain... I hate sliding block puzzles...

Okay, so that list has 53 enemies. But minus four of the five ChuChu colors and you've got 49. :)

Oh, what are Darknuts? The knights in armor with the big target on their back, or are those Moblins? And are those two varieties actually different or are they like chuchus? Same with Wizrobe... are they really different?

Oh, and why isn't that a complete list?

Which is the shark=like thing in the water? What about the small guys in the water that might be octos but aren't Big Octos? I don't know the names...

And what about OoT? The only good list I remember seeing included bosses and stuff...

[OB1]

I got the list from a German gaming site, so some of the names are screwed up. And there are a few more enemies missing but I don't want to spend forever looking for them.

The shark-like thing is #1, ABF.

[A Black Falcon]

Well they often have funny names. :)

[OB1]

Darknut = Dark Knight.

[A Black Falcon]

Oh, that REALLY helps explain which enemies they are...

So, what I've got next is the Wind Temple. Then collecting triforce shards and maps... I have one map so far (and I did get it translated).

[Darunia]

And there are a few more enemies missing but I don't want to spend forever looking for them.

Is this the same respectable OB1 who bitched me out for not leaping to me feet and testing the perimeters of both Zeldas...? He can do that, but not find a decent roster of enemies for two games. Hmm....maybe because he knows what the stats will proove?

Counting Ganon as four bosses...hmm...nah. He's one with different stages. You're grasping at straws here, buddy...and despite your sarcastic rolling-of-the-eyes, we all know damn well that you'red cornered here. Again. Then you claim that I am wrong for saying that OoT has more variety...may I ask, HOW DID YOU DEDUCE THAT I'M WRONG? How do you measure variety? I think that OoT does have much more variety; there are ice-based baddies, and all manner of baddies unique to their respective temples. WW pales in comparison. Besides that, the argument wasn't HOW MANY more enemies OoT has, but the fact that it HAD MORE, PERIOD. You said it didn't. A few posts back, you said:

Uh, Darunia? I admitted that about a month ago.

Yet only a day or two ago, you claimed that I'd never won a debate against the illustrious you. Well, have I, or haven't I?

[Great Rumbler]

Uh...How about both of you guys just let that particular arguement go. It's gone on way too long, so just chalk it up to experience gained and lessons learned, although I doubt either occured during that debate.

Uh oh...I feel it coming on! It's Song Time!!

*rolls out a piano*

HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!
HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!
HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!
HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!
HAPPY HAPPY JOY JOY!!

Ten points to whoever guesses where that song came from.

[Darunia]

Ren & Stimpy. And no, I for one won't let it go until that arrogant kobold acknowledges that I was right.

[OB1]

Is this the same respectable OB1 who bitched me out for not leaping to me feet and testing the perimeters of both Zeldas...? He can do that, but not find a decent roster of enemies for two games. Hmm....maybe because he knows what the stats will proove?

It's because finding a 100% complete enemy list takes lots of internet research, while finding the size of the worlds in WW and OoT takes playing really fun Zelda games. Think about it for a second, if that's possible.

Counting Ganon as four bosses...hmm...nah. He's one with different stages. You're grasping at straws here, buddy...and despite your sarcastic rolling-of-the-eyes, we all know damn well that you'red cornered here. Again.

I count the last Ganon fight as four seperate bosses because they're four distinctly different forms that move differently, need to be fought differently, and look very different from each other. That's also why I count OoT's last boss as two enemies, even though they're the same guy.

Then you claim that I am wrong for saying that OoT has more variety...may I ask, HOW DID YOU DEDUCE THAT I'M WRONG? How do you measure variety? I think that OoT does have much more variety; there are ice-based baddies, and all manner of baddies unique to their respective temples. WW pales in comparison. Besides that, the argument wasn't HOW MANY more enemies OoT has, but the fact that it HAD MORE, PERIOD. You said it didn't. A few posts back, you said:

Wow, so is this how to try to win arguments? By completely changing the details of what the argument is about? Real good move, Darunia.

The argument had two sides to it. One, that OoT has dozens of more enemies than WW, and two, that OoT has a greater variety of enemies. Seven different flavors of the same enemy is not "lots of variety". The reason why OoT has a few more enemies than WW is because they made more "flavors" of enemies than WW. If you were to only count the "raw" enemies as ABF put it, the games would have just about the same exact number of enemies, with WW possibly pulling up in the lead.

You lost, Darunia. Give it up.

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by Darunia
And no, I for one won't let it go until that arrogant kobold acknowledges that I was right.

*shrugs* Well, no one can say I didn't try.

What we need is for someone to go back to where the debate started and find out what the exact wording was of Darunia's post.

[A Black Falcon]

First, bosses with different froms are bosses with different forms. Not seperate bosses. Ganon and Ganondorf in OoT are the same boss... just two forms. Just like any multi-form boss in any videogame. Like LA, for example... that final boss has 5 or 6 forms, but is one boss, for sure.

Second, Darunia is undeniably right that OoT has far more variety of enemies you fight. WW has some variety, but you run into the same ones again and again, no matter where you are... OoT did a much better job of having variety and location-specific enemies.

WW just doesn't have anywhere near as much variety of enemies as OoT had. I can't see how you can possibly argue that point. And its our main arguement. Making you WRONG.

[OB1]

Oh wow, your argument is just so compelling that I have no choice but to admit defeat.

I did the checking and I found out the truth (as always), so there are actual facts on my side. But what do you have? Not a damn thing. You're only argument is "nope, you're wrong!".

OoT does not have a greater variety of enemies than WW, it's just that you fight enemies much more often so of course you're going to see the same ones over and over.

But this debate is completely useless and will never end because you will never admit that you're wrong. Just take a look at every single debate you have with Weltall in the debate forum. You get proven wrong again and again but never want to admit it. It's very tiring.

[A Black Falcon]

Weltall proven me wrong on anything? Uh... I'd say that its exactly the other way around... and yes, it does get very tiring that he never will admit anything even when clearly proven wrong... not that I expect anything different from him.

Sure, WW does have more enemies so there is more repetition. But that's not the whole story! OoT just has more variety! Or it sure felt that way. Maybe that's wrong... I doubt it... but it sure felt that way, and that's important... WW is a lot of fun but the same enemies come up again and again and again -- far more often than OoT even when you consider that WW has more enemies to fight.

And the bosses thing really is opinion which we just have to agree on.

[OB1]

Well okay, if you want to consider the Ganon bosses as one boss, fine. See? I can admit defeat.

But I am positive about this whole variety thing. You have your doubts, but I don't. And do you know why that is? Because I did the damn research!!

[A Black Falcon]

Well if it has more variety they sure did a GREAT job of hiding that fact behind legions of Moblins and other frequently repeating enemies to a greater extent than is in OoT or MM.

[Darunia]

Wow, so is this how to try to win arguments? By completely changing the details of what the argument is about? Real good move, Darunia.

Beats me, buddy, thats how you do it. Our argument was over which game had more types of enemy; just which had more basic types. You then bet on the wrong horse and lost, so you said "oh, well, uh, it doesn't have DOZENS more, and that was the REAL argument all along!"

The argument had two sides to it. One, that OoT has dozens of more enemies than WW, and two, that OoT has a greater variety of enemies. Seven different flavors of the same enemy is not "lots of variety"

...we're not talking ice cream here...how many separate, respectable varieties of an enemy can you POSSIBLY have in a game...? Basically, only as many as you can make up elements for...water, earth, fire, ice, shadow, light, air-bound...running out yet?

The reason why OoT has a few more enemies than WW is because they made more "flavors" of enemies than WW.

Does it matter WHY OoT had more, the fact is, and you once more admitted, that it has MORE!!

If you were to only count the "raw" enemies as ABF put it, the games would have just about the same exact number of enemies, with WW possibly pulling up in the lead.

Okay, professor meatwad, why don't you use your fabled magic research and show us this "raw" bullshit you're trying to shove down our throats.

You lost, Darunia. Give it up.


*ROLLS EYES TO THE 10TH POWER*


Because I did the damn research!!

Ooooh, such strong emphasis on research, it must be true...just let me put on my glasses, and flip through this folder here of....your submitted....resear.....no, I'm sorry, there's nothing here but a bloated list of WW baddies, of which you yourself admittedly said was elongated when you admitted that the final boss is only one. Do you also count the chus separately?

[OB1]

Beats me, buddy, thats how you do it. Our argument was over which game had more types of enemy; just which had more basic types. You then bet on the wrong horse and lost, so you said "oh, well, uh, it doesn't have DOZENS more, and that was the REAL argument all along!"

You just said that the debate was about which game has more enemy types, and you lost that debate. I provided proof that you are wrong, and you did nothing but say "nope!".

...we're not talking ice cream here...how many separate, respectable varieties of an enemy can you POSSIBLY have in a game...? Basically, only as many as you can make up elements for...water, earth, fire, ice, shadow, light, air-bound...running out yet?

We're talking about variations on the same types of enemies, dummy. Like Fire Keese, Ice Keese, Poison Keese, etc.

Does it matter WHY OoT had more, the fact is, and you once more admitted, that it has MORE!!

It has a few more total enemies than WW does, but that wasn't what the argument was about. It was about which one had the greatest variety of them. Go look that word up, it might help you understand what's going on here.

Okay, professor meatwad, why don't you use your fabled magic research and show us this "raw" bullshit you're trying to shove down our throats.

Um... you do know that this topic is about two months old and was already covered in your Wind Waker thread, right? Go read through that whole thing and you'll find what you're looking for.

Ooooh, such strong emphasis on research, it must be true...just let me put on my glasses, and flip through this folder here of....your submitted....resear.....no, I'm sorry, there's nothing here but a bloated list of WW baddies, of which you yourself admittedly said was elongated when you admitted that the final boss is only one. Do you also count the chus separately?

If you don't count the bosses in both games and take away all of the enemy variations, both games have about the same number of enemies. And the list I posted was actually missing some enemies.

[A Black Falcon]

OoT has more enemies when you count all the variations of each enemy in the list.

I'm not sure which has a longer list when you don't. Might be WW.

But unlike Darunia, that isn't what I'm really concerned about... they are close. So there is no excuse for WW having such a awful repetition of enemies that OoT didnt. With the same number of enemies they could use just as much variety...

And no, its not all just "WW has more enemies". It does, true. But it doesn't just have larger groups -- some enemies just repeat far, far more (in groups or no)! And its annoying!

Oh, and its funny to watch OB1 try to deny that he lost this arguement a month ago... :D

[OB1]

Here we go again. You idiots have forced me to crack out the sign language for the second time. NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION!!!

[A Black Falcon]

Er... that proves what? You have way too much time? :)

Seriously... I think this debate has several parts, and no one involved wants to admit that all the parts exist.

First, it was about variation. And the arguement that WW has less enemy variation than OoT. And when you play OoT then WW, it SURE feels like that is the case. I'd put how it feels to me at least as important as how the actual facts are... because when it feels like I'm fighting the same guys time and time again it gets annoying. Not overly annoying or anything... its not like this is some big issue to me. Its not. But just a little bit annoying.

Honestly. After playing WW, as I've said, there is just one issue were WW's problems are above the "just a little annoying" level, and that's difficulty. But the other slightly annoying issues? Nothing big... just small things that make it slightly, but not all that much, less fun.

Like how you fight so many Moblins. It gets tiring. The other enemies seem to be decently proportioned in ratios similar to enemies in OoT (lots of birds, skeletons, Deku Babas in forests, etc, etc...), but then the game adds dozens of Moblins of various types on top of that. I think they should have made a couple more location-specific (or at least varying in look) enemies instead of 3 Moblin varieties that you fight a thousand times each.

OoT has nothing like that.

Now, you make the (valid) point that OoT had little equilivant of that -- the sword fights are few are far between in that game. True. But when they are there, the enemies are often unique. Given how much sword fighting WW has, that goal is obviously out of reach.

BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE VARIED, THAT'S FOR SURE.

That's about all I'm trying to say...

Do you honestly think I agree with Darunia that this is some horrible game-killing fault or something?

[OB1]

Well the way you bitch and moan about it, yes. I do think that.

And I would much rather fight five hundred moblins than twelve stalfos. I like my Zelda fighting.

[A Black Falcon]

I just find it really annoying, OB1. I make posts that try to show what parts of a good game I didn't like all that much. Then you jump on it and make it out to be like I think that the game is awful and I think those are massive flaws on the level of Majora's Mask's day/save system or something... which IS JUST NOT TRUE!

I'm just saying what parts of a good game I dislike! Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And I don't mind some Moblins, but I'd rather if there were far more Lizardmen, Stalfos (are those the stone statues or the skeletons with swords and shields? And what's the name of those other guys? Well, both of them. :) ), Iron Knuckles, etc. mixed in with them... its just too many Moblins. No other Zelda game had a tenth this many of them... its the first time that a major enemy was really that overused, I'd say.

Oh, one thing. Those Moblins would have been more fun (just like the rest of the game) if they were CHALLENGING! But they aren't, so it gets tiresome... but make them a challenge, and throw in some more variety, and it'd be great...

[OB1]

You complained about this whole Moblin thing a lot more than you complained about the MM thing.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't think so. This is just one arguement and I've complained about WW's faults in many over the years... it doesn't really compare, I'd say.

Oh, on that subject... WW got me to play some MM. I didn't get anywhere (it took me quite a long time to figure out how to do what I've done before to get to the next part... and only remembered with the help of GameFAQs...), but did clear a Spider House. Other than that all I did was say "I really should do that next step" (which is to go into the music-box house after turning on the river, then getting a mask from the guy in the basement, then finding a fish and 5 magic beans (uh, WHERE DO YOU BUY THOSE THINGS? I have no clue anymore, and don't want to spend two hours wandering around trying to find where you get them... :( ) to be able to clear that stupid well.

It reminded me how great that game is in some ways.

Graphically... amazing. If I forget nostalgia, I'd say that it probably beats OoT... it doesn't have the size or epic scope of that game, but most of the five areas it has are better than their OoT counterparts in design, 'coolness', style, etc... I'd take the MM town, water area, Goron area, and hills/desert/whatever over their OoT equilivants. OoT only has the advantage with Hyrule Field and the Kokiri area -- I'd admit that the swamp in MM has a LOT more to do in it, but I just didn't like it all that much... and the Kokiri area of OoT is a great part. :)

I have to say that MM is probably a great candidate for 'best graphics on the n64'.

But why was I annoyed so much that I quit? Its all the things I've mentioned before -- how everything resets when time does. I save the world (or part of it...) but an hour later its all back to the way it was. I open the river in Ikana... and have to do it every time. I find the items I need for the well... but don't get down there in time so I have to reset time and I lose them all, thus making me waste a lot more time getting them AGAIN. I hurry though dungeons with the aid of a walkthrough just so I don't have to start them over from scratch. I always have this time limit hanging over my head, and know that I can't stop to look at the scenery for very long because I'll run out of time on the tasks I'm trying to do and will have to spend another while collecting items again. Its remembering that once again you forgot to deposit money when you had a lot of it and your bank account is thin...

Its all those things and more, and they just add up. It just gets so, so frusterating that the greatness of the game itsself was, for me, almost lost... :(

[Darunia]

You just said that the debate was about which game has more enemy types, and you lost that debate. I provided proof that you are wrong, and you did nothing but say "nope!".

What...the FUCK are...you talking about...? OoT has more types, Moiraine & I both got lists to prove it way back when this first began. You provided a smaller WW list. It was obvious...you're just...either mistaken, or lying out your ass.

We're talking about variations on the same types of enemies, dummy. Like Fire Keese, Ice Keese, Poison Keese, etc.

Maybe you are, "dummy", but I'm not.

It has a few more total enemies than WW does, but that wasn't what the argument was about. It was about which one had the greatest variety of them.

...now thats just a downright lie. The argument was about which had more varieties of enemy...I remember because when it first came out, my arguments were: crappy ending, repitition of Moblins, and lack of types of enemy. You countered everyone of those, including the types of enemy...saying that WW had more than OoT. Moiraine will remember, too; we both provided lists, and you did too, and EVERYONE agreed that OoT had MORE....it was NOT about variety, you recently added that.

Um... you do know that this topic is about two months old and was already covered in your Wind Waker thread, right? Go read through that whole thing and you'll find what you're looking for.

I can't find that thread, and do you really think you're smarter than anyone else everything you (ROLL YOUR EYES) and (SAY 'UMMM...) ...? You must suffer from an inferiority complex to be so blatantly arrogant.

If you don't count the bosses in both games and take away all of the enemy variations, both games have about the same number of enemies. And the list I posted was actually missing some enemies.

There's some possibility that you're correct, but we do count enemy variations; and even if we didnt, OoT would still have WW beat by some margin.

[A Black Falcon]

The only question is, who really cares if its WW or OoT with two or three more enemies?

Now if the difference is like 10 or something it'd be significant... but I don't think it is. So why does it really matter?

[OB1]

What...the FUCK are...you talking about...? OoT has more types, Moiraine & I both got lists to prove it way back when this first began. You provided a smaller WW list. It was obvious...you're just...either mistaken, or lying out your ass.

But of course, Darunia. Whatever you say. And that list Moiraine listed was filled with several mistakes. She even listed a bunch of enemies twice. Seriously!

Maybe you are, "dummy", but I'm not.

*clap clap clap clap clap* Well said!

...now thats just a downright lie. The argument was about which had more varieties of enemy...I remember because when it first came out, my arguments were: crappy ending, repitition of Moblins, and lack of types of enemy. You countered everyone of those, including the types of enemy...saying that WW had more than OoT. Moiraine will remember, too; we both provided lists, and you did too, and EVERYONE agreed that OoT had MORE....it was NOT about variety, you recently added that.

I might have originally said that, but the real debate was about which game had the greater variety of enemies. That is what you complained about, and you lost that debate.

I can't find that thread, and do you really think you're smarter than anyone else everything you (ROLL YOUR EYES) and (SAY 'UMMM...) ...? You must suffer from an inferiority complex to be so blatantly arrogant.

Because I like to use smilies?



:wave:

There's some possibility that you're correct, but we do count enemy variations; and even if we didnt, OoT would still have WW beat by some margin.

Nope, nope and uh... one more nope for good measure.

Wow, this arguing technique that you and ABf use so often is really great! I don't even have to follow up on my nopes!

[OB1]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The only question is, who really cares if its WW or OoT with two or three more enemies?

Now if the difference is like 10 or something it'd be significant... but I don't think it is. So why does it really matter?

No, it doesn't! Which is precisely why I want to close this stupid topic. Now I'll let both of you have the last word and then I'll close it. Isn't that fair? Move on to another damn thread.

[Darunia]

My dear ABF, it doesn't matter to me in the LEAST which has more...it DOES matter to me, however, that OB1's enormous ego gets in check for once. None of you bastards will ever do it, so I've taken it upon myself. More than that, I'm right, and I'm going to prove it.

[OB1]

Knock yourself out, man.