By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hynad on 07 May 2020
Edit Thread
JWeinCom said:
Hynad said:

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. 

So the example of Modern Warfare... Using your description, it would make it a remake, despite the developers calling it a remaster?

Yeah... No.

My explanation is clear. And isn't arbitrary. And it's obvious you're being disingenuous about my analogy.