By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hynad said:
JWeinCom said:

I tried my best to fully address your post.  If you think I didn't, feel free to point out any point you think I didn't address.  I will be happy to do so.  I explained why your analogy is inapt.  Arguing that we should use a term in a specific way in this context by pointing to another context where that term is never used just doesn't make sense at all.  

My explanation was clear. Reread it. 

There's no arbitrary percentages put into the mix. It's either a remake or a remaster. Not 10% remake so it's a remaster, or 90% redone assets so it's a remake.

It's either rebuilt from scratch: not just aesthetically or superficially; or it's a remaster: improved aesthetics, QoL, and other superficial aspects.

As I understand your analogy is this.  If we make a video game from scratch it would be called  a remake, because if we made a statue from scratch it would be called a remake.  The problem is that if we make a statue from scratch, it's not called a remake.  So, the analogy is not apt.

Is your position that we should use the same term to apply to a game with one new asset as one with 99% redone assets?

It's either rebuilt from scratch or not.  That's agreed.  Why should that be the basis for distinguishing between a remake and a remaster?  You're just repeating your definition.  You're not explaining why this is a better classification system.  I think it makes far more sense to distinguish based on how different the end product is.