The One Thousand Most Annoying Things Ever!!

[A Black Falcon]

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.

I know that list of Moiraine's was longer than the number of enemies in OoT... it had over 80 in it, after all, more than OoT has. But as you said we did eventually get a good list (though I still have my doubts about it... I think your "final" list might have been missing something. Not sure, though.) of all the enemies in the game (not counting bosses... because for some reason we decided they shouldn't count, I don't know why), so that isn't very important to the arguement.

I never disputed the fact that Moiraine's list wasn't perfect... I agree, it wasn't given the criteria we were using.

Five or six more? I bet that if both lists were complete (from my memory I think I felt like both of those lists were incomplete, not just the WW one...), OoT would still have more enemy types. IT HAS MORE!




Now... this IS a really stupid arguement, I think we all know that. Because the pure number of enemies is just one of so many factors... enemy quantity, enemy difficulty, enemy variety (how often you see a good variety of enemies as opposed to just a few types with many others being really rare), etc. all should count just as much for a discussion on this topic... just 'how many are there' is limited.

Also... OB1, you are right on one respect. Darunia initially made the claim that OoT had many times more, and he was proven wrong at that. That is true. But I never took that claim remotely seriously... I just thought that OoT had more. And I was right. You keep trying to make it sound irrelevant that YOU LOST, but its not! YOU LOST! :)

As for "OoT has way more that are just varieties of the same thing". I really don't know about that. Sure, it has several different Keeses, etc, but it has really a good variety of enemies... and while Darunia is wrong that you have "all the dungeons full of Moblins" in WW, there ARE far, far more of them than any other enemy type (that you actually have to fight)... by a huge margin. And more the farther into the game you get. And they are all so EASY!

Maybe OB1 here found OoT easy, but I did not. It was a challenging game and I died many times at all kinds of places... around 70-80 deaths total, as I've said many times. And regular enemies killed me fairly frequently.

Sure, sure, as I played the 3d Zeldas more I have gotten better and now I die less... but 'I was bad then' is NOT the only reason that OoT felt harder. YOu see, after starting WW I played some OoT (in the game i started over a while back but didn't get far in)

I died twice in Dodongo's Cavern.

And I'm very far into WW and still haven't died.

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

Tic Tac Toe is many years before DOS. But DOS isn't a game so the point doesn't matter...



Oh yeah, and I just cannot understand why if its just text and player input, text, pictures, and player text input, or text, pictures, and a movable character on screen matters... the gameplay is very similar, which is all that matters for classifying it, not if it has pictures or not!