your definition of remake is most likely a more controversial one than mine then, god damn.
by your definition almost nothing is actually a remaster anymore
hell even ports become remakes by your definition, like my mentioned GTA3 and Vice City on Xbox, which had redone graphics compared to PS2...
like damn. and I thought my take was controversial.
stop bickering and make your point.
What I stated was a remaster is merely up res and a frame jump.
A remake clearly would be anything where its in a different engine, different models, textures etc. That simply doesn't happen with remasters or ports, thus is makes more sense for remake to merely mean re making, re doing. The moment they added on to, changed something, its now in the process of a remake. You can mention GTA all you want bud, they redid something, its not merely a remaster as we have many, many examples of that, so stop trying to force the term to mean if you like it or if you feel its good looking or some shit.
Someone can redo a game graphically and still have it look like the past titles in terms of art direction, some can change that art direction, but that choice to do that has nothing to do with the term remake... Its simply saying more was kept from the last title, but something was changed more then you'd see with a simple port or remaster.
So it actually makes more sense to just have ports, remaster and remakes all mean those 3 different aspects.
Port= nothing changed and merely a transfer job
Remaster = up res, up the frames, minor things are done, but the models, design etc remain the same.
Remake = changing the level design, character models, engine, adding in lighting engine, shadow etc.
Keep in mind, I say this because in a remaster, those are not elements that are generally done.
So with Wind Waker, its in a different engine, they use different character models and add enough that its not a remaster like their past titles and already does more then enough to say something was redone. Them looking to keep the art direction or feel of the title doesn't change that something was changed, redone etc.
As in, if they made it look like this
You'd call it a remake.
but the issue here is
a change was clearly made with Wind Waker HD to fit remake, so it sound like you are merely trying to apply that term based on what changes you like or not, not based on a change happening at all.
Regardless of what you feel about either model btw, a change occurred and it shouldn't be based on anyone's personal feelings on what they like or don't like or something.
If anything think about it like remodeling vs some touch up to your home. If a base board, a floor is being changed or a wall taken down or something, we don't fucking use that term based on HOW MUCH of the fucking house was going thru that and I don't even get how that factors. If someone simply puts some paint on a house, clearly we can call this a touch up, if someone is removing a base board to replace it with something else, clearly they are remodeling.
Their choice to do this in 1 room vs the whole house doesn't change what that term means. So can we have remakes more significate then others? sure, we literally have AAA games more wild then other games, we don't then go on to pretend those other games ARE NOT GAMES, so anyone's choice to do a huge remake, should alter the term for a team that merely wants to remake the graphics alone or something.
They both are remaking something, merely some more then others.