Support NeoGAF

[DOWN]

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.

Let me try explaining: the film Thunderball came out decades ago. It was remastered for Blu-Ray by clean the picture, color, tones, and some graphic design. It was remade as Never Say Never Again. The cleanup and enhancement done for the original Thunderball on Blu-Ray is not e remake of Thunderball.

Let's try another: Blade Runner released in 1982. blade Runner: The Final Cut, despite even redoing some CGI, all of the colors and cleanup, adding effects, etc, and reshooting one shot, is not a remake. It is a remastered release of the film. Nobody would call it a remake of Blade Runner.

That's similar to what those of us in the thread are referring to when we point out some of those games are just spruced ups of existing games.

They didn't remake it just because elements themselves in the game were redone. And while there's different types of remaster, the ones that just go up to HD res and uncompressed audio are still a remaster. The ones that redo some elements in overall an already built game are still remasters. Resident Evil was remade. That Riddick Pitch Black game was remade. Halo 1 & 2 were not remade.

 

[Death Metalist]

Let me try explaining: the film Thunderball came out decades ago. It was remastered for Blu-Ray by clean the picture, color, tones, and some graphic design. It was remade as Never Say Never Again. The cleanup and enhancement done for the original Thunderball on Blu-Ray is not e remake of Thunderball.

Let's try another: Blade Runner released in 1982. blade Runner: The Final Cut, despite even redoing some CGI, all of the colors and cleanup, adding effects, etc, and reshooting one shot, is not a remake. It is a remastered release of the film. Nobody would call it a remake of Blade Runner.

That's similar to what those of us in the thread are referring to when we point out some of those games are just spruced ups of existing games.

They didn't remake it just because elements themselves in the game were redone. And while there's different types of remaster, the ones that just go up to HD res and uncompressed audio are still a remaster. The ones that redo some elements in overall an already built game are still remasters. Resident Evil was remade. That Riddick Pitch Black game was remade. Halo 1 & 2 were not remade.

I understand where you are coming from and I totally agree. My view is that yes, they should be called remasters but with how developers adopted that word it isn't fair to call Halo 2 Anniversary a remaster when you got TLOU: Remastered, for example. I mean you cannot tell me the work that was done in H2A was head in head with TLOU:Remastered, to compare them would make H2A seem like a remake. That's just one example. I think with such remasters, they should be called super HD or something and leave the word to games that really deserve to be called "remastered".

 

[lostinblue]

Some remasters have quite a bit of work in them, but they're still coming from their original roots.

That's the difference, imagine you're a student and you're doing a project, if you finish it but have your computer stolen and had all your work done there, you'll begrudgingly redo from the ground up, so that's remaking it. Even though you didn't want to.


If you were done and satisfied with it at some point but now things changed and since you have time keep adding and ironing some kinks out of it, then you're remastering it.

A lot of people do that for portfolios, and we're not re-envisioning or remaking everything, no... People are lazy (and practical too) so providing it's feasible it's always better to go at it with something, the final work might be much improved, but you still changed one part at a time and left the good ones untouched (usually gameplay code and mechanics), so you were never in there without legs, per say.

With the advent of modern cross platform engines both ports and remasters are bound to be more and more common. Adding content to a 3D game from the 90's is always going to be a chore because the tools and the work pipeline are simply not the same, way more limited too. It means having to fight the engine or massively overhaul it.

That's just one example. I think with such remasters, they should be called super HD or something and leave the word to games that really deserve to be called "remastered".

But calling it Super HD wouldn't really solve any problems. When they start porting with 4K equipment in mind we call it Ultra HD?

Sounds like the Street Fighter naming scheme, which is a mess. Although of course marketing departments will come up with terms like that, I don't think they should be encouraged.

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.

Because under the hood it's still Halo 2, ported over.

Nobody's calling them lazy or saying it gave them less work than changing engine's and using halo 3 or halo 4 assets, but they clearly didn't want to mess with the core. And they didn't, so it's still vanilla Halo 2, only prettier.

 

[lostinblue]

.