shadow9d9

Remakes are less risky because they are cheaper and quicker. I don't think there is any arguing that. I am not necessarily talking new franchises here. I'd rather Avadon 3-51 if so be it rather than remaking old material. I don't see any inherent risk in expanding the most successful franchise that he has made so far. Counter to this, you suggest that remaking old games might bring in more new people, than say, something new like Avadon 3. Do you see more risk in Avadon 3 than remaking old games? "SW mixes these remakes with new titles. It keeps revenue flowing; it allows for successes like Avadon while hedging risk. It brings in new customers who would not otherwise experience the Avernum series." You say this as if it has any relevance to what is being discussed... The only relevance is in talking new franchises. Maybe this is where the gap is. I do not ask for a new franchise necessarily. Plus, since NEW Avadons also keep "revenue flowing."

What? So, "pretty objectively" means in your opinion... and that was exactly the original context. You tried to frame it so that it appeared less like an opinion and instead, "objectively," meaning it is universally accepted. I'm afraid that this is not and never was true. Even someone trying to defend your statement, above, said as much. "there isn't really much debate about the substantial difference..." Again, this is where you again try to state one of your opinions as if it were universal truth. There is plenty to debate. You just are interested in only stating your opinion as fact so that maybe... I don't know. Do you think that you auto win arguments if you frame your opinions as facts? That maybe other people will just assume that this is a universal truth? Do you realize that in your response to being called out in this mistake, you went ahead and did the exact same thing again? It isn't nitpicking at all. You made a bogus claim to try to elevate your argument. In this case, not only have you done it again, but you are trying to push another narrative.. one where anyone that dissents from your opinion is nitpicking instead of having a possible valid counter-argument. You are trying to preemptively discount other arguments. It wasn't "pretty" "objective." It either is objective or not. You can't be half objective. Your opinion is full subjective. Your opinion cannot be changed into something partially objective just because you feel that you have the one true opinion. That is one method. However, what might be considered a huge difference to you might not be considered that big to others. You are trying to throw the kitchen sink and hope something sticks. Also, don't state something vaguely such as "mechanics are different." This has no meaning. Things like " The types of items available are different"... How does this support the claim that "game mechanics are completely different."? All of Spiderwebgames that I have played, from Avernum 1-6 to Geneforge 1-5, to Avadon 1-2, and I thiiink I played Nethergate... share basic mechanics. Turn based on a grid. A handful of stats and a handful of skills to choose from. Sword, thief, summoner, healer, and wizard classes. One game has main character with pets. The others have 3-4 members in a group. The same basic mechanics are shared. A few stat changes/names here and there or some different items do not in any way make the games "completely different GAMEPLAY mechanics." The Witcher has different gameplay mechanics than Avernum. Dragon Age Origins has different gameplay mechanics from Jade Empire. These remakes change a handful of minor things, but really, the core is similar. Still turn based, small party, doing the same kind of quests. I do not go to a new SWS game expecting innovation. Avadon, while different than the others, is in maaaany ways the exact same thing packaged slightly different. "There isn't a subjective judgment involved, they simply are different." Different, in some ways. "Completely different"? Not even close. Your point was to make your opinions the end all and that everything else should be dismissed before they are even entered. When you state things as "objective" when they are not, then you weaken your argument. When words express your entire meaning... and your entire meaning expresses something that is not what you claim it to be... yes, it becomes a problem.

I am around 28 now. Much less bouncing back and forth between hubs. More areas per region in a row. Better story with much better flow. More quests and better flow to them. Still don't like the "return later for possibly more quests" part and I ESPECIALLY do not like that these are kept in your quest journal, which makes figuring out what quests you are on a nightmare.

Well, I did ask, "you mean, by the people that already bought it?" In other words, why would a game that is previously well liked, by a very small community, have any effect on a remake's success? What spiderwebsoftware game has this community NOT liked prior to Avadon? Can you explain what makes Blades of Exile/Avernum evidence? And evidence of what? I still don't understand how, despite Avadon doing better than any other SWS game, that you'd make the claim that the opposite "may" have more success.

I don't have an assertion to make. I simply pointed out that what was posted as "objective" was absolutely incorrect and was simply an opinion that is trying to be elevated into fact by declaring it objective. Why should I have to make an assertion to disprove someone else's assertion? My original post was saying that I have no interest in playing remakes. People countered by saying that their gameplay is "completely different" and that this is apparently objective fact. I responded by saying that that is in no way fact. It is pure opinion. Then, I requested what made someone think that they are in any way "completely different" and so far no one has offered any reasoning. Someone else claimed that it "may" bring in more new players than newer franchises/games. I said that Avadon shows that this is not necessarily the case, considering it is new and sold more than everything else combined. Why would I provide evidence for something very different, that I never talked about?

It wasn't snide. It pointed out the truth. He posted his personal opinion masquerading as "objective" fact. Thanks for proving my point. That was EXACTLY what he had asserted. Let me quote him- "also that the game mechanics are completely different. " Can you explain how you think they are substantially different please? "Fairly different" is an opinion. Stating opinion is fine. The post that I responded to(that you are in turn responding to a response of) made the claim that "objectively" the gameplay is "completely different." This is the bogus claim that I responded to. It is in no way "objectively" stated. It is pure opinion...and one that I asked to be clarified. That is not the claim that he made whatsoever. You are trying to completely change his argument and change the goalposts. He said that the gameplay is "completely" different and that that was NOT his opinion, but objective FACT, which is as far from the truth as possible. You even confirmed right here in this post that it is NOT "completely" different nor objective in any way. I am not sure of the relevance or what point that is trying to be made here. Yes, that is true. It was the first ios game to come out and a more casual design as well. My point was that it was opposite of what was suggested by the post "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. " As for your last statement, it is a jumbled mess of ideas clutching for some kind of gotcha. If Avadon was good for Spiderweb, why wasn't Geneforge also? I know you think you are latching onto gold here... It could be for lots of reasons. Genre, setting, mechanics, theme, non linearity, etc etc etc. The original statement was "A remake of a well-liked story and setting may bring in more new customers than a brand new game. " l responded by requesting for proof of such an assertion. It "may" bring in more new customers? Why? You can't just make such statements without supporting it with evidence. I countered that Avadon is evidence that this is not necessarily the case, considering how well it did. So, what claim are YOU trying to make here?

The assertion was made by the original poster, not me. The remakes allow SW to target the same audience that any other game of theirs have.

First statement: Requiring fewer resources does nothing to bring in new customers. The link between pumping out games faster and more new customers in a niche genre is tenuous at best. Second statement. "Well liked," you mean, by the people that already bought it? They would have already recommended it to their friends. Avadon brought WAY more attention than Avernum/Geneforge did, and it was brand new.

Health is all that we, as living beings have. Without it, nothing else matters. When we form a society, we don't just do what we each personally would prefer to invest in. We also help each other as a society. In reality, if money were a determining factor, you'd have people being denied care because it wasn't profitable enough and a group of haves and have nots. This is not a society that I would want to be a part of. Many people who think they are rugged individuals quickly change their tune when they actually experience what poor health of either oneself or a loved one would have to deal with in such a system. You paid for your own K-12 education? How exactly? As for college, what years did you go to school? Did you go to grad school? The earth can only support so many human beings. Again, this is part of forming a society. Eventually, this might become determined as a group for the greater good. The only ones who will pay for it are the kids who did not choose to be born. Your solution is to have the kids suffer? Of course not. Society will pay for it just like they do now. We do not live in an ideal world where only the reckless parents would suffer. Spouse agrees? What!? They are taking responsibility... by having an abortion if it isn't what would be best for them. Not all "life" is equal. For someone who claims to want all decisions decided on an individual basis(education, health), it is funny that you think that the individual shouldn't be able to take responsibility for their actions because YOU personally don't agree with how they do it. You literally want to interfere with what happens inside their body. Don't worry though... paying a few bucks to educate everyone and give healthcare to everyone is just TOO far! Telling someone what they can do with their actual body.. just right! Both don't bear the same consequences, such as the damage done to the body during pregnancy, so they do not have equal say. If both had equal amounts of hardship, then it would make sense to have equal say. Reality is that it affects the woman 10x more than a man. Not all life is equal.

How are they "completely different"? I do not agree that it can "objectively" be said that they are "completely" different. You are confusing your opinion with objective observation.

How does a remake accomplish finding new customers any more than a brand new game?

Has anyone ever argued this? I guess I just don't know who you could possibly be responding to.

I'd argue that in comparison to grades 1-12, the internet has more of an effect on education, communication, and freedom than the traditional "education" system.

I don't personally see the difference between the 2. This difference would only matter to the doctor involved. No doctor would be forced to do something they don't want anyways, so it is self correcting. It doesn't matter why someone would choose to end their life, depressed or otherwise. It should be their choice, and is no different to any other personal choice they make. Euthanasia would just make it easier on all involved.

I interpreted the question as just what people's opinions are. This is not the same as having someone enforce the opinion.