-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is it really hard for people to understand the difference between remaster and a remake?
- Thread starter hwarang
- Start date
I'd imagine most that don't get the difference also don't really understand or respect how game development works either.
could just be a marketing issue.
But from what I've seen and known, a remaster states "Remaster" in the title. And, a remake just uses the original title or even a slightly different title.
But from what I've seen and known, a remaster states "Remaster" in the title. And, a remake just uses the original title or even a slightly different title.
The definition has some porosity to it. Demon's Souls 2020 is rebuilt in a new engine but deliberately keeps the content nearly identical apart from some bug fixes and new Easter eggs. Kingdom Hearts also had to be rebuilt due to the original source code being lost.
But yes in general a remake is a game being rebuilt from the ground up and a remaster is an enhanced version usually ported to a new platform. Both can potentially have content added/removed/changed.
But yes in general a remake is a game being rebuilt from the ground up and a remaster is an enhanced version usually ported to a new platform. Both can potentially have content added/removed/changed.
It's simply the difference between tweaking and improving the original code, versus throwing out the original code and making the game again from scratch.
Especially if you're looking for the Deathfinitive answer to this quandry.
Especially if you're looking for the Deathfinitive answer to this quandry.
I know people are saying they're meaningless marketing terms but this is not true for other mediums like music and film where the terms have a long established history of meaning and purpose and it is a bad thing that the terms have been diluted and damaged in gaming.
These terms do have actual meanings and definitions and they are not arbitrary and I dislike how they are applied arbitrarily in games.
I don't blame anyone, it's just an undesirable fact of the matter.
These terms do have actual meanings and definitions and they are not arbitrary and I dislike how they are applied arbitrarily in games.
I don't blame anyone, it's just an undesirable fact of the matter.
If it helps:
Recent Remakes: Demon's Souls PS5, Resident Evil 2 + 3, FF7R, Spyro and Crash trilogies
Recent Remasters: Kingdoms of Amalur, Spider Man PS5, Final Fantasy X/X-2 Remaster, COD Modern Warfare Remastered
Recent Remakes: Demon's Souls PS5, Resident Evil 2 + 3, FF7R, Spyro and Crash trilogies
Recent Remasters: Kingdoms of Amalur, Spider Man PS5, Final Fantasy X/X-2 Remaster, COD Modern Warfare Remastered
They are loose terms. I'd consider Demon's Souls a remaster for example, as it is the same game with better graphics.
My experience with many gaming communities tells me the average person is rarely linguistically adept, so it makes sense parsing that the remaster/remake distinction would cause drama, especially when it all gets tied up with marketing
A remake is when everything is different, like in Final Fantasy VII.
A remaster is when nothing changed from the first game, like in Final Fantasy X.
Sure, both are 'remakes' of Final Fantasy 1, but only Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster'.
A remaster is when nothing changed from the first game, like in Final Fantasy X.
Sure, both are 'remakes' of Final Fantasy 1, but only Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster'.
Marketing uses them interchangeably. I think where remakes and remasters blur the lines with each other are when the gameplay is 1:1 between new and old. Outside of those cases, remakes are a visual overhaul while remasters maintain the original look. I suppose when the gameplay is altered a lot we can call them "reimaginings."
Like, the difference between SotC HD vs SotC PS4 would be a remaster vs a remake. But then you have Resident Evil 2 and 3, which are also called remakes.
Like, the difference between SotC HD vs SotC PS4 would be a remaster vs a remake. But then you have Resident Evil 2 and 3, which are also called remakes.
After Ocarina of Time 3D I stopped caring about remakes, it's all about reimaginations like Silent Hill Shattered Memories
Maybe I do not know the difference between remaster and remake, but at least I can tell the difference between RPG and NPC.
on topic, I'd say the bigger problem rather than the one you described is how do you classify something like Resident Evil 2 Remake or Final Fantasy VII Remake as opposed to Demon's Souls on PS5, is one a reimagining while the other is a remake? Is one a remake and the other a remaster? I'd say the question isnt about whether slightly above upscaled port is more than a remaster, but where do you draw the line on high end recreations of games.
on topic, I'd say the bigger problem rather than the one you described is how do you classify something like Resident Evil 2 Remake or Final Fantasy VII Remake as opposed to Demon's Souls on PS5, is one a reimagining while the other is a remake? Is one a remake and the other a remaster? I'd say the question isnt about whether slightly above upscaled port is more than a remaster, but where do you draw the line on high end recreations of games.
They're all still remakes. One might be a more in depth remake but they're all still remakes. Demon's Souls was built from the ground up.
The problem is honestly the term remaster. I don't know why we started using this. Remasters are just ports.
It gets confusing when you have a remaster of a remake. I had a friend who couldn't understand why the remakes of Resident Evil 1 and 2 played so different when they were only a couple of years apart. It took far too long for him to grasp that REmake is a game from 2002 that had a little work done to it to play in HD.
Most people can tell the difference but use the words interchangeably or just say remake for everything. It's not a big deal most of the time you can tell what people are talking about
What about games that are faithful 1:1 to the source material but actually use new assets (graphics, music) instead of higher quality renders of the original assets? Or games that mix new assets with the original assets (new graphics, remastered old music)?
First is remake. Second, if you're talking about Final Fantasy X and XII, are ports/remasters. A remake isn't necessarily about faithfulness as much as it's about: is this game based on the original code or was it built from the ground up?
It really isn't that serious. They can be used interchangeably because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. It's just fuel for bickering.
I just yesterday saw some professional review where they got it mixed up, I think it was Digital Foundry even.
Tell that to the people who got so mad at people using roguelike to describe games influenced by roguelike mechanics that they had to invent a new genre: roguelites.
I'm talking about Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask 3D, which recycle a lot of stuff under the hood but basically rebuilt everything in a more modern graphical style.
Agreed. A remake in games is similar to its use in film. Film remakes take the same premise, plot, and script, and redo the whole thing with new actors, sets, and technology (with or without changes to the original source material). Remasters take the original content and apply visual touch ups without rebuilding from the ground up.
I would argue that the defining character of a remake is exactly that it contains some degree of fundamental differences from the original, as a consequence of being rebuilt. And even something like Demon's Souls Remake does alter the fundamental character and storytelling of the original game by changing the design and presentation.
Agreed. I think if you just refer to the way they're used in cinema it will generally steer you in the right direction.
Same assets cleaned up for a higher resolution presentation? That's a remaster.
New assets/artwork, even if the game is recreated 1:1, make it a remake. Like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, I guess?
That kind of ties into my "fuel for bickering" statement. Team Ninja didn't need to make up their own genre when everyone knows Nioh is a Soulslike with Diablo elements but then "masocore" happened and it's dumb as fuck.
I really don't think it's that cut and dry because a lot of Remakes re-use assets, and then there are Remasters that are moved to a new engine and end up being a significant departure from the previous release. Then there's the case for Ports or even alternate SKUs on the same platform which further muddies things.
People are confused because the naming isn't consistent, the price is all over the place and the experience often isn't an objective improvement over the previous release. Worst still is that most marketting for these releases doesn't do much to help clarify things
People are confused because the naming isn't consistent, the price is all over the place and the experience often isn't an objective improvement over the previous release. Worst still is that most marketting for these releases doesn't do much to help clarify things
For the first question, the answer is a remake. Your real world example of this is Bluepoint's Shadow of the Colossus remaster on PS3 and their Shadow of the Colossus remake on PS4. These are different projects with different intentions that produced two distinctly different products. I'm actually really glad both versions of the game were created this way because it's probably the clearest example we could hope for.
Your second one sounds more like an enhanced port.
Nor is the distinction so complex that we should just throw up our hands and let people's unnecessary confusion dictate the meaning of words.
To me:
Remaster - this means a clean up of effort. The resolution gets an upgrade, the soundtrack might get an orchestrated version. It's an enhancement of the original product. Sometimes you have a small extra bit of content added. This is similar to a director's cut. Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions is a great example here.
Remake - This means the product is being recreated from the ground up. Maybe the original products is generations old and doesn't work in a modern setting.
I have a problem here though. I don't think FFVII:Remake should count as a remake. It's some parallel universe story, and I'm still sour it was sold as a remake. if it only added content, I'd be okay with that. But the giant changes they did really disappointed me.
Remaster - this means a clean up of effort. The resolution gets an upgrade, the soundtrack might get an orchestrated version. It's an enhancement of the original product. Sometimes you have a small extra bit of content added. This is similar to a director's cut. Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions is a great example here.
Remake - This means the product is being recreated from the ground up. Maybe the original products is generations old and doesn't work in a modern setting.
I have a problem here though. I don't think FFVII:Remake should count as a remake. It's some parallel universe story, and I'm still sour it was sold as a remake. if it only added content, I'd be okay with that. But the giant changes they did really disappointed me.
Everything that is obviously re-using the original game logic is, to me, a port. This includes Demon's Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, SEGA AGES Phantasy Star, and Gears Ultimate, for example. "Port" isn't a dismissive term and never was to me growing up: Soulcalibur on the Dreamcast was called "an incredible port", for example. Attempts to split this into "remaster" to designate "something greater than a mere port" are, yes, marketing nonsense imo.
A game that is using nothing discernable from the original is probably a remake or maybe a reboot? I'd call Resident Evil 3 a remake.
edit: thinking more on this, I'm not really happy with it. I mean, this was bound to be as subjective as genre because we're trying to weigh the importance of different elements of the games in question.
A game that is using nothing discernable from the original is probably a remake or maybe a reboot? I'd call Resident Evil 3 a remake.
edit: thinking more on this, I'm not really happy with it. I mean, this was bound to be as subjective as genre because we're trying to weigh the importance of different elements of the games in question.
You should probably blame marketing, which will always select the term that paints a given release in the best light to the extent that they can get away with it. Most of the time I see these discussions the term is chosen upfront by a publisher.
Last edited:
This reminds me of the time on the old 1UP.com forum, I referred to Zelda as an adventure game and peoples' brains exploded.
