WingsOfGood posted... They can design something however they want. That doesn't change the meaning of functional words used for classifying.
This whole remake debate seems to stem from one thing. People who produce this stuff vs. randoms reading webster and not understanding what "new form" means. Most them in bad faith.
That is....hilarious.
"Omg guys it says NEW FORM so a remake can literally be a completely different game!"
No that isn't how it works as the industry and experts have levels of classification.
You go too far you are a re-imagining.
What is a re-imaging? You would have a hard time explaining that as you invalidate the purpose for the terms existence.
Also, the article makes it clear what qualifies for remake by giving examples:
I asked if producers and directors still called anything a remake. They do, Orci confirmed. He listed a few clear examples of remakes from recent years: Gus van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho (1998), James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma (2007), and the Coen brothers' True Grit (2010). They fit the definition from CHUD.com, in that each is a "straight re-telling of a story."
-Shot for shot
-a "straight re-telling of a story."
This is not my interpretation.
And yet the reality is the things you are quoting for one again can apply either way here and two are also coming from someone elses words who again dont speak for everyone creating things. Thats where your bad faith arguments kick in.