26th August 2003, 5:22 AM
OB1. We all have CLEAR memories that you said WIND WAKER HAS MORE ENEMIES. You said that. Then do you remember that you posted some lists of enemies... except that in your list WW had more because you posted incomplete lists, then we had to go around and find better ones to prove that you and your lists were both wrong? No? Well I sure do...
Then when you lost that you switched it to "but WW has more different types and OoT has more varieties of the same enemies"... a point that might (or might not) be accurate, I'm not sure... since we never really had COMPLETE enemy lists from both WW and OoT. Don't try to say we did... but that's not the point. The point is that you lost, but then tried to change the arguement so that you could win! Ridiculous... but you're wrong either way, so it just makes you look foolish.
Both games have a bunch of enemies that are slight variations on eachother. Does OoT have more? Yeah, probably. But not so dramatically more that it negates the fact that it has more enemy types...
And sure OoT has far fewer enemies, but it has enemies who can actually BEAT you sometimes, which counts for a LOT!
There is visual manipulation of the pictures the game's text describes as you go through the game... in words, but that's not much different at all from a game with pictures and a text parser -- its just got text descriptions, instead of pictures. Oh yeah, such a big difference there that the first isn't even a game!
He's got you there... :)
Interesting... quite possible. It certainly would make more sense than saying that videogames require pictures, which is a ridiculous idea from any way I can see it...
909 - Fundamentalists everywhere
Then when you lost that you switched it to "but WW has more different types and OoT has more varieties of the same enemies"... a point that might (or might not) be accurate, I'm not sure... since we never really had COMPLETE enemy lists from both WW and OoT. Don't try to say we did... but that's not the point. The point is that you lost, but then tried to change the arguement so that you could win! Ridiculous... but you're wrong either way, so it just makes you look foolish.
Both games have a bunch of enemies that are slight variations on eachother. Does OoT have more? Yeah, probably. But not so dramatically more that it negates the fact that it has more enemy types...
And sure OoT has far fewer enemies, but it has enemies who can actually BEAT you sometimes, which counts for a LOT!
Quote:Ah, but what if I consider changing directories to be a really fun game? My point is that something cannot be considered a video game is there is no visual manipulation involved.
There is visual manipulation of the pictures the game's text describes as you go through the game... in words, but that's not much different at all from a game with pictures and a text parser -- its just got text descriptions, instead of pictures. Oh yeah, such a big difference there that the first isn't even a game!
Quote:What the hell? Tic-Tac-Toe came out decades before DOS did you idiot.
He's got you there... :)
Quote:Oh, and I don't know where you got your definition of a videogame from (Dictionary.com I'm assuming), but originally, they were called videogames because it was an appartus that displays games using RASTER VIDEO equipment: a television set, a monitor, etc.
Interesting... quite possible. It certainly would make more sense than saying that videogames require pictures, which is a ridiculous idea from any way I can see it...
909 - Fundamentalists everywhere
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}