Support NeoGAF

[lostinblue]

Ocarina of Time on Gamecube is a regular port, same for VC titles.

It's not a port if it's running the original ROM through an emulator.

Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask 3D are remakes, because the base code and rules are (re)built from scratch. The visuals and animations are all new, and the gameplay is actually quite different. Remakes go far beyond being only visual upgrades.

No they're not.

Enhanced ports through and through,yes assets were improved upon but the codebase that served as the basis for them is the same. It's a linear evolution thing, not a remake.

 

[Memento]

Speaking of remakes, I can't be the only one that thinks a Shadow of the Colossus Remake would be amazing, right?

The game is already gorgeous (especially the PS3 remaster), but I can't stop thinking how awesome would it be if Sony gives it a complete remake treatment. It just makes so much sense :/

 

[lostinblue]

Speaking of remakes, I can't be the only one that thinks a Shadow of the Colossus Remake would be amazing, right?

The game is already gorgeous (especially the PS3 remaster), but I can't stop thinking how awesome would it be if Sony gives it a complete remake treatment. It just makes so much sense :/

I think you mean enhanced port with an asset touch up. (Textures and geometry, perhaps gpu implementation techniques/shaders/lightning too).

As is it's a direct port in regards to code that has been a little enhanced in regards to it's rendering methods, but not in regards to content.

Uhh... The FFX port is definitely a remake in my opinion.

And you're wrong.

It's an enhanced port, not a remake. Under the hood it's quite clearly the same game. Just prettier. (Ugly facial remastering for some characters though)

 

[ugh_the_boot]

Lol if anyone was confused about remakes and remasters then they would be none the wiser after this thread.

Personally I think remakes are when they rebuild the entire game using a new engine, new gameplay mechanics, parts of the story and dialogue changed or with new sequences. Baiscally a new game in thr spirit of the old game or with the same basic premise....there are not very many remakes RE remake, goldeneye conkers bad fur day and metroid zero mission are perfect examples of this. The rest are remasters including halos and gears of war.

 

[RedSwirl]

port: port a game to another console just boosting resolution and fps

remaster: with the same engine as the original game enhance assets, texture, models, new modes, new features.

remake: remade a game with a completely new engine

This should be the end of the conversation. Halo Anniversary is about as far as you can go without it being a remake. They changed everything except the base game mechanics and engine.

RE1 and Twin Snakes on the other hand may have the same level design as before, but were completely rebuilt with none of the original code.

 

[lostinblue]

Lol of anyone was confused about remakes and remasters then they would be none the wiser aftet this thread.

Personally I think remakes are when they rebuild the entire game using a new engine, new gameplay mechanics, parts of the story and dialogue changed or with new sequences. Baiscally a new game in thr spirit of the old game or with the same basic premise....there are not very many remakes RE remake, goldeneye conkers bad fur day and metroid zero mission are perfect examples of this. The rest are remasters including halos and gears of war.

Conkers Bad Fur Day on Xbox is not a remake ffs.

Enhanced port with some content changes. It basically entered production again, not all enhanced ports do (most don't, not adding anything substantial to the original content) - but it's still first and foremost built on top of the original software.

 

[ugh_the_boot]

Nah conker is a remake, it has new stages and a multiplayer mode. It was rebuilt from scratch new engine etc

 

[entremet]

It's really not that difficult.

Reimagining is just another useless term honestly.

FFVI is clearly a remake.

REMake is one too.

Zero Mission another one.

Remasters are usually ports with either better resolution or frame rates or both.

 

[lostinblue]

Nah conker is a remake, it has new stages and a multiplayer mode. It was rebuilt from scratch new engine etc

Engine wasn't completly new as the game was originally a port. Massively overhauled engine along the way, yes but not from the ground up, no.

Still an enhanced port, it started off with an established product and went from there, like I said the unusual part of it was that it entered into a content production phase something most enhanced ports just don't because that requires quite a bit of resources, usually an enhanced port is a port+some artistic enhancements on top (this includes stuff as far as redoing animations and cutscenes) it doesn't include actually producing and including more stuff.

It's unnusual but not a remake.

FFVI is clearly a remake.

You mean FF IV DS?

 

[Death Metalist]

After going through the majority of the posts I think the thread should be titled " ITT: Everyone has their own definition of what the word remake and a remaster is" I think I agree that they should be called remasters but since remasters have also been given to titles who didn't have shit done to them except for an upscale and a higher FPS, I think these should be called a lesser remaster or something lol.

EDIT: Super HD would do.

 

[Memento]

I think you mean enhanced port with an asset touch up. (Textures and geometry, perhaps gpu implementation techniques/shaders/lightning too).

As is it's a direct port in regards to code that has been a little enhanced in regards to it's rendering methods, but not in regards to content.

I am confused now.

 

[KiraXD]

Then the FFXHD collection should be a remaster, right? Because it is a port of the game with upped resolution and framerate (and higher-resolution textures, but still the same textures). It's literally a fresh coat of paint using the original assets: a remaster, even by your own definition.

Also, the official name of the compilation is Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster, so there's that.

not as simple as that... not JUST a coat of paint... new enhanced models as well...

I still consider it a remaster... for me remasters are basically the same game - with enhanced textures, resolution, models, lighting.

Remake would be a completely different game. like Twin Snakes is to MGS. Its a remake of an old game, not just uprezing and polishing it up.

 

[charlequin]

now add reimagining and reboot

With the twin provisos that basically no one outside of ultra-nerd enthusiast forums cares about any of this type of distinction and that in reality many games don't fall neatly into exactly one category, I think it's relatively easy to make four useful categories that are distinct from each other:

Remaster: On analogy to a film or album remastering, a game remaster is taking something that already exists and reworking it to have increased fidelity. Increasing resolution, re-rendering FMVs, swapping models and textures for higher-res versions of the same design -- this stuff goes into a remaster, which should look essentially like a nicer version of the same thing, and play exactly the same as the older version. Things like FFX/X-2 for PS3/4, Perfect Dark for XBLA, and Another World 20th Anniversary fall in this category.

Remake: Taking a game and assembling it from scratch (literally making it again) without absolute dedication to recreating the precise experience, but with the goal of at least maintaining the core of what makes it the same game. The game might have a different style of graphics, or tweaked mechanics, or new systems or characters, but would generally retain enough to feel obviously connected to the original. REMake, Rondo of Blood and Tactics Ogre on PSP, Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty, Metroid: Zero Mission, and FF3 and FF4 on DS would all fall into this category.

Reimagining: Taking the concept of a game and making a new game based on it; maybe the levels are completely different, maybe it's the same story in a different type of game altogether, but the result is something that stands alone as separate and distinct from its inspiration. Tomb Raider Anniversary or the new Ratchet and Clank for PS4 fall here; they tell the same story(ish) as their inspirations, but don't try to maintain level design or gameplay systems.

Reboot: A game that tries to start a series fresh, abandoning the built-up storyline and mechanics and trying to begin again with a different and hopefully more appealing approach. Prince of Persia 2008; XCOM 2012; Tomb Raider, Shadow Warrior, SimCity, and Killer Instinct 2013 -- if you have to distinguish a game by pegging a pretty recent year in after its formal title, that seems to be a pretty decent indicator that it's a reboot.

After going through the majority of the posts I think the thread should be titled " ITT: Everyone has their own definition of what the word remake and a remaster is"

At very least, no company has used "Remaster" to mean anything with more upgrades than, say, FFX, so if you wanted to draw a line there and say everything below it is a remaster, everything above a remake, you'd probably have a 99% hit rate on what stuff actually gets labeled as.

 

[Who]

Windwaker HD is a... ?

 

[Skux]

I wouldn't say GoWUE is drastic enough to qualify for the "remake" definition.

Sure the cinematics are jazzed up and the lighting and textures are different, but the gameplay is exactly the same. The characters look the same. The game isn't "remade" it's just "made better".

 

[ugh_the_boot]

Engine wasn't completly new as the game was originally a port. Massively overhauled engine along the way, yes but not from the ground up, no.

Still an enhanced port, it started off with an established product and went from there, like I said the unusual part of it was that it entered into a content production phase something most enhanced ports just don't because that requires quite a bit of resources, usually an enhanced port is a port+some artistic enhancements on top (this includes stuff as far as redoing animations and cutscenes) it doesn't include actually producing and including more stuff.

It's unnusual but not a remake.You mean FF IV DS?

Ok you would be right then as i dont know anything about the development of it. New engine = remake. Overhauled or tweaked engine = remaster/port.

 

[Persona7]

Windwaker HD is a... ?

Remaster.

 

[entremet]

Engine wasn't completly new as the game was originally a port. Massively overhauled engine along the way, yes but not from the ground up, no.

Still an enhanced port, it started off with an established product and went from there, like I said the unusual part of it was that it entered into a content production phase something most enhanced ports just don't because that requires quite a bit of resources, usually an enhanced port is a port+some artistic enhancements on top (this includes stuff as far as redoing animations and cutscenes) it doesn't include actually producing and including more stuff.

It's unnusual but not a remake.You mean FF IV DS?

I meant VII. Missed a character and inverted two!

 

[Donovan1209]

So the new Ratchet & Clank game is something beyond a remake, no? It's much closer to a complete reboot than a mere remake.

 

[charlequin]

So the new Ratchet & Clank game is something beyond a remake, no? It's much closer to a complete reboot than a mere remake.

Yeah, it's the same story beats and traveling to some of the same planets, but completely different gameplay, level design, etc.

 

[BigTnaples]

Remaster and Remake are two separate things, and they have been around long before this generation.


Really simple.

Remaster.

Remake.

Remasters are just bringing the film/game up to modern spec, resolution, framerate, sound quality, etc. Making it so we can still enjoy old things, new and and improved on better hardware.


Remakes are taking the old game, and redoing it, most times from the ground up. It is still recognizable, but the quality gap is huge and most things are done with a slightly different vision.

This has always been a thing. I for one love remasters and remakes.


Remasters for the same reason I like the fact that when I want to watch Jurassic Park, I can throw in the 3D blu ray and watch it on a 4K Curved TV. Rather than dig a VHS player and old TV out of the attic for an underwhelming picture and sound only to have the player eat my tape.

Remasters are a fantastic trend, and such a better option than BC.

BC alone is not good enough. Imagine if Blu Ray discs were ONLY new movies, and anything older you were given the excuse that "Your old DVD's still work!"

No. I don't want 480p DVDs upscalled on my bluray player. I want the old movies REMASTERED in 1080p/4K with 5.1/7.1 Surround etc.

 

[Auto-Reply]

I don't see much of a difference regarding games, the distinction doesn't really matter in my view. There is code in there that has to be remade, remaster or remake doesn't matter. But I mostly have the pc perspective in mind and I don't know how a "remaster" can actually exist when the definition is a "standard trait" of nearly every game out there, bump up the resolution and framerate. So when such a game releases on consoles I don't really care for the description. I don't really see how the distinction is in any way important.

 

[Unit24]

The way I see it, if it's not redone entirely from the ground up, it's not a remake. Just because the visuals are significantly improved doesn't mean they remade the game.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

If they had to develop a new code from the ground up, then that's a remake. Pure and simple. Just upscaling a game and making it 60FPS is not a remake, it's a remaster. In the case of RE1 well, there is nothing like it to be honest. RE1 is like the holy fuck batman god teir of remakes.

There are plenty of remakes that go to the lengths that REmake did. Metroid: Zero Mission, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, the upcoming Ratchet & Clank, etc.

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

It's pretty simple to me. A remake uses mostly new assets. A remaster cleans up the old ones.

 

[SirNinja]

Ico

Okami

Final Fantasy IX

 

[EightBitNate]

The whole remaster vs remake argument is worthless imo. I think it all started this gen, actually, with TLoU for PS4 being dubbed a remaster instead of a port. Ports to new hardware ran better than the original way before the term "remaster" ever came about. Remake vs port is a whole lot easier to understand and I wish we could forget about remaster.

 

[Emedan]

Since when is this a problem?

Remake - All new assets
Remaster - Improved older assets

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I always figure it was like this:

Port/Enhanced port: same basic game, maybe some minor tweaks due to different post processing effects, etc.

Remaster: In addition to the enhanced port stuff, also includes changes to lighting, textures, models, text, etc. Ex: supper puzzle fighter 2 turbo HD, GoW collection, etc.

Remake: same basic game design, but damn near everything new. Super mario all stars, REmake, 1942, etc.

Re-imagining: All new assets, all new game design, pretty much nothing left of the original. May have some similar playstayles, may not. Tomb Raider for example.

 

[texhnolyze]

OP posted a list of ports, all of which have varying degrees of enhancement in them.

Can't agree more. They're all just ports.
Ports and remasters are kinda the same, but remakes are on another level. At least it should be in a new engine to remake a game.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

Good to see Zero Mission being covered (best remake ever), but surprised no mentioning of Pokemon remakes. Those are definitely good examples, updating the past games with all of the newer pokemon, mechanics, and features and some new stuff of its own. Stories themselves are given more depth as well.

 

[Auto-Reply]

The whole remaster vs remake argument is worthless imo. I think it all started this gen, actually, with TLoU for PS4 being dubbed a remaster instead of a port. Ports to new hardware ran better than the original way before the term "remaster" ever came about. Remake vs port is a whole lot easier to understand and I wish we could forget about remaster.

That's a good way to look at it. Remasters should be considered ports and that's that. If there is some extra stuff in there it's still a port with some extra stuff.

 

[texhnolyze]

That's a good way to look at it. Remasters should be considered ports and that's that. If there is some extra stuff in there it's still a port with some extra stuff.

Yeah, a good example is GTA V.
People don't call next-gen and PC versions as remaster, but just ports.

 

[eXistor]

It's probably easier to think of in terms of movies. Sam Raimi's Wizard of Oz is a remake; a completely new version (at least that's what I think I haven't actually seen it), whereas the recently cleaned up original film is a remaster.

 

[hooijdonk17]

OK but the real question is, what are the Star Wars Special Edition movies?

 

[McKeeverFever]

Since when is this a problem?

Remake - All new assets
Remaster - Improved older assets

This /Thread

 

[encephalon]

Ports with additions are still ports.

 

[Death Metalist]

Remaster and Remake are two separate things, and they have been around long before this generation.


Really simple.

Remaster.



Remake.



Remasters are just bringing the film/game up to modern spec, resolution, framerate, sound quality, etc. Making it so we can still enjoy old things, new and and improved on better hardware.


Remakes are taking the old game, and redoing it, most times from the ground up. It is still recognizable, but the quality gap is huge and most things are done with a slightly different vision.

This has always been a thing. I for one love remasters and remakes.


Remasters for the same reason I like the fact that when I want to watch Jurassic Park, I can throw in the 3D blu ray and watch it on a 4K Curved TV. Rather than dig a VHS player and old TV out of the attic for an underwhelming picture and sound only to have the player eat my tape.

Remasters are a fantastic trend, and such a better option than BC.

BC alone is not good enough. Imagine if Blu Ray discs were ONLY new movies, and anything older you were given the excuse that "Your old DVD's still work!"

No. I don't want 480p DVDs upscalled on my bluray player. I want the old movies REMASTERED in 1080p/4K with 5.1/7.1 Surround etc.

Movies will always be different than video games for the simple fact that when you buy a bluray in most cases you're getting every other version as well. Movies are also way cheaper than video games. Video games on the other hand are way expensive, sometimes they fuck up a remaster and most of the times they don't do enough to really justify the price nor do they give the game some time to feel as if it's been a while since you played that game. However, that is also even true for movies made to bluray especially for early and even some late blurays where they fuck up the transfer with shit tons of DNR and other crap. My favorite example being Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition.

In terms of video games, most remasters this gen have been of 1 - 3 year old games and they barely do anything new other than upscale it and make it run at a higher FPS. Compared to other remasters if you like to call them that like Halo Anniversary, Gears Ultimate Edition, Majora's Mask 3D & Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty! just to name a few, might as well be remakes by the amount of new work they did.

 

[Death Metalist]

It's probably easier to think of in terms of movies. Sam Raimi's Wizard of Oz is a remake; a completely new version (at least that's what I think I haven't actually seen it), whereas the recently cleaned up original film is a remaster.

Well, film has certainly used these terms much better than video games did that's for sure. I mean the amount of work that goes into most blurays is astounding if you research about it plus getting probably the most complete version of a certain movie ever in the best video quality and sound with some to tons of bonus features. You still get the few bad apples every now and then, but that's expected.

 

[Black_Stride]

The Gears and Halo examples are enhanced ports.

Id want to call them remakes.
But 343 themselves call it a Remaster so fuck it, its a remaster.

 

[Earthpainting]

Remaster: Metroid: Zero Mission

I'm not sure if I agree with this one. It's not like they took the original game and gave it a mere audiovisual boost. Sure, it intentionally follows the same rough map structure, but the actual design within most of these rooms had been revamped to account for the new physics, controls, expanded moveset, and made them more interesting to traverse in general. There are also new (mini)bosses, new items, more powers, and new areas. The staple Metroid map screen and save rooms were also incorporated, which completely change the difficulty of the original.

I'd say Zero Mission is more akin to REmake, where they made sure some some beats and layouts were intact to reference the original and drum up some nostalgia, but the entire experience had been revised and retooled.

 

[DOWN]

Op put remasters as remakes... Gears is not a remake. It's the same game with select changes. Not even a complete overhaul of the visuals. Nothing but select visuals are remade in that game. Halo is just redone visuals. Not a remade game.

Remake means they started over.

 

[Vik]

Seems like a lot of people here think remake vs. remaster is a visual thing. It's not. As the name suggest, remake are games that are remade (from scratch). Anything that is build around the same game even with heavily modified assets are ports.

Here's an exemple.

Original
Resident Evil 1 for PS1

Enhanced Port (Remaster)
Resident Evil Director's Cut for PS1

Diminished and Enhanced Port (Remaster) (shittier graphics and lots of nice little gameplay tweaks)
Resident Evil Dead Silence for DS

Diminished Remake
Resident Evil for GBC

Remake
Resident Evil for GC

Port of Remake
Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil for Wii

Enhanced Port of Remake (Remaster of Remake)

 

[Death Metalist]

Op put remasters as remakes... Gears is not a remake. It's the same game with select changes. Not even a complete overhaul of the visuals. Nothing but select visuals are remade in that game. Halo is just redone visuals. Not a remade game.

Remake means they started over.

I tend to think that a remake can be anything that has new coding/stuff done from scratch. If we slap a remaster to Gears Ultimate Edition then the other remasters should be called super HD ports or something because they clearly don't have half the work that is being done on Gears or other games that had alot of new work done on them. Games like Okami HD, Shadow of the Colossus HD, Ico HD, The Last of Us Remaster, Halo 3-4 & ODST in the MCC collection.etc just to name a few have done nothing to stand out.

EDIT: Those should be called Super HD, Remaster should be for games that have had new work done on them but the base game is the same, Remake should be the entire game is from scratch and a Reimagining would be something like MGS: The Twin Snakes.

 

[airmangataosenai]

There was another thread like this recently and I'm still not convinced this is a mistake common enough to warrant threads about it.

Seriously, haha.

 

[jg4xchamp]

Even Halo 2 Ann isn't a remake, it's a port job with a cleaner visual presentation to me. Which okay definitely way more work than a straight remaster, but it's a port on some level. To me a remake is exactly what it should be a remake, a reimagining of that previous game.

Yes RE1 remake has a similar plot, setting characters, and a bunch of other stuff, but there was a whole lot of new stuff added in and tone shifts that make that game a class or 3 above the original Resident Evil. That to me is a full on remake of the previous game.

Halo 2 Ann I can appreciate the visual work, but it's Halo 2, it is exactly Halo 2.

 

[Death Metalist]

Even Halo 2 Ann isn't a remake, it's a port job with a cleaner visual presentation to me. Which okay definitely way more work than a straight remaster, but it's a port on some level. To me a remake is exactly what it should be a remake, a reimagining of that previous game.

Yes RE1 remake has a similar plot, setting characters, and a bunch of other stuff, but there was a whole lot of new stuff added in and tone shifts that make that game a class or 3 above the original Resident Evil. That to me is a full on remake of the previous game.

Halo 2 Ann I can appreciate the visual work, but it's Halo 2, it is exactly Halo 2.

The problem with this though is that Halo 2 had visual work done, sound work done, new CGI cutscenes made from the ground up , the multiplayer also had remade maps with interactions in them as well as new vehicles, weapons and modes implemented in it. I don't see how it can be classified as a port.

 

[charlequin]

I'm not sure if I agree with this one.

I wouldn't either, I was editing in extra examples before I submitted and put it in the wrong spot, lol.

 

[Nottle]

I'm so glad you made this topic. I remember Alex Navarro on the e3 stream saying something like "if you wanted this ff7 remake you you don't get to complain about any hd remasters ever again." This statement seemed really silly because there is a huge difference.

A remake of something isn't just the previous thing but prettier. When movies are remade they stick to the originals in ways but can turn out vastly different from the source and games follow that same trend. When you remake movie you don't just make it 1080p and add some scenes.

That said I feel like there are multiple types of ways games see future releases. You have full ass remakes like Resident Evil, Spelunky Metroid Zero mission, FF4 and 3 for the DS, and Riddick. To use songs as a metaphor this is Johnny Cashes Hurt to NIN's Hurt.
Then you have like updated versions of games like the GBA Final Fantasies, FFT War of the Lions, the updated versions of a Street Fighter series, P4Golden. Things are added, it looks better, balances have been changed. This is like a song that has been remixed, or taken from the LIVE album.
Then remasters like all the collections we've seen which are essentially the remastered anniversary cd.

 

[Death Metalist]

I'm so glad you made this topic. I remember Alex Navarro on the e3 stream saying something like "if you wanted this ff7 remake you you don't get to complain about any hd remasters ever again." This statement seemed really silly because there is a huge difference.

A remake of something isn't just the previous thing but prettier. When movies are remade they stick to the originals in ways but can turn out vastly different from the source and games follow that same trend. When you remake movie you don't just make it 1080p and add some scenes.

That said I feel like there are multiple types of ways games see future releases. You have full ass remakes like Resident Evil, Spelunky Metroid Zero mission, FF4 and 3 for the DS, and Riddick. To use songs as a metaphor this is Johnny Cashes Hurt to NIN's Hurt.
Then you have like updated versions of games like the GBA Final Fantasies, FFT War of the Lions, the updated versions of a Street Fighter series, P4Golden. Things are added, it looks better, balances have been changed. This is like a song that has been remixed, or taken from the LIVE album.
Then remasters like all the collections we've seen which are essentially the remastered anniversary cd.

I think the problem with games compared to movies is that they are not only double/triple the price of films but sometimes they are not worthy of even being called remasters because they are remastering what 1 - 3 year old games and aren't doing anything except upscaling it and making it 60FPS in most but not all cases of course. The word remastered is being thrown around for things that aren't worthy of being called that, that's why to me atleast any game that has new work done to it from scratch, whatever it my be, to me it's a remake/remade. Obviously REmake, Metroid Zero Mission and the like are like the true meaning of the word remake, the upper echelon of remakes.