-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Remastered, Remake and Reimagining. Both we and the media need to start being more clear about these terms.
- Thread starter Strategize
- Start date
Anchovie123
Member
Id argue that RE 2/3 and R&C 2016 are remakes.
Modern Warfare (2019) and FF7 are "reinamgining"
EDMIX
Member
They are both remakes...
A reimagining can just describe HOW they remade it, not if its a remake or not. By default they are remakes.
Knightime_X
Member
Agree 100%
Come On Tars
Member
in my head
remaster- updated
remake- re did
reimagining - reboot
remaster- updated
remake- re did
reimagining - reboot
Last edited:
Cryio
Member
You also need to learn the difference between reimagining and reboot now.
DevilHunterX0
Member
Games should be priced accordingly:
Port: Free
Remaster (including all updates and DLCs) = €10
Remake = €30
Reimagining = €60
Sequel / Prequel / New IP = Full Price
Port: Free
Remaster (including all updates and DLCs) = €10
Remake = €30
Reimagining = €60
Sequel / Prequel / New IP = Full Price
lame gag1990
Member
Wrong. Creating new models over the original source code isn't a remake. It's an enhanced remaster at best. Bluepoint are frauds. They don't remake games but they tell people they do. They don't know how to develop a game. They take an existing game with existing code, slap new models on it (which, to be fair, look good) and call it a remake. Liars. But I see through their lies. They fool the world. Unfortunately for them, I'm unfoolable.
Airbus Jr
Banned
these are more than just enhanced remaster with better framerate/ sharper antialiasing fukin clown
Last edited:
Beer Baelly
Al Pachinko, Konami President
I thought we settled this 20 years ago
lame gag1990
Member
these are more than just enhanced remaster with better framerate/ sharper antialiasing fukin clown
Better framerate/sharper antialiasing = Remake? I could play a remake of every game I own on PC if I upgrade my graphics card? lol.
MasterCornholio
Member
That's not what Demon Souls is though.
lame gag1990
Member
You are correct. It's the original code with new models and textures. Not a remake.
Strider Highwind
Banned
I just want new games lol
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Reimagined = Reboot
The rest I agree with.
The rest I agree with.
Last edited:
TonyK
Member
Yesterday I was Playing TLOU1 remake and thinking about why, even if it's clearly a remake (all art are new assets), I feel it like a remaster when playing it. I don't need they change the gameplay: Demons souls and Shadow of the colossus play exactly like the originals but I feel them as remakes. Then, what happens with TLOU?
In conclusion, my answer was that, even if all the art for TLoU1 has been remade or upgraded, it still looks last gen (PS4), so it's a remake that feels dated, obsolete on release. It's a remake that doesn't belong to this generation, so the remake itself, as it's now, doesn't fulfill expectations, it allows margin to do a proper remake. If Resident evil 2 and 3 remakes would have looked as PS3 games in PS4, the perception of player would be the same as we have now with TLOU.
TLOU1 is not a remake, is a remaster done with the TLOU2 assets, that's something new that maybe needs its own label different from remake or remaster, and a shame for a studio like Naughty Dog. In fact, the first fail of my favourite studio.
In conclusion, my answer was that, even if all the art for TLoU1 has been remade or upgraded, it still looks last gen (PS4), so it's a remake that feels dated, obsolete on release. It's a remake that doesn't belong to this generation, so the remake itself, as it's now, doesn't fulfill expectations, it allows margin to do a proper remake. If Resident evil 2 and 3 remakes would have looked as PS3 games in PS4, the perception of player would be the same as we have now with TLOU.
TLOU1 is not a remake, is a remaster done with the TLOU2 assets, that's something new that maybe needs its own label different from remake or remaster, and a shame for a studio like Naughty Dog. In fact, the first fail of my favourite studio.
Gudji
Member
Exactly, simple to understand.
MasterCornholio
Member
They made that stuff though. It's not a simple settings tune up that they did. Really wouldn't call it a simple remaster.
Last edited:
93xfan
Banned
Great job with the definitions. That’s how I see it as well.
93xfan
Banned
Remaster of a reimagining
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
01011001 tbh, I find the whole thing of using the same code or graphics and nothing else changed a bit silly.
Enough is changed for it to be a remake. Leave it at that.
the situation with Halo Anniversary is a great showcase of what I mean tho.
Shadow of the Colossus works in the same way as Halo Anniversary.
Bluepoint runs the original engine and that engine is doing the game logic. then they have their own engine running as a graphics layer on top of the original engine. that layer adds stuff like motion interpolation for animations and of course has
completely remade graphics assets.
Halo Anniversary works exactly like that, the Blam engine handles all the game logic.
then the Saber 3D engine runs as a layer on top and adds motion interpolation for animations and a completely remade set of graphics assets.
Halo Anniversary is the best way to demonstrate what I mean when I say these games aren't remakes. because Halo Anniversary has the somewhat unique ability to turn off the Saber 3D engine layer, at which point you can not argue anymore that it's a remake as what you then see is literally just the Blam Engine running Halo CE with proper wide-screen support... and that's about it.
if Bluepoint added such a function to Shadow of the Colossus, or if Activision added this to Modern Warfare Remastered, I think people would never considered them to be remakes.
yet this is the only big differentiating factor to Halo Anniversary.
which is why I propose the term Graphics Remake, or Visual Remake... maybe Assets Remake, as a new category for these titles.
the graphics have been remade, the game itself hasn't.
EDMIX
Member
yea......its just easier to just call that a remake. lol
To split hairs like that you might as well start saying "gameplay remake" or "sound remake" lol
01011001
Banned
I mean, do you consider Halo Anniversary a remake?
how about Perfect Dark on Xbox 360
I do not, and by extension I also don't consider Shadow of the Colossus a remake since it's literally in the same category of rereleases as Halo and Perfect Dark
hence why a new category might help better differentiate what an actual remake is and what a remaster with remade graphics is.
I personally would be ok just calling these remasters, which is what they are
Last edited:
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Exactly what it is.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
Nah, all 3 are remakes.
They are not ports, they are not merely up res and upping the frames
We don't need another category splitting hairs.
Ports = unchanged, simple transfers
Remaster = higher resolution and frames, game not significantly changed, as in no new character models or something.
Remake = Different engine, different assets, different graphics, designs etc, re-making anything, re-doing anything, this by default is a remake regardless if what you feel about those changes, they are not changes done to ports, they are not changes you see in remasters.
So you can have remakes to varying degrees, it doesn't mean we need a new term. You can have the quality of ports to varying degrees, none of that has ever altered what that term meant, we have remasters that are far worse then others, look at the Silent Hill collection, we don't suddenly try to find a new name of that cause it turned out bad, what they are seeking to do remains the same. If there is an intent to merely transfer, its a port, if there is an intent to enhance without changing models by just changing resolution, frames etc, its a remaster, if there is an intent to rebuild, remake a model, remake a level, redo anything to the point of going in and doing something over again, this is a remake regardless of the out come in terms of how you feel about the end product.
They remade the level, they remade the character model....by default the term merely means that, to redo, remake etc. Thus its not a thing based on how you personally feel about either of those games as you'd first need to even give us some list of 100% remakes using your own terms as I'm pretty sure majority of those titles still use stuff from those past games still. Either music, voice overs, the same story or level design etc.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
Nah, all 3 are remakes.
They are not ports, they are not merely up res and upping the frames
We don't need another category splitting hairs.
Ports = unchanged, simple transfers
Remaster = higher resolution and frames, game not significantly changed, as in no new character models or something.
Remake = Different engine, different assets, different graphics, designs etc, re-making anything, re-doing anything, this by default is a remake regardless if what you feel about those changes, they are not changes done to ports, they are not changes you see in remasters.
and if you press Back/View on your controller you suddenly turn Halo Anniversary into a PC port of the original game... no new graphics, no new engine, no improvements, just an almost 1 to 1 port of Gearbox's PC version of Halo CE
how is that a remake? also by your definition Wind Waker HD is also a remake then. as is Twilight Princess HD
edit: also GTA3 and Vice City on og Xbox would by that definition also be remakes of the PS2 games
Last edited:
Magic Carpet
Member
The Wiz live
A remaster of a dvd port of a stage play reimagine of a movie reimagine of a movie that was reimagined from a book.
A remaster of a dvd port of a stage play reimagine of a movie reimagine of a movie that was reimagined from a book.
EDMIX
Member
Because you can go back to the original literally means they had to change and remake something, to make the idea of going "back" to something else bud.
You didn't think that thru? The ability to go back to another version doesn't change that it remade assets, levels, designs, graphics etc.
Well yes, Wind Waker HD is in a different engine, it redoes the shadow, lighting and adds different detail. Its simply not what we'd call a remaster nor a port. The moment they change engines, redo many elements, its beyond a remaster at that point.
Enough gameplay elements are changed for Wii U for Twilight Princess that it simply can't be a port or remaster, its not merely a up res and they move on, too many things changed for that to be a port or remaster
Everything that's changed in Zelda: Twilight Princess HD
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD launches on Wii U with sharper visuals and improved textures. But Nintendo ha…
www.eurogamer.net
So the significances of the remake may not be up to what you saw with RE2 remake or FFVII remake, it doesn't change the fact that many elements are remade, redone, added on etc.
edit. I'm not wasting time with listing shit man, give a point and move on.
You don't need to like how something was redesigned, changed, added on to, remade etc, but the moment more then the standard remaster is applied to the game, as in they are literally re doing something, it simply can't be lumped into a remaster and is a remake. Remake can be night and day, it doesn't mean that is the standard for the term to apply, the term merely means something was changed of significance, not your feelings on that change.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
Because you can go back to the original literally means they had to change and remake something, to make the idea of going "back" to something else bud.
You didn't think that thru? The ability to go back to another version doesn't change that it remade assets, levels, designs, graphics etc.
Well yes, Wind Waker HD is in a different engine, it redoes the shadow, lighting and adds different detail. Its simply not what we'd call a remaster nor a port. The moment they change engines, redo many elements, its beyond a remaster at that point.
Enough gameplay elements are changed for Wii U for Twilight Princess that it simply can't be a port or remaster, its not merely a up res and they move on, too many things changed for that to be a port or remaster
[/URL]
So the significances of the remake may not be up to what you saw with RE2 remake or FFVII remake, it doesn't change the fact that many elements are remade, redone, added on etc.
edit. I'm not wasting time with listing shit man, give a point and move on.
You don't need to like how something was redesigned, changed, added on to, remade etc, but the moment more then the standard remaster is applied to the game, as in they are literally re doing something, it simply can't be lumped into a remaster and is a remake. Remake can be night and day, it doesn't mean that is the standard for the term to apply, the term merely means something was changed of significance, not your feelings on that change.
your definition of remake is most likely a more controversial one than mine then, god damn.
by your definition almost nothing is actually a remaster anymore
hell even ports become remakes by your definition, like my mentioned GTA3 and Vice City on Xbox, which had redone graphics compared to PS2...
like damn. and I thought my take was controversial.
EDMIX
Member
your definition of remake is most likely a more controversial one than mine then, god damn.
by your definition almost nothing is actually a remaster anymore
hell even ports become remakes by your definition, like my mentioned GTA3 and Vice City on Xbox, which had redone graphics compared to PS2...
like damn. and I thought my take was controversial.
stop bickering and make your point.
What I stated was a remaster is merely up res and a frame jump.
A remake clearly would be anything where its in a different engine, different models, textures etc. That simply doesn't happen with remasters or ports, thus is makes more sense for remake to merely mean re making, re doing. The moment they added on to, changed something, its now in the process of a remake. You can mention GTA all you want bud, they redid something, its not merely a remaster as we have many, many examples of that, so stop trying to force the term to mean if you like it or if you feel its good looking or some shit.
Someone can redo a game graphically and still have it look like the past titles in terms of art direction, some can change that art direction, but that choice to do that has nothing to do with the term remake... Its simply saying more was kept from the last title, but something was changed more then you'd see with a simple port or remaster.
So it actually makes more sense to just have ports, remaster and remakes all mean those 3 different aspects.
Port= nothing changed and merely a transfer job
Remaster = up res, up the frames, minor things are done, but the models, design etc remain the same.
Remake = changing the level design, character models, engine, adding in lighting engine, shadow etc.
Keep in mind, I say this because in a remaster, those are not elements that are generally done.
So with Wind Waker, its in a different engine, they use different character models and add enough that its not a remaster like their past titles and already does more then enough to say something was redone. Them looking to keep the art direction or feel of the title doesn't change that something was changed, redone etc.
As in, if they made it look like this
You'd call it a remake.
but the issue here is
a change was clearly made with Wind Waker HD to fit remake, so it sound like you are merely trying to apply that term based on what changes you like or not, not based on a change happening at all.
Regardless of what you feel about either model btw, a change occurred and it shouldn't be based on anyone's personal feelings on what they like or don't like or something.
If anything think about it like remodeling vs some touch up to your home. If a base board, a floor is being changed or a wall taken down or something, we don't fucking use that term based on HOW MUCH of the fucking house was going thru that and I don't even get how that factors. If someone simply puts some paint on a house, clearly we can call this a touch up, if someone is removing a base board to replace it with something else, clearly they are remodeling.
Their choice to do this in 1 room vs the whole house doesn't change what that term means. So can we have remakes more significate then others? sure, we literally have AAA games more wild then other games, we don't then go on to pretend those other games ARE NOT GAMES, so anyone's choice to do a huge remake, should alter the term for a team that merely wants to remake the graphics alone or something.
They both are remaking something, merely some more then others.
Last edited:
Justin9mm
Member
I think comments like yours about TLOU Part 1 is trying to brainwash people to believe it is remastered and the same.
By definition, it is a remake, either you haven't played the new remake or you don't understand game development. Not only has the game been made with completely new assets but some level design has changed, the movement and shooting mechanics has been overhauled with some change. AI has been completely overhauled, so combat does play out differently. New animations have been added and changed. Environments are more reactive and have more destruction. On top of that, the vast suite of custom accessibility/gameplay options in the game can completely change how the game plays compared to the original and PS4 remaster. That's just to name a few things.
I played the original PS3 version at launch, I completed PS4 remaster when that came out and now I'm half way through the 'remake", I can tell you although it is the same story and the story plays out the same way, it does not play and feel the same.
I'm sorry but It's not a fucking remaster. Stop spreading bullshit.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
Agreed. I was just going to say, such a change is simply not done to remasters to really be making it sound like that is now a normal thing with them or something.
This is a remake based on how we've used that term in the past.
I'm not even sure how they'd say SoTC would be one and The Last Of Us would not, that doesn't make sense as SoTC kept the same gameplay engine and changed the graphics so to even say something like " it only has advanced graphics." is odd cause that is what Bluepoint opted to do with SoTC and Demon Souls and we all understand those to be remakes.
So I feel people need to stop applying so much personal bias to this shit, it needs to objectively mean something regardless. So decide to keep elements and use the same code, some decide if its too old or dated to change that, but regardless of those choices...if they are choosing what to keep and what to remove, they are redesigning, they are redoing, this literally is what a remake is.
SoTC, Ratchet, Demon Souls, The Last Of Us, RE2, RE3 etc those are all remakes. I don't even waste the time with this whole "reimagining or" as that is a remake too, its just a different way to REMAKE the game, its not the difference of remake or not.
01011001
Banned
see, but here we already have an issue tho.
your Remaster definition also works with a shitload of games that almost anyone would call a port.
Spider-Man on Dreamcast would be a remaster by that definition.
Soul Reaver on Dreamcast is even the only version that has officially 60fps support, and also has touched up assets.
many ports run with higher resolutions than a previous version, and often also with new, hugher res or retouched rextures and assets.
then there are games called remaster that aren't remasters whatsoever but simply are 1 to 1 ports of existing PC versions of games, in some cases these don't even run at the max settings of the original PC version.
you try to make it more simple but you actually make it way more complicated by trying.
as many of the things you say are qualities of a remaster are very often found in games that 99.9% of people would classify as ports.
and what you classify as qualities of a remake are very often found in games that 99.9% of people would classify as remasters.
so you try to simply this but it's getting way more complicated if we actually strictly classify games by these rules.
this problem seems simple but if you actually think about it for a moment it becomes very complicated and with hundreds of grey areas... and that's not even bringing up the 8bit and 16bit eras where ports often were reprogrammed from the ground up on different engines to work on other systems
EDMIX
Member
Thats nice lol
I don't care bud, companies call shit remasters that are remakes all the time or remasters that are actually just ports or something.
I disagree.
I'm call it based on what is being done, not based on what a company wanted to call the game or what "anyone would call" this or that.
It needs to be an objective thing.
I've never fucking heard any person talk about any job on remodeling a home and try to change the term of what they are talking about based on if they did 1 room or 2. The term has nothing to do with how much, simply that something is being changed regardless. That industry does just fine with those terms btw, gaming seems to assume that FFVII or RE2 remake now magically means every game MUST fit 100% that for the term to fit, when even that term existed long before those games released. It simply can't be based on this bias shit of trying to argue what you think fits that or not.
Objectively something is being changed with remakes, with remasters simply going up a resolution and frame and leaving the models alone is what we've called that process and a port is merely a transfer from 1 platform to the other, like Persona 3 and 4 from PS2 to PS3 on PSN
We don't just try to call it a remaster based on slightly better loading bud, its clear what is meant by port regarding that.
Now if we are talking about Persona 4 Golden, its clear its not a port and enough was changed for it to be a remaster of sorts.
With something like Yakuza 1 and 2 remake, clearly those are not remasters as its in a completely different engine, we don't just say some weird shit like "a graphics remake"
oh a "gameplay remakez"
oh yea "a soundz remakes, they voices be different"
It splits enough hairs where I think its easier to just have the 3.
They all have varying degrees of how much was done to it in terms of quality, but it doesn't change objectively what the intent actually is as you are more so debating what you personally like or something and not objectively what is being done. Even the most shitty ports, don't just get some new term.
So if someone can port badly and someone can port well with little issues, someone clearly can have a remaster that does a bit more, but doesn't change the character models, someone can make a remake that only changes those models, but not the art direction, but someone can do a remake that changes everything. How substantial that remake is doesn't change that term anymore then how big a remodel is of a home doesn't change that term to some different.
teezzy
Banned
Mokus
Member
Remastered games are indeed glorified ports made for a better hardware, but not simple ports or cross gen ports. Yeah, at the end of the day they are all ports, only that the remastered needed additional work after it was finished since wasn't developed for the new console/hardware. "Remastered" is a lazy term appeared during the PS4/XBO generation to highlight the fact that the game, in certain areas, is the superior version on a better hardware compared to the original one (mainly on consoles). The term borrowed from the music and movie industry because they worked on the master material, is for the average buyer in the store who might not be aware about the difference without the "Remastered" subtitle - why should he/she buy something again or something that already is available in an "inferior" version.
During the PS3/360 generation these were called HD collections for the obvious reason, the previous versions of these games were in SD and the HD sounded cool and superior. Earlier, the industry didn't care about it that much and a more original subtitle was enough or nothing at all. Something that even today we can see - Mass Effect: Legendary Edition - or the biggest port/Remaster
of them all and no subtitle - Grand Theft Auto V.
P.S. I'll leave the handhelds out for now
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
Retro specialist Nightdive explains the difference between a ‘remake’ and ‘remaster’ | VGC
The System Shock dev says it ‘makes the game you remember, not the games you played’…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Nightdive, which has created a large number of re-releases including Turok, Doom 64, Blade Runner and Shadow Man, told VGC in a recent interview that it’s come up with an internal definition for what defines a “true remaster” as opposed to a “ground-up remake”.
Re-releases of older games have become a mainstay on the video games calendar in recent years, but there does not appear to be much cohesion in the language used to describe them.
“It’s really tough, isn’t it? We’ve tried to come up with a definition internally,” CEO Stephen Kick told VGC.
“Based on the work that we’ve done in the past, we’ve done a little bit of everything at this point. We’ve done what we like to call, ‘enhanced editions’, where you’re basically taking the original game, making it run on newer operating systems and then adding some nice quality of life stuff, like widescreen support.
“Then we’ve got games like Shadowman, which we consider a true remaster. We did all that all that quality of life stuff and got it running smoothly at 60fps, but then we did art on top of that; new textures, new models and even went so far as to work with the original developers to implement stuff that got left on the cutting room floor.
“Finally, we’ve got System Shock, which is a ground-up remake. It’s all brand new, but it’s still based on the original game and is as true to that as we can possibly keep it.”
Despite the frequent debates on forums and social media over what defines a remaster vs remake, Nightdive’s kick told VGC he does believe the public is starting to appreciate the amount of work required to create either.
“I think that over time there’s been a lot more appreciation [from the public] for the amount of work that goes into it. Our philosophy is that, if you play one of our games, that’s the game you remembered playing, but not necessarily the game that you actually played.
“So, in the instance of Turok and some of the older N64 games, if you play our remak… sorry, remaster! I’ve slipped up myself there… if you play our remaster, you’re going, ‘oh my god, this is exactly how I remember it!’ Except its running at 4K/60, we fixed all the bugs and made it the experience that we remember.”
EDMIX
Member
Retro specialist Nightdive explains the difference between a ‘remake’ and ‘remaster’ | VGC
The System Shock dev says it ‘makes the game you remember, not the games you played’…
Nightdive, which has created a large number of re-releases including Turok, Doom 64, Blade Runner and Shadow Man, told VGC in a recent interview that it’s come up with an internal definition for what defines a “true remaster” as opposed to a “ground-up remake”.
Re-releases of older games have become a mainstay on the video games calendar in recent years, but there does not appear to be much cohesion in the language used to describe them.
“It’s really tough, isn’t it? We’ve tried to come up with a definition internally,” CEO Stephen Kick told VGC.
“Based on the work that we’ve done in the past, we’ve done a little bit of everything at this point. We’ve done what we like to call, ‘enhanced editions’, where you’re basically taking the original game, making it run on newer operating systems and then adding some nice quality of life stuff, like widescreen support.
“Then we’ve got games like Shadowman, which we consider a true remaster. We did all that all that quality of life stuff and got it running smoothly at 60fps, but then we did art on top of that; new textures, new models and even went so far as to work with the original developers to implement stuff that got left on the cutting room floor.
“Finally, we’ve got System Shock, which is a ground-up remake. It’s all brand new, but it’s still based on the original game and is as true to that as we can possibly keep it.”
Despite the frequent debates on forums and social media over what defines a remaster vs remake, Nightdive’s kick told VGC he does believe the public is starting to appreciate the amount of work required to create either.
“I think that over time there’s been a lot more appreciation [from the public] for the amount of work that goes into it. Our philosophy is that, if you play one of our games, that’s the game you remembered playing, but not necessarily the game that you actually played.
“So, in the instance of Turok and some of the older N64 games, if you play our remak… sorry, remaster! I’ve slipped up myself there… if you play our remaster, you’re going, ‘oh my god, this is exactly how I remember it!’ Except its running at 4K/60, we fixed all the bugs and made it the experience that we remember.”
Respectable post.
How they did Turok is a lot like how Nintendo did a few of those HD versions of Zelda, fixing models, adding quality of life stuff.
Similar threads
- Poll