Is it really hard for people to understand the difference between remaster and a remake?

[werezompire]

Just saw someone interpreting the Saga Frontier remaster as a remake. Wtf?

I really don't see how it's so hard to understand the difference.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I don't feel like SaGa Frontier fits neatly into either category.

A remaster is the same game with cleaned up presentation with little or no changes to the core gameplay or content.
A remake is a noticeably different take on the old game.

SaGa Frontier sounds like it's more like Persona 4 Golden, which I would just call an enhanced port. The core is the same, but there are various improvements as well as additional content that wasn't in the original game.

 

[Kcannon]

Are bluepoint games really Remakes if they use pretty much everything in the original game to make another one with a new coat of paint and some animations? I thought Remakes were built from scratch aka FF7Remake.

Click to shrink...

Games are made of code...

Demon's Souls code is completely new.

See, this is exactly what I mean. People here are completely downplaying the dev work necessary to remake a game and not crediting them enough, thinking it was nothing more than a "new coat of paint".

 

[Finale Fireworker]

This is where it's down to interpretation. A change in visuals, even visual design changes (like fat official) is still a remaster for me personally.

Others view it as more than that.

If they had kept the same assets but just made it 60fps what would people be calling it then? They'd probably be criticising it lol

Click to shrink...

Please don't take this the wrong way because I am not trying to be mean here. But what you are saying here is just not correct. It is not open to interpretation. You can either be right or you can be wrong. What you are saying is wrong.

You do not have to think it's an ambitious remake. You can think the remake does not do enough to set itself apart from the original work. You can think the work done on the remake is not enough to justify its price tag. But it is, factually and unambiguously, a remake by design and definition. To argue otherwise is to be incorrect.

Consider if I argued that a grapefruit was an orange because, to me, it was ambiguous. I argued it was open to interpretation that the grapefruit could be considered an orange. I said you could continue calling it a grapefruit, but to me it would be an orange and I would continue calling it an orange because this is what I think it should be.

I don't think this is what you are meaning to do, but this is effectively what you are doing. You are claiming something is another, despite it factually being a specific thing, because that's what you think it should be called. You base this just on what you've decided instead of what factually is.

People can have different feelings about how big of an issue this is. Maybe it's not an issue at all. But in a topic specifically about understanding the difference between the two terms, I think it's important to point out that these aren't words gamers made up to define something that didn't have a name. The concept or remastering or remaking media is not new or in contention anywhere else but gaming.

This kind of confusion creates an inability to discuss content for what it really is and I think this is really detrimental to consumers making decisions on whether to purchase $70 products.

I mean no disrespect or hostility towards you here and I hope I do not come across to you this way.


Edit: After this I believe I've said everything I can in this thread so will bow out rather than try to browbeat anyone on their terminology. Folks will do as they please and I don't want to stoke bad vibes.

 

[astro]

To put it another way, if only one example of each existed, the terms would still be valid. so let's look at two obvious examples:

Final Fantasy 7: Remake

and

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition.

The first was rebuilt as a brand new game entirely, and the second was the original game given a new coat of paint. It's very clear that remake fits one and remaster fits the other.

So, the terms are valid and mean two very different things.

Of course you can debate where the line is drawn, how much needs to be remade for the game to be a remade Vs it just having enhanced parts, but the terms themselves are absolutely fine.

 

[SofNascimento]

I personally have a problem with it because it somewhat downplays the effort of the devs.

A vast majority of remakes involve as much work as an original title, so having others consider it remasters instead can be insulting. Imagine if I had to code a whole game into a new engine and then people started implying I didn't do much but enhance assets and textures?

Click to shrink...

I don't think good remasters are easy to do. Or effortless. Nor does calling it a remake means a lot of work and effort will be put into the product. It's not about that.

 

[Kcannon]

I don't think good remasters are easy to do. Or effortless. Nor does calling it a remake means a lot of work and effort will be put into the product. It's not about that.

Click to shrink...

Tell that to the guy who just said Demon's Souls 2020 was only a "new coat of paint".

 

[leder]

They're just marketing buzzwords with no actual definition. Who cares?

Click to shrink...

👆👆👆

 

[OCD Guy]

Please don't take this the wrong way because I am not trying to be mean here. But what you are saying here is just not correct. It is not open to interpretation. You can either be right or you can be wrong. What you are saying is wrong.

Click to shrink...

Firstly I've not taken your post the wrong way, you've been far more polite than many that sometimes post on these forums.

What I meant in my earlier message, was even now we have people giving different definitions of what they consider a remake or remaster.

I understand what you're saying, it shouldn't be open to interpretation as they have clear definitions but this thread is an example of people giving different interpretations of what they consider a remake or a remaster. Which is ironic give why this thread was started lol.

Games are made of code...

Demon's Souls code is completely new.

See, this is exactly what I mean. People here are completely downplaying the dev work necessary to remake a game and not crediting them enough, thinking it was nothing more than a "new coat of paint".

Click to shrink...

I should clarify that my comment wasn't meant as a way to take away from what Bluepoint have achieved and apologise if anyone has taken it that way.

What I was trying to say is for me, a remake is something like the recent final fantasy 7. A remaster is what I would consider Demons Souls and any other game that has the core gameplay identical with improved graphics. That doesn't mean that I don't consider what bluepoint have done a step above other games I'd call remasters.

 

[hwarang]

They're just marketing buzzwords with no actual definition. Who cares?

Click to shrink...

It's exactly that. Marketing. Consumers. There needs to be a clear understanding for the consumer before they make the purchase to meet expectations.

 

[Kcannon]

It's exactly that. Marketing. Consumers. There needs to be a clear understanding for the consumer before they make the purchase to meet expectations.

Click to shrink...

And for the devs as well, I think.

I certainly would like my work to get the value it deserves, as people expect remasters to be priced lower. And having a remake confused with a remaster in the consumer collective wouldn't be good, especially when remakes can take as much work as a completely original entry.

 

[SofNascimento]

Tell that to the guy who just said Demon's Souls 2020 was only a "new coat of paint".

Click to shrink...

I can't speak for others. Refusing to acknowledge the amazing work and effort put into Demon's Souls is nothing short of absurd. And as I mentioned, I don't see a problem in calling it a remake neither, but then you'd have to call other remakes like the RE titles or Final Fantasy something else.

 

[Adulfzen]

to me a remaster is basically a step above a port by adding content and slight visual/performance improvements (and hopefully QOL features) but not much else.

Remakes could basically be split into two categories (imo), "faithful" remakes where the game itself will remain largely the same but you'll make significant changes to the visuals, the music and even the code while preserving as much as possible the original experience (which doesn't exclude QOL improvements obviously). This includes games like Spyro, Crash, Link's Awakening, SOTC for PS4 and the recent Demon's Souls

Then you have remakes you could also qualify as reimaginations where basically the original experience of play doesn't matter as much as evoking the same atmosphere/feelings while loosely following the same narrative beats (or subverting those expectations). Those are basically brand new games but they happen to share the same name as older titles. This includes RE2R, RE3R and Final Fantasy VIIR

I personally think this line of thinking is most respectful to the hard work put by the developers. Personally I'd rather we call FFVII - like remakes something else instead of downplaying the "faithful" remakes which are as much work.

This is all "subjective" at the end of the day tho so i don't expect we'll ever get a clear cut answers that'll satisfy everyone especially when some games skirt the line (like Xenoblade Definitive Edition).

 

[HardRojo]

For me a remake is something that is based on the original but doesn't play or try to keep the gameplay 1:1 to the original. A remaster is the original running with better visuals and some touches here and there. There are remakes that keep the gameplay 1:1 (CTR, Crash Trilogy, Spyro, Demon's Souls and more), which I think should have a term that immediately recognizes that fact.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Firstly I've not taken your post the wrong way, you've been far more polite than many that sometimes post on these forums.

What I meant in my earlier message, was even now we have people giving different definitions of what they consider a remake or remaster.

I understand what you're saying, it shouldn't be open to interpretation as they have clear definitions but this thread is an example of people giving different interpretations of what they consider a remake or a remaster. Which is ironic give why this thread was started lol.

Click to shrink...

I gotcha. :)

This is one of those topics where I don't want to become a toxic nerd saying the same thing over and over to different people, so I will take your graceful reply as a positive note to make my exit. Take care my good dude! Catch you in the remake of this thread when someone eventually makes one. :P

 

[hwarang]

And for the devs as well, I think.

I certainly would like my work to get the value it deserves, as people expect remasters to be priced lower. And having a remake confused with a remaster in the consumer collective wouldn't be good, especially when remakes can take as much work as an original entry.

Click to shrink...

Makes a lot of sense. As a developer that worked long hours on a remake only to see your work be referred to as a remaster would be grating as hell.

 

[Garlador]

I think we need to go deeper.

We need more remasters of remakes.

 

[Deleted member 2620]

Absolutely, they are hugely different undertakings. There is a much closer relationship between Shadow of the Colossus PS4 and its PS3 remaster than there is between the remake of Shadow of the Colossus and the remakes of Resident Evil 2+3.

The fact is however they are both remakes. There are different kinds of remakes. Psycho and Funny Games have exact shot for shot remakes. Funny Games even uses the same cast as the original. They are extremely similar to the original films. These are Shadow of the Colossus PS4s of films.

Other remakes deviate significantly from the source material, like The Fly or The Thing. These are the Resident Evil 2 and 3 of films.

The nature of a remaster is that they are all very similar to each other in style and substance because the intention behind those projects is limited by design. It aims to accomplish a very specific thing and for every remaster that thing is the same.

Remakes however have a wide field of intention behind them and do not universally share the same style or substance. There are extremely faithful remakes, like Resident Evil 1 on the GameCube, and there are major departure remakes, like Resident Evil 2.

Remasters will always have a lot in common with each other while remakes will not. But a remake being closer in style to a remaster than other kinds of remakes doesn't make of any less of a remake. It is just a specific style.

Click to shrink...

I was worried with your last post that you were assuming I was ascribing any sort of inherent value to these different approaches, so I want to reiterate and stress that I'm not trying to do that here. I also don't have much stake in whether people draw the "remake" line at the use of the original game code or not, and never meant to make the focus of the conversation Sony's usage of the term "remake" when talking about SotC PS4 even if it's not the term that first comes to mind for me.

Again, where I take umbrage is the way that "remaster" has been adopted by publishers and later by posters to designate that something is "more than a port", that a port is something undesirable, and that what qualifies for this new badge is amorphous and largely up to the publisher. To me, this goes against the spirit of what you've described in your post when it comes to finding value in all sorts of different approaches of remakes.

And to top it all off, I'm realizing that this thread isn't explicitly about the designation between "port" and "remaster", so I should probably stop focusing on it lol

 

[Caeda]

A remake is when you rerelease the game as a definitive edition on the same console right /s

 

[We_care_a_lot]

remaster is not really a buzzword or a loose term. It has a very specific meaning and function.

It derives from when audio recordings were improved (remastered) from the original tapes.

in that context, anything that uses the original code is a remaster and anything that doesn't is a remake.


That's really all there is to it.

Edit: it has nothing to do with the design of the game. Links awakening on switch hews almost EXACTLY to the design of the original but it's not a remaster. It's a remake.

 

[Deleted member 79058]

What about Crash N. Sane Trilogy and Spyro Reignited Trilogy? hehe

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I was worried with your last post that you were assuming I was ascribing any sort of inherent value to these different approaches, so I want to reiterate and stress that I'm not trying to do that here. I also don't have much stake in whether people draw the "remake" line at the use of the original game code or not, and never meant to make the focus of the conversation Sony's usage of the term "remake" when talking about SotC PS4 even if it's not the term that first comes to mind for me.

Again, where I take umbrage is the way that "remaster" has been adopted by publishers and later by posters to designate that something is "more than a port", that a port is something undesirable, and that what qualifies for this new badge is amorphous and largely up to the publisher. To me, this goes against the spirit of what you've described in your post when it comes to finding value in all sorts of different approaches of remakes.

And to top it all off, I'm realizing that this thread isn't explicitly about the designation between "port" and "remaster", so I should probably stop focusing on it lol

Click to shrink...

I see what you're talking about, no worries. :)

I think we both used each other's posts sort of as launchpads to talk about different but related things. Now we've landed and I think we understand each other just fine. 🤝

 

[Gwarm]

Super Mario All Stars taught 90's kids what it means to remake a game.

 

[BloodRayne]

Add 'reboot' to the mix. Gamers aren't very bright.

 

[Rats]

Remasters are, in large part, a relatively new phenomenon for the HD era and I apply the term very specifically to cases in which the old assets are polished up. Everything else is a remake.

Stuff like the Crash Trilogy, Demon's Souls, Shadow of the Colossus (PS4) are remakes because the assets are entirely new.

 

[Sparks]

I think we need to go deeper.

We need more remasters of remakes.

Click to shrink...

They should remake Resident Evil Remake HD Remaster.

Half joking, half would be cool to see RE1 get the RE2:Remake Treatment.

 

[jotun?]

remaster is not really a buzzword or a loose term. It has a very specific meaning and function.

It derives from when audio recordings were improved (remastered) from the original tapes.

in that context, anything that uses the original code is a remaster and anything that doesn't is a remake.


That's really all there is to it.

Click to shrink...

What if they change the code to fix a single bug? Or if they have to change the code to increase the resolution or frame rate or just to get it to run on another platform?

Somewhere between changing 1 asset or line of code and changing all of them it changes from a remaster to a remake, and that line is not well defined.

 

[Lork]

Duck Tales Remastered was the first game to use the term "Remastered". A game that is blatantly a remake. The term has never been coherently used by the industry itself.

People have tried to retroactively make sense of nonsense by colloquially redefining it to mean something like "enhanced port", which is fine. You can use it in casual conversation and most people will probably get it, but to act like there's some official definition that everybody should know is madness.

 

[King Kingo]

This is how I consider things.

Ports: The game untouched, made to run on different hardware. It can have benefits from extra power such as higher resolution and improved performance, but no work was done beyond that.

Remaster: The game had work done to clean it up, some higher graphical settings, cleaned up textures, higher poly count. But is largely the same game. (The Last of Us Remastered, Spider-Man Remastered, the various HD Collections).

Renovations: The same game underneath, but with everything else brought up to modern standards. (SotC PS4, Demon's Souls PS4, Halo Anniversary)

Remakes: 100% from the ground up new titles. They can be faithful to the original or go in a new direction, but they are ultimately brand new projects both underneath and on top. (The Resident Evil remakes, FF7 remake, Metal Gear Solid: TTS, Pokemon Let's Go)

Click to shrink...

Love the categorisations, but who uses the term renovations?

 

[We_care_a_lot]

What if they change the code to fix a single bug? Or if they have to change the code to increase the resolution or frame rate or just to get it to run on another platform?

Somewhere between changing 1 asset or line of code and changing all of them it changes from a remaster to a remake, and that line is not well defined.

Click to shrink...

Sure it is. Bug fixes don't replace the original code, they augment or modify it slightly. That's actually quite easy to define.

there is no bug fix that changes, say, 90 percent of an original games code. Or even 50 percent to my knowledge but even if it did you have something more along the lines of a re release or port.

The upcoming SAGA re release with new content would fall under that banner for example. I'm sure a not insignificant amount of that game will be have altered code but there is no ambiguity about it being a remake. It's definitely not.

 

[windupcrow]

words are meaningless, english is anarchy

 

[BabyDontHurtMe]

Most people who make that mistake are more casual/laymen as far as gaming terminology goes. Those more engaged in gaming are more familiar with the difference. Nothing wrong with some people mistaking or interchanging that terminology though

 

[Dogui]

Even the devs themselves are confused about remaster vs remake sometimes.

The Crash trilogy is called remastered but it's all made from zero (Meaning remake, supposedly), while trying to be the most 1:1 possible with the original. Despite that, it's officially a remaster for Activision.

Then you get the term reimagination for Resident Evil 2 Remake and Final Fantasy VII Remake, since they're completely different games based on the same plot. But they're officially named remakes.

Doom 2016 is considered a reboot, but why it's not a reimagination since the premise is "similar"?

In this context, this "How people still doesn't get the difference?" take seems a tad silly or even pedantic :p

 

[DestroyerOfWorlds]

There's a whole range to these things and some things fall kind of in the middle, IMO.

There are remasters that are nothing but a resolution bump.

There are remakes that are complete re-imaginings, built from the ground up.

Then there are games that don't change a single bit of game play, but upgrade assets with new versions that look better. That's where some people would call that a remaster and some a remake. I can see both sides to the argument.

 

[Mocha]

I get confused all the time.

 

[Kyle Cross]

Love the categorisations, but who uses the term renovations?

Click to shrink...

No one but me as far as I know. But when I think of games of that type, that's all I can think of. Like an old house being stripped down to its foundation and getting modern decor added on top.

 

[breakdancing duck]

Where do re-mars-ters fit in?

 

[Deleted member 81119]

Crash Bandicoot ruined everything by being a remake that called itself a remaster.

 

[Garlador]

They should remake Resident Evil Remake HD Remaster.

Half joking, half would be cool to see RE1 get the RE2:Remake Treatment.

Click to shrink...

Capcom has legit discussed it.

 

[Dogui]

They should remake Resident Evil Remake HD Remaster.

Half joking, half would be cool to see RE1 get the RE2:Remake Treatment.

Click to shrink...

RE1 remake should have a remake of the remake more akin to Resident Evil 2 Remake. But at the same time, Resident Evil 2 Remake also needs a demake remake of the remake similar to the classic gameplay of Resident Evil 1 Remake.

 

[leder]

Games are made of code...

Demon's Souls code is completely new.

See, this is exactly what I mean. People here are completely downplaying the dev work necessary to remake a game and not crediting them enough, thinking it was nothing more than a "new coat of paint".

Click to shrink...

Part of the problem is people having strong emotional responses to words like "remaster". There's nothing packed in that word alone that downplays dev effort. That meaning is attached by peoples' interpretation. There's no reason you have to interpret it as a slight on the devs.

"Amount of work" is also a bad criterion, because we have no way of actually knowing this. Is Street Fighter 2 for gameboy a remake because it took a lot of work? Is Pacman for NES a remake because it's all new code? Is REmake HD a remake of the RE1 remake because it has new models and backgrounds?

Saying a game is only made up of code is also not true. Games are made up of gameplay systems, art, music, stories, writing etc. implemented via code. And a lot of time that code is immaterial. If an Unreal Engine 3 game is running on PS3 or PC, the game will be executing substantially different code. But that's all "under the hood", so it's not very relevant.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Shoutout to the 41 people that said 'No'

atleast you aren't lying about it. lmao

 

[Pargon]

This is where it's down to interpretation. A change in visuals, even visual design changes (like fat official) is still a remaster for me personally.
Others view it as more than that.
If they had kept the same assets but just made it 60fps what would people be calling it then? They'd probably be criticising it lol

Click to shrink...

They did not go back to the source assets and master them again; e.g. release them at a higher (source) resolution, use AI upscaling, use less compression etc.
They completely remade everything from scratch.
That's a remake, not a remaster.

A remaster of a movie is when you go back and scan in the original film again at a higher resolution, put it through a new HDR color grade, create a new Atmos mix for the audio, release it with less compression etc.
A remake is when you take the same script and recreate it shot-by-shot.

A remastered song involves pulling out the master tapes and re-digitizing them, cleaning them up, applying modern processing techniques etc. Not re-recording it.

The underlying game logic could more-or-less be considered part of the "script" for the game.
Everything else in Demon's Souls is completely new. Same thing for Shadow of the Colossus.
They're equivalent to shot-for-shot remakes.

PS3 Shadow of the Colossus was a remaster, PS4 Shadow of the Colossus was a remake.

 

[JackOfSomeTrades]

They're just marketing buzzwords with no actual definition. Who cares?

Click to shrink...

As someone who is after having an argument on here recently about this very topic......this above is the correct answer 👆👆👆

 

[AgeEighty]

They're just marketing buzzwords with no actual definition. Who cares?

Click to shrink...

This. People act like there are hard and fast definitions for both, but there aren't. We have certain criteria we commonly use to define one or the other, but there are grey areas and none of it has any kind of officialness to it.

 

[blame space]

games don't get mastered in the first place

 

[Mona]

whats a deathinitive edition then

 

[Thera]

Remaster doesn't makes sense in the video games medium.

 

[Servbot24]

They're just marketing buzzwords with no actual definition. Who cares?

Click to shrink...

They both have very clear definitions regardless of what marketing does

Remake = the game is remade, almost entirely from the ground up (some original code might be used, but to the eye it is all new assets)
Remaster = the presentation of an already existing game is improved

Same thing would happen in a music. There could be a remaster of existing recordings, or there could be a completely new recording.

Remaster doesn't makes sense in the video games medium.

Click to shrink...

Yes it does. Sure it was originally for music, but it works perfectly well applied to games. Releasing a version with improved resolution and framerate, or some updated textures for example, would be a remaster.

 

[blame space]

super mario 64 DS 3D reroll deathinitive edition GOTY afterbirth

 

[Keldroc]

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.

Click to shrink...

No, it's a simple and obvious difference and people who don't understand that should be corrected on it. Words mean things.