Wind Waker Revisited (possible spoilers within)

[Darunia]

Both games have variations, but OoT STILL HAS MORE baddies and more variations. I don't see how you're even still arguing that WW has more enemy types. Shall I repeat that to you a few more times, because it's blindingly obvious but you won't accept it because you're too proud.

[OB1]

Yes I'm very proud, Darunia. Proud of knowing that there aren't a bajillion more enemies in Oot than in WW as you suggest.

OoT has more variations of enemies (i.e. fire keese, ice keese, cheddar pizza keese), but not many more types. There are also fewer enemy encounters in the game, which is not a good thing.

[Darunia]

OoT has more variations of enemies (i.e. fire keese, ice keese, cheddar pizza keese), but not many more types. There are also fewer enemy encounters in the game, which is not a good thing.

Now that's just blatantly wrong.

Yes I'm very proud, Darunia. Proud of knowing that there aren't a bajillion more enemies in Oot than in WW as you suggest.

I don't recall having given a bajillion as the number of enemies more...as a matter of fact, I placed it just over twice as many. Your FACT was that OoT had 29. Moiraine and I proved it was 77. Now, tell me right now, DOES OCARINA OF TIME HAVE MORE TYPES OF ENEMY THAN WIND WAKER!? No more dodgin the question or going off on a tangent, yes or no, does it?

[OB1]

*sigh*

You obviously can't comprehend anything that I say (which was that Moiraine listed all of the extra enemy variations as well as all of the bosses/sub-bosses), so I'll make a list of all the enemies in Wind Waker, variations, bosses and everything else, just like Moiraine did. If that's not good enough then I'll make a pop-up book for you to help you understand this.

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

So there you have it. A just about complete list of all the enemies in Wind Waker. I haven't quite finished it yet so there are still a couple of enemies to add or change.

And BTW that list Moiraine posted has a number of errors in it. She even posted Deku Baba twice.

Now that's just blatantly wrong.

You've got to be kidding me. You actually think that there are more enemy encounters in OoT than in WW?? Like Moiraine said, a "hundred" enemies attack her at every stop.

[Darunia]

Hehe. Your patronizing psychology isn't effective on me, boy. Even with that list, you've proven me right all along, you've just dragged this out. The argument was whether or not OoT had more enemies than WW. Even your list proves me right. The argument wasn't over HOW MANY MORE.

*Goron Victory has been achieved*

I thank you for this satisfying, smug moment.

[OB1]

I already told you that my list in incomplete and Moiraine's is faulty.

[Darunia]

*Goron Victory has been achieved*

I thank you for this satisfying, smug moment.

[OB1]

Um... are you responding to a different topic? Because that doesn't seem to be the appropriate response to what I just said.

[A Black Falcon]

OoT had nice variety of enemies, but they admittedly were sparse... MM did better in that respect...

[OB1]

And WW even better. Much, much better.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Heh, some of the mini-bosses in WW were harder than the bosses themselves... or at least as hard. The swordfighting is fun as hell, though, I love it. I kinda wish there would be some more challenging enemies, but it's still fun.

[Darunia]

And WW even better. Much, much better.

How is the variety any better in WW? The enemies are no more diverse at all, just different! No enemy in WW in unique! WW did have more enemies, which is admirable indeed. You know fully well that you lost that. Let it go, it's getting old. And for the second time, your patronizing and degrading psychology isn't effective on me, boy.

[A Black Falcon]

Number of enemies, Darunia, NUMBER of enemies.

[OB1]

He's not ready, this one. Has a hard time understanding simple sentences, he does.

[Darunia]

Numbers of TYPES of enemies, TYPES.

[OB1]

You're an idiot.

[Darunia]

You're a stubborn, self-loving Nintendo nazi.

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia, when he says "WW has more enemies to fight than OoT or MM", a effective counter to that is NOT "OoT has more types of enemies". That makes no sense on this issue...

[Sacred Jellybean]

[OB1]

That brings a tear to my eye.

[A Black Falcon]

Thats just wrong... arguing on the internet is fun! :p

[Darunia]

ABF, this argument started with his claim that WW had more TYPE OF ENEMY; more different kinds. He claimed that WW had 29 to OoT's 26. When Moiraine and I proved him wrong (OoT had 77), he changed the topic, and he's dragged it on until now, and now he's changed the argument entirely. Don't help him, he's wrong.

[OB1]

Actually you didn't prove me wrong since--as I stated at least a dozen times already--Moiraine's list is faulty and mine is imcomplete.

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia, um, I agree that OoT had a better variety of enemies, but then the issue of how many enemies the game had to fight came up and WW clearly wins in that one...

And OoT doesn't have 77 unique, non-boss enemies, but neither does WW have 29... I don't know the exact numbers... but they don't seem THAT different. OoT just has more variation, it seems.

[OB1]

I listed an almost-complete list for Wind Waker a few posts up. It was at 64. And Moiraine listed at least one enemy twice and there are some errors in that list.

[A Black Falcon]

65 vs 75 is a significant difference.

Though much of that can be explained by 6 dungeons vs 8...

[OB1]

Did you not read what I just wrote? My list is incomplete and there are a bunch of errors in Moiraine's list.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, I know... which is why I rounded both of them... but is your list so incomplete and that other one so overstated that it'd make up a 13 number difference? Its doubtful...

And it is a fact that as a result of 2 fewer dungeons there'd be 4 fewer bosses and several fewer unique dungeon enemies...

[OB1]

There are a few enemies missing from my list and a few enemies that should be removed from Moiraine's list.

[A Black Falcon]

But as I said probably not enough to make up a 13 enemy difference...

[OB1]

Just about. WW only loses a few because of its lower amount of bosses.

[N_A]

Originally posted by OB1
Wow, N_A has got to be the most sanctimonious jackass to ever grace these boards. DJ put it best when he said that different puzzles are more challengind for different people, but poor little N_A refuses to believe that other people didn't find MM to be as long or exciting as Wind Waker. And the last scavenger hunt part of Wind Waker took me maybe a little more than an hour to beat, so it was nothing.

I absolutely loved the sailing in the game, and I definitely did not have a tougher time with the dungeons in MM than I did in WW. MM is a great game, but it's not as good as Wind Waker or OoT IMO.



Oh shut the hell up. Like I'm going to spend however long to make a walkthrough for the game. [b]Wow. I've never known anyone more pompous than you.



Guess what? I don't give a flying fuck if I convince you or not. Aside from the bosses, I found WW to be just as difficult as OoT and MM. It's obvious that this is just a case of you sucking really hard at Majora's Mask and are not willing to accept that some people had an easier time with the game. But hey, it's okay! Some people just suck at certain games. Just drink your warm milk, go to bed early, and give me a call after you wake up in the morning. [/B]

For all your fucking nonsense, I hardly find it a puzzle when rooms are merely go in, hit ths switch and move on. I wonder what kind of an odd brain you're working on if you find real puzzles in MM to be as hard as the obvious "PUSH THE SWITCH/OPEN THE CHEST/KILL THE ENEMY" signs in the fake puzzles of WW. What the hell happened, did you used to be a genius gamer 2 years ago and then smoke crack and doing dope recently ? Maybe that explains your attitude around the forums...

Dude, all you can fucking tell me is "screw you, I'm right, you're wrong." You know, you used to be reasonable a long time ago, but all you do these days is say people are wrong, and don't make any explanation.

Just a note, you're the only person who claims you had just an easy time with WW and MM. Of the many people across many forums, across many acquaintances, everyone says MM and the Oracle games were the hardest Zeldas ever made and WW was just too damn easy. Its reason enough to question the legitmacy of "relative" difficulty across the population. Particularly when one game has real puzzles when the other does not.

[A Black Falcon]

Oracles were hard, but not the hardest Zelda ever... probably because as you play the series longer it gets easier. I found LA really hard (it took me 3 months and I died WELL over 100 times) because it was my first Zelda game... Oracles didn't take me that long so its "easier" in my memory than LA though I'm sure that if I played both now I'd find it a lot harder...

As for MM, it well might be the hardest Zelda game because of how much annoyingly frusterating stuff it added to greatly increase the frusteration factor and challenge.

[N_A]

Well admittedly, Link's Awakening was my 4th Zelda game, and so it wasn't the hardest, but it was still pretty tough. I racked up a good many dies on that game.

I remember my Zelda 1 die count was about 100 as well, but that was back when I was 7 or 8 or something and not very slick at games. Interesting - now I'm 22 and still playing Zelda.

And oh yes, the fustration factor in MM was high.

However, I felt time didn't have to do anything with it rather than the general difficulty of the puzzles, enemies, bosses, and scenarios. I guess I'm just repeating myself, but when you slow down time, you get a few hours and people work in slow mo, giving you more than enough time to explore. Granted, some things are tedious because you fuck it up and you have to redo, like the alien abduction of cows scenario. The end result however, was amusing, and it was rewarding to see how things worked out for the people of the world. The troubled world was vibrant, and alive, unlike the empty world in WW, which even Gannon himself commented was a bunch of scattered little islands and vast oceans that had NOTHING.

[Darunia]

OB1 deems his list to be perfect and missing a few enemies, and declares Moiraine's faulty. Duplications and bosses aside, you have nothing to stand on, either way, as ABF pointed out, the fact that OoT had more dungeons alone suggests that it had more unique enemies. WW had fewer models and just used them endlessly in direct repetition.

And N_A has a good point; opening switches and all...that was veritably ALL that you did in the Forbidden Forest; all you had to do was find a new way to break the seal on the doors. Not much of a puzzle for you.

[A Black Falcon]

Whatever your first Zelda game was was generally one of the hardest for you...

Also, its really hard to compare the 2d and 3d Zeldas. They play so differently that they almost feel like different serieses in some ways... I know when I played OoT (my second Zelda game) it felt so different from LA... some of that was from returning Zelda conventions LA didn't have (bottles, magic, etc), but not all...

I died over 80 times in OoT the first time.

If all MM had been was hard, I wouldn't have disliked the game. It wasn't that it was hard... it was that because of how the time limit made that challenge level insanely frusterating. Because of that time limit the game was just more frusteration than fun...

[OB1]

For all your fucking nonsense, I hardly find it a puzzle when rooms are merely go in, hit ths switch and move on. I wonder what kind of an odd brain you're working on if you find real puzzles in MM to be as hard as the obvious "PUSH THE SWITCH/OPEN THE CHEST/KILL THE ENEMY" signs in the fake puzzles of WW. What the hell happened, did you used to be a genius gamer 2 years ago and then smoke crack and doing dope recently ? Maybe that explains your attitude around the forums...

Face it, bucko: You fucking suck at MM, and I don't. It's as simple as that.

Dude, all you can fucking tell me is "screw you, I'm right, you're wrong." You know, you used to be reasonable a long time ago, but all you do these days is say people are wrong, and don't make any explanation.

Well when it comes to saying that I know how much of a difficult time I had with MM more than you do, then of course I'm going to say "I'm right", you little prick. We're talking about how much of a difficult time I had with the game, and you're asking me to prove it. What kind of a stupid fucking idiot would ask something like that?? You can't prove to someone else how difficult their first time with the game was unless we could somehow connect our minds together and go back to the day when I first got MM.

Just a note, you're the only person who claims you had just an easy time with WW and MM. Of the many people across many forums, across many acquaintances, everyone says MM and the Oracle games were the hardest Zeldas ever made and WW was just too damn easy. Its reason enough to question the legitmacy of "relative" difficulty across the population. Particularly when one game has real puzzles when the other does not. [/B]

Zelda 1 is the hardest Zelda game ever made, not MM or the Oracles. The Oracle games are definitely harder than any of the 3-D games, but you're insane if you think that MM is even one third as tough as them.

The troubled world was vibrant, and alive, unlike the empty world in WW, which even Gannon himself commented was a bunch of scattered little islands and vast oceans that had NOTHING.

Termina felt like a small town that was in peril, not a huge kingdom. Wind Waker's world was enourmous, even if that was simply because all of the parts of the world were scattered about. It's certainly more effective than the tiny neighborhood known as Termina.

N_A has a good point; opening switches and all...that was veritably ALL that you did in the Forbidden Forest; all you had to do was find a new way to break the seal on the doors. Not much of a puzzle for you.

Darunia: GOOOOOOO NA!! Gimme an N!, gimme an A! WOOOOOOOO!!!

*jumps up and down like a cheerleader*

[Dark Jaguar]

[OB1]

20 hours isn't long enough for you? Most Zelda games are that long. It took me one straight week of very frequent playing to beat the game along with most of the sidequests, which is about as long as it took me to beat OoT, MM, and Metroid Prime. I was very satisfied by its length. I beat Prime in 15 hours and that was long enough for me. The 3D Zeldas took a bit longer to finish.

Oh and I still think that Zelda 1 is the toughest of the Zeldas. You take damage so easily. Zelda 2 is really tough but I haven't played it in a long while.

[A Black Falcon]

One reason LA is harder than OoA/S is hearts... how in OoA/S they add quarter hearts -- something not in LA... which eases it up quite a bit.

[Dark Jaguar]

Actually, they do have quarter hearts in LA and LTTP, and even in Hyrule Fantasy. They just aren't apparent. When you get to a certain defense strength in those older games, when you take a hit sometimes your health meter doesn't change, but get a second hit of the same damage amount and boom, you loose half a heart. It does keep track of quarter heart damage, you just can't see it.

Hours played mean nothing to me. I tend to leave my games paused for hours at a time (doing other tasks around the house), so that timer doesn't really tell me how long I've spent playing the game. Anyway, as I've said, I LOVE sailing blindly for no reason (that's not sarcasm, that's actually self degrading humor, because I actually DO love doing that). However, most of my time was spent doing that and I'll assume it was the same with you. That in mind, how much time did you spend just getting the triforce pieces, and then how much actual decent gameplay was actually involved in doing that as opposed to just pausing, checking the chart, moving 3 inches closer, pausing checking the chart, and moving closer again, and finally dipping that hook into the water? Nope, not enough game length. Few dungeons is fine, Majora's Mask only had 4 proper dungeons. However, they were massive, and there were many mini-dungeons.

I'm not going to debate this though. I'll just say that while I loved the game, it's yet another example of how embarresingly short games are getting these days. Yes, I spent 40 hours in Xenosaga (which is average RPG length), but that was still an amazingly short game. Why is it that timers seem to reflect same length as other games when you just KNOW and can FEEL that the game was just plain short? Well, perhaps it's due to tasks that really don't mean anything that you must do for hours on end to artificially boost play time. Maybe the timers are fast. I know that FF6's timer at least is twice as fast as a real clock. Regardless, this game just felt short. As a result, even though I enjoyed it, I still have to say this isn't my favorite. OOT or maybe MM is my fave 3D Zelda.

[OB1]

I really didn't spend that much time finding the triforce pieces and I didn't think it was that annoying. But I also came in knowing about the triforce quest so it wasn't a surprise for me. I also really liked that part in Link's hometown where you had to fight through dozens and dozens of rooms of enemies just to get a triforce map. I loved that.

I have to admit that I really like it when games aren't too long. I play so many games and have so many unfinished games lying on my shelf that it's a great relief when I don't have to spend more than twenty hours to finish one. If it's a quality experience then I really don't care how long it is. I beat ICO in just eight hours yet that was one of the most satisfying gaming experiences I've ever had, so for me length really isn't an issue. I play games like Metroid and Zelda and have the time of my life while they last and then visit them again from time to time and then play games like F-Zero or Battlefield 1942 on a regular basis, but it's a very different kind of enjoyment. I liken games like Battlefield or F-Zero to tacos or sandwiches, foods that I eat a bit of on a regular basis, and games like Metroid and Zelda to four-course meals which are so rich that you can't have them every day.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, it is nice for some games to be shorter because I actually beat them... that's less of a problem on consoles where i usually do finish games, but on PC... well lets just say that I don't exactly beat games very often...

But still, I like the challenging-but-not-too-frustrating ones a lot because i do keep coming back, sometimes for years, to them...

Oh, and I've barely played F-Zero X since beating it on Master a while back. The two Staff Ghosts are impossible... on N64 I spend most of my time trying to beat Excitebike or playing Rush 2049...

Also, I never noticed quarter hearts in LA...

[Dark Jaguar]

As I said though, I KNOW you would hate it if the game was ONLY the demo areas connected by the sea, so I know length matters to you.

Interesting... That endless cavern of enemies (that kept going on after the triforce chart) actually seemed sorta dull. The enemies are pretty easy, and there weren't any puzzles to solve in the whole thing. This is Zelda, the thinking series, after all.

[A Black Falcon]

I got 4 games at christmastime. Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance, and Burnout. I beat BG: DA first... good game, but short. I'll probably beat Burnout next... fun racer but the learning curve is too high. But the other two? I'll be working on them for quite some time to come, once I'm back home after school ends... they are long and very challenging games... and I like both kinds of games...

Too easy is obviously a problem, but just as much as too hard is... you want games with a whole variety of levels between the two extremes...

Still, console games are in general easier and shorter and beatable while PC games are in general longer and more challenging and a lot tougher to finish.. which is obvious when you see how many PC games I haven't finished (see: most)... :)

[OB1]

As I said though, I KNOW you would hate it if the game was ONLY the demo areas connected by the sea, so I know length matters to you.

Well of course length matters, but it's more important if a game is fulfilling or not.

Interesting... That endless cavern of enemies (that kept going on after the triforce chart) actually seemed sorta dull. The enemies are pretty easy, and there weren't any puzzles to solve in the whole thing. This is Zelda, the thinking series, after all. [/B]

This is also Zelda, the action series. What's wrong with having some action-only bits?

[A Black Falcon]

This is also Zelda, the action series. What's wrong with having some action-only bits?

Nothing... but the puzzle parts are harder.

See: puzzle-based OoA is better than action-based OoS...

[OB1]

Sure, but it doesn't mean that you should take out the action parts. There needs to be a balance. Like maybe 60% puzzles and 40% action.

[Darunia]

I fully maintain that the dungeons in WW were straightforward...like I said, especially the Forbidden Forest, where all you did in any given room was find a new way to open the lock and procede to do it over again. I had more trouble with the last dungeon, where you use the Kokorok dude to fly around with...that one took me three days to beat.

[OB1]

You suck.