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

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. 

I haven't played Modern Warfare or the remake, so I can't answer that.  I don't think the developer calling it a remaster necessarily makes a difference.  The terms may not be mutually exclusive, and Activision may simply have thought that was a better word for marketing.  Again, not having played the games, I can't speak to that example.

If that's not your position feel free to clarify it.  Does it indeed matter how much of the assets are redone?

If I'm missing something in your analogy, feel free to clarify.  I promise you I am doing my best to read your post charitably and interpret you to the best of my abilities.  I'm not going to accuse you of being unclear, but I will say I personally genuinely do not understand why the analogy is valid.  If you care about clarifying yourself do so.  If you just want to call me a liar, then whatever.