The One Thousand Most Annoying Things Ever!!

[OB1]

Actually the number was around five or six more than WW.

[Darunia]

Actually the number was around five or six more than WW.

There he goes again. That is an admission to defeat, he admitted that OoT has more enemy types just then, but he's trying to pass it off as irrelevent. He changed the argument, or rather tried to. THAT was the original argument, regardless of what he's trying to say.

[OB1]

Uh, I was the one who discovered that number. You lost the original debate, which was that OoT had like twice the number of enemies that WW had.

[Darunia]

Now I said "it has twice as many"...before I only said "it has many more".

[OB1]

Both.

[Darunia]

Man I wish I had access to that old thread, and where you said "Wind Waker has MORE types than OoT." Moiraine remembers it...I'm sure other people here do too, but no one will speak out against you, especially since it's me they'd be helping.

[OB1]

No, I just said that your claim that OoT has many more enemies than WW was false.

[Darunia]

Don't bother reiterating it now, as there's no way you can proove that's what you really said, and vice versa.

[OB1]

Here are some quotes from you, back when Moiraine posted that fake OoT enemy list:

What of the indisputable fact that theres only like 10 different enemies at all in WW? How constantly recycled they are; how they used those pig guards in every dungeon, and chuchus everywhere else...

Say what you will, there were no where near as few baddies in OoT or MM as in WW. Come on, I mean those pig guys constituted 95% of all the enemies you encountered...they were in the first dungeon, the last dungeon...they wree in every dungeon! OoT and MM had vastly more, and vastly more unique ones. Each dungeon had at least some unique enemies.

Those skeleton sword-wielding guys in OoT weren't hard, but they weren't THAT easy; one could easily die confronting all three in the Forest Temple.

[Darunia]

Ok, good boy, now link me to that thread so that I too can prove you wrong.

[OB1]

You think I'm misquoting you? Go to the "Wind Waker Revisited" thread.

[Darunia]

Some of us have lives and don't want to pour through centuries and dozens of old pages of threads. Link me, if you please sir, and if you truly have nothing to fear from me accessing it.

[OB1]

Use the fucking search engine, you big lazy bastard.

[Laser Link]

Ahem. A psuedo code ending to this, so that we can acomplish the goal before it is lost forever.


for (i=913; i>0; i--)
print( i + " OB1 and ABF arguments.\n")

[Darunia]

I'll be the bigger of the two. Yet again.

913 ~ The fuzz (police.) Especially those gestappo ones at Lakeville...

[OB1]

The bigger of the two because you don't want to use a simple search engine in fear of finding out that you really lost?

Oh yeah, you certainly are the bigger man.

[Darunia]

No, the bigger of the two for having once more set aside the timeless Wind Waker debate.

912 ~ That rolling-eyes emoticon.

[OB1]

HA! You're the one who brought this up, stupid!

[Darunia]

No, this came up when you & ABF were fighting, and I supported him by mentioning this. You & him thusly brought it up.

912 ~ The fact that they never made a 3rd Ghostbusters or a 3rd Bill & Ted movie.

[OB1]

Actually you started the argument by saying that I never admit when you think I'm wrong, and that prompted ABF to chime in.

[Darunia]

Oh. Well even if that were true, it'd be you never admitting to be wrong which made me bring it up, so it's still your bad. ;)

[OB1]

[Darunia]

911 ~ Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

[OB1]

910- American cheese.

[A Black Falcon]

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!

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!

What the hell? Tic-Tac-Toe came out decades before DOS did you idiot.

He's got you there... :)

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

[Darunia]

:p

Thank you, ABF.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by OB1
Here are some quotes from you, back when Moiraine posted that fake OoT enemy list:

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...

By the way ABF I applaud you with your arguements. I don't think I have laughed quite so hard first thing in the morning. You're awesome!

[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.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by OB1
Listen girl, read my post above which explains how poor your list was. It was a fake list, only real in your tiny imagination.

No it was TO real. I am not sure whether or not I had posted the URL but how could it be a fake? There was not ONE enemy that was not real on that list you ass monkey.

[OB1]

Several enemies were fake, and a lot of them were even repeated a bunch of times.

[Moiraine]

You name the ones that were fake then... I want to see that..

[OB1]

Here is your list, with the ones in bold that are either false or repeated:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anuebis
Armos
Baby Dodongo
Barinade
Beamos
Big Leever
Big Poe
Big Poe Boss
Big Skulltula
Bigocto
Blue Bubble
Bongo Bongo
Shabom
Shell Blade
Dark Link
Deku Baba
Deku Baba
Dodongo
Gohma
Fire Keese
Flame Wall (This is an OBSTACLE)
Floor Master Spawn
Flying pot
Ganon
Ganondorf
Big Deku Baba
Gibdos (do you mean GIBIDO?)
Gohma Larva
Golden Skulltula (these are collectables, not really enemies)
Biri
Keese
King Dodongo
Kotake ---\
Koume --/ are these two supposed to be the Twin Rovas? That's one boss!
Torch Slug
Leever
Like Like
Lizalfos
Morphia
Dead Hand
Orange Bird-- Wha?
Parisitic Tenticle
Peahat
Phantom Ganon
Red Bubble
REdead
Skulltula
Small Poe
Spike Trap
Spike Wall
Spike
Stalchild
Stalfos Knight
Stinger
Twinrova
Volvagia
Wall Master
White Wolfos
Wolfos
Yellow Bubble
Mad Scrub
Peahat larva
Tailpasaran
Moblin
Guardian Moblin
Skullwaltula
Red Teketite
Business Scrub
Bari
Blue Teketite
Giant Yellow Bubble
Octorok
Amy Poe Boss
Flare Dancer
Freezzard
Ice Keese
Ice Blades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't look through most of the ones in the second half of the list, but I'm sure there are some false ones there as well.

Now the OoT enemy count is pretty close to the one you listed, but with different enemies that are not on your list. The WW list is comparable.

[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!

[OB1]

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!

Sure, but not 2-10 times more like Darunia claimed.

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.

The argument was about whether or not OoT has "tons" of more enemies than WW did, which I proved to be false. You weren't even a part of this argument, so what the hell are you talking about? You just sat along the sidelines while me and Darunia did all of the arguing.

You see the same enemies in WW more often than you do in OoT because WW has a lot of fighting while OoT has very little. And while the fighting in WW is easy, it is a hellovalot more fun than fighting the few, simple enemies in OoT. And I never had any problems fighting OoT's enemies. Just the bosses.

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!

Many things can be similar to each other in many ways and still be classified differently. CDs are pretty mcuh the same as DVDs, bikes are pretty much the same as motorcycles, trucks are pretty much the same as cars, etc. The way you seperate these things is by having a clear definition of what they are. Video games are interactive games where you manipulate images on some sort of a screen. If there is no manipulation of image(s) then it is technically not a video game. That is a fact. Whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you.

[A Black Falcon]

Many things can be similar to each other in many ways and still be classified differently. CDs are pretty mcuh the same as DVDs, bikes are pretty much the same as motorcycles, trucks are pretty much the same as cars, etc. The way you seperate these things is by having a clear definition of what they are. Video games are interactive games where you manipulate images on some sort of a screen. If there is no manipulation of image(s) then it is technically not a video game. That is a fact. Whether or not you choose to believe it is up to you.

Okay... let's end this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=video%20game

Definition two is a synonym for 'Computer Game'.

I rest my case.

Oh yeah, and text vs graphical adventures (especially the early, graphics-and-parser adventures) are far, far more similar to eachother than any of those any things. No question about that.

The argument was about whether or not OoT has "tons" of more enemies than WW did, which I proved to be false. You weren't even a part of this argument, so what the hell are you talking about? You just sat along the sidelines while me and Darunia did all of the arguing.

I thought both of you were wrong on some points and right on others... Darunia was wrong about how awful it is to fight all those Moblins, and about how many more kinds of enemies OoT has, and you about the thinge we're discussing here...

You see the same enemies in WW more often than you do in OoT because WW has a lot of fighting while OoT has very little. And while the fighting in WW is easy, it is a hellovalot more fun than fighting the few, simple enemies in OoT. And I never had any problems fighting OoT's enemies. Just the bosses.

I just don't find it all that fun to have to wade through lots of easy enemies... its way more fun to have fewer, but more challenging, opponents. Those two times i died in Dodongo Caverns? One was to one of those pairs of Lizardmen. Those guys can be quite hard! Nothing in WW is as hard as the Lizardmen in the second dungeon of OoT... not 'will you die' challenge wise.

And that's pretty pathetic for WW.

Oh yeah, and WW certainly has more enemies... but I'm not so sure about your 'way, dramatically, more' statements. Yes, there are more... that is obvious. But so, so many more like you make it sound? I probably would disagree with that...

[OB1]

Okay... let's end this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=video%20game

Definition two is a synonym for 'Computer Game'.

I rest my case.

Oh yeah, and text vs graphical adventures (especially the early, graphics-and-parser adventures) are far, far more similar to eachother than any of those any things. No question about that.

Video games and computer games aren't always the same thing, which is why you're so confused. Most PC games are video games, but not all of them are. Text-based games are PC Games because the definition of PC Games is different from video games. PC Games are games that you play on a computer, which isn't necessarily a video game. Video games have a very strict definition, which I will not repeat since you know very well what it is. So text based games are PC Games but not video games.

I thought both of you were wrong on some points and right on others... Darunia was wrong about how awful it is to fight all those Moblins, and about how many more kinds of enemies OoT has, and you about the thinge we're discussing here...

That's partially true.

I just don't find it all that fun to have to wade through lots of easy enemies... its way more fun to have fewer, but more challenging, opponents. Those two times i died in Dodongo Caverns? One was to one of those pairs of Lizardmen. Those guys can be quite hard! Nothing in WW is as hard as the Lizardmen in the second dungeon of OoT... not 'will you die' challenge wise.

And that's pretty pathetic for WW.

Oh yeah, and WW certainly has more enemies... but I'm not so sure about your 'way, dramatically, more' statements. Yes, there are more... that is obvious. But so, so many more like you make it sound? I probably would disagree with that...

You are uncertain about it, but I am not. I never died from any of the simple enemies in OoT. They were all pitifully easy, just like the ones in WW. But WW has many more of them, which makes a big difference. In WW I would often find myself battling a dozen or more enemies all at once, while OoT never got above a handful of them.

[A Black Falcon]

Video games and computer games aren't always the same thing, which is why you're so confused. Most PC games are video games, but not all of them are. Text-based games are PC Games because the definition of PC Games is different from video games. PC Games are games that you play on a computer, which isn't necessarily a video game. Video games have a very strict definition, which I will not repeat since you know very well what it is. So text based games are PC Games but not video games.

Sorry, but you are trying to deny that the dictionary is correct.

I'll take the dictionary over your bizzare 'logic', thank you.

You are uncertain about it, but I am not. I never died from any of the simple enemies in OoT. They were all pitifully easy, just like the ones in WW. But WW has many more of them, which makes a big difference. In WW I would often find myself battling a dozen or more enemies all at once, while OoT never got above a handful of them.

Never? How strange, the enemies in OoT are pretty challenging... far, far more so than WW, without a doubt.

Also, I don't recall fighting a dozen enemies in WW very often at all... its usually a few. A couple more than OoT, and probably some more fights than OoT, but a dozen enemies, regularly? No way!

[OB1]

Sorry, but you are trying to deny that the dictionary is correct.

I'll take the dictionary over your bizzare 'logic', thank you.

The first definition in the dictionary is what I'm talking about, and that it also what they teach in game design school. So suck on that.

Never? How strange, the enemies in OoT are pretty challenging... far, far more so than WW, without a doubt.

Also, I don't recall fighting a dozen enemies in WW very often at all... its usually a few. A couple more than OoT, and probably some more fights than OoT, but a dozen enemies, regularly? No way!

Yeah okay Darunia, whatever you say.

Go to Link's home island and run up to the little forest for a small example of what happens very frequently in WW.

[A Black Falcon]

The first definition in the dictionary is what I'm talking about, and that it also what they teach in game design school. So suck on that.

The first definition of a word isn't the only valid one... :hammer:

Yeah okay Darunia, whatever you say.

Go to Link's home island and run up to the little forest for a small example of what happens very frequently in WW.

You mean up the hill where there are the four or five infinitely-respawning incredibly annoying gremlin guys?

[OB1]

The first definition of a word isn't the only valid one...

YES. IT. IS!!!!

That is the main definition in the dictionary and the only definition in my text books.

You mean up the hill where there are the four or five infinitely-respawning incredibly annoying gremlin guys?

I'm talking about inside the forest where you fight around a dozen gremlins. Those are just small guys, however. Later on in the game you fight dozens of enemies at once, like in that one "endless" hole for example.

[A Black Falcon]

YES. IT. IS!!!!

That is the main definition in the dictionary and the only definition in my text books.

Oh wow... I didn't know. Sorry to hear that you are that deluded...

I mean, seriously. You are actually trying to convince me that a dictionary definition is false???? You must be insane!

You see... dictionaries don't work that way. All of the defintions are valid for that form of the word...

Oh yeah, and textbooks are wrong or omit some information often enough to make me not take them as a perfect source.

I'm talking about inside the forest where you fight around a dozen gremlins. Those are just small guys, however. Later on in the game you fight dozens of enemies at once, like in that one "endless" hole for example.

I don't remember that, I only remember the parts where you fight maybe as many as 6 at a time but they keep respawning, making it seem like more. I don't recall ever fighting 12 enemies at once (actually in combat; I'm sure 12 enemies have been on the screen in some fashion at the same time, however).

[OB1]

Oh wow... I didn't know. Sorry to hear that you are that deluded...

I mean, seriously. You are actually trying to convince me that a dictionary definition is false???? You must be insane!

You see... dictionaries don't work that way. All of the defintions are valid for that form of the word...

Oh yeah, and textbooks are wrong or omit some information often enough to make me not take them as a perfect source.

Take a look for yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=video%20game
The first definition is the one that I stated, and the second definition is "a game played against a computer", which does not conflict the first definition and supports my claim. You lost this one, ABF. Just admit it before it's too late.

And yes, my game design text books are more authoritative on the subject than l'il 'ole you, believe it or not. People will far more knowledge on video games than you wrote these books.

I don't remember that, I only remember the parts where you fight maybe as many as 6 at a time but they keep respawning, making it seem like more. I don't recall ever fighting 12 enemies at once (actually in combat; I'm sure 12 enemies have been on the screen in some fashion at the same time, however).

Then you have a very selective memory. Darunia-itis, as I like to call it.

[A Black Falcon]

That second definition is also the one and only definition of 'Computer Game'. Sorry, you lose.

Then you have a very selective memory. Darunia-itis, as I like to call it.

No, you just remember the game in a way it wasn't. :)

[OB1]

That second definition is also the one and only definition of 'Computer Game'. Sorry, you lose.

That's what I said, dummy! How does that mean that I lose? Are you even reading the same thing that I am? Sometimes I honestly think that you're living in some sort of bizarro world where everything has a different meaning to you. That only helps my point! :bang:

No, you just remember the game in a way it wasn't.

I've beatwen it twice already and I have an excellent memory. :shakeit:

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by OB1
Video games and computer games aren't always the same thing, which is why you're so confused. Most PC games are video games, but not all of them are. Text-based games are PC Games because the definition of PC Games is different from video games. PC Games are games that you play on a computer, which isn't necessarily a video game. Video games have a very strict definition, which I will not repeat since you know very well what it is. So text based games are PC Games but not video games.



That's partially true.



You are uncertain about it, but I am not. I never died from any of the simple enemies in OoT. They were all pitifully easy, just like the ones in WW. But WW has [b]many more of them, which makes a big difference. In WW I would often find myself battling a dozen or more enemies all at once, while OoT never got above a handful of them. [/B]

Ahah... Weltall and I were just wondering something.... He wants to know why a grown man would care so much about trying to prove himself "correct."

[A Black Falcon]

That's what I said, dummy! How does that mean that I lose? Are you even reading the same thing that I am? Sometimes I honestly think that you're living in some sort of bizarro world where everything has a different meaning to you. That only helps my point!

Yes, that is a somewhat odd definition of computer games, for sure. But at that site its the only one its got... but more importantly, it calls 'computer game' and 'video game' synonyms. Which I would say they are...

I've beatwen it twice already and I have an excellent memory.

Good for you, you can use it to find those elusive places with 12 enemies fighting you at the same time. :D

[OB1]

Ahah... Weltall and I were just wondering something.... He wants to know why a grown man would care so much about trying to prove himself "correct."

It's called an internet debate, miss. That's what we do.

Ask your brother about the endless political debates he has with ABF. He basically just says "You damn liberal, fuck you! You are wrong!" over and over. At least when I argue with ABF we keep the insults to a minimum... I don't think I've ever called him anything more severe than "stupid...

Yes, that is a somewhat odd definition of computer games, for sure. But at that site its the only one its got... but more importantly, it calls 'computer game' and 'video game' synonyms. Which I would say they are...

Yes, but not all computer games are video games, as I said a million times already. Computer games are just games that you play on your computer. They can even be simple sound-based games. A Video game is very different from that.

Good for you, you can use it to find those elusive places with 12 enemies fighting you at the same time.

You sir, are stupid. Very stupid.

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, but not all computer games are video games, as I said a million times already. Computer games are just games that you play on your computer. They can even be simple sound-based games. A Video game is very different from that.

'Synonym' generally means 'same meaning'... maybe with a slightly different undertone, but the same essential meaning.

Such as video vs computer games. They mean the same thing. 'video game' is just a term invented for games played on 'consoles' -- specially designed computers just for games. They are all computer games. Are all computer games video games? I'd say yes... given that videogame is just another way of saying the same thing...

Oh yeah, and I do think that the text counts as video output. Is it a picture? No. But it is video output to a screen... which fits any definition of 'video' I can think of... and it is modified by user input for the purpose of playing a game. That fits 'game'.

'manipulating images'.

Oh man, I am so stupid. Here I am all this time trying to say your defintion isn't always the only definition of the term, when its just fine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=image

Look at numbers 6 and 7 of the first definition...

Ask your brother about the endless political debates he has with ABF. He basically just says "You damn liberal, fuck you! You are wrong!" over and over. At least when I argue with ABF we keep the insults to a minimum... I don't think I've ever called him anything more severe than "stupid...

Political debates are serious -- big difference there.

You sir, are stupid. Very stupid.

I just don't think WW has fights against huge numbers all the time like you say... and anyway whenever you do fight more than two or three guys the enemies are EXTREMELY weak and are just a annoyance, not an actual challenge... not that most anything in that game is. I haven't actually been in danger of dying ever in playing WW... which is so pathetic... give me the challenge of OoT any day (and NOT just the enemies. That's not it. OoT also has more challenge in the environments... for instance, in WW, in many places you can fall... but when you fall you don't die, you just reappear in the doorway of the room having lost a little health. In OoT you'd be hurting, bad... WW just makes it too easy. Easy enemies, forgiving level design, few deadly obstacles in the levels... and, of course, the pushover enemies.

OoT just does it better. Sure, it has fewer enemies... but that isn't a bad thing, not when the alternative is having them be so easy!

Oh yeah, and its not that great to have to duel all the time. Its annoying, actually... especially when the fights aren't hard at all, they're just a bit slower because you have to get around them. Now if the enemies were even remotely challenging, like the sword-fights in OoT, it'd be much better... but they aren't, so its just tedious.

[OB1]

'Synonym' generally means 'same meaning'... maybe with a slightly different undertone, but the same essential meaning.

Such as video vs computer games. They mean the same thing. 'video game' is just a term invented for games played on 'consoles' -- specially designed computers just for games. They are all computer games. Are all computer games video games? I'd say yes... given that videogame is just another way of saying the same thing...

Oh yeah, and I do think that the text counts as video output. Is it a picture? No. But it is video output to a screen... which fits any definition of 'video' I can think of... and it is modified by user input for the purpose of playing a game. That fits 'game'.

'manipulating images'.

Oh man, I am so stupid. Here I am all this time trying to say your defintion isn't always the only definition of the term, when its just fine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=image

Look at definitions 6 and 7...

Yes you are stupid, but not about that. All words have several different definitions, and the ones down the list are the ones that only apply to certain contexts. When people say "mental image" that applies to definitions #6 & 7, but not images on a video screen.

Computer games and video games are said to be the same thing because most computer games are video games, just not all of them. And people use the two terms interchangeably, even though it isn't always accurate.

You do see text on the screen in text-based games, and that is an image, but not the kind that make up video games. If the text was say, flying around and you had to shoot it or something (as an example), then it would be a video game. But if the text is used only to describe images that aren't really there, it is not a video game.

Political debates are serious -- big difference there.

Oh please, a couple of armchair politicians calling each other names is not what I'd call a "serious debate". It's just a petty mud-slinging contest with you and Weltall. "You're a stupid liberal!" "You're a stupid conservative!", etc. You just repeat the same crap over and over.

I just don't think WW has fights against huge numbers all the time like you say... and anyway whenever you do fight more than two or three guys the enemies are EXTREMELY weak and are just a annoyance, not an actual challenge... not that most anything in that game is. I haven't actually been in danger of dying ever in playing WW... which is so pathetic... give me the challenge of OoT any day (and NOT just the enemies. That's not it. OoT also has more challenge in the environments... for instance, in WW, in many places you can fall... but when you fall you don't die, you just reappear in the doorway of the room having lost a little health. In OoT you'd be hurting, bad... WW just makes it too easy. Easy enemies, forgiving level design, few deadly obstacles in the levels... and, of course, the pushover enemies.

OoT just does it better. Sure, it has fewer enemies... but that isn't a bad thing, not when the alternative is having them be so easy!

Oh yeah, and its not that great to have to duel all the time. Its annoying, actually... especially when the fights aren't hard at all, they're just a bit slower because you have to get around them. Now if the enemies were even remotely challenging, like the sword-fights in OoT, it'd be much better... but they aren't, so its just tedious.

All of the enemy fights in OoT were very easy, and the sword duels were a complete joke. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. You get the point. And holes in the ground? What on earth are you talking about? I rarely fell into any holes in OoT. There is a lot of fighting in WW, and I'm really starting to doubt that you even played the game. That or your case of "Darunia-itis" is getting stronger.

[A Black Falcon]

Yes you are stupid, but not about that. All words have several different definitions, and the ones down the list are the ones that only apply to certain contexts. When people say "mental image" that applies to definitions #6 & 7, but not images on a video screen.

Computer games and video games are said to be the same thing because most computer games are video games, just not all of them. And people use the two terms interchangeably, even though it isn't always accurate.

You do see text on the screen in text-based games, and that is an image, but not the kind that make up video games. If the text was say, flying around and you had to shoot it or something (as an example), then it would be a video game. But if the text is used only to describe images that aren't really there, it is not a video game.

Videogames require images.

Such as the mental images that the text in text-based games (adventure, RPG, whatever...) describes.

It is so, so sad and stupid to watch you try to keep denying that fact.

You can't just use the parts of the definitions you like! It doesn't work that way!

Oh please, a couple of armchair politicians calling each other names is not what I'd call a "serious debate". It's just a petty mud-slinging contest with you and Weltall. "You're a stupid liberal!" "You're a stupid conservative!", etc. You just repeat the same crap over and over.

But the topics are relevant, unlike our debates... you may not acknowledge it but there IS a difference there.

All of the enemy fights in OoT were very easy, and the sword duels were a complete joke. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. Block. Hit. You get the point. And holes in the ground? What on earth are you talking about? I rarely fell into any holes in OoT. There is a lot of fighting in WW, and I'm really starting to doubt that you even played the game. That or your case of "Darunia-itis" is getting stronger.

Not holes in the ground... I mean stuff like dungeon floors. Like the lava in the two lava dungeons in OoT vs the lava in WW... in WW it teleports you to the enterance with minimal injury, while in OoT it hurts you quite quickly and you could easily die in it... and WW uses that technique in a lot of other places where OoT would have a much more deadly obsticle.

Oh yeah, and while the fights in OoT aren't that complex, neither are the ones in WW! Ooh, so sometimes I have to circle around behind them as well as attack/block/jump...