The One Thousand Most Annoying Things Ever!!

[OB1]

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!

Yes yes, that was one of the original arguments which I stood by because I got incomplete lists from Gamefaqs. Then Moiraine brought in a fake list (it was fake because it listed certain enemies multiple times and even made up some!) which prompted Darunia to say that there are around "ten times" or so more enemies in OoT than in WW, which I proved to be false. I got a 100% complete enemy list for OoT, but not of WW. There were a few enemies missing from my WW list, and when you compared those two lists there were only five or six more enemies in the OoT list than in the WW list, which disproved Darunia's original claim. Then if you take into consideration that there were a few enemies missing from the WW list, the number is almost identical.

And for the record, the only time I ever died to an enemy in OoT was during boss fights. The regular enemies in OoT were very easy to fight.

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!

Writing text on a screen does not count for visual manipulation! You are describing what you do in text-based games, not actually manipulating images! There is a HUGE difference between actually manipulating and image on screen and just WRITING about it.

I'd also like to announce that the definition of video games that you can find in a dictionary is the same one that I found in my game design text books, so it IS the real definition! Text-based games are not video games because there is absolutely NO visual manipulation involved. You write down what is happening IN YOUR IMAGINATION. BIG difference.

He's got you there...

Well I wasn't sure when that Tic Tac Toe game came out, but my point remains.

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...

Oh right, ABF's logic that video games do not require any visual aspect to them. I guess I could argue then that if I type out a movie script on my computer screen then it means that I'm actually watching a movie!

What a sack of SHIT. My list was infact real and you are just a SHITTY debater because you are the kind of loser that will not admit when they are wrong. But I guess that is what makes you a bigger man than Darunia...

Listen girl, read my post above which explains how poor your list was. It was a fake list, only real in your tiny imagination.