Nuclear Muffin said:That's exactly what they are. They are full remakes like Mario 64 DS (whether or not they build off of the original code), not just simple ports.
Porting a game to a new engine does not change it from being a port. OoT has the same dungeons, same weapons, same enemies, same puzzles, same bosses. It has the Master Quest mode from the GCN port. It has a boss rush mode.
IGN Review said:Fundamentally this is the same game it ever was. Locations, structures and characters have all been preserved. However, textures, models and animations are all built from the ground up, and have been significantly revised. You'll still recognize everything and everyone, but you'll see them as they were originally meant to be.
While there's no doubt characters should only be revised so much, environments are another thing entirely. While the enhanced textures and backgrounds in the game are quite impressive, resulting in some truly stunning locales (Castle Town in particular comes to mind), the basic architecture of some of these areas is still a bit archaic. You'll certainly run into some blocky looking hills and cliffs, instantly recalling this game's rather dated origins. It makes me wonder why some of this couldn't have been touched up. More awkward examples of this come in the form of stairs and open fields, where the blocky nature of the ground combined with more detailed textures makes it painfully obvious you're running up a sparse, flat surface.
All in all the revamped Master Quest, boss gauntlet and hint movies are great, yet it feels like there could have been a bit more. If you know Zelda exceptionally well, the core graphical enhancements are going to have to suffice. Most of these other things, though certainly nice, are merely a different colored icing on a cake that's largely the same. For some of us, experiencing Ocarina of Time through a shinier, clearer lens will be enough. Others will be left wanting, expecting and demanding that the core concept must change to warrant another purchase. Both perspectives are perfectly reasonable. I fall into the former camp.
I don't see how you can reasonably argue this isn't a port.