... That's the exact same thing.

"OOT was longer so it provided me more entertainment."

Past tense, it WAS longer. TP didn't exist back then, so OOT WAS longer, making my statement 100% accurate.

You are still saying the game itself was longer, not that it took you longer. And to begin with, you told me that how long it took me to complete a game wasn't relevant, so why is how long it took you, personally, to complete a game relevant? Your reasoning is terrible.

Twilight Princess isn't better than Ocarina of Time. End of the topic.

My reasoning is quite whacky but it is not terrible. Here are all my statements:

"OOT was longer so it provided me more entertainment."

I never said if it was longer for anyone other than me. Second, I said it "was" longer, which was true when it came out because TP didn't exist.

"How long it takes you personally has nothing to do with the length of the games." 

 This statement is true, and it applies to me as well as you.

I never asserted that your play time, or my play time was relevant.

Your profile says that you live in the US, but I have a hard time believing that english is your first language. You stated objectively that OoT was the longer game, when all you had to go on was your own experience. Then you said that my experience doesn't count because it doesn't have anything to do with the length of a game. Yet you used your own playtime as basis for saying OoT was a longer game.

If you had said that OoT took you longer or that it felt longer, then fine. But you didn't. You said it was longer, and that is incorrect, and you know it. You're just trying to save face now, though I don't see for what purpose since it's not like people will laugh at you saying something incorrect.

Also, for your "it was longer because TP didn't exist" - How can you not call that terrible reasoning? You can't compare two things like that. That's like saying "Yeah, Batman Begins was better than The Dark Knight. Why? Because when Batman Begins was released, The Dark Knight didn't exist!". It's absolutely ridiculous. I'll say it again, your reasoning is terrible. Not whacky - Terrible.

I know I'm full of it, and I was just messing with you, not trying to save face. My reasoning is not terrible, I was just using faulty reasoning on purpose. I was ignoring my original intent and just basing my arguments off the words I wrote.

Logical statements:

OOT was longer but is no longer the longest with the introduction of TP.

Batman begins was better than The Dark knight until the introduction of The Dark knight

The Dark knight did exist, in the mind of someone. At that point it was an idea, not a movie. Movies are better than ideas, no?

See this is one of my problems with people who shout out things like OoT is longer or harder... same for Mario Galaxy/SM64 comparison too.

It simply is not true.... Both TP and SMGalaxy are harder than their respective N64 predecessors, and TP is certainly longer than OoT in mainstory, and probably a little longer overall (but as a big chunk of OoT sidequests is the horrible gold skulltula crap, whereas TP has the slightly less horrible ghost searching (less because you only need 60 instead of 100) then.

And Galaxy is not much shorter than SM64 either (and is a lot longer if you consider Luigi) I played them for the first time within 6 months of each other, so my memory is not skewed like those of you that were younger and not as good at games in general.

---

So for me at least, when I play ^_games with myself now it is on average longer and harder than when I was younger

Now this is where I do not agree with you whatsoever. Yes, Galaxy is certainly longer than 64, but it is not harder. Believe me, I've replayed 64 more times than any other game and it still grants me a bigger challenge than Galaxy does.

That said, Galaxy is an absolutely fantastic game and anybody whose ever enjoyed a Mario-game should get it, because it's an absolutely wonderful experience.